The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About03/06/2001, 4 - ROADHOUSE MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT CITY FILE #: GP/R/U/ER 108-00 MATT QUAGLINO, APPLICANT council i lum Number A acEnoA Report �- CITY OF SAN L U IS O B I S P O FROM: Ronald Whisenand, Development Review Manage Prepared By: Whitney McIlvaine,Associate Planner SUBJECT: ROADHOUSE MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT CITY FILE #: GP/R/U/ER 108-00 MATT QUAGLINO,APPLICANT CAO RECOMMENDATION As recommended by the Planning Commission on January 24, 2001: 1. Conceptually approve a General Plan amendment to change the land use designation on a portion of the site from Medium-Density Residential to Services and Manufacturing, and direct staff to aggregate the resolution of approval with other proposed General Plan amendments scheduled for action on March 20, 2001. (Attachment 6) 2. Introduce an ordinance approving the mitigated negative declaration and the rezoning the site from Medium-Density Residential with a Specific Plan overlay (R-2-SP) and Service-Commercial (C-S) to Service-Commercial Mixed Use with a Specific Plan overlay (C-S-MU-SP). (Attachment 7 3. Adopt a resolution approving a use permit, thereby establishing a mix of uses for this project and a parking reduction. (Attachment 8) Regarding a fee waiver request not reviewed by the Planning Commission: 4. Deny the request for a waiver of the use permit fee. REPORT IN BRIEF The applicant is proposing to redevelop property at the southeast comer of Broad Street and El Capitan, currently occupied by the House of Prayer church, with a mixed residential and commercial project. The request requires a General Plan map amendment; a rezoning, a use permit, a lot merger, and architectural review. The ARC and lot merger applications have not yet been submitted. City Council is being asked to review and take action on the environmental initial study, the General Plan amendment, the rezoning, and the use permit. The use permit has two components: a master list of uses and a requested 30% reduction in required parking. The applicant is also requesting a waiver of the use permit fee. The initial environmental study recommends mitigation to reduce potential impacts regarding issues such as noise, traffic, adjacency to the creek, cultural resources, and aesthetics to a less than significant level. 41, 1 f�J Council Agenda Report—March 6,2001 811 EI Capitan: GP/R/U/ER 108-00 Paget DISCUSSION Data Summary Applicant/Owner: Matt Quaglino, Covey III Representative: Oasis Associates. Inc. and APS Architects Zoning: Commercial-Service (C-S); Medium-Density Residential with a Specific Plan overlay (R-2-SP); and Conservation/Open Space (C/OS) General Plan: Services and Manufacturing; Medium-Density Residential; and Conservation/Open Space Environmental Status: A mitigated negative declaration has been prepared. Project Action Deadline: Legislative projects are not subject to action deadlines. Site/Project Description The 1.6 acre site is roughly U-shaped. It consists of two lots, one lot currently zoned R-2-SP and the other zoned C-S outside of the creek Open Space zoning. Together these lots wrap around a lot developed with a discount carpet store that is not part of this project. To the east and south are residences. There are two underlying lots which would be merged. Various commercial uses line Broad Street in the vicinity. The site is crossed by a creek along its southerly boundary. (Attachment 1) The applicant proposes to demolish the existing structure and construct two new buildings—one with two floors of commercial space, and one with one floor of commercial space and two floors of apartments above. The two buildings, result in a total of roughly 21,000 square feet of commercial space and 14,000 square feet of residential space in 16 apartments. (Attachment 2) General Plan Amendment and Rezoning Without a General Plan Amendment, the smaller R-2 lot could not be included in the project. It would be subject to Medium-Density Residential development standards consistent with the Zoning Regulations and the Edna Islay Specific Plan. Without the Mixed-Use overlay zoning, the portion of the site zoned Service-Commercial could not be developed with residential uses other than a single caretaker residence. Both the General Plan Land Use Element and the Zoning Regulations support mixed commercial and residential development. See the Planning Commission staff report for additional discussion on project consistency with the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. (Attachment 11) Edna Islay Specific Plan The project is within the secondary planning area of the Edna Islay Specific Plan, which was adopted in 1982. The plan is silent on the topic of mixed-use. The overlay is recommended � a Council Agenda Report—March 6,2001 811 El Capitan: GP/R/U/ER 108-00 Page 3 because the project site is within the boundaries of the specific plan. However, since the specific plan really has no direct bearing on the project, the overlay zoning is optional. In any event, staff will need to process a "clean up" amendment to the specific plan in the future to show the new zoning for the site. Mix of Uses The Zoning Regulations require a use permit as part of a mixed use rezoning in order to better ensure compatibility between commercial and residential uses. The Planning Commission's recommended list of uses requires administrative use permit approval for several uses which the Commission felt warranted future review in terms of available parking and compatibility with the on-site residents. (Exhibit A Attachment 8) The Council can further modify this master list of uses if deemed appropriate. Once approved, only those uses included on the list would be allowed as part of the proposed project, unless modified in the future through a use permit process. Requested Parking Reduction Use permit approval is also required for the applicant's request for a 20% mixed-use parking reduction in addition to a 10% shared-use reduction as allowable by the Zoning Regulations. The Planning Commission discussed the requested parking reduction in terms of available public transit (closest stops are Fiero Lane and Marigold Center), availability of on-street parking (limited), potential impact on the El Capitan residential neighborhood, and the likelihood of people walking and bicycling to the site.. The Planning Commission supported a 10% reduction in required parking based on multiple uses sharing the parking lot. After some discussion, the majority of Commissioners agreed to support an additional 20% reduction based on the proposed mix of residential and commercial uses, which will have different peak hour demands. . The Commission's decision took into consideration the project's proposal to provide improved pedestrian access and shower and locker facilities for bicyclists. Details of the locker facilities and showers will be reviewed by the Architectural Review Commission. The Planning Commission also modified the list of allowed uses for this site to require administrative use permit approval for those uses which typically have a higher parking demand. The conceptual site planning for the project shows the existing R-2 lot developed with project parking. To avoid any possibility of separating this lot from the project in the future, the requirement for a lot merger is included as a condition of use permit approval. A total of 67 parking spaces are shown on preliminary plans. Based on preliminary building plans and certain assumptions regarding likely users, roughly 97 spaces would be required without any parking reduction. A 30%parking reduction for this project means roughly 30 fewer ,� 3 Council Agenda Report—March 6,2001 811 EI Capitan: GP/R/U/ER 108-00 Page 4 spaces than would otherwise be required. The Planning Commission staff report includes a parking summary table. Environmental Review This project underwent extensive environmental review for issues such as noise, traffic, adjacency to the creek, cultural resources, aesthetics, etc. Several studies (traffic, noise, biological, geologic, viewshed, archaeological and cultural) were prepared to enable analysis of the project's potential impacts. Based on analysis of the proposed project and the studies submitted,.mitigation measures and monitoring programs have been identified to reduce impacts to a less than significant level. Therefore, approval of a mitigated negative declaration is recommended. If potential impacts were not able to be mitigated to a less than significant level, an environmental impact report would have been required. The applicant has submitted a signed mitigation agreement agreeing to incorporate recommended mitigation into the project. The potential impacts of the project and recommended mitigation and monitoring programs are discussed in the environmental initial study. (Attachments 13 & 14) One of the most significant issues associated with this project is its adjacency to a creek. The southern boundary of the site is crossed by an unnamed tributary creek. At the very southwest corner of the site, the unnamed tributary joins Islay Creek as it flows beneath Broad Street and eventually into the East Fork of San Luis Creek. The City's creek setback map identifies a 20- foot setback from the unnamed tributary and a 35-foot setback from Islay Creek. Staff review considered all of the creek area affecting the site to be subject to a 20-foot setback. In the field, the demarcation between the tributary and Islay Creek is not readily apparent. Therefore, staff assumed the 20-foot setback standard would apply along all portions of the creek. However, upon closer review of the creek setback map, it seems a 35-foot setback for that portion of Islay Creek at the very southwest comer of the site would be more consistent with adopted City standards regarding creek setbacks. Preliminary development plans show the building and the parking area less than 20 feet from the top of bank and edge of riparian vegetation. These plans were based on the notion that redevelopment of the site could take advantage of existing non-conforming circumstances. After subsequent review of the project and the creek setback ordinance, the applicant has agreed to modify project plans to locate buildings and parking at least 20 feet from the top of bank or edge of riparian vegetation, whichever is greater. If Council agrees that a 35-foot setback from the creek at the southwest corner of the site is more appropriate, mitigation measure #2 should be modified accordingly. J Council Agenda Report—March 6,2001 811 El Capitan:GP/R/U/ER 108-00 Page 5 Planning Commission Review This request was reviewed by the Planning Commission on January 24, 2001. Attached are the Planning Commission report, minutes, and resolution (Attachments 10, 11, & 12). The Planning Commission supported approval of the rezoning, and found the project — with mitigation incorporated as recommended in the initial study - consistent with policies in the Land Use Element and with the Zoning Regulations, both of which encourage mixed-use development. The Commission's vote was 5 to 1, with Commissioner Loh voting no and Commissioner Ready refraining due to a potential conflict of interest. The Commission's recommended list of uses for the site is attached as Exhibit A to the draft resolution approving the use permit (Attachment 8). The Commission is also recommending approval of a 30%parking reduction. One prospective resident of the El Capitan neighborhood outlined his concerns regarding site development and potential impacts to the residential stretch of El Capitan if a parking reduction were granted to the project. The City also received a letter from the owner of a business directly across El Capitan from the project site expressing concern with the requested parking reduction. (Attachment 5) Requested Fee Waiver The applicant's representative is requesting a waiver of a $1,620 use permit fee and will be prepared to discuss this further at the hearing (See Attachment 3). The representative feels that since the use permit is being reviewed in conjunction with the rezoning, as opposed to being reviewed during a subsequent round of hearings, a waiver of fees is warranted. The Zoning Regulations (Section 17.55.020) require use permit approval in conjunction with a rezoning in order to review and establish conditions for the proposed mix of uses. A use permit is the appropriate mechanism for doing so since a rezoning cannot be conditioned. The requested parking reduction is also being considered as part of the use permit. Staff strongly recommends against ad hoc fee waivers, especially since fees are designed to recoup only 45% of the estimated cost to the City for processing. Considerable staff time has been spent on this project. Planning staff review of building plans for condition compliance and environmental monitoring will also require a significant amount of time in the future - for which there is no additional charge. Furthermore, it is not unusual for a project to involve several applications that are reviewed simultaneously. For instance a project could involve a subdivision, a use permit and environmental review. Just because all three applications may be considered together in the interest of expeditious processing, this has not traditionally been grounds for waiving one or more of the application fees. To date no other mixed-use rezoning project has received such a waiver. Nor is there any adopted administrative standard for granting a waiver in this case, as there is in the case of a non-profit Council Agenda Report—March 6,2001 811 EI Capitan:GP/R/U/ER 108-00 Page 6 entity if constructing affordable housing. Granting a waiver in the absence of an administrative standard would set a bad precedent. ALTERNATIVES 1. Continue action with direction to the applicant and staff. 2. Adopt the draft resolution(Attachment 9) denying the project based on findings. 3. Modify the draft ordinance and resolutions. Alternative 3 would be an appropriate choice if: a) the Council is concerned about impacts of the requested parking reduction on the surrounding residential and commercial uses; or b) if the Council would like to modify the list of allowed uses for the project; or c). if the Council wishes to modify any of the recommended mitigation measures. A 10%parking reduction based on a finding of multiple uses sharing the same parking lot would be an alternative to the 30% reduction being requested. The Council could also consider approving an additional 10% - rather than a 200/6- reduction based on the mix of residential and commercial uses on site. Approving a reduction of less than 30% will likely require that the preliminary,design be revised to reduce building square-footage. The Council may also wish to revise the list of allowed uses to simply eliminate those uses which typically generate a high demand for parking, such as churches, meeting rooms, and schools. ATTACHMENTS 1. Vicinity map 2. Reduced project plans 3. Letter from the applicant's representative, Carol Florence, requesting a fee waiver 4. Section of the Zoning Ordinance requiring a use permit 5. Letter from Michael Morin regarding parking 6. Draft resolution approving the General Plan Map Amendment 7. Draft ordinance approving the Rezoning 8. Draft resolution approving the Use Permit 9. Draft resolution denying the project 10. Planning Commission minutes 11. Planning Commission staff report 12. Planning Commission resolution 13. Signed mitigation agreement 14. Environmental initial study �r� YYY gas G Vicinity Map 811 EI Capitan N GP/R/U/ER/ A 0 6 120 Feet ARC 108-00 �- 7 '�al�ll° 'll■==�I■=I ; •III' r'� � I uIS m . I Nal I�iEiw �.�■�1 w. �:uw E: nw� NOW Imam LE qq 1�I o! I�I�iil�l ® ■cEl�LSc) Im �' ■5- of i ■`= of �''� mm IN ill rw• Ni ,� N:�f:: r® o■sl rs10111 IL M � I lam IN as Ilii!■ N: ��I ■ :..�f°B s wo ru- m INS � _.a I' ® 1 ■c:�r■_: to 11111H 1:: oil �i::_s: _ IA I I�'i°:■III ■ 1y I " II�i�lll' uty _-- r 1- = NO -. wO _ t t y 1 . +�;�. `{�:i' OIC,�Iv� 1� �� )p. .-!i -`r-�• 'r! [ t ALi1(t.% { :.ISI ��Itt•. .! � � .� • �` '•[ _s r- MIMI vw .•. MA a aa cid Icy :_ CM [j a1�3 1111 in ::•�:. � .. :� - i mi In all IM M ?. � � � Y � T <'] _ �is'�•a a ti• 1 ►- '790". 11111101111111 -7101 01x iE + .1 <.�+� '�I .�� `JWP.: �,� '•. �*�� i I : I■iq 'ram-'- '�=i ��:I��el Ili:": I■:c I■::Il�t ;:� Al —i MOK ,°■� ■I ■..i it o li:: I■' I■' ::: hI� ■Era Ir`ra �� ; ��::�i IiE: ■cE ■cc rai Ii"d:'�id■c.gral Ili:: (■:: ■ec i Ili::l� I�:?? �� a� iliEE I■EE I■EE Ili:ci■ ■:: ■Ec,� yieE ■"_ ■::raw 7• IieE as loci I■:: I■-lata nuill =;n ■c. ■cEi� ■ s IIieE �E= \'c r�ai - rm --a Ilicc ■:= ■:= t� lice o ■ ■cch ®_ _rs ,aa licE'e I■cc I■ :ar �n� u• _,� xr li:: 1■ 'atm MINi ■ ■'u ice= =il= lice Ma lice ■c= ■==mi LEE 2 LINE Mm I�cE ii ■cc ■cc NEW�= IiEEii On Itcc Ma 1�= — IiEE l� Iia �p >_ taai Tic i■ ■c. ■cct� a rsl Ilio:i■ Irma A . IMIN n i 'tea IIieE;, t. 1 , n u G �'� ■ ii';x im 1 aic: MEI li::u ■:c ■calm 10� ieEcili IieE'■��, �,I MA I■ E':aEn li:c'� I■ce I■EE 'E.I- licc�` _WE aa I�= I'v ■ E�� IiEEIe ■- ■ Qmm liec'�,I�,a a EEEIi liccl� I■cc I�IMs r■o �'I iii�� : ■ t� :Il•EE�I ■:: rEw ui I�Ec II ■:: ■cc ■-l�-i'a li2c I■"' I■Ec�Na IicEl I�^ I�cclimi i LRE foua I®r IicE E Ili'E ■ ■:: ■:: oa IiEE �, N� 'aEcii I■cc I■_:Ire ai:: ■Sc ■ccl�i Ij♦:E �■ �■�IRM am ■ lice ■.c ■_=iR� l■�Ifa�,AM IMIN a IiEE ■'c ■:cN � c ',acE I■cf I■cch ter ME ME uie::�; =�� !lief I■-: IicE:'ar` ■ ei': ■:�I'a .rtr Ili e '�- IicE -wll ■ E1CC =•m Wl r I 0 ® t ATTACHMENT . 2 Reference Notes ,•� �T� st �rlc [s C..sa\ei.l Lu\ ptm\rtW 4tr ----' .. ..... Y e 6 O Y Building A Section 1/8" = 11-0•• v .� r_ C) U"T[[.•l' Ct reAw YNR T[M Y 0/ N VA TT[.'C Crr11R UnK AM Y a e.....+r t.a.\qw f .•NZ..a..NNYr•� Building B Section 1/8" = C-0" usln ARC 8 cl Rt El !a 0 ,Mgv2rimil 13 31 mr.4 OEM AS ImMV. OR alwial 13 Ngu:IP meE3 J ' SI::S; mool in ILI LIF tl 1313 NJ MIS a too ■ I'm a lie NEI&. roup Lt, i� C"A C B xxi I rml Iry 93§ mw�-mm Z=Z= I-MMCM3 El 10, .(P �f, /t� �� i 4..►'v}',�'i' 'eek:` will' s c-. VON ��JllNow,ONE �►. IirAU:B■iNom, � ■ ■/,� y' ii. oi � 10 I7 � �_--- .♦�•''*�• 1laliliill\ilii_u::::I1■_\■i��■i■■i? I.�� so, XMI ..: •1am NMr I I �,!i�l �i7��•� 1 ` Il �6t.�;� �VV;' IY^'1..'�/`i ' �" ��■// ill�e'1'�'�•;�T� Iii , ei..i- 'I �Y�c/� �'i�Vii■ :}I i2? _ ,--; .. ii7^ ' •d Yi/illI''y� `� �':�•+i1 If iiE e° , : .!p�a�, .1 111 `• �P`�•« 11 �s. ti%�•,�ji ' jh� .��y icia ; �i i V U9 I .,I�, I ;:_•�I Hyl - - C.- P >� rte. U ATTACHMENT O A 5 1 5 LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING 19 January 2001 City Council Members c/o Mr.Ron Whisenand,Development Review Manager CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo,CA 93401 RE:THE ROADHOUSE MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT—811 El Capitan Way,San Luis Obispo,CA Planning Commission Use Permit-Fee ReductionlWaiver Request Gentlemen and Ladies, This office represents the applicant, Covey III, in their attempt to pursue a General Plan Amendment (GPA) and rezone (R-2 to C-S, and subsequently, to C-S/N". On 28 June 2000, we submitted our application for the aforementioned entitlement and development plan for a mixed-use commercial/residential project located on the comer of Broad Street and El Capitan. Included with this application was a supplemental document that described the project, proposed development standards, environmental analysis, etc. As part of the request for the MU overlay, the application included a list of uses that we determined would be compatible for a residential/commercial project.We assumed at the time, that the request for the MU zone would necessarily include the required Planning Commission approval of the uses(use permit approval)as part of the GPA/rezone request and associated fees. Application fees,included with our application,are as follows: • General Plan Arendment/Rezoning $ 4,554.00 • Initial Study of Environmental Impact 1,202.00 • Fish and Game 1,275.00 TOTAL FEE PAID 7,104.00 We are now being asked to pay a Planning Commission Use Permit fee totaling $1,620.00. While we are compelled to pay the fee to assure that the project continues to be processed,we believe that the requestis onerous, and respectfully request your consideration for a fee waiver or fee reduction. It is our contention that the Use Permit fee would more correctly be applied to an applicant who was solely requesting the Planning Commission to review the proposed mix of uses within an MU zone, and not as part of a comprehensive GPA/rezone package.Thank you-.for your careful consideration. VrC �ely,SOC.nceCIA,.Agent COVEY III Attachment-Check No.4582-$1,620.00 cc: M.Quaglino 00-0026 mstrcorr/cmf K.Hampian,CAO ClRoadhouselm$usepermitjeeredwaiver.doc 805.541-4509 FAX 805.546.0525 3427 MIGUEUTO CT IPM SAN LUIS OBISPO C © LJ CALIFORNIA 93401 i �ILJII auam.anos.om ATTACHMENT 4 C. Use permit approval by the Planning Commission is Chapter 17.55: MIXED USE required prior to establishing any use within the MU zone, except that this provision does not apply to changes of use (MU) ZONE within an existing building. The use permit requirement allows the Planning Commission to determine proposed uses compliance with the MU zone,compatibility with each Sections: other and their surroundings, and consistency with the 17.55.010 Purpose general plan. 17.55.020 Application and procedure 1755.030 Property development standards 17.55.030 Property development standards 17.55.040 Mandatory findings Property development standards shall be those of the 17.55.010 Purpose underlying zone. However, use-permit approval may include more provisions and standards to assure The MU zone, in combination with any other zone, permits compatibility of uses and surroundings, or less restrictive combining uses on a site which otherwise would not be standards,to the extent allowed by use-permit approval in allowed or required. other sections of these regulations,to make particular use combinations more feasible. The primary purpose of the MU zone is to permit combining residential uses and commercial uses on a single parcel, although any combination of uses may be 17.55.040 Mandatory findings approved by the City. The MU zone is intended to A. In granting a use permit pursuant to this chapter, the promote a compact city, to provide additional housing Planning Commission must make the following findings: opportunities (including affordable housing opportunities), which is the first priority, and to reduce auto travel by (1) The projects mixed uses are consistent with the providing services, jobs, and housing in proximity.. The general plan and are compatible with their surroundings, City desires the safety provided by having residential with neighboring uses,and with each other. components in commercial areas. (2)The projects design protects the public health, safety, 17.55.020 Application and procedure and welfare. A.Application of the MU zone may be initiated by: (3) The mixed uses provide greater public benefits than single-use development of the site. This finding must (1) The City Council or Planning Commission, to ensure enumerate those benefits,such as proximity of workplaces that mixed residential and commercial uses will be and housing, automobile trip reduction, provision of included when certain parcels are developed or affordable housing, or other benefits consistent with the redeveloped-,or purpose of this chapter. (2)An applicant,to obtain permission for a mix of uses not B. To require property development standards more otherwise allowed. restrictive than those of the underlying zone, the Planning Commission must make one of the following findings: B. Each ordinance adopting an MU zone shall specify: (1) Site-specific property development standards are (1) The types of uses which are required or allowed to be needed to protect all proposed uses of the site, in combined; particular residential uses. (2) Any standards for the uses locations or their (2) Site-specific property development standards are relationshipsto each other, needed to make the project consistent with the intent of these regulations. (3) Any issues specific to the site or the intended combination of uses which must be resolved by the design (3) The preponderance of the development proposed for of the project. the site is of a type not normally permitted in the underlying zone, so property development standards for the zone where such development is normally found are appropriate. city of san Luis osispo 83 zoning negwations Fax From: Michael Morin, owner, Morin Bros. Foreign ,ATTACIiMEM' 5 Automotive, 4090 Broad St., SLO (Corner of El Capitan & Broad) To: City of San Luis Obispo Planning Commission RE: Application# ER 108-002 811 El Capitan, SLO Dear Sirs, I am concerned about the possible parking reductions the developer is requesting. I have no problem with use changes and creek setbacks. I feel the use he requests is appropriate and any development within the city will be in good taste and an asset to our little "neighborhood". I would like to point out, however, that no matter what the planning commission hopes, until alternative transportation is a viable alternative, each and every one of the employees, residents, and customers or clients visiting, living, or working there will drive his or her own car there, most likely by themselves. In our previous location at 3000 McMillan Ave„ if I did not arrive before 7:40 am, I could not park on the street in front of my business. McMillan Ave. at least was not residential. El Capitan will be residential from @ 50 yards back from Broad St. to its end. The houses are small and each one has a driveway,which limits the available curb space. Parking on Broad St. itself is possible, but dangerous. It is already a challenge to turn right out of El Capitan, let alone left. I can imagine what it will be like if we have to sight through a line of parked cars, SLN's and pick-ups. A nearby street that might serve as an example of what it could become is Fiero Lane. I urge you to keep this in mind as you make your deliberations. Thank You Michael Morin ATTACHMENT 6 RESOLUTION NO. (2001 Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO AMENDING THE LAND USE ELEMENT MAP OF THE GENERAL PLAN FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 811 EL CAPITAN FROM MEDIUM-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO SERVICES AND MANUFACTURING (GP/R/U/ER 108-00) WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on January 24, 2001, and recommended approval of the proposed map amendment to the General Plan Land Use Element; and WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing on March 6, 2001, and has considered testimony of interested parties, the records of the Planning Commission hearing and action, and the evaluation and recommendation of staff; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the proposed map amendment is consistent with other policies of the General Plan; and WHEREAS,the City Council has considered the draft mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impact as prepared by staff and reviewed by the Planning Commission; and BE IT RESOLVED,by the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. The City Council finds and determines that the project's mitigated Negative Declaration adequately addresses the potential significant environmental impacts of the proposed project, and reflects the independent judgment of the City Council. The Council hereby adopts said mitigated Negative Declaration and incorporates the following mitigation measures as outlined in Exhibit B, the mitigation agreement, into the project. SECTION 2. The Land Use Element map is amended as shown on Exhibit A, attached. SECTION 3. The Community Development Director shall cause the amendment to be reflected.in documents which are on display in City Hall and which are available for public use. SECTION 4. This amendment shall take affect at the expiration of 30 days following approval. On motion of , seconded by , and on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES'. ABSENT: the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this_day of , 2001. q -17 ATTACHMW 6 Resolution No. (200_Series) Page 2 Mayor Allen Settle ATTEST: City Clerk Lee Price APPROVED AS TO FORM: for a frorgensen �-1 S" EXHIBIT A ATTACHMENT .6 811 EL CAPITAN 053-411-003 i Medium-Density. Residential.. to Services and Manufacturing a I vicinity ma General Plan Map Amendment GP/R 108-00 4-/ 9 AT[ACHMEw 7 ORDINANCE NO. ........ (2001 Series) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO AMENDING THE ZONING MAP FROM MEDIUM-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL WITH A SPECIFIC PLAN OVERLAY (R-2-SP)AND SERVICE-COMMERCIAL (C-S) TO SERVICE-COMMERCIAL MIXED USE WITH A SPECIFIC PLAN OVERLAY ZONE (C-S-MU-SP) FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 811 EL CAPITAN (GP/R/U/ER 108-00) WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on January.24, 2001, and recommended approval of the rezoning (R 108-00) to change the designation on the City's zoning map from Medium-Density Residential with a Specific Plan overlay and Service- Commercial to Service-Commercial Mixed Use with a Specific Plan overlay zone, for property located at 811 El Capitan; and WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing on, March 6, 2001, and has considered testimony of the applicant, interested parties, the records of the Planning Commission hearings and actions, and the evaluation and recommendation of staff, and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the proposed rezoning is consistent with the General Plan and other applicable City ordinances; and WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the draft Negative Declaration of environmental impact with Mitigation Measures as prepared by staff and reviewed by the Planning Commission. BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. Environmental Determination. The City Council finds and determines that the project's Negative Declaration with Mitigation Measures adequately addresses the potential significant environmental impacts of the proposed rezoning, and reflects the independent judgment of the City Council. The Council hereby adopts said Negative Declaration with Mitigation Measures as outlined in the attached Exhibit B. SECTION 2. Findings. That this Council, after consideration of the proposed rezoning from Medium-Density Residential with a Specific Plan overlay and Service-Commercial to Service-Commercial with the Mixed Use overlay zoning, for property located at 811 El Capitan, makes the following findings: 1. The proposed rezoning is consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan, specifically Land Use Element Policy 3.7, Mixed Uses, which states that "Compatible mixed uses in commercial districts should be supported. " 2. The proposed uses as stipulated in Use Permit U 108-00 will comply with the MU zone, are � -ao ATTACHMENT 7 Ordinance No. (2001 Series). 811 El Capitan Page 2 compatible with each other and their surroundings, and are consistent with the General Plan (SLO Municipal Code Section 17.55.020C.). 3. The project is consistent with the purpose of the Mixed Use zone which is to allow the combining of residential and commercial uses on a single parcel. 4. A Negative Declaration with Mitigation Measures was prepared by the Community Development Department on December 27, 2000, which describes potentially significant environmental impacts associated with the proposed rezoning and associated project development. The Negative Declaration concludes that the project will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment subject to the mitigation measures shown in the attached Exhibit B being incorporated into the project. SECTION 3. Action. The request to change the City's zoning map designation from Medium-Density Residential with a.Specific Plan overlay and Service-Commercial to Service- Commercial Mixed Use with Specific Plan overlay zoning, for property located at 811 El Capitan, is hereby approved. SECTION 4. Adoption. 1. The zoning map is hereby amended as shown in Exhibit A. 2. The Community Development Director shall cause the change to be reflected in documents which are on display in City Hall and are available for public viewing and use. SECTION 5. A summary of this ordinance, together with the names of Council members voting for and against, shall be published at least five (5) days prior to its final passage, in the Telegram-Tribune, a newspaper published and circulated in this City. This ordinance shall go into effect at the expiration of thirty (30) days after its final passage and after the approval of a General Plan Map Amendment (GP/R 108-00) to change the designation for a portion of the project site from Medium-Density Residential to Services and Manufacturing. INTRODUCED on the day of , 2001, AND FINALLY ADOPTED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo on the day of , 2001, on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES ' ABSENT: Ordinance No. (2001 Series) ATTACHMENT. 7 811 El Capitan Page 3 Mayor Allen Settle ATTEST: Lee Price, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM`. efr G. Jorgensen �-a a -S-SP-PD EXHIBIT A -2-5 -P . C-S-S-SP R - - R-2= P to S-M - p C-S to C-S-MU -5P �4 GPM`NpS /OS G GP/R/U/ER 108-00 Rezone from C-S and N ��-�7P to C=S=M V "-S p A0 40 80 120 Feet 4-ate Exhibit B: Mitigation Meas>..:s J GP/R/U/ER 108-00 Ana Page 1 MW 7 EXHIBIT B Mitigation Measures for the Mixed Use project at 811 El Capitan GP/R/U/ER 108-00 Land Use 1. The General Plan land use map designates creeks as open space. The proposed rezoning exhibit shall show the areas within the creek corridor — between the top of creek bank and/or outer edge of riparian vegetation,whichever is greater—as Open Space. Geology 2. The project shall be designed so that building footprints and parking areas are setback a minimum of 20 feet from the top of creek bank or edge of riparian vegetation, whichever is greater, consistent with the creek setback ordinance. 3. Site grading and improvements shall be designed to direct water away from the top of bank and shall be consistent with the recommendations in the soils engineering report and slope stability evaluation prepared by GeoSolutions. Water 4. Oil and sand separators or other filtering media shall be installed at each drain inlet intercepting runoff as a means of filtering toxic substances from run off before it enters the creek through the storm water system. The separator must be regularly maintained to ensure efficient pollutant removal. 5. To be consistent with Land Use Element policy 6.4.7 regarding porous paving, the project shall comply with the parking and driveway standards for landscaping and use porous paving or decomposed granite for any patio and walkway areas in the creek setback. 6. Plans submitted for architectural review shall include a detail showing how and where roof drainage will be conveyed in a non-erosive manner. 7. Plans submitted for consideration by the Architectural Review Commission must clearly demonstrate how the new buildings will meet the minimum requirements of the City's Flood Damage and Prevention Regulations, and how any necessary revisions, such as a change in finish floor elevation, to the preliminary plans submitted for the rezoning and environmental review application will affect ADA requirements and building height. Air Quality 8. The project shall include to the satisfaction of the APCD and the Community Development Director: Exhibit B: Mitigation Meas. GP/R/U/ER 108-00 ATTACHMENT 7 Page 2 a. Short- and long-term (lockers) bicycle parking for both the commercial and residential uses; b. A pedestrian connection to Broad Street near the apartments (as shown on 6.28.00 plans); c. Eating facilities and outdoor employee rest area to encourage employees to stay on site during the lunch hour; d. Extensive shade tree planting in the parking areas to help reduce evaporative emissions from automobiles; e. Sodium lights in the parking lot; f. Dual-glazed windows; g. Wall and ceiling insulation to exceed Title 24 requirements; and h. Energy efficient appliances, furnaces, and wall heaters. If these features are not included or feasible in the design of new buildings, the project architect shall document why they were determined to be infeasible. The Community Development Director shall review this document and make a final decision as to the feasibility of incorporating these energy conserving features. Biological Resources 9. The applicant shall prepare a creek preservation and maintenance agreement to be recorded with the County Recorder in a form approved by the City Attorney and the Community Development Director prior to issuance of any building or grading permit. The agreement shall include the following provisions: a. Provide for professional, perpetual maintenance of the creek and open space area to the satisfaction of the City's Natural Resources Manager. b. Grant to the City the right to maintain the creek and open space area if the property owner fails to perform, and to assess the property owner for expenses incurred, and the right of the City to inspect the site to assure conditions of the agreement and project approval are being met. c. The creek/open space area shall be maintained by the property owner in accordance with the creek preservation and maintenance agreement as approved by the City. d. Erosion control and revegetation to restore the health of the riparian area consistent with Land Use Element policies. 10. Exterior project lighting at the rear of buildings along the creek shall be limited to bollard lighting along the proposed path at the top of bank to the satisfaction of the City's Natural Resource Manager and the Community Development Director. Exhibit B: Mitigation MeasL� O GP/R/U/ER 108-00 Page 3 ATTACHMENT 7 _ T Enemy 11. New buildings constructed on this site shall incorporate the following as feasible: a. Energy-efficient lighting systems for both interior and exterior use; b. Increased wall and attic insulation beyond Title 24 requirements; c. Skylights or other means of maximizing natural daylighting; d. Operable windows in employee work and break areas to maximize natural ventilation; e. Lighting controls (occupancy and motion sensors); and f. Dual glazed windows. If these features are not included or feasible in the design of new buildings, the project architect shall document why they were determined to be infeasible. The Community Development Director shall review this document and make a final decision as to the feasibility of incorporating these energy conserving features. Traffic and Circulation 12. The property owner shall dedicate the northerly 0.9m (3 feet) of the subject property along El Capitan for public street purposes to accommodate the adopted right of way (additional parkway behind sidewalk) and that portion of the northwesterly corner of the property at the corner of El Capitan& Broad (State Hwy. 227)necessary to accommodate a new City standard 9.1in (30 ft) radius curb return and handicap ramp, to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works and Caltrans. 13. The developer shall install complete frontage improvements along both public street frontages, consisting of a 6' wide integral sidewalk, curb & gutter, driveway ramps, a handicap ramp at the comer, streetlights, a sidewalk incorporated into the Caltrans bridge (Broad St.) and street pavement (between existing structural pavement and new frontage improvements), to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works and Caltrans (Broad St.). 14. Plans submitted to the Architectural Review Commission shall clearly show to scale the required right-of-way dedication and frontage improvements relative to the proposed on-site improvements. 15. The applicant shall apply for a use permit for the proposed parking reduction. Action on the request shall take into account available public transit, available on-street parking, the potential impact on the El Capitan residential neighborhood, the location and design details for long term bicycle parking and related amenities, other amenities to encourage walking and bicycling to the site, and the likelihood for additional bicycle parking to offset demand for vehicle spaces. 16. Plans submitted for architectural review shall show long term bicycle parking for Exhibit B: Mitigation Meas O GP/R/U/ER 108-00 ATTACHMENT 7 Page 4 both the commercial area and the apartments that is adequately sized to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director. The long-term bicycle parking for the commercial uses shall be installed as part of the shell building construction together with common shower,toilet, and clothes locker facilities. 17. To avoid interference with Airport operations: a. The applicant shall grant an avigation easement to the County prior to issuance of building permits. b. . Project occupants and land uses shall comply with the land use compatibility matrix of the San Luis Obispo Airport Land Use Plan. Conditionally compatible uses (including dwellings) shall occupy no more than 60% of the project floor area. c. Lease and rental agreements shall disclose that the property is in an airport flight traffic zone and that noise impacts may occur as a result of this. Such disclosure statement shall be submitted to the Airport Manager for review and approval prior to occupancy. d. Radio transmissions which may interfere with airport operations shall be prohibited. e. Soundproofing shall be added to reduce indoor noise from airport operations consistent with the City Noise Element and Noise Ordinance and the ALUC's recommended conditions of approval. f. All exterior lighting shall be shielded down lights that do not shine skyward or interfere with airport operations. Search lights and strobe lights shall be prohibited. Noise 18. To comply with the City's Noise Element and conditions of approval recommended by the Airport Land Use Commission: a. Sleeping areas must be designed to achieve a maximum noise exposure of 40 decibels. b. Other interior areas must be designed to,achieve a maximum noise exposure of 45 decibels. c. Private residential outdoor spaces must be designed to achieve a maximum noise exposure of 60 decibels. d. Common residential/commercial outdoor areas must be designed to achieve a maximum noise exposure of 65 decibels. 19. The project shall comply with all recommended mitigation measures outlined in the noise study prepared for this project by Krause Engineering Services, date September 2.1, 2000, and shall include any additional measures necessary to meet requirements established by the Airport Land Use Commission. � a7 Exhibit B: Mitigation Meas___5 GP/RN/ER 108-00 Page 5 ATTACHMENT 7 Utilities and Service Systems 20. The new buildings shall incorporate facilities for interior and exterior on-site recycling. Plans submitted for architectural review shall show the exterior location for collecting recycling from both the commercial users and the on-site residents to the satisfaction of the garbage collection company. 21. A new sewer lateral must be installed and the existing septic system abandoned to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works. 22. A plan for recycling demolition and construction material waste shall be submitted with the demolition and building permit applications for review and approval by the Community Development Director. If asbestos is present, its removal must comply with National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants to the satisfaction of the Air Pollution Control District. Aesthetics 23. The applicant must submit an application for architectural review. The application shall include a color and materials board with samples of the actual colors and materials proposed for the buildings and/or color photographic excerpts from manufacturers' cut sheets depicting the proposed roofing, windows and doors, exterior walls, columns, exterior lighting, tile, etc. Architectural plans must also include a construction detail of the mechanical equipment proposed and its roof-mounted installations a construction detail of window and sill installation; a detail of the proposed cornice and eave design; a detail of the proposed upper level columns and the metal awnings on the east elevation of Building A; a detail of the overflow scuppers for the decks; a detail of short-term bike racks; a detail of long term bicycle parking in both the commercial area and the residential units; and any other design detail which the Community Development Director deems necessary to adequately evaluate the proposed project. 24. Exterior lighting shall be directed downward and not spill onto adjoining properties. The maximum height of any parking lot lighting, including fixtures, standard and base, shall not be higher than 15 feet above the finished grade. Lighting levels measured at the finished grade directly beneath the fixture shall not exceed 10 foot-candles. Any individual wall-mounted fixtures shall not be located above the first floor of the building and shall direct light downward. Exterior light fixtures shall be subject to review and approval by the Architectural Review Commission. Cultural Resources 25. If any archaeological resources are found during site preparation,all earth-work within 150 feet of object(s) shall cease until the resources have been evaluated by a qualified archaeologist. Any additional mitigation measures recommended by the archaeologist shall Exhibit B: Mitigation Measu..:s ATTACHMENT 7 GP/R/U/ER 108-00 Page 6 be evaluated by the Community Development Director, and upon Director approval, implemented by the applicant. If the Community Development Director or hearing body determines that the above mitigation measures are ineffective or physically infeasible, he may add, delete or modify the mitigation to meet the intent of the original measures. ATTACHMENT 0 RESOLUTION NO. (200ISeries) A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO APPROVING A USE PERMIT ESTABLISHING A MASTER LIST OF USES AND A PARKING REDUCTION FOR A MIXED-USE PROJECT AT 811 EL CAPITAN (GP/R/U/ER 108-00) WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted public hearings on January 24, 2001, and recommended approval of a use permit to establish a mix of uses on site and to allow a 30% parking reduction for property located at 811 El Capitan; and WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing on March 6, 2001, and has considered testimony of the applicant, interested parties, the records of the Planning Commission hearings and actions, and the evaluation and recommendation of staff; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that a parking reduction and the mix of uses attached as Exhibit A are consistent with the General Plan and other applicable City ordinances. WHEREAS, the potential environmental impacts of the use permit have been evaluated in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act and the City's Environmental Guidelines (ER 108-00); BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. Environmental Determination. The City Council finds and determines that the project's mitigated Negative Declaration with the recommended mitigation therein adequately addresses the potential significant environmental impacts of the proposed project, and reflects the independent judgment of the City Council. The Council hereby adopts said mitigated Negative Declaration (ER 108-00). Mitigation measures are attached as Exhibit B. SECTION 2. Findings. The City Council makes the following findings: 1. A 10% parking reduction is consistent with the intent of the zoning regulations which is to consolidate parking and minimize the area devoted exclusively to parking when typical demands may be satisfied more efficiently by shared facilities. In this case, several commercial uses would share a common parking area with residential uses. 2. A 20% mixed-use parking reduction, in addition to the shared use parking reduction, is appropriate for this project because the times of maximum parking demand from the various uses will not coincide, specifically parking for the residential uses is likely to be greater in the evening while demand for commercial spaces is likely to be higher during the day. This finding assumes the project will include at least 14 residential units. 3. The project's proposed mix of uses is consistent with the General Plan, which encourages mixed residential and commercial development, with uses that are compatible with the 11-3 ATTACHMENT g Resolution (2001 Series) U 108-00 Page 2 project's surroundings, with neighborhood uses, and with each other. 4. The project's design protects the public health, safety and welfare. 5. The mixed uses provide greater public benefits than single-use development of the site, such as promoting a compact city, providing more housing than would otherwise be possible; potentially reducing auto trips by providing jobs, housing and services in proximity; and increasing safety by-having residential uses in commercial areas. SECTION 3. Parking Reduction. The request for a use permit for 10% shared-use and a 20%mixed-use parking reduction is hereby approved, subject to the following condition: 1. The applicant shall merge the two lots underlying the project site. SECTION 4. Master List of Uses. A master list of allowed and conditionally allowed uses is hereby approved for this project and attached as Exhibit A. SECTION 5. Effective Date. Approval of this use permit (U 108-00) shall become effective at the same time the project rezoning becomes effective, which will be 30 days after final passage of the rezoning ordinance, and in no case sooner than approval of the General Plan Map Amendment (GP/R 108-00). Upon motion of seconded by and on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: the foregoing resolution was adopted this day of 12001. Mayor Allen Settle ATTEST: City Clerk Lee Price 4-31 Resolution (2001 Series) ATTACKGW $ U 108-00 Page 3 APPROVED AS TO FORM: ft o ey f gensen EXHIBIT A 0 Approved List of Uses for 811 El Capitan ATTACHMENT GP/R/U/ER 108-00 Allowed Uses: 1. Advertising and related services(graphic design, writing, mailing, addressing, etc.). 2. Banks and savings and loans. 3. Barbers, hairstylists, manicurists,tanning centers. 4. Caretaker's quarters. 5. Catering Services 6. Computer services. 7. Credit reporting. 8. Day care center. 9. Delivery services. 10. Detective and security services. 11. Dry cleaning pick-up point. 12. Dwellings. 13. Florist. 14. Offices(contractors). 15. Offices(engineering). 16. Photocopy services,quick printers. 17. Photofinishing-retail 18, Photofinishing-wholesale; and blueprinting and microfilming service. 19. Photographic studios. 20. Post offices and public and private postal services. 21. Repair services(small household appliances, locksmiths, seamstress, shoe repair). 22. Research and development. 23. Restaurants, sandwich shops,take-out food. 24. Retails sales(indoor sales of building materials and gardening supplies). 25. Retail sales and repair of bicycles. 26. Retail sales(auto parts and accessories except tires and batteries). 27. Secretarial and related services. 28. Ticket/travel agencies. 29. Utility companies-engineering and administration offices. 30. Wholesale and mail-order sales. -- Uses Allowed Subject to Administrative Use Permit Approval (to enable evaluation of compatibility with residential uses and availability of parking): 1. Antennas (municipal, commercial, and public utility broadcasting and wireless communications). 2. Broadcast studios. 3. Churches, synagogues,temples,etc. 4. Laboratories(medical,analytical research). 5. Organizations,offices and meeting rooms. 6. Printing and publishing. 7. Retail sales (appliances, furniture and furnishings, musical instruments; data processing equipment, business, office and medical equipment stores; catalog stores; sporting goods, outdoor supply). 8. Schools-business,trade,recreational,or other specialized schools. loft Exhibit B: Mitigation Meas s� O GP/R/U/ER 108-00 Page 1 ATTACHMENT ' EXHIBIT B Mitigation Measures for the Mixed Use project at 811 El Capitan GP/R/U/ER 108-00 Land Use 1. The General Plan land use map designates creeks as open space. The proposed rezoning exhibit shall show the areas within the creek corridor — between the top of creek bank and/or outer edge of riparian vegetation,whichever is greater—as Open Space. Geology 2. The project shall be designed so that building footprints and parking areas are setback a minimum of 20 feet from the top of creek bank or edge of riparian vegetation, whichever is greater, consistent with the creek setback ordinance. 3. Site grading and improvements shall be designed to direct water away from the top of bank and shall be consistent with the recommendations in the soils engineering report and slope stability evaluation prepared by GeoSolutions. Water 4. Oil and sand separators or other filtering media shall be installed at each drain inlet intercepting runoff as a means of filtering toxic substances from run off before it enters the creek through the storm water system. The separator must be regularly maintained to ensure efficient pollutant removal. 5. To be consistent with Land Use Element policy 6.4.7 regarding porous paving, the project shall comply with the parking and driveway standards for landscaping and use porous paving or decomposed granite for any patio and walkway areas in the creek setback. 6. Plans submitted for architectural review shall include a detail showing how and where roof drainage will be conveyed in a non-erosive manner. 7. Plans submitted for consideration by the Architectural Review Commission must clearly demonstrate how the new buildings will meet the minimum requirements of the City's Flood Damage and Prevention Regulations, and how any necessary revisions, such as a change in finish floor elevation, to the preliminary plans submitted for the rezoning and environmental review application will affect ADA requirements and building height. Air Quality 8. The project shall include to the satisfaction of the APCD and the Community Development Director: 3� Exhibit B: Mitigation Mea.as LATTAMM GP/R/U/ER 108-00 Page 2 a. Short- and long-term (lockers) bicycle parking for both the commercial and residential uses; b. A pedestrian connection to Broad Street near the apartments (as shown on 6.28.00 plans); c. Eating facilities and outdoor employee rest area to encourage employees to stay on site during the lunch hour; d. Extensive shade tree planting in the parking areas to help reduce evaporative emissions from automobiles; e. Sodium lights in the parking lot; .f. Dual-glazed windows; g. Wall and ceiling insulation to exceed Title 24 requirements; and h. Energy efficient appliances, furnaces, and wall heaters. If these features are not included or feasible in the design of new buildings, the project architect shall document why they were determined to be infeasible. The Community Development Director shall review this document and make a final decision as to the feasibility of incorporating these energy conserving features. Biological Resources 9. The applicant shall prepare a creek preservation and maintenance agreement to be recorded with the County Recorder in a form approved by the City Attorney and the Community Development Director prior to issuance of any building or grading permit. The agreement shall include the following provisions: a. Provide for professional, perpetual maintenance of the creek and open space area to the satisfaction of the City's Natural Resources Manager. b. Grant to the City the right to maintain the creek and open space area if the property owner fails to perform, and to assess the property owner for expenses incurred, and the right of the City to inspect the site to assure conditions of the agreement and project approval are being met. c. The creek/open space area shall be maintained by the property owner in accordance with the creek preservation and maintenance agreement as approved by the City. d. Erosion control and revegetation to restore the health of the riparian area consistent with Land Use Element policies. 10. Exterior project lighting at the rear of buildings along the creek shall be limited to bollard lighting along the proposed path at the top of bank to the satisfaction of the City's Natural Resource Manager and the Community Development Director. Exhibit B: Mitigation Meas.s O AnACHMF GP/R/U/ER 108-00 8 Page 3 Energy 11. New buildings constructed on this site shall incorporate the following as feasible: a. Energy-efficient lighting systems for both interior and exterior use; b. Increased wall and attic insulation beyond Title 24 requirements; c. Skylights or other means of maximizing natural daylighting; d. Operable windows in employee work and break areas to maximize natural ventilation; e. Lighting controls(occupancy and motion sensors); and £ Dual glazed windows. If these features are not included .or feasible in the design of new buildings, the project architect shall document why they were determined to be infeasible. The Community Development Director shall review this document and make a final decision as to the feasibility of incorporating these energy conserving features. Traffic and Circulation 12. The property owner shall dedicate the northerly 0.9m (3 feet) of the subject property along El Capitan for public street purposes to accommodate the adopted right of way (additional parkway behind sidewalk) and that portion of the northwesterly comer of the property at the comer of El Capitan & Broad (State Hwy. 227)necessary to accommodate a new City standard 9.1 in (30 ft) radius curb return and handicap ramp, to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works and Caltrans. 13. The developer shall install complete frontage improvements along both public street frontages, consisting of a 6' wide integral sidewalk, curb & gutter, driveway ramps, a handicap ramp at the corner, streetlights, a sidewalk incorporated into the Caltrans bridge (Broad St.) and street pavement (between existing structural pavement and new frontage improvements), to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works and Caltrans (Broad St.). 14. Plans submitted to the Architectural Review Commission shall clearly show to scale the required right-of--way dedication and frontage improvements relative to the proposed on-site improvements. 15. The applicant shall apply for a use permit for the proposed parking reduction. Action on the request shall take into account available public transit, available on-street parking, the potential impact on the El Capitan residential neighborhood, the location and design details for long term bicycle parking and related amenities, other amenities to encourage walking and bicycling to the site, and the likelihood for additional bicycle parking to offset demand for vehicle spaces. 16. Plans submitted for architectural review shall show long term bicycle parking for AI_Z6 Exhibit B: Mitigation Was__.s O ATTACHMENT S GP/R/U/ER 108-00 Page 4 both the commercial area and the apartments that is adequately sized to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director. The long-term bicycle parking for the commercial uses shall be installed as part of the shell building construction together with common shower,toilet, and clothes locker facilities. 17. To avoid interference with Airport operations: a. The applicant shall grant an avigation easement to the County prior to issuance of building permits. b. Project occupants and land uses shall comply with the land use compatibility matrix of the San Luis Obispo Airport Land Use Plan. Conditionally compatible uses (including dwellings) shall occupy no more than 60% of the project floor area. c. Lease and rental agreements shall disclose that the property is in an airport flight traffic zone and that noise impacts may occur as a result of this. Such disclosure statement shall be submitted to the Airport Manager for review and approval prior to occupancy. d. Radio transmissions which may interfere with airport operations shall be. prohibited. e. Soundproofing shall be added to reduce indoor noise from airport operations consistent with the City Noise Element and Noise Ordinance and the ALUC's recommended conditions of approval. f. All exterior lighting shall be shielded down lights that do not shine skyward or interfere with airport operations. Search lights and strobe lights shall be prohibited. Noise 18. To comply with the City's Noise Element and conditions of approval recommended by the Airport Land Use Commission: a. Sleeping areas must be designed to achieve a maximum noise exposure of 40 decibels. b. Other interior areas must be designed to achieve a maximum noise exposure of 45 decibels. c. Private residential outdoor spaces must be designed to achieve a maximum noise exposure of 60 decibels. d. Common residential/commercial outdoor areas must be designed to achieve a maximum noise exposure of 65 decibels. 19. The project shall comply with all recommended mitigation measures outlined in the noise study prepared for this project by Krause Engineering Services, date September 21, 2000, and shall include any additional measures necessary to meet requirements established by the Airport Land Use.Commission. 4-37 Exhibit B: Mitigation Meas....,s GPiRiuiER 108-00 ATTACHMENT 8 Page 5 Utilities and Service Systems 20. The new buildings shall incorporate facilities for interior and exterior on-site recycling. Plans submitted for architectural review shall show the exterior location for collecting recycling from both the commercial users and the on-site residents to the satisfaction of the garbage collection company. 21. A new sewer lateral must be installed and the existing septic system abandoned to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works.. 22. A plan for recycling demolition and construction material waste shall be submitted with the demolition and building permit applications for review and approval by the Community Development Director. If asbestos is present, its removal must comply with National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants to the satisfaction of the Air Pollution Control District. Aesthetics 23. The applicant must submit an application for architectural review. The application shall include a color and materials board with samples of the actual colors and materials proposed for the buildings and/or color photographic excerpts from manufacturers' cut sheets depicting the proposed roofing, windows and doors, exterior walls, columns, exterior lighting, tile, etc. Architectural plans must also include a construction detail of the mechanical equipment proposed and its roof-mounted installation; a construction detail of window and sill installation; a detail of the proposed cornice and eave design; a detail of the proposed upper level columns and the metal awnings on the east elevation of Building A; a detail of the overflow scuppers for the decks; a detail of short-term bike racks; a detail of long term bicycle parking in both the commercial area and the residential units; and any other design detail which the Community Development Director deems necessary to adequately evaluate the proposed project. 24. Exterior lighting shall be directed downward and not spill onto adjoining properties. The maximum height of any parking lot lighting, including fixtures, standard and base, shall not be higher than 15 feet above the finished grade. Lighting levels measured at the finished grade directly beneath the fixture shall not exceed 10 foot-candles. Any individual wall-mounted fixtures shall not be located above the first floor of the building and shall direct light downward. Exterior light fixtures shall be subject to review and approval by the Architectural Review Commission. Cultural Resources 25. If any archaeological resources are found during site preparation,all earth-work within 150 feet of object(s) shall cease until the resources have been evaluated by a qualified archaeologist. Any additional mitigation measures recommended by the archaeologist shall Exhibit B: Mitigation Meas,_s �/ ATTACHMENT GP/R/U/ER 108-00 Page 6 be evaluated by the Community Development Director, and upon Director approval, implemented by the applicant. If the Community Development Director or hearing body determines that the above mitigation measures are ineffective or physically infeasible, he may add, delete or modify the mitigation to meet the intent of the original measures. ' ATTACHMENT RESOLUTION NO. (2001 Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO DENYING THE REQUESTS TO: 1) AMEND THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE MAP AND REZONE PROPERTY AT 811 EL CAPITAN FROM SERVICE-COMMERCIAL AND MEDIUM-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL WITH A SPECIFIC PLAN OVERLAY TO SERVICE-COMMERCIAL MIXED USE; AND 2) APPROVE A USE PERMIT TO ESTABLISH A LIST OF USES AND A PARKING REDUCTION (GP/R/U/ER 108-00) WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted public hearings on January 24, 2001, and recommended approval of GP/R/U/ER 108-00, a request to 1) amend the General Plan Land Use Map and rezone property from C-S, Service-Commercial, and R-2-SP, Medium-Density Residential with a Specific Plan overlay, to C-S-MU, Service-Commercial Mixed Use; and 2) approve a use permit to establish a list of uses and a parking reduction for a site located at 811 El Capitan; and WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing on March 6, 2001, and has considered testimony of the applicant, interested parties, the records of the Planning Commission hearings and actions, and the evaluation and recommendation of staff; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the proposed general plan amendment, rezoning, and use permit are inconsistent with the General Plan and other applicable City ordinances. BE IT RESOLVED, by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. Findings. 1. The project is inconsistent with the General Plan and other applicable City ordinances because[Council to specify reasons]. SECTION 2. Action. The request (GP/R/U/ER 108-00) for a general plan amendment, rezoning, and use permit for property located at 811 El Capitan is hereby denied. On motion of seconded by and on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this_day of , 2001. Resolution No. (2001 Series) ATTR Denial of GP/R/U/ER 108-00 �� Page 2 Mayor Allen Settle ATTEST: Lee Price, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Attorney Jeffrey G. Jorgensen Draft Planning Commission`..utes ATTACHMENT 10 January 24, 2001 Page 9 Commr. Lo\2-4-1. staff how many people could reside in the house without a use permit. Don Wrightat occupancy is based upon the size of the bedrooms; it is usually two personom. This house has nine bedrooms and can accommodate approximatople. AYES: rs. Osbo and Peterson NOES: rs. Aiken, C per, Whittlesey, and Loh REFRAIN: r. Ready The motion -1.Commr. Coved to den thea ea ased upon the findings contained in the staff re ort and the evidence resented befo the Commission. . Commr. Whittlesey seconded the motion. Vice Chairman Peterson felt the residence was\Loh e than a year and is comfortable that the Sand Boarders constitute athe conditions of the original use permit should be revisited. Commr. Aiken said he would like to see the Saforward for new use permit with recognition as a fraternity. AYES: Commrs. Cooper, Whittlesey, Aike NOES: Commrs. Peterson and Osborne REFRAIN: . Commr. Ready The motion carried 4-2-1. 3. 811 and 903 EI Capitan Way: GP/R and ER 108-00; Requests to amend the Land Use Element Map and Zoning Map designations from C-S and R-2 to C-S-MS (with C/OS portion to remain); possible creek setback exceptions; possible parking reductions; a use permit for mixed" uses; and environmental review; Covey III, applicant. Chairman Ready refrained from participation due to a potential conflict of interest, as the applicant is a business client of his. Associate Planner Mclivaine presented the staff report and recommended that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council (1) approve a mitigated negative declaration of environmental impact, (2) rezone portions of the property outside of the creek corridor from Service-Commercial and Medium-Density Residential to Service Commercial Mixed Use, and (3) approve a use permit establishing allowed uses for the project and a parking reduction. 1142 ATTACHMENT Draft Planning Commission M,_jtes 10 January 24, 2001 Page 10 Commr. Cooper noted that the Crossroads project had incorporated separate enclosed parking and asked if specific parking spaces could be designated for specific uses for this project. Associate Planner Mcllvaine reported the Crossroads was developed prior to the adoption of the City's Mixed-Use Ordinance. It was developed as a planned development with designated residential parking. Commr. Cooper asked staff to review the implications of the creek setback exception. Associate Planner Mcllvaine stated given that the existing building will be removed and the site will be substantially graded, etc., any kinds of provisions to continue the lesser setback would not apply in this case. A creek maintenance and preservation agreement is addressed by a mitigation measure. Commr. Whittlesey asked if a site plan is before the Commission. Associate Planner Mcllvaine replied no. Commr. Loh expressed concern about future creek bank stabilization, landscaping, setback limits and parking design/on-site circulation. Commr. Osborne questioned commercial and residential parking requirements and asked staff to review the proposed parking reductions. Commr. Loh questioned staff on bicycle and motorcycle parking requirements. There were no further comments orquestions and the public comment session was opened. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Carol Florence, Oasis Associates, requested a Planning Commission recommendation to the City Council of approval of the project. She explained that the rezoning would allow for better utilization of the somewhat awkwardly shaped parcel and the creation of a balanced development between a residential and commercial use in a unique project setting. She described the benefits of the zoning and the ability of the project to provide affordable housing within walking distance to jobs, shopping, parks/open space, and other residential uses. She felt the parking reduction request could be granted solely upon the ordinance sections that addressed the reduction for shared parking and mixed-use parking. She distributed photos of the site and addressed the three-foot additional dedication on EI Capitan Way, noting the existing face of curb will not change locations. She requested that if the right-of-way line is moved three feet, that setback be initiated from that additional three feet. In reference to Condition 9, she felt the open space easement agreement should be specific. She noted they have committed to a 20-foot setback on the site. 4_ 43 Draft Planning Commission �.ces J _ATTACHMENT 10 January 24, 2001 Page 11 The Commission questioned Ms. Florence on parking reductions, possible residential targets/occupants, and the noise study baselines. Scott Seacrest, 676 Pismo Street, future EI Capitan homeowner, questioned the granting of a parking reduction because there is little extra parking in the area. He felt the one lot that faces EI Capitan should not be occupied by commercial development; because it would be disruptive to the character of the street. The open space areas should not be reduced and the creek should be protected. Traffic in the area is increasing and will be further impacted by this project. Unique features of the area should be protected. Commr. Whittlesey asked for comment on the commercial lot facing EI Capitan. Mr. Seacrest stated he would prefer a parking lot to a commercial building at this location. Matt Quaglino, applicant, stated they are sensitive to the parking issues and spoke in support of the mixed-use aspect of the project. He urged approval of the requests. Seeing no further speakers come forward, the public comment session was closed. COMMISSION COMMENTS: Commr. Osborne felt this was excellent mixed-use project utilizing a constrained site. Vice Chairman Peterson complimented the applicants on their project. He said he was impressed with the mixed-use concept and project design. He recommended a Broad Street pedestrian access be made more visible/usable. Commr. Whittlesey supported the residential aspect of the project and recommended conditioning perpetuity of a certain number of residential units. Commr. Whittlesey moved to recommend that the City Council (1) approve the mitigated negative declaration of environmental impact, (2) rezone the portions of the property outside the creek corridor from Service-Commercial and Medium-Density Residential to Service-Commercial Mixed Use, and (3) approve a use permit establishing allowed uses for the project and a parking reduction, with the following changes: . (A) That the last sentence of Finding 6, page 6, reflect that the project will include at least 12 residential units; (B) that the last sentence of Condition 4, page 7, reflect that the separator must be regularly maintained by the property owner to ensure efficient pollutant removal; (C) that the first sentence of Condition 9, page 8, reflect that the applicant shall execute a creek preservation and maintenance agreement...; (D) include a Condition 29 stating that the second and third floor of Buildinq B shall maintain a residential use; (E) 'include a Condition 8i, "A pedestrian connection from Building A to Broad Street"; (F) the deletion of Condition 15, page 9; (G) that.Condition 27, page 12, reflect that the applicant is to provide a current tenant lease spaces and required parking prior to release of occupancy, and (H) that Numbers 2, 5, 8, 18, 24, 28, and 31 of the Proposed List of Uses on page 16 be conditionally allowed with an Administrative Draft Planning Commission ti.,,,ites Pae z 24, 2001 ATTACHMENT 10 9 Use Permit. Commr. Cooper seconded the motion. AYES: Commrs. Whittlesey, Cooper, Aiken, Osborne, and Peterson NOES: Commr. Loh REFRAIN: Commr. Ready The motion carried 5-1-1. 4. Citywide: GPA and ER 149-00; Update to the City's General Plan Parks and Recreations Element and environmental review; City of San Luis Obispo, applicant. Due to the lateness of the hour, Commr. Cooper moved to continue this item to a date uncertain. The motion was seconded by Commr. Aiken and unanimously approved. COMMENT AND DISCUSSION: 5. Staff: Agenda Forecast: February 14 — Parks and Recreation Element. 6. Commission: The Commission and staff thank Chairman Ready for his years of service on the Commission_ Chairman Ready resigned due to relocating out of the city limits. ADJOURNMENT: With no further business before the Commission, the meeting adjourned at 11:45 p.m. to the next regular meeting scheduled for February 14, 2001, at 7:00 p.m. in Council Chamber. Electronically submitted February 5, 2001, Leaha K. Magee Recording Secretary J� LATrAMM CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT ITEM n 3 BY: Whitney McIlvaine,Associate Planner MEETING DATE: January 24, 2001 FROM: Ron Whisenand, Development Review Manager FILE NUMBER: GP/R/A/ER 108-00 PROJECT ADDRESS: 811 and 903 El Capitan SUBJECT: Request to amend the land use map and the official zoning map to rezone portions of the property outside of the creek corridor at the corner of El Capitan and Broad Street from Service- Commercial and Medium-Density Residential to Service-Commercial Mixed Use, and a use permit request to establish a list of uses and a mixed-use parking reduction. SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION Recommend that City Council: I. Approve a mitigated negative declaration of environmental impact; 2. Rezone portions of the property outside of the creek corridor from Service-Commercial and Medium-Density Residential to Service-Commercial Mixed Use,and 3. Approve a use permit establishing allowed uses for the project and a parking reduction. BACKGROUND Situation The applicant wishes to rezone property at the corner of El Capitan and Broad Street outside of the creek corridor from Service-Commercial (C-S) and Medium-Density Residential (R-2) to Service- Commercial Mixed Use (C-S MU) to enable construction of a mixed commercial and residential development. The area of the property within a creek corridor would remain in Conservation Open Space (C/OS), established at the time of the Fuller Road Annexation. The Planning Commission reviews zoning amendments and makes a recommendation to the City Council, which takes a final action on such requests. In addition to the general plan amendment, rezoning, and use permit, the project requires a lot merger and architectural review of the buildings, site planning,and landscaping. Data Summary Applicant/Owner: Matt Quaglino, Covey III Representative: Oasis Associates. Inc. Zoning: Commercial-Service (C-S); Medium-Density Residential (R-2); and Conservation/Open Space(C/OS) General Plan: Services and Manufacturing; Medium-Density Residential; and Conservation/Open Space Environmental Status: A mitigated negative declaration has been prepared. Project Action Deadline: Legislative projects are not subject to action deadlines. 7 - o�6 A"ACHA&V Planning Commision Meeting 1/24/01 Project Number GP/R/U/ER 108-00 Page 2 Site Description The 1.6 acre site is roughly U-shaped, and wraps around a lot developed with a discount carpet store. To the east and south are residences. Various commercial uses line Broad Street in the vicinity. The site is crossed by a creek along its southerly boundary. Project Description The applicant proposes to rezone the site outside of the creek corridor Service-Commercial Mixed Use (C-S MU); merge the two existing lots; demolish the existing structure; and construct two new buildings— one with two floors of commercial space and one with one floor of commercial space and two floors of apartments above. Roughly 21,000 square feet of commercial space and 14,000 square feet of residential space(16 apartments) are proposed. EVALUATION Consistency with the General Plan and Zoning Regulations Land Use Element (LUE) policy 2.2.7 states that where housing can be compatible with offices or other businesses, mixed use projects should be encouraged. LUE policy 3.7 states that compatible mixed uses in commercial districts should be encouraged. Policy 3.5.8 notes that dwellings may be allowed in the Services and Manufacturing areas as part of a specially approved mixed-use development. Housing Element goals include provision of a variety of housing types and development of housing on sites suitable for that purpose. Mixed-use development is encouraged by the zoning regulations (Chapter 17:55). The stated purpose of the Mixed Use zone is primarily to permit combining residential and commercial uses on a single parcel to provide additional housing opportunities and reduce auto travel. Conclusion; Rezoning is consistent with policies in the Land Use Element and with the Zoning Regulations, both of which encourage mixed-use development. Use Permit as Part of the Mixed Use Rezoning The Zoning Regulations require approval of a use permit based on specified findings (see findings 2,. 3, and 4 below under Recommendation) prior to establishing uses within an MU zone. The applicant has submitted a proposed list of uses which is attached to this report. Staff recommends the following changes to the list of proposed uses: 1. Include the following uses as allowed: Dry cleaning pick up point - z1 7 ATTACHMENT 1 1 Planning Commision Meeting 1/24/01 Project Number GP/R/U/ER 108-00 Page 3 Florist Dwellings Research and development 2. Include the following as allowed subject to administrative use permit approval to enable evaluation of hours of operation; parking demand; and compatibility with other uses on site and airport operations: Schools—business,trade, recreational, or other specialized schools Churches, synagogues,temples, etc. Antennas Broadcasting studios Conclusion: The proposed list of uses seems reasonable and should be compatible internally as well as with the surrounding development. As indicated.above, staff is recommending a few minor changes, primarily to include services convenient for on-site residents and to assure compliance with the Airport Land Use Plan. Residential Development Potential Without the rezoning, the 9,238-square-foot R-2 lot could accommodate a maximum of 2.55 density units (e.g. 2 one-bedroom dwellings and a studio)..A caretakers unit would be allowed on the C-S portion of the site. While there is no residential density standard for the Mixed Use zone, Land use Element policy 3.5.8 Building Intensity suggests considering the maximum residential density allowed in a neighboring residential area. Applying the R-2 density standard to the developable area of both lots (not including the creek corridor) would enable 18 density units.. The project proposes 14 one- bedroom apartments, or 9.24 density units. Conclusion:The Mixed Use rezoning enables far more dwellings than would otherwise be allowed by existing zoning. The project as designed could accommodate additional dwellings subject to the limitation on conditionally compatible uses recommended by the Airport Land Use Commission. (See environmental mitigation measure 16b.) Use Permit for Parking Reduction The applicant is requesting a 20% mixed-use parking reduction in addition to a 10% shared-use reduction as allowable by the zoning regulations. The initial environmental study recommends that action on the requested parking reduction take into account available public transit (closest stops are Fiero Lane and Mangold Center), availability of on-street parking (very limited on El Capitan and none on Broad Street), the potential impact on the El Capitan residential neighborhood, the location and design details for long term bicycle parking, other amenities to encourage walking and bicycling to the site,and the likelihood for additional bicycle parking to offset demand for vehicle spaces. C. ATTACHMENT 1 Y Planning Commision Meeting 1/24/01 Project Number GP/R/CUER 108-00 Page 4 Staff supports a 10% reduction in required parking based on multiple uses sharing the parking lot. Staff supports an additional 20% reduction based on a mix of residential and commercial uses, which will have different peak hour demands. Furthermore, the project will provide improved pedestrian access and shower and locker facilities for bicyclists. The following table summarizes the parking issue. PARKING SUMMARY TABLE Use Zoning Ordinance Project Proposal Staff Recommendation Requirement 16 one-bedroom 16 X 1.5 =24 24 24 apartments Residential Guest I per each 5 units=3 3 3 Parking Commercial Space I per 200,300 or 500 SF 1 per 300 SF assuming Staff agrees that 1 per 300 depending on the use. 21,000 SF of SF is a reasonable ratio for Schools and churches predominantly office establishing a baseline require as much as I per 40 space=70 demand SF Residential Bicycle 2 long term parking spaces Not shown 16 long tetra and 2 short Parking for each unit=32 plus.2 term short term "guest' spaces 2 long term spaces for each one_bedroom unit seems excessive Commercial Bicycle 15%of required vehicle 10 15%of 70= 11 Parking spaces 9 long-term and 2 short-term However,this depends on the commercial square footage ultimately approved. Motorcycle Parking 1 per 20 required vehicle 5 4 spaces Parking Reduction Up to 10%for shared use; 20%for mixed-use 10% shared parking Up to an additional 20% and 10%shared-use reduction and 20% mixed- based on varying times of for a reduction of 30% use parking reduction for a peak.hour demand;and one total reduction of 30% less vehicle space for each 5 extra bicycle spaces—up to No further reduction for 10% provision of extra bicycle spaces Environmental Review The initial study identifies potentially significant environmental impacts associated with the proposed project. Mitigation is recommended related to land use, geology, air quality, transportation, biological ATTACHMENT Y 1 Planning Commision Meeting 1/24/01 Project Number GP/R/U/ER 108-00 Page 5 resources,energy resources, noise,utility and service system,aesthetics, and cultural resources. One of the most significant issues related to this project is the setback from the creek and the potential impact of the development on the creek habitat. Another significant issue is related to noise exposure from the traffic as well as the airport. The Airport Land Use Commission has stipulated that sleeping areas should be designed for a maximum exposure of 40 decibels — 5 decibels lower than the City's Noise Ordinance would otherwise require. All recommended mitigation measures are listed in section 19 of the initial study. Conclusion: The initial environmental study recommends mitigation to reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level. ALTERNATIVES 1. Recommend that the City Council deny the proposed rezoning and use permit, based on findings as specified by the Planning Commission. 2. Continue review of the rezoning and use permit with specific direction to the applicant and staff. OTHER DEPARTMENT COMMENTS Other department comments are attached to the initial study. RECOMMENDATION Review the initial study of environmental impact, and, based on findings,recommend approval of: 1) An amendment to the General Plan land use map and the official zoning map to rezone portions of the property outside of the creek corridor at the comer of El Capitan and Broad Street from Service- Commercial and Medium-Density Residential to Service-Commercial Mixed Use, and 2) A use permit to establish the list of uses proposed by the applicant with changes as recommended by staff and a 30% reduction in required parking. Findings: 1. A Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared by the Community Development Department on December 27, 2000, which identifies potential environmental impacts associated with project development. The Negative Declaration concludes that the project will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment subject to the mitigation measures contained in initial study ER 108-00 being incorporated into the project. 2. The project's proposed mix of uses is consistent with the General Plan, which encourages mixed C ATTACHMENT I Y Planning Commision Meeting 1/24/01 Project Number GP/R/U/ER 108-00 Page 6 residential and commercial development, and compatible with its surroundings,with neighborhood uses,and with each other. 3. The project's design protects the public health, safety and welfare. 4. The mixed uses provide greater public benefits than single-use development of the site, such as promoting a compact city, providing more housing than would otherwise be possible; potentially reducing auto trips by providing jobs, housing and services in proximity; and increasing safety by having residential uses in commercial areas. 5. A 10% shared use parking reduction is appropriate for this project because more than two uses will share a common parking area. 6. A 20% mixed-use parking reduction, in addition to the shared use parking reduction, is appropriate for this project because the times of maximum parking demand from the various uses will not coincide, specifically parking for the residential uses is likely to be greater in the evening while demand for commercial spaces is likely to be higher during the day. This finding assumes the project:will include at least 14 residential units. Conditions-: Environmental Mitigation Land Use 1. The General Plan land use map designates creeks as open space. The proposed rezoning exhibit shall show the areas within the creek corridor — between the top of creek bank and/or outer edge of riparian vegetation, whichever is greater—as Open Space. Monitoring Program: Review and action on the proposed rezoning. Geology 2. The project shall be designed so that building footprints and parking areas are setback a minimum of 20 feet from the top of creek bank or edge of riparian vegetation, whichever is greater, consistent with the creek setback ordinance. 3. Site grading and improvements shall be designed to direct water away from the top of bank and shall be consistent with the recommendations in the soils engineering report and slope stability evaluation prepared by GeoSolutions. o 0 ATTACHMENT 1 I Planning Commision Meeting 1/24/01 Project Number GP/R/U/ER 108-00 Page 7 Monitoring Program: Creek setback exceptions require review and approval of a use permit. The approved creek setback shall be staked with rigid fencing prior to the start of site grading or demolition. Grading and building plans will be reviewed for compliance with the soils engineering report and-slope stability evaluation prior to issuance of a permit. Water 4. Oil and sand separators or other filtering-media shall be installed at each drain inlet intercepting runoff as a means of filtering toxic substances from run off before it enters the creek through the storm water system. The separator must be regularly maintained to ensure efficient pollutant removal. 5. To be consistent with Land Use Element policy 6.4.7 regarding porous paving, the project shall comply with the parking and driveway standards for landscaping and use porous paving or decomposed granite for any patio and walkway areas in the creek setback. 6. Plans submitted for architectural review shall include a detail showing how and where roof drainage will be conveyed in a non-erosive manner. 7. Plans submitted .for consideration by, the Architectural Review Commission must clearly demonstrate how the new buildings will meet the minimum requirements of the City's Flood Damage and Prevention Regulations, and how any necessary revisions, such as a change in finish floor elevation, to the preliminary plans submitted for the rezoning and environmental review application will affect ADA requirements and building height. Monitoring Program: Architectural approval, building permit issuance, and release of occupancy. Air Quality 8. The project shall include to the satisfaction of the APCD and the Community Development Director: a. Short-and long-term (lockers) bicycle parking for both the commercial and residential uses; b. A pedestrian connection to Broad Street near the apartments (as shown on 6.28.00 plans); c. Eating facilities and outdoor employee rest area to encourage employees to stay on site during the lunch hour; ` d. Extensive shade tree planting in the parking areas to help reduce evaporative emissions from automobiles; e. Sodium lights in the parking lot; f. Dual-glazed windows; . g. Wall and ceiling insulation to exceed Title 24 requirements; and h. Energy efficient appliances, furnaces, and wall heaters. �-s a ATTACHMENT 1 1 Planning Commision Meeting 1/24/01 Project Number GP/R/U/ER 108-00 Page 8 If these features are not included or feasible in the design of new buildings, the project architect shall document why they were determined to be infeasible. The Community Development Director shall review this document and make a final decision as to the feasibility of incorporating these energy conserving features. Biological Resources 9. The applicant'shall prepare a creek preservation and maintenance agreement to be recorded with the County Recorder in a form approved by the City Attorney and the Community Development Director prior to issuance of any building or grading permit. The agreement shall include the following provisions: a) Provide for professional, perpetual maintenance of the creek and open space area to the satisfaction of the City's Natural Resources Manager. b) Grant to the City the right to maintain the creek and open space area if the property owner fails to perform, and to assess the property owner for expenses incurred, and the right of the City to inspect the site to assure conditions of the agreement and project approval are being met. c) The creek/open space area shall be maintained by the property owner in accordance with the creek preservation and maintenance agreement as approved by the City. d) Erosion control and revegetation to restore the health of the riparian area consistent with Land Use Element policies. 10. Exterior project lighting at the rear of buildings along the creek shall be limited to bollard lighting along the proposed path at the top of bank to the satisfaction of the City's Natural Resource Manager and the Community Development Director. Energy 11. New buildings constructed on this site shall incorporate the following as feasible: Energy-efficient lighting systems for both interior and exterior use; Increased wall and attic insulation beyond Title 24 requirements; Skylights or other means of maximizing natural daylighting; Operable windows in employee work and break areas to maximize natural ventilation; Lighting controls(occupancy and motion sensors); and Dual glazed windows. If these features are not included or feasible in the design of new buildings, the project architect shall document why they were determined to be infeasible. The Community Development Director shall review this document and make a final decision as to the feasibility of incorporating these energy conserving features. �-S3 ATTACHMENT 1 1 Planning Commision Meeting 1/24/01 Project Number GP/R/U/ER 108-00 Page 9 Monitoring Program: Architectural approval, building permit issuance, and release of occupancy. Traffic and Circulation 12. The property owner shall dedicate the northerly 0.9m (3 feet) of the subject property along El Capitan for public street purposes to accommodate the adopted right of way (additional parkway, behind sidewalk) and that portion of the northwesterly comer of the property at the corner of El Capitan & Broad (State Hwy. 227) necessary to accommodate a new City standard 9.1m (30 ft) radius curb return and handicap ramp,to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works and Caltrans. 13. The developer shall install complete frontage improvements along both public street frontages, consisting of a 6' wide integral sidewalk, curb & gutter, driveway ramps, a handicap ramp at the comer, streetlights, a sidewalk incorporated into the Caltrans bridge (Broad St.) and street pavement (between existing structural pavement and new frontage improvements), to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works and Caltrans (Broad St.). 14. Plans submitted to the Architectural Review Commission shall clearly show to scale the required right-of-way dedication and frontage improvements relative to the proposed on-site improvements. 15. The applicant shall apply for a use permit for the proposed parking reduction.. Action on the request shall take into account available public transit, available on-street parking, the potential impact on the El Capitan residential neighborhood, the location and design details for long term bicycle parking and related amenities, other amenities to encourage walking and bicycling to the site, and the likelihood for additional bicycle parking to offset demand for vehicle spaces. 16. Plans submitted for architectural review shall show long term bicycle parking for both the commercial area and the apartments that is adequately sized to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director. The long-term bicycle parking for the commercial uses shall be installed as part of the shell building construction together with common shower,toilet, and clothes locker facilities. 17. To avoid interference with Airport operations: a. The applicant shall grant an avigation easement to the County prior to issuance of building permits. b. Project occupants and land uses shall comply with the land use compatibility matrix of the San Luis Obispo Airport Land Use Plan. Conditionally compatible uses (including dwellings) shall occupy no more than 60%of the project floor area. c. Lease and rental agreements shall disclose that the property is in an airport flight traffic zone and that noise impacts may occur as a result of this. Such disclosure statement shall be submitted to the Airport Manager for review and approval prior to occupancy. ATracw%V Planning Commision Meeting 1/24/01 Project Number GP/R/U/ER 108-00 Page 10 d. Radio transmissions which may interfere with airport operations shall be prohibited.. e. Soundproofing shall be added to reduce indoor noise from airport.operations consistent with the City Noise Element and Noise Ordinance and the ALUC's recommended conditions of approval. f. All exterior lighting shall be shielded down lights that do not shine skyward or interfere with airport operations. Search lights and strobe lights shall be prohibited. Monitoring Program: Architectural approval, building permit issuance, and release of occupancy. Noise 18. To comply with the City's Noise Element and conditions of approval recommended by the Airport Land Use Commission: a. Sleeping areas must be designed to achieve a maximum noise exposure of 40 decibels. b. Other interior areas must be designed to achieve a maximum noise exposure of 45 decibels. c. Private residential outdoor spaces must be designed to achieve a maximum noise exposure of 60 decibels. d. Common residential/commercial outdoor areas must be designed to achieve a maximum noise exposure of 65 decibels. 19. The project shall comply with all recommended mitigation measures outlined in the noise study prepared for this project by Krause Engineering Services, date September 21, 2000, and shall include any additional measures necessary to meet requirements established by the Airport Land Use Commission. Monitoring Program: To monitor the effectiveness of mitigation measures, the applicant shall arrange for a qualified noise consultant to take interior and exterior sound level readings at the completion of construction and prior to occupancy. The number and location of readings shall be to the satisfaction of the Community Development.Director. If readings do not meet specified objectives, a qualified noise consultant shall identify additional measures necessary to meet the objectives. Such measures shall be incorporated into the project prior to release of occupancy. Utilities and Service Systems 20. The new buildings shall incorporate facilities for interior and exterior on-site recycling. Plans submitted for architectural review shall show the exterior location for collecting recycling from both the commercial users and the on-site residents to the satisfaction of the garbage collection company. 21. A new sewer lateral must be installed and the existing septic system abandoned to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works. �_6 A7Tq�� Planning Commision Meeting 124/01 j Project Number GP/R/U/ER 108700 Page t 1 22. A plan for recycling demolition and construction material waste shall be submitted with the demolition and building permit applications for review and approval by the Community Development Director. If asbestos is present, its removal must comply with National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants to the satisfaction of the Air Pollution Control District.. Monitoring Program: Architectural approval, building permit issuance, and release of occupancy. Aesthetics 23. The applicant must submit an application for architectural review. The application shall include a color and materials board with samples of the actual colors and materials proposed for the buildings and/or color photographic excerpts from manufacturers' cut sheets depicting the proposed roofing, windows and doors, exterior walls, columns, exterior lighting, tile, etc. Architectural plans must also include a construction detail of the mechanical equipment proposed and its roof-mounted installation; a construction detail of window and sill installation; a detail of the proposed cornice and eave design; a detail of the proposed upper level columns and the metal awnings on the east elevation of Building A; a detail of the overflow scuppers for the decks; a detail of short-term bike racks; a detail of long term bicycle parking in both the commercial area and the residential units; and any other design detail which the Community Development Director deems necessary to adequately evaluate the proposed project. 24. Exterior lighting shall be directed downward and not spill onto adjoining properties. The maximum height of any parking lot lighting, including fixtures, standard and base, shall not be higher than 15 feet above the finished grade. Lighting levels measured at the finished grade directly beneath the fixture shall not exceed 10 foot-candles. Any individual wall-mounted fixtures shall not be located above the first floor of the building and shall direct light downward. Exterior light fixtures shall be subject to review and approval by the Architectural Review Commission. Monitoring Program: Architectural approval, building permit issuance, and release of occupancy. The applicant shall submit a photometric diagram of parking lot lighting for review and approval as part of the building permit application. Cultural Resources 25. If any archaeological resources are found during site preparation, all earth-work within 150 feet of object(s) shall cease until the resources have been evaluated by a qualified archaeologist. Any additional mitigation measures recommended by the archaeologist shall be evaluated by the Community Development Director, and upon Director approval, implemented by the applicant. Monitoring Program: A qualified archaeologist shall survey the site once demolition and initial site �J LA 1 1 Planning Commision Meeting 1/24/01 Project Number GP/R/U/ER 108-00 Page 12 grading are completed. Prior to foundation inspection, the archaeologist shall submit a summary report of the survey. Use Permit 26. The list of allowed uses shall include the changes as recommended in this report. 27. A 10% shared-use and a 20% mixed-use parking reduction is hereby approved. Baseline calculations shall be based on a rate of I vehicle space per 300 square feet of commercial space in addition to zoning regulation requirements for residential parking. 28. Long-term bicycle parking for residential uses shall be provided at a rate of 1.5 lockers per unit. Attached: Vicinity map Rezoning map List of proposed uses A �" Proposed project plans Environmental initial study ATTACHMENT 11 PO 1 o o ,-60 t c L�•'°° ✓ �o QLl f" Lr Vid nity 811 and 903 EI Capitan N GP/R 108-00 A0 .100 200 300 Feet ATTACHMENT 11 cr— Existing R-2 Proposed C-S/MU Existing C-S Proposed C-S/MU 0 0000000 000000 000 000000 00000 00000 .;:;:•:::; 010 00000 000..::• 00 000000 0 300 600 Feet 00000 00000 -- 0000000,Q000 000000000 . 0000 Russ Pr powN Aenaatloe Low tiloodW RostAsudsl(a+-sem JUrtnoaT owve moium osusity Rostdonfisi(R•2) ®ti.r.w eos+moretr(Gs) (/�\ ®Tourist Corm ordst(GT)or 6orvtd CommoruM(GS) N *EXISTING FULLER ROAD-AERO DRIVE ANNEXATION FIGURE I LAND USE-EXISTING/PROPOSED Oasis Associates,Inc. 28 Jute 2000 Covey III—The Roadhouse Supplement to GPA/Dcvelopment Plan X59 ATTACHMENT 11 PROPOSED LIST OF USES The Commercial Service (CS) zone allows for a variety of land uses. While the Mixed Use zone will allow for a residential component to be permitted with the CS zone and its allowable uses, the applicant has carefully considered the most appropriate uses allowed and/or conditionally allowed in the CS zone.to provide for a compatible living/working condition. The following represents a listing of those uses. 1. Advertising and related services(graphic design,writing,mailing,addressing,etc.). 2. Antennas. 3. Banks and savings and loans. 4. Barbers,hairstylists,manicurists,tanning centers. 5. Broadcast studios. 6. Caretaker's quarters. 7. Catering Services 8. Churches,synagogues,temples,etc. 9. Computer services. 10. Credit reporting. 11. Day care center. 12. Delivery services. 13. Detective and security services. 14. Food banks and package food distribution centers. 15. Laboratories(medical,analytical research). 16. Offices(contractors). 17. Offices(engineering). 18. Organizations,offices and meeting rooms: 19. Photocopy services,quick printers. 20. Photofinishing-retail 21. Photofinishing-wholesale;and blueprinting and microfilming service. 22. Photographic studios. 23. Post offices and public and private postal services. 24. Printing and publishing. 25. Repair services(small household appliances, locksmiths, seamstress, shoe repair). 26. Restaurants,sandwich shops, take-out food. 27. Retails sales(indoor sales of building materials and gardening supplies). 28. Retail sales(appliances, furniture,musical instruments; data processing equipment, business, office,medical equipment stores;catalog stores; sporting goods,outdoor supply). 29. Retail sales and repair of bicycles. 30. Retail sales(auto pacts and accessories except tires and batteries). 31. Schools-business,trade,recreational, or other specialized schools. 32. Secretarial and related services. 33. Ticket/travel agencies. 34. Utility.companies-engineering and administration offices. 35. Wholesale and mail-order sales. Oasis Associates,Inc. 28 June 2000 Covey III-'Me Roadhouse Supplement to GPA/Rezoning Request I.5 ��_� ,ATTACHMENT 12 tuis O Sal�1 oas p0 MONZA990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 January 29, 2001 Matt Quaglino Covey III 815 Fiero lane San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 SUBJECT: GP/R and ER 108-00: 811 and 903 EI Capitan Way Requests to amend the Land Use Element map and zoning map designations from C-S and R-2 to C-S-MU (with C/OS portion to remain); possible creek setback exceptions; possible parking reductions; use permit for mixed uses; and environmental review Dear Mr. Quaglino: The Planning Commission, at its meeting of January 24, 2001, recommended that the City Council adopt the mitigated negative declaration of environmental impact, approve amendment to the General Plan land use map and the official zoning map to rezone portions of the property outside of the creek corridor at the corner of EI Capitan and Broad Street from Service-Commercial and Medium-Density Residential to Service- Commercial Mixed Use, and approve a use permit to establish the list of uses proposed by the applicant with changes as recommended by the Planning Commission, as well as a 30% reduction in required parking, based on findings and subject to conditions ' noted in the attached resolution. The action of the Planning Commission is a recommendation to the City Council and, therefore, is not final. This matter has been tentatively scheduled for public hearing before the City Council on March 6, 2001. This date, however, should be verified with the City Clerk's office at (805) 781-7102. If you have any questions, please contact Whitney Mcllvaine at (805) 781-7164. Sincerely, cc: SLO County Assessor's Office Carol Florence Oasis Associates 3427 Miguelito Court Ron d Whisenan SLO, CA 93401 Development Review Manager �chment: Resolution #5308-01 The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services, programs and activities. Telecommunications Device for the Deaf(805)781-7410. ATTACHMENT 1 SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 5308-01 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo did conduct a public hearing in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on January 24, .2001, pursuant to a proceeding instituted under application GP/R and ER 108-00, Covey III, applicant. ITEM REVIEWED: Requests to amend the Land Use Element map and zoning map designations from C-S and R-2 to C-S-MU (with C/OS portion to remain); possible creek setback exceptions; possible parking reductions; use permit for mixed uses; and environmental review DESCRIPTION: On file in the office of Community Development Department, City Hall. GENERAL LOCATION: 811 and 903 EI Capitan Way WHEREAS, said Commission as a result of its inspections, investigations, and . studies made by itself, and in behalf of testimonies offered at said hearing has established existence of the following circumstances: Findings 1. A Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared by the Community Development Department on December 27, 2000, which identifies potential environmental impacts associated with project development: The Negative Declaration concludes that the project will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment subject to the mitigation measures contained in initial study ER 108-00 being incorporated into the project. 2. The project's proposed mix of uses is consistent with the General Plan, which encourages mixed residential and commercial development, and compatible with its surroundings, with neighborhood uses, and with each other. 3. The project's design protects the public health, safety and welfare. �-da f i Pa ge No. 5308-01 age2ATTACHMENT 12 4. The mixed uses provide greater public benefits than single-use development of the site, such as promoting a compact city, providing more housing than would otherwise be possible; potentially reducing auto trips by providing jobs, housing and services in proximity; and increasing safety by having residential uses in commercial areas. 5. A 10% shared use parking reduction is appropriate for this project because more than two uses will share a common parking area. 6. A 20% mixed-use parking reduction, in addition to the shared use parking reduction, is appropriate for this project because the times of maximum parking demand from the various uses will not coincide, specifically parking for the residential uses is likely to be greater in the evening while demand for commercial spaces is likely to be higher during the day. This finding assumes the project will include at least 12 residential units. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that GP/R and ER 108-00 be approved, subject to the following conditions, including mitigation measures: Environmental Mitigation Land Use 1. The General Plan land use map designates creeks as open space. The proposed rezoning exhibit shall show the areas within the creek corridor — between the top of creek bank and/or outer edge of riparian vegetation, whichever is greater — as Open Space. Geology 2. The project shall be designed so that building footprints and parking areas are setback a minimum of 20 feet from the top of creek bank or edge of riparian vegetation, whichever is greater, consistent with the creek setback ordinance.. 3. Site grading and improvements shall be designed to direct water away from the top of bank and shall be consistent with the recommendations in the soils engineering report and slope stability evaluation prepared by GeoSolutions. Water 4. Oil and sand separators or other filtering media shall be installed at each drain inlet intercepting runoff as a means of filtering toxic substances from run off before it enters the creek through the storm water system. The separator must be regularly maintained by the property owner to ensure efficient pollutant removal. 5. To be consistent with Land Use Element policy 6.4.7 regarding porous paving, the project shall comply with the parking and driveway standards for landscaping and use porous paving or decomposed granite for any patio and walkway areas in the 43 l�Resolution No. 5308-01 Page 3 ATTACHMENT 1 2 creek setback. 6. Plans submitted for architectural review shall include a detail showing how and where roof drainage will be conveyed in a non-erosive manner. 7. Plans submitted for consideration by the Architectural Review Commission must clearly demonstrate how the new buildings will meet the minimum requirements of the City's Flood Damage and Prevention Regulations, and how any necessary revisions, such as a change in finish floor elevation, to the preliminary plans submitted for the rezoning and environmental review application will affect ADA requirements and building height. Air Quality 8. The project shall include to the satisfaction of the APCD and the Community Development Director: a. Short- and long-term (lockers) bicycle parking for both the commercial and residential uses; b. A pedestrian connection to Broad Street near the apartments (as shown on 6.28.00 plans); c. Eating facilities and outdoor employee rest area to encourage employees to stay on site during the lunch hour; d. Extensive shade tree planting in the parking areas to help reduce evaporative emissions from automobiles; e. Sodium lights in the parking lot; f. Dual-glazed windows; g. Wall and ceiling insulation to exceed Title 24 requirements; h. Energy efficient appliances, furnaces, and wall heaters; and i. A pedestrian connection from Broad Street to Building A. If these features are not included or feasible in the design of new buildings, the project architect shall document why they were determined to be infeasible. The Community Development Director shall review this document and make a final decision as to the feasibility of incorporating these energy conserving features. Biological Resources 9. The applicant shall execute a creek preservation and maintenance agreement to be recorded with the County Recorder in a form approved by the City Attorney and the Community Development Director prior to issuance of any building or grading permit. The agreement shall include the following provisions:. a) Provide for professional, perpetual maintenance of the creek and open space area to the satisfaction of the City's Natural Resources Manager. b) Grant to the City the right to maintain the creek and open space area if the property owner fails to perform, and to assess the property owner for expenses Resolution No. 5308-01 ` ATTACHMENT 12 Page 4 incurred, and the right of the City to inspect the site to assure conditions of the agreement and project approval are being met. c) The creek/open space area shall be maintained by the property owner in ' accordance with the creek preservation and maintenance agreement as approved by the City. d) Erosion control and revegetation to restore the health of the riparian area consistent with Land Use Element policies. 10. Exterior project lighting at the rear of buildings along the creek shall be limited to bollard lighting along the proposed path at the top of bank to the satisfaction of the City's Natural Resource Manager and the Community Development Director. Energy 11. New buildings constructed on this site shall incorporate the following as feasible: • Energy-efficient lighting systems for both interior and exterior use; • Increased wall and attic insulation beyond Title 24 requirements; • Skylights or other means of maximizing natural daylighting; • Operable windows in employee work and break areas to maximize natural ventilation; • Lighting controls (occupancy and motion sensors); and • Dual glazed windows. If these features are not included or feasible in the design of new buildings, the project architect shall document why they were determined to be infeasible. The Community Development Director shall review this document and make a final decision as to the feasibility of incorporating these energy conserving features. Traffic and Circulation / 12.The property owner shall dedicate the northerly 0.9m (3 feet) of the subject property along EI Capitan for public street purposes to accommodate the adopted right of way (additional parkway behind sidewalk) and that portion of the northwesterly corner of the property at the corner of EI Capitan & Broad (State Hwy. 227) necessary to accommodate a new City standard 9.1m (30 ft) radius curb return and handicap ramp, to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works and Caltrans. 13. The developer shall install complete frontage improvements along both public street frontages, consisting of a 6' wide integral sidewalk, curb & gutter, driveway ramps, a handicap ramp at the corner, streetlights, a sidewalk incorporated into the Caltrans bridge (Broad St.) and street pavement (between existing structural pavement and new frontage improvements), to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works and Caltrans (Broad St.). 14. Plans submitted to the Architectural Review Commission shall clearly show to scale the required right-of-way dedication and frontage improvements relative to the proposed on-site improvements. Z/4S Resolution No. 5308-01 _ ! Page 5 ATTACHMENT 12 15. Plans submitted for architectural review shall show long term bicycle parking for both the commercial area and the apartments that is adequately sized to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director. The long-term bicycle parking for the commercial uses shall be installed as part of the shell building construction together with common shower, toilet, and clothes locker facilities. 16. To avoid interference with Airport operations: a. The applicant shall grant an avigation easement to the County prior to issuance of building permits. b. Project occupants and land uses shall comply with the land use compatibility matrix of the San Luis Obispo Airport Land Use Plan. Conditionally compatible uses (including dwellings) shall occupy no more than 60% of the project floor area. c. Lease and rental agreements shall disclose that the property is in an airport flight traffic zone and that noise impacts may occur as a result of this. Such disclosure statement shall be submitted to the Airport Manager for review and approval prior to occupancy. d. Radio transmissions, which may interfere with airport operations, shall be prohibited. e. Soundproofing shall be added to reduce indoor noise from airport operations consistent with the City Noise Element and Noise Ordinance and the ALUC's recommended conditions of approval. f. All exterior lighting shall be shielded.down lights that do not shine skyward or interfere with airport operations. Searchlights and strobe lights shall be prohibited. Noise 17. To comply with the City's Noise Element and conditions of approval recommended by'the Airport Land Use Commission: a. Sleeping areas must be designed to achieve a maximum noise exposure of 40 decibels. b. Other interior areas must be designed to achieve a maximum noise exposure of 45 decibels. c. Private residential outdoor spaces must be designed to achieve a maximum noise exposure of 60 decibels. d. Common residentiaUcommercial outdoor areas must be designed to achieve a maximum noise exposure of 65 decibels. 18. The project shall comply with all recommended mitigation measures outlined in the noise study prepared for this project by Krause Engineering Services, date September 21, 2000, and shall include any additional measures necessary to meet requirements established by the Airport Land Use Commission. Resolution No. 5308-01 A�A Page 6 EW .� Utilities and Service Systems 19. The new buildings shall incorporate facilities for interior and exterior on-site recycling. Plans submitted for architectural review shall show the exterior location for collecting recycling from both the commercial users and the on-site residents to the satisfaction of the garbage collection company. 20. A new sewer lateral must be installed and the existing septic system abandoned to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works. 21. A plan for recycling demolition and construction material waste shall be submitted with the demolition and building permit applications for review and approval by the Community Development Director. If asbestos is present, its removal must comply with National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants to the satisfaction of the Air Pollution Control District. Aesthetics 22. The applicant must submit an application for architectural review. The application shall include a color and materials board with samples of the actual colors and materials proposed for the buildings and/or color photographic excerpts from manufacturers' cut sheets depicting the proposed roofing, windows and doors, exterior walls, columns, exterior lighting, tile, etc. Architectural plans must also include a construction detail of the mechanical equipment proposed and its roof- mounted installation; a construction detail of window and sill installation; a detail of the proposed cornice and eave design; a detail of the proposed upper level columns and the metal awnings on the east elevation of Building A; a detail of the overflow scuppers for the decks; a detail of short-term bike racks; a detail of long term bicycle parking in both the commercial area and the residential units; and any other design detail which the Community Development Director deems necessary to adequately evaluate the proposed project. 23. Exterior lighting shall be directed downward and not spill onto adjoining properties. The maximum height of any parking lot lighting, including fixtures, standard and base, shall not be higher than 15 feet above the finished grade. Lighting levels measured at the finished grade directly beneath the fixture shall not exceed 10 foot- candles. Any individual wall-mounted fixtures shall not be located above the first floor of the building and shall direct light downward. Exterior light fixtures shall be subject to review and approval by the Architectural Review Commission. Cultural Resources 24. If any archaeological resources are found during site preparation, all earthwork within 150 feet of object(s) shall cease until the resources have been evaluated by a qualified archaeologist. Any additional mitigation measures recommended by the archaeologist shall be evaluated by the Community Development Director, and upon Director approval, implemented by the applicant. 44 '7 Resolution No. 5308-01 i Page 7 ATTACHMENT �. Use Permit 25. The list of allowed uses shall be as shown on Exhibit A, attached. 26. A 10% shared-use and a 20% mixed-use parking reduction is hereby approved. Baseline calculations shall be based on a rate of 1 vehicle space per 300 square feet of commercial space in addition to zoning regulation requirements for residential parking. The property owner shall maintain a current parking calculation for the development. 27. Long-term bicycle parking for residential uses shall be provided at a rate of 1.5 lockers per unit. 28. The second and third floor of proposed Building B shall be maintained in residential use. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council, approval of the proposal. The foregoing resolution was approved by the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo on motion by Commr. Whittlesey, seconded by Commr. Cooper, and on a separate roll call vote: AYES: Commrs. Aiken, cooper, Whittlesey, Peterson and Osborne NOES: Commr. Loh ABSENT: Commr. Ready Dated: January 24, 2001 EXHIBIT A '3 AITACHMEV 1 2 Approved List of Uses - GP/R/U/ER 108-00 Allowed Uses: 1. Advertising and related services(graphic design, writing, mailing, addressing, etc.). 2. Banks and savings and loans. 3. Barbers, hairstylists, manicurists;tanning centers. 4. Caretaker's quarters. 5. Catering Services 6. Computer services. 7. Credit reporting. 8. Day care center. 9. Delivery services. 10. Detective and security services. 11. Dry cleaning pick-up point. 12. Dwellings. 13. Florist. 14. Offices(contractors). 15. Offices(engineering). 16. Photocopy services, quick printers. 17. Photofinishing-retail 18. Photofinishing-wholesale; and blueprinting and microfilming service. 19. Photographic studios. 20. Post offices and public and private postal services. 21. Repair services(small household appliances, locksmiths, seamstress, shoe repair). 22. Research and development. 23. Restaurants, sandwich shops, take-out food. 24. Retails sales(indoor sales of building materials and gardening supplies). 25. Retail sales and repair of bicycles. 26. Retail sales(auto parts and accessories except tires and batteries). 27. Secretarial and related services. 28. Ticket/travel agencies. 29. Utility companies-engineering and administration offices. 30. Wholesale and mail-order sales. Uses Allowed Subject to Administrative Use Permit Approval (to enable evaluation of compatibility with residential uses and availability of parking): 1. .Antennas (municipal, commercial, and public utility broadcasting and wireless communications). 2. Broadcast studios. 3. Churches, synagogues,temples, etc. 4. Laboratories(medical,analytical research). 5. Organizations,offices and meeting rooms. 6. Printing and publishing: 7. Retail sales (appliances, furniture and furnishings, musical instruments; data processing equipment, business, office and medical equipment stores; catalog stores; sporting goods, outdoor supply). 8. Schools-business,trade, recreational,or other specialized schools. loft 44 9 C,. Revised ATTACHMENT 1 S `J Applicant.Acceptance of Mitigation Measures Project: # ER 108-00 811 and 903 EI Capitan Way This agreement is entered into by and between the.City of San Luis Obispo and Covey III on the 21st day of February , 2001. The following measures are included in the project to mitigate potential adverse environmental impacts. Please sign the original and return it to the Community Development Department. MITIGATION MEASURES: Land Use 1. The General Plan land use map designates creeks as open space. The proposed rezoning exhibit shall show the areas within the creek corridor— between the top of creek bank and/or outer edge of riparian vegetation,whichever is greater—as Open Space. Geology 2. The project shall be designed so that building footprints and parking areas are setback a minimum of 20 feet from the top of creek bank or edge of riparian vegetation, whichever is greater, consistent with the creek setback ordinance. 3. Site grading and improvements shall be designed to direct water away from the top of bank and shall be consistent with the recommendations in the soils engineering report and slope stability evaluation prepared by GeoSolutions. Water 4. Oil and sand separators or other filtering media shall be installed at each drain inlet intercepting runoff as a means of filtering toxic substances from run off before it enters the creek through the storm water system. The separator must be regularly maintained to ensure efficient pollutant removal. 5. To be consistent with Land Use Element policy 6.4.7 regarding porous paving, the project shall comply with the parking and driveway standards for landscaping and use porous paving or decomposed granite for any patio and walkway areas in the creek setback. 6. Plans submitted for architectural review shall include a detail showing how and where roof drainage will be conveyed in a non-erosive manner. 7. Plans submitted for consideration by the Architectural Review Commission must clearly demonstrate how the new buildings will meet the minimum requirements of the City's Flood Damage and Prevention Regulations, and how any necessary revisions, such as a change in finish floor elevation, to the preliminary,plans submitted for the rezoning and environmental review application will affect ADA requirements and building height. ER 108-00 ATTACHMENT Mitigation Agreement 1 Page 2 Air Quality 8. The project shall include to the satisfaction of the APCD and the Community Development Director: a. Short- and long-term (lockers) bicycle parking for both the commercial and residential uses; b. A.pedestrian connection to Broad Street near the apartments (as shown on 6.28.00 plans); c. Eating facilities and outdoor employee rest area to encourage employees to stay on site during the lunch hour; d. Extensive shade tree planting in the parking areas to help reduce evaporative emissions from automobiles; e. Sodium lights in the parking lot; f. Dual-glazed windows; g. Wall and ceiling insulation to exceed Title 24 requirements; and h. Energy efficient appliances, furnaces, and wall heaters. If these features are not included or feasible in the design of new buildings, the project architect shall document why they were determined to be infeasible. The Community Development Director shall review this document and make a final decision as to the feasibility of incorporating these energy conserving features. Biological Resources 9. The applicant shall prepare a creek preservation and maintenance agreement to be recorded with the County Recorder in a form approved by the City Attorney and the Community Development Director prior to issuance of any building or grading permit. The agreement shall include the following provisions:.. a. Provide for professional, perpetual maintenance of the creek and open space area to the satisfaction of the City's Natural Resources Manager. b. Grant to the City the right to maintain the creek and open space area if the property owner fails to perform, and to assess the property owner for expenses incurred, and the right of the City to inspect the site to assure . conditions of the agreement and project approval are being met. c. The creek/open space area shall be maintained by the property owner in accordance with the creek preservation and maintenance agreement as approved by the City. d. Erosion control and revegetatio.n to restore the health of the riparian area consistent with Land Use Element policies. 10. Exterior project lighting at the rear of buildings along the creek shall be limited to bollard lighting along the proposed path at the top of bank to the satisfaction of the City's Natural Resource Manager and the Community Development Director. ER 108-00 J ATTAUMU 1 Mitigation Agreement Page 3 Energy 11. New buildings constructed on this site shall incorporate the following as feasible: a. Energy-efficient lighting systems for both interior and exterior use; b. Increased wall and attic insulation beyond Title 24 requirements; c. Skylights or other means of maximizing natural daylighting; d. Operable windows in employee work and break areas to maximize natural ventilation; e. Lighting controls (occupancy and motion sensors); and f. Dual glazed windows. If these features are not included or feasible in the design of new buildings, the project architect shall document why they were determined to be infeasible. The Community Development Director shall review this document and make a final decision as to the feasibility of incorporating these energy conserving features. Traffic and Circulation 12. The property owner shall dedicate the northerly 0.9m (3 feet) of the subject property along El Capitan for public street purposes to accommodate the adopted right of way (additional parkway behind sidewalk) and that portion of the northwesterly corner of the property at the comer of EI Capitan & Broad (State Hwy. 227) necessary to accommodate a new City standard 9.1m (30 ft) radius curb return and handicap ramp, to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works and Caltrans. 13. The developer shall install complete frontage improvements along both public street frontages, consisting of a 6' wide integral sidewalk, curb & gutter, driveway ramps, a handicap ramp at the comer, streetlights, a sidewalk incorporated into the Caltrans bridge (Broad St.) and street pavement (between existing structural pavement and new frontage improvements), to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works and Caltrans (Broad St.). 14. Plans submitted to the Architectural Review Commission shall clearly.show to scale the required right-of-way dedication and frontage improvements relative to the proposed on-site improvements. 15. The applicant shall apply for a use permit for the proposed parking reduction. Action on the request shall take into account available public transit, available on- street parking, the potential impact on the EI Capitan residential neighborhood, the location and design details for long term bicycle parking and related amenities, other amenities to encourage walking and bicycling to the site, and the likelihood for additional bicycle parking to offset demand for vehicle spaces. 16. Plans submitted for architectural review shall show long term bicycle parking for both the commercial area and the apartments that is adequately sized to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director. The long-term bicycle parking for the ER 108-00 L�TRCMW .13 Mitigation Agreement Page 4 commercial uses shall be installed as part of the shell building_ construction together with common shower, toilet, and clothes locker facilities. 17. To avoid interference with Airport operations: a. The applicant shall grant an avigation easement to the County prior to issuance of building permits. b. Project occupants and land uses shall comply with the land use compatibility matrix of the San Luis Obispo Airport Land Use Plan. Conditionally compatible uses (including dwellings) shall occupy no more than 60% of the project floor area. c. Lease and rental agreements shall disclose that the property is in an airport flight traffic zone and that noise impacts may occur as a result of this. Such disclosure statement shall be submitted to the Airport Manager for review and approval prior to occupancy. d. Radio transmissions which may interfere with airport operations shall be prohibited. e. Soundproofing shall be added to reduce indoor noise from airport operations consistent with the City Noise Element and Noise Ordinance and the ALUC's recommended conditions of approval. f. All exterior lighting shall be shielded down lights that do not shine skyward or interfere with airport operations. Search lights and strobe lights shall be prohibited. Noise 18. To comply with the City's Noise Element and conditions of approval recommended by the Airport Land Use Commission: a. Sleeping areas must be designed to achieve a maximum noise exposure of 40 decibels. b. Other interior areas must be designed to achieve a maximum noise exposure of 45 decibels. c. Private residential outdoor spaces must be designed to achieve a maximum noise exposure of 60 decibels. d. Common residential/commercial outdoor areas must be designed to achieve a maximum noise exposure of 65 decibels. 19. The project shall comply with all recommended mitigation measures outlined in the noise study prepared for this project by Krause Engineering Services, date September 21, 2000, and shall include any additional measures necessary to meet requirements established by the Airport Land Use Commission. . x-73 r� 1 ER 108-00 ATTACHMENT 1 Mitigation Agreement Page 5 Utilities and Service Systems 20. The new buildings shall incorporate facilities for interior and exterior on-site recycling. Plans submitted for architectural review shall show the exterior location for collecting recycling from both the commercial users and the on-site residents to the satisfaction of the garbage collection company. 21. A new sewer lateral must be installed and the existing septic system abandoned to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works. 22. A plan for recycling demolition and construction material waste shall be submitted with the demolition and building permit applications for review and approval by the Community Development Director. If asbestos is present, its removal must comply with National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants to the satisfaction of the Air Pollution Control District. Aesthetics 23. The applicant must submit an application for architectural review. The application shall include a color and materials board with samples of the actual colors and materials proposed for the buildings and/or color photographic excerpts from manufacturers' cut sheets depicting the proposed roofing, windows and doors, exterior walls, columns, exterior lighting, tile, etc. Architectural plans must also include a construction detail of the mechanical equipment proposed and its roof- mounted installation; a construction detail of window and sill installation; a detail of the proposed cornice and eave design; a detail of the proposed upper level columns and the metal awnings on the east elevation of Building A; a detail of the overflow scuppers for the decks; a detail of short-term bike racks; a detail of long term bicycle parking in both the commercial area and the residential units; and any other design detail which the Community Development Director deems necessary to adequately evaluate the proposed project. 24. Exterior lighting shall be directed downward and not spill onto adjoining properties. The maximum height of any parking lot lighting, including fixtures, standard and base, shall not be higher than 15 feet above the finished grade. Lighting levels measured at the finished grade directly beneath the fixture shall not exceed 10 foot-candles. Any individual wall-mounted fixtures shall not be located above the first floor of the building and shall direct light downward. Exterior light fixtures shall be subject to review and approval by the Architectural Review Commission. Cultural Resources 25. If any archaeological resources are found during site preparation, all earth-work within 150 feet of object(s) shall cease until the resources have been evaluated by a qualified archaeologist. Any additional mitigation measures recommended by the A/-7 ER 108-00 �J (ATTACHMENT Mitigation Agreement Page 6 archaeologist shall be evaluated by the Community Development Director, and upon Director approval, implemented by the applicant. If the Community Development Director or hearing body determines that the above mitigation measures are ineffective or physically infeasible, he may add, delete or modify the mitigation to meet the intent of the original measures. Please note that section 15070 (b) (1) of the Califomia Administrative Code requires the applicant to agree to the above mitigation measures before the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration is released for public review.. This project will not be scheduled for public review and hearing until this signed original is returned to the Community Development Department. Ronald Whisenand Matt Quaglina Representative for: Acting Community Development Director Covey III ATTACHMENT 14 1��is��!I��III�IIIIIIIII�II (IIII��III I,IIIII� III city osAn tuts oBispo 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 INITIAL STUDY ER 108-00 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM 1. Project Title: Roadhouse Mixed Use Project — ER, GP/R, ARC, U 108-00 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: .a City of San Luis Obispo - <x 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Whitney Mcllvaine, Associate Planner - (805) 781-7164 4. Project Location: Current development on project site 811 and 903 EI Capitan 5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Covey III c/o Matt Quaglino 815 Fiero Lane San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 6. General Plan Designation: Services and Manufacturing and Medium-Density Residential 7. Zoning: C-S and R-2 (Service-Commercial and Medium-Density Residential) 8. Description of the Project: The applicant proposes to rezone the site Service- Commercial Mixed Use (C-S MU); merge the two existing lots; demolish the existing structure; and construct 2 new buildings — one with two floors of commercial space and one with one floor of commercial space and two floors of apartments above. DThe City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services, programs and activities. �� Telecommunications Device for the Deaf(805)781-7410. 9. Project Entitlements Requested: The project will require environmental review; architectural review of the buildings, site planning, and landscaping; a lot merger; a general plan amendment and rezoning to change the general plan land use map and the zoning map; and an administrative use permit for a proposed reduction in the number of parking spaces required. 10. Surrounding Land Uses and Settings: The site is roughly U-shaped, and wraps around a lot developed with a discount carpet store. To the east and south are residences. Various commercial uses line Broad Street in the vicinity. The site is crossed by a creek along its southerly boundary. 11. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g. permits, financing approval; or participation agreement): Caltrans for construction of a sidewalk on the Broad Street bridge on the projects Broad Street frontage. z / , n '/7/ ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. X Lard Use and Planning X Biological Resources X Aesthetics Population and Housing X Energy and Mineral X Cultural Resources Resources X Geological Problems Hazards Recreation X Water X Noise Mandatory Findings of Significance X Air Quality Public Services Transportation and X Utilities and Service Ly e Circulation Systems F] There is no evidence before the Department that the project will have any potential adverse effects on fish and wildlife resources or the habitat upon which the wildlife depends. As such, the project qualifies for a de minimis waiver with regards to the filing of Fish and Game Fees. X The project has potential to impact fish and wildlife resources and shall be subject to the payment of Fish and Game fees pursuant to Section 711 .4 of the California Fish and Game Code. DETERMINATION: On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on a attached sheets have been added to the project. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be X prepared. 1 find that the proposed project May have a significant effect on the environment, and a ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. 3 / 1 C/ find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at leas one effect (1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable lega standards, and (2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis a described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "Potentially Significant Impact" or is "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, ther WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (1) have been analyzed in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards and (2) have been avoided o mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR; including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. 4 �]4 December 27, 2000 S' at I Ronald Whisenand, Development Review Manager for Arnold Jonas, Community Development Dir. Printed Name EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: 1. A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the analysis in each section. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g. the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis). 2. All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 3. "Potentially Significant Impact' is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant. If there are one or.more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. 4. "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section 17, "Earlier Analysis," may be cross-referenced). 5. Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, orother CEOA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063 (c) (3) (D). Earlier analyses are discussed in Section 17 at the end of the checklist. 6. Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g. general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 5 Issues and Supporting Informat.. l Sources sources Pote,' Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact ER 108-00 Issues with Impact Mitigation Incorporated 1. LAND USE AND PLANNING Would the proposal: a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? 1,2 X b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies X adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? c) Be incompatible with existing land use-in the vicinity? X d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impact NIA to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible X land uses? e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an N/A established community (including a low-income or X minority community)? General Plan Designation, Zoning, and Compatibility The site consists of two lots - one designated for "Services and Manufacturing" and the other for "Medium-Density Residential" on the General Plan Land Use Element (LUE) map. The applicant would like to develop the site with a mix of commercial and residential uses and has requested approval of a general plan amendment and rezoning to designate the entire site Services and Manufacturing with a Mixed Use zoning overlay. Approval of the request would increase the residential development potential and enable some additional flexibility in site planning. The Mixed Use ordinance requires that the rezoning specify the uses allowed to better ensure compatibility. Compatibility will also be addressed as.part of the architectural review process. The applicant would like to mix the residential and commercial uses together on th site rather than segregate them on two separate lots. The request for a general plan amendment and mixed use rezoning is the appropriate way to achieve this objective.Mixed use development is encouraged by the zoning regulations (Chapter 17.55) and general plan policies(e.g. Land Use Element policy 2.2.7).The creek corridor should be designated Open Space in accordance with Open Space Element policies as described on page 27 of that document Mitigation The General Plan land use map designates creeks open space. The proposed rezoning exhibit shall show the areas within the creek corridor— between the p of creek bank and/or outer edge of riparian vegetation, whichever is greater— as Open Space. Environmental Plans and Policies Project conformance with adopted City policies and regulations regarding development near creeks and recommended mitigation are discussed below under "Biological Resources." Project conformance with adopted policies of the Airport land Use Commission is discussed under "Transportation and Circulation" and under "Noise" below. 2. POPULATION AND HOUSING - Would the proposal: a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population . 2 projections? X b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area X or major infrastructure? 6 / Issues and Supporting Informai._ "Sources Sources Potd Less Than Less Than No Signi—ant Significant Significant Impact ER 108-00 Issues With Impact Mitigation Incorporated c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? X' This is an infill site which the City's general plan and zoning regulations have designated as appropriate for development. The project will not displace existing housing since there is none on site. Site development and rezoning are not likely to induce growth beyond what is already anticipated. As proposed, the project would increase the potential for housing development on this site. Conclusion: No impacts. 3. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people.to potential impacts involving: a) Fault rupture? 1,2, X 3,4, 5,6, 20 b) Seismic ground shaking? X c) Seismic ground failure, including.liquefaction? X d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? X e) Landslides or mudflows? X f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil X. conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? g) Subsidence of the land? X h) Expansive soils? X i) Unique geologic or physical features? X Seismic The City of San Luis Obispo is in Seismic Zone 4, a seismically active region of California and strong ground shaking should be expected during the life of proposed structures. Structures must be designed in compliance with seismic design criteria established in the Uniform Building Code. The site lies in an area identified by the Safety Element of the General Plan as being in the "R", Recent Alluvium, zone which often has a high liquefaction risk. A soils engineering report and creek bank evaluation was prepared by GeoSolutions, Inc for this project. It is attached without Appendix A – the soil borings log. The full report is incorporated herein by reference and available for review in the Community Development Department. Soil borings encountered a variety of soil types: sandy clay, clay with sand and some gravel, and clay and silt lenses. Bedrock was encountered at depths of 14.5 to 20.5 feet. Groundwater was encountered at depths of 10 to 12.5 feet. The report concludes that the potential for liquefaction is low. The primary geotechnical concerns are the presence of expansive surface soils and the potential for differential settlement if foundations span different soil types. Over-excavation to a minimum depth of 12 inches and soil compaction are recommended beneath building footings and pavement areas. Creek Erosion The southerly property line is crossed by a tributary to the East Fork of the San Luis Creek. The creek bottom is roughly 8 to 10 feet below the top of bank at the southeast corner of the site and the creek bank is fairly steep in this location. A perimeter fence at the edge of an existing parking area is in places less than two feet from the top of bank. Parts of the fence and some of the fence supports appear to have been undermined by ongoing erosion. Policy S1.1 in the Safety Element of the General Plan states that development close to creeks shall be 7 Q L�—O Issues and Supporting Informat, Sources Sources Pote� Less Than Less Than No Sigmf�cant Significant Significant Impact ER 108 00 Issues With Impact Mitigation Incorporated designed to avoid damage due to future creek bank erosion. Typically this is accomplished by setting development at least 20 feet back from the top of creek bank, consistent with setback standards in the zoning regulations. Creek bank erosion is evident at the south east corner of the site. Project plans show a corner of Building B as close as 11(+/-) feet from the top of bank and parking lot construction within 2 feet of the top of a very steep, actively eroding creek bank (shown below). Under this scenario, a winter storm could end up washing a portion of the parking lot into the creek and potentially cause a flooding problem. The zoning regulations do allow for replacement structures to occupy the same footprint as an existing structure which encroaches into the required setback, providing no additional floor area is added to the encroaching part of the structure. The proposed project would add floor area and, therefore, is not entitled to a setback exception under the zoning regulations. As proposed, with a building and parking lot very close to the top of an eroding creek bank, the project would likely require some form of creek bank stabilization in the very near future. The issue of creek setbacks must be resolved as part of project review. The GeoSolutions report includes an evaluation of the creek bank. It states that active erosion is occurring within the creek bank at the southeast side of the site (p.9). The report recommends that top of bank activity be limited, especially at the southeast corner of the site, and that disturbance of the bluff top, either by natural or manmade causes, should be severely restricted (p.10). A separate report addresses slope stability based on the soil type encountered in the sample borings. In a telephone conversation on January 11, 2001, John Kammer, who prepared the report, explained that slope stability and erosion are two separate issues. Based on the soil characteristics, the slopes are relatively stable. Erosion of the creek banks is more directly related to storm events. The smaller the creek and the steeper the banks, the more susceptible it is to erosion even under normal storm conditions. At the southeast corner of the site, there is asphalt paving at the very top of bank which has been undercut by water currents in the past. Pieces of asphalt are located below in the streambed, Debris in tree limbs near the 8 q Issues and Supporting Informa \.-Sources sources Pou Less Than Less Than No Signs;scant Significant Significant Impact Issues With Impact ER 108-00 Mitigation Incorporated top of bank indicates water levels have over topped the creek bank in certain areas in the past. Mitigation The project shall be designed so that building footprints and parking areas are setback a minimum of 20 feet from the top of creek bank or edge of riparian vegetation, whichever is greater, consistent with the creek setback ordinance. Any request for a lesser setback shall be considered by the Planning Commission and City Council together with the application for rezoning. Site grading and improvements shall be designed to direct water away from the top of bank and shall be consistent with the recommendations in the soils engineering report and slope stability evaluation prepared by GeoSolutions.. Also see mitigation under Biological Resources. NOTE: In conversations with staff following the preparation of this initial study, the applicant and his representative indicated that the project will be redesigned to meet the 20-foot setback. .4. WATER. Would the proposal result inc a) Changes in absorptionrates, drainage patterns, of the 2,3 X rate and amount of surface runoff? 5,6 b) Exposure of people or property to water.related. X hazards such as flooding? c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved X oxygen or turbidity? d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body? X e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of Water movements? X f) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through X interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability? g) Altered direction or rate of flow of.groundwater? X h) Impacts to groundwater quality? X i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise available forrpublic water supplies? X Drainage and Surface Water Site development will not significantly change the amount of surface runoff since most of the site is currently covered with pavement and a building. Due to existing topography, the site generally drains across the surface to the creek. Proposed plans would redirect a portion of site drainage to a storm drain at the corner of Broad and EI Capitan. The storm drain would then convey drainage into the creek via an outfall located near the southwest corner of the project site. Project plans do not show how roof drainage will be directed. Land Use Element policy 6.4.7 encourages the use of porous paving and ample landscaped areas to facilitate rainwater percolation, reduce surface runoff and aid in groundwater recharge. To be consistent with this policy, the project should comply with the parking and driveway standards for landscaping and use porous paving or decomposed granite for any patio and walkway areas in the creek setback.. 9 Issues and Supporting Informati._ Sources Sources Poten Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact ER 108-00 Issues With Impact Mitigation Incorpoi Any development involving extensive grading, expansive parking areas, or the servicing of vehicles may result in petroleum-contaminated drainage polluting nearby surface waters. Discharge of any pollutants (e.g. sediment as a result of grading, herbicides, pesticides, janitorial cleaning products, and toxic substances such as motor oil, gasoline, and anti-freeze) or heated water(e.g. from steam cleaning sidewalks) into a storm water system or directly into surface waters is illegal and subject to enforcement action by the Regional Water Quality Control Board. To avoid discharging toxic pollutants into nearby surface waters; the following mitigation is recommended: Flooding A letter from Matt Wheeler at John Wallace and Associates, attached and herein incorporated by reference, indicates that the 100-year flood elevation at general plan build-out is 160.6 feet. The.City's Flood Damage and Prevention Regulations require finish floor elevations to be located at minimum of one foot above projected 100-year flood elevations. Preliminary development plans show a finish floor elevation of 161.3. Plans will need to be revised to meet the required minimum of 161.6 feet. The hydrologic analysis in the same letter indicates the project will not have any significant adverse impact on downstream properties as a result of storm water runoff. Public Works staff have reviewed the analysis and concur with its findings. Mitigation Oil and sand separators or other filtering media shall be installed at each drain inlet intercepting runoff as a means of filtering toxic substances from run off before it enters the creek through the storm water system. The separators must be regularly maintained to ensure efficient pollutant removal. To be consistent with Land Use Element policy 6.4.7 regarding porous paving, the project shall comply with the parking and driveway standards for landscaping and use porous paving or decomposed granite for any patio and walkway areas in the creek setback. Plans submitted for architectural review shall include a detail showing how and where roof drainage will be conveyed in a non-erosive manner. Plans submitted for consideration by the Architectural Review Commission must clearly demonstrate how the new buildings will meet the minimum requirements of the City's Flood Damage and Prevention Regulations, and how any necessary revisions, such as a change in finish floor elevation, to the preliminary plans submitted for the rezoning and environmental review application will affect ADA requirements an building height. 5. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation (Compliance 7, 8 X with APCD Environmental Guidelines)? b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants X c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause any change in climate? X d) Create objectionable odors? X The letter from the Air Pollution Control District (attached) indicates that the project is not likely to exceed the District's emissions thresholds of significance for construction or operation. However, to address cumulative air quality impacts, the following mitigation is recommended. Mitigation The project shall include to the satisfaction of the APCD and the Community Development Director: 10 g5 Issues and Supporting Informat,_ Sources Sources Pote 71neorporated Less Than No SignificantSignificant Impact ER 108-00 Issues Impact 1. Short-and long-term (lockers) bicycle parking for both the commercial and residential uses; 2. A pedestrian connection to Broad Street near the apartments (as shown on 6.28.00 plans); 3. Eating facilities and outdoor employee rest area to encourage employees to stay on site during the lunch hour; 4. Extensive shade tree planting in the parking areas to help reduce evaporative emissions from automobiles; 5. Sodium lights in the parking lot; 6. Dual-glazed windows; 7. Wall and ceiling insulation to exceed Title 24 requirements; and 8. Energy efficient appliances, furnaces, and wall heaters. 6. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION.. Would the proposal result in: a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? 1,2, X 17 b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g.sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses X (e.g. farm equipment))? c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? X d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? X e) Hazards or barriers for pedestriansor'bicyclists? X f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g.bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? X g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts (e.g. compatibility with San Luis Obispo Co.Airport) X Traffic A traffic study was prepared for this project by Penfield and Smith, which is attached and herein incorporated by reference. It concludes that no mitigation is necessary beyond meeting the City's requirement for payment of traffic impact fees. The Public Works Transportation Division reviewed the traffic study and concurred with the report conclusions. Caltrans also reviewed the project and the traffic report and had no concerns(telephone conversation with Larry Newland on 9/14/00). Hazards Frontage improvements and right-of-way dedication will be required to ensure safe circulation for pedestrians and bicyclists.Comments from the Public Works Engineering and Transportation Divisions indicate the need for a sidewalk on the road bridge that crosses the creek along the Broad Street frontage of the project site. The design of the sidewalk will be subject to review and approval by Cal Trans since this portion of Broad Street is a State highway. Frontage improvements will also be necessary along EI Capitan and althe corner of EI Capitan and Broad Street. A dedication of 3 feet along the EI Capitan frontage will be necessary to achieve the full 56 feet of right-of-way for this street and alignment with existing curb, gutter and sidewalk improvements. This will affect on-site setbacks to the proposed parking areas along EI Capitan. Mitigation The property owner shall dedicate the northerly 0.9m (3 feet) of the subject property along EI Capitan for public street purposes to accommodate the adopted right of way (additional parkway behind sidewalk) and that portion of the northwesterly corner of the property at the corner of EI Capitan & Broad (State Hwy. 227) necessary to accommodate a new City standard 9.1 m (30 ft) radius curb return and handicap ramp, to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works and Caltrans. The developer shall install complete frontage improvements along both public street frontages, consisting of a 6' wide integral sidewalk, curb & gutter, driveway ramps, a handicap ramp at the corner, streetlights, ]1 �`0 C� Issues and Supporting Informatl Sources Sources Potey Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact ER 108-00 Issues with Impact Mitigation Incorporated a sidewalk incorporated into the Caltrans bridge (Broad St.) and street pavement (between existing structural pavement and new frontage improvements), to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works and Caltrans (Broad St.). Plans submitted to the Architectural Review Commission shall clearly show to scale the required rightof-way dedication and frontage improvements relative to the proposed onsite improvements. 4 y Parking Capacity Preliminary plans calculate the parking requirement at one space per 300 square feet for commercial uses and 1.5 spaces per dwelling plus one guest parking space for each 5 dwellings — for a total of 97 spaces. Plans show 71 parking spaces. The applicant originally requested a 20% mixed-use parking reduction and an additional 10% reduction for providing more bicycle spaces than otherwise required. Based on the ultimate mix of commercial uses, the required parking could be more or less than one per 300 square feet. However, using the one per 300 square foot calculation is reasonable in this case since it represents a fair average of potential parking demand based on the applicant's proposed list of allowable uses. Zoning regulations enable several methods for reducing the parking requirement subject to approval of an administrative use permit. The applicant must apply and receive approval for either a shared (10%) and/or a mixed use (up to 20%) reduction in required parking. The use of additional bicycle parking will be considered as part of that review. Comments from the Public Works Transportation Division indicate that the proposed number of bicycle parking spaces (60) is excessive for this project. Opportunities for overflow on-street parking is very limited in this case. There may be room for two car spaces along the El Capitan frontage. No parking is allowed along the Broad Street frontage. Public transit service to this location is also limited. The closest bus stop is across Broad Street at Fiero Lane, approximately 750 feet away. Under-parking the project could negatively impact the residential neighborhood on EI Capitan. For this reason, in addition to concerns that the proposed bike parking will not offset demand for vehicle spaces, a lesser parking reduction than the one being requested may be more appropriate. 12 4-97 Issues and Supporting Informat._.,Sources Sources Pote, Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact ER 108-00 Issues With Impact Mitigation Incorporated Consistent with the Circulation Element policies 3.1 and 3.4, the project should provide secure bicycle storage and shower facilities to encourage bicycle transportation. NOTE: In conversations with staff after the preparation of this initial study, the applicant determined that a combination of shared-use and mixed-use parking reductions would be more reasonable. Mitigation The applicant shall apply for a use permit for the proposed parking reduction. Action on the request shall take into account available public transit, available on-street parking, the potential impact on the EI Capitan residential neighborhood, the location and design details for long term bicycle parking, and the likelihood for additional bicycle parking to offset demand for vehicle spaces. Plans submitted for architectural review shall show long term bicycle parking for both the commercial area and the apartments that is adequately sized to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director. The long- term bicycle parking for the commercial uses shall be installed as part of the shell building construction together with common shower,toilet, and clothes locker facilities. Compatibility with Airport Operations The Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) reviewed this project on August 6, 2000. The ALUC notice of action is attached and recommends the following mitigation to avoid conflict with airport operations. - Soundproofing shall be added to reduce indoor noise from airport operations consistent with the City Noise Element and Noise Ordinance. In addition, residential units shall have a maximum of 40 decibels in the sleeping areas. - The applicant shall grant an avigation easement to the County prior to issuance of building permits. - Project occupants and land uses shall comply with.the land use compatibility matrix of the San Luis Obispo Airport Land Use Plan. Conditionally compatible uses shall occupy no more than 60% of the project floor area. - All exterior lighting shall be shielded down lights that do not shine skyward or interfere with airport operations. Search lights and strobe lights shall be prohibited. - Lease and rental agreements shall disclose that the property is in an airport flight traffic zone and that noise impacts may occur as a result of this. Such disclosure statement shall be submitted to the Airport Manager for review and approval prior to occupancy. - Radio transmissions which may interfere with airport operations shall be prohibited. 7. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal affect: a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their.habitats 11 (including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals 2, X or birds)? 10, 11, 22 b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)? X c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak forest, X coastal habitat, etc.)? d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool? X e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? LX Project plans show the southeast corner of Building B approximately 11 feet from the top of the creek bank and a parking area at the southeastern corner of the lot with setbacks of less than 5 feet from the top of the creek bank. Plans do not clearly show the edge of riparian vegetation. 13 Issues and Supporting Informat, Sources Sources Pote Less Than Less Than No Signincnnt Significant Significant Impact ER 108-00 Issues With Impact Mitigation Incorporated The creek map in the Open Space Element designates this creek as a perennial creek with a degraded corridor and high encroachment, more difficult to restore. A stated goal in the Open Space Element is to restore degraded creeks to provide high quality habitat, augment aesthetic resources, and reverse the historical trend of creek channelization and modification. Zoning regulations do not specifically prohibit grading within the creek setback. Open Space Element polices state that development, including grading, should be located outside a creek setback area except when it is determined that the location is necessary for certain infrastructure subject to a finding that the project has minimized environmental impacts through project design. The following general plan land use element (LUE) policies apply to this project: LUE 6.4 Creeks,Wetlands,and Flooding Policies San Luis Obispo wants to avoid injury or substantial property losses from flooding,while keeping or improving the creeks' natural character,scenic appearance, recreational value, and fish and wildlife habitat. LUE 6.4.6 Creek Setbacks The following items should be no closer to the wetland or creek than the setback line: buildings,streets, driveways,parking lots, aboveground utilities,and outdoor commercial storage or work areas. LUE 6.5.1 Previously Developed Areas To limit the potential for increased flood damage in previously developed areas,the City will ensure that infill and replacement projects do not contribute floating debris to . flood waters and require new infill buildings to have greater setbacks than tlair older neighbors, when necessary. LUE 6.5.5 Restoration at Development Sites The City will require protection and restoration of wetlands and creek channels for fish and wildlife habitat within development sites. LUE Goal 3. The City should protect,sustain, and where it has been degraded,enhance wildlife habitat...along creeks...so that diverse; native plants,fish, and animals can continue to live within the area. A Biological Study was prepared for this project by Tenera Environmental Services and is attached to this report. It provides a general characterization of the riparian habitat.and species potentially accommodated by the habitat. The report recommends mitigation to minimize impacts to the habitat and animal species that depend on it. Mitigation The applicant shall prepare a creek preservation and maintenance agreement to be recorded with the County Recorder in a form approved by the City Attorney and the Community Development Director prior to issuance of any building or grading permit. The agreement shall include the following provisions: a) Provide for professional,perpetual maintenance of the creek and open space area to the satisfaction of the City's Natural Resources Manager. b) Grant to the City the right to maintain the creek and open space area if the property owner fails to perform, and to assess the property owner for expenses incurred,and the right of the City to inspect the site to assure conditions of the agreement and project approval are being met. c) The creek/open space area shall be maintained by the property owner in accordance with the creek 14 9 Issues and.Supporting Informa�,_,Sources Sources Pote Less Than Less ThanNo Signittcant Significant Significant Impact ER 108 00 Issues With Impact Mitigation Incorporated preservation and maintenance agreement as approved by the City. d) Erosion control and revegetation to restore the health of the riparian area consistent with Land Use Element policies. Exterior project lighting at the rear of buildings along the creek shall be limited to bollard lighting along the proposed path at the top of bank to the satisfaction of the City's Natural Resource Manager and the Community Development Director. 8: ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? 2,8 X b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? X c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of future value to the region and X the residents of the State? The Energy Element states that, "New development will be encouraged to minimize the use of conventional energy for space heating and cooling, water heating, and illumination by means of proper design and orientation, including the provision and protectiun of solar exposure." The City implements energy conservation goals through enforcement of the California Energy Code which establishes energy conservation standards for residential and nonresidential construction. Buildings proposed as part of this project must meet those standards. The.City also implements energy conservation goals through architectural review. Project designers are asked to show how a project makes maximum use of passive means of reducing conventional energy demand, as opposed to designing a particular image and relying on mechanical systems to maintain comfort. To avoid using non-renewable resources in an inefficient manner, the following standard mitigation is recommended: Mitigation New buildings constructed on this site shall incorporate the following as feasible: • Energy-efficient lighting systems for both interior and exterior use; • Increased wall and attic insulation beyond Title 24 requirements; • Skylights or other means of maximizing natural daylighting; • Operable windows in employee work and break areas to maximize natural ventilation; • Lighting controls (occupancy and motion sensors); and • Dual glazed windows. If these features are not included or feasible in the design of new buildings, the project architect shall document why they were determined to be infeasible. The Community Development Director shall review this document and make a final decision as to the feasibility of incorporating these energy conserving features. Also see mitigation recommended under Air Quality. 9. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous 8 substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides, X chemicals or radiation)? b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? X c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard? X d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential 15 7 _� Issues and Supporting loforma#..,_..Sources Sources Potei Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Issues With Impact ER 108-00 Mitigation Incorporated health hazards? X e) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass or trees? I X Conclusion: Less than significant. Demolition will require an asbestos survey and clearance from the APCD for the method of removal if asbestos is present. Otherwise, the project is not anticipated to result in any health hazard. 1Q NOISE_. Would the proposal regult m;. a) Increase in existing noise levels? 2, X 13, 14 b) Exposure of people to "unacceptable" noise levels as defined by the San Luis. Obispo General Plan Noise X Element? A noise study was prepared for the project by Krause Engineering Services which concludes that, with certain mitigation, indoor and outdoor exposure to noise - primarily from traffic along Highway 227 - can be reduced to less than significant levels. The study is attached and herein incorporated by reference. The project will need to incorporate all recommended mitigation or equivalent measures as described in the City's Noise Guidebook. Mitigation The project shall comply with all recommended mitigation measures outlined in the noise study prepared for this project by Krause Engineering Services, date September 21, 2000. To comply with the City's Noise Element and conditions of approval by the Airport Land Use Commission: 1. Sleeping areas must be designed to achieve a maximum noise exposure of 40 decibels. 2. Other interior areas must be designed to achieve a maximum noise exposure of 45 decibels. 3. Private residential outdoor spaces must be designed to achieve a maximum noise exposure of 60 decibels. 4. Common residential/commercial outdoor areas must be designed to achieve a maximum noise exposure of 65 decibels. To monitor the effectiveness of mitigation measures, sound level readings must be taken at the completion of construction and prior to occupancy. 11. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered government services in any of the following areas: a) Fire protection? X b) Police protection? X c) Schools? X d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? X e) Other governmental services? X Conclusion: This is essentially an infill project that can be accommodated by existing public services. 12. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to the fallowing utilities: a) Power or natural gas? 15 X b) Communications systems? X c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? X d) Sewer or septic tanks? X e) Storm water drainage? X f) Solid waste disposal? X 16 Issues and Supporting Informat: . Sources Sources Pott., . Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact ER 108-00 Issues With Impact Mitigation Incorporated g) Local or regional water supplies? X Utilities This is essentially an infill project that can be accommodated by existing utilities and service systems. It is subject to water allocation requirements and water and wastewater impact fees. A new sewer lateral must be installed and the existing septic system abandoned to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works. Solid Waste Background research for the Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (AB939) shows that Californians dispose of roughly 2,500 pounds of waste per month. Over 90% of this waste goes to landfills, posing a threat to groundwater, air quality, and public health. Cold Canyon landfill is projected to reach its capacity by 2018. The Act requires each city and county in California to reduce the flow of materials to landfills by 50% (from 1989 levels) by 2000. New recycling facilities, currently being installed at the landfill, should help the city reach this goal. To reduce the waste stream generated by this project, consistent with the City's Source Reduction and Recycling Element, recycling facilities must be accommodated on the project site and a solid waste reduction plan for recycling discarded construction materials should be submitted with the building permit application. The project should include facilities for both interior and exterior recycling to reduce the waste stream generated by the project consistent with the Source Reduction and Recycling Element. Recycling Demolition and Construction Materials Comments received from the Utilities Department note that demolition of the existing facilities warrants the need for a recycling plan for disposal of the demolition debris. The plan should demonstrate how the majorit of the tonnage (typically concrete and asphalt) will be recycled. Mitigation The new buildings shall incorporate facilities for interior and exterior on-site recycling. Plans submitted for architectural review shall show the exterior location for collecting recycling from both the commercial users and the on-site residents to the satisfaction of the the garbage collection company. A new sewer lateral must be installed and the existing septic system abandoned to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works. A plan for recycling demolition and construction material waste shall be submitted with the demolition and building.permit applications for review and approval by the Community Development Director. 13. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:. a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? 2,9 X 14 b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? X c) Create light or glare? X Scenic Views The project site is located along Broad Street which is designated a road of high or moderate scenic value in the Circulation Element of the General Plan. Policy 14.3 states that development along scenic roadways should not block views or detract from the quality of views. The applicant has submitted a photo of the site from the road which superimposes the proposed Building A onto the existing view. Views of the Santa Lucia hills are now blocked by trees, primarily Eucalyptus. The photo simulation, which is attached and herein incorporated by reference, indicates that the project will not significantly alter existing views. 17 �, 9a Issues and Supporting InformVtt . Sources Sources Pour. ._; Less ThanLess Than No Significant Significant Sign if Impact ER 108-00 Issues With Impact Mitigation Incorporated Site visits by City staff indicate that, when traveling by the site toward town on Broad Street, some views of the hills to the northeast will be blocked by the Building A. Similar views will remain open at EI Capitan. Conclusion: Les than significant. To the east and south views of distant hills are now blocked by vegetation. Views of the hills are available to the northeast. Building A will obscure some of the views to the northeast, but overall the project will not significantly alter available views. A photo of views to the northeast is attached. Aesthetics New commercial buildings are subject to architectural review. Plans submitted for architectural review must include sufficient details in order for the Architectural Review Commission to adequately evaluate the proposed project. Mitigation The applicant must submit an application for architectural review. The application shall include a color and materials board with samples of the actual colors and materials proposed for the buildings and/or color photographic excerpts from manufacturers' cut sheets depicting the proposed roofing, windows and doors, exterior walls, columns, exterior lighting, tile, etc. Architectural plans must also include a construction detail of the mechanical equipment proposed and its roof-mounted installation; a construction detail of window and sill installation; a detail of the proposed cornice and eave design; a detail of the proposed upper level columns and the metal awnings on the east elevation of Building A; a detail of the overflow scuppers for the decks; a detail of short-term bike racks; a detail of long term bicycle parking in both the commercial area and the residential units; and any other design detail which the Community Development Director deems necessary to adequately evaluate the proposed project. Lighting The Airport Land Use Commission reviewed the proposed project and recommended approval subject to several conditions, one of which addresses the need for on-site lighting to be compatible with airport operations. Standard mitigation is also recommended to minimize light pollution to the night sky. Mitigation All exterior lighting shall be shielded down-lights that do not shine skyward or interfere with aircraft flights or aircraft operations. Search lights and strobe lights shall be prohibited. Exterior lighting shall be directed downward and not spill onto adjoining properties. The maximum height of any parking lot lighting, including fixtures, standard and base, shall not be higher than 15 feet above the finished grade. Lighting levels measured at the finished grade directly beneath the fixture shall not exceed 10 foot-candles. Any individual wall-mounted fixtures shall not be located above the first floor of the building and shall direct light downward. Exterior light fixtures shall be subject to review and approval by the Architectural Review Commission. 14. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:. a) Disturb paleontological resources? 16 X 18 19 b) Disturb archaeological resources? X c) Affect historical resources? X. d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which X would affect unique ethnic cultural values? e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the 18 �-per Issues and Supporting Inform L: :'Sources Sodrees POA,, Less ThanLess Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact ER 108 00 Issues With Impact Mitigation Incorporated potential impact area?_ X Archaeology A cultural resource survey was prepared for this project by Bertrando and Bertrando, incorporated herein by reference and available for review at the Community Development Department. The field survey for archaeological remains found no evidence of prehistoric use of the project area. In the event any resources are encountered during construction, the following mitigation is recommended: Mitigation If any archaeological resources are found during site preparation,all earthwork within 150 feet of object(s) shall cease until the resources have been evaluated by a qualified archaeologist. Any additional mitigation measures recommended by the archaeologist shall be evaluated by the Community Development Director,and upon Director approval, implemented by the applicant. Historical Resources On November 9, 2000, the City Council adopted a resolution (attached) finding the existing structure.on site not to be historically significant at the local level. A report prepared by Chattel Architecture, Planning & preservation, Inc. analyzed the architectural and historic character of the building and concluded that it is not significant in either case. That report is herein incorporated by reference and available for review at the Community Development Department. The Cultural Heritage Committee reviewed that report together with the one prepared by Bertrando and Bertrando and concluded that the structure was not significant at the National or State level but was significant at a local level. An appeal of that determination by the applicant to the City Council was upheld on November 9, 2000. Conclusion: Less than significant. 15. RECREATION. Would the proposal: a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? X b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? X Not applicable. 19 Q Issues and Supporting Inforrnat Sources Sources PotetA, , Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact ER 108 00 Issues With Impact Mitigation Incorporated 16. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, X threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory?_. With mitigation as recommended,the construction and occupancy of the buildings proposed for this site would have no significant adverse environmental impacts on wildlife or cultural resources. b) Does the project.have the potential to achieve 'short- term,to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental X goals? Short- and long-term environmental goals are the same. c) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively X considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of the past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of.probable future projects) Without mitigation, the project would have the potential to have adverse impacts for all the issue area checked in the table on page 3. d) Does the project have environmental effects which will X cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? The project will not have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on huma beings, either directly or indirectly. 20 ��95_ i Issues and Supporting Informai ,Sources Sources Pow,. j Less Than Less ThanNo Significant Significant Significant Impact ER 108 00 Issues With impact Mitigation Incorporated 18. SOURCE REFERENCES 1. City of San Luis Obispo Zoning Regulations, February 2000. 2. City Of San Luis Obispo General Plan 3. * Soils Engineering Report prepared.by GeoSolutions: project # SLO1777-1 4. San Luis Obispo Quadrangle Map, prepared by the State Geologist in compliance with the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning,Act, effective January 1, 1990. 5. Flood Insurance Rate Map (Community Panel 060310 0005 C) dated July 7, 1981.. 6. * Letter from Matt Wheeler at John Wallace and Associates describing the flood elevations and hydrologic runoff for the project, dated October 4, 2000 7. APCD's "CEQA Air Quality Handbook", August 1995. 8. * Letter from APCD dated 11/17/00. 9. Architectural Review in San Luis Obispo, June 1983 10. * Biological Study prepared by Tenera Environmental Services, E2000-109.1. 11. City of San Luis Obispo Informational Map Atlas. 12. San Luis Obispo Airport Land Use Plan, 1979 13. * Noise Study prepared by Krause Engineering Services, dated September 21, 2.000 14. * Airport Land Use Commission Notice of Action on hearing date August.16, 2000 15. City of San Luis Obispo Source Reduction and Recycling Element, Brown, Vence & Associates, July 1994. 16. City of San Luis Obispo Archaeological Resource Preservation Guidelines, October 1995 17. * Traffic Study prepared by Penfield and Smith for this project: W.O. 13,812.01 18. Cultural Resource Survey prepared by Bertrando and Bertrando, Project #40-041008 19. Cultural Resource Evaluation prepared by Chattel Architecture, Planning, & Preservation for 811 EI Capitan, dated September 7, 2000 20. Slope stability report prepared by GeoSolutions, dated January 10, 2001 ATTACHED: Vicinity map Rezoning exhibit Reduced project plans Proposed list of uses Photos of the site Excerpts from studies prepared for the project as marked with an asterisk (*) in the Source Reference Table Comments from other City departments and other agencies Council resolution determining the structure on site not to be historically significant 21 QQ Z/ ER 108-00 81 land 903 EI Capr'_ r' 19. MITIGATION Land Use. 1. The General Plan land use map designates creeks as open space. The proposed rezonig exhibit shall show the areas within the creek corridor— between the top of creek bank and/or outer edge of riparian vegetation, whichever is greater— as Open Space.. Monitoring Program: Review and action on the proposed rezoning. Geology 2. The project shall be designed so that building footprints and parking areas are setback a minimum of 20 feet trom the top of creek bank or edge of riparian vegetation, whichever is greater, consistent with the creek setback ordinance. 3. Site grading and improvements shall be designed to direct water away from the top of bank and shall be consistent with the recommendations in the soils engineering report and slope stability evaluation prepared by GeoSolutions. Monitoring Program: Creek setback exceptions require review and approval of a use permit. The approved creek setback shall be staked with rigid fencing prior to the start of site grading or demolition. Grading and building plans will be reviewed for compliance with the soils engineering report and slope stability evaluation prior.to issuance of a permit. Water 4. Oil and sand separators or other filtering media shall be installed at each drain inlet intercepting runoff as a means of filtering toxic substances from run off before it enters the creek through the storm water system. The separator must be regularly maintained to ensure efficient pollutant removal. 5. To be consistent with Land Use Element policy 6.4.7 regarding porous paving, the project shall comply with the parking and driveway standards for landscaping and use porous paving or decomposed granite for any patio and walkway areas in the creek setback. 6. Plans submitted for architectural review shall include a detail showing how and where roof drainage will be conveyed in a non-erosive manner. 7. Plans submitted for consideration by the Architectural Review Commission must clearly demonstrate how the new buildings will meet the minimum requirements of the City's Flood Damage and Prevention Regulations, and how any necessary revisions, such as a change in finish floor elevation, to the preliminary plans submitted for the rezoning and environmental review application will affect ADA requirements and building height. Monitoring Program: Architectural approval, building permit issuance, and release of occupancy. Air Quality 8. The project shall include to the satisfaction of the APCD and the Community Development Director: a. Short- and long-term (lockers) bicycle parking for both the commercial and residential uses; b. A pedestrian connection to Broad Street near the apartments (as shown on 6.28.00 plans); c. Eating facilities and outdoor employee rest area to encourage employees to stay on site during 22 ER 108-00 81 land 903 EI Capp.)'. the lunch hour; d. Extensive shade tree planting in the parking areas to help reduce evaporative emissions from automobiles; e. Sodium lights in the parking lot; f.. Dual-glazed windows; g. Wall and ceiling insulation to exceed Title 24 requirements; and h. Energy efficient appliances, furnaces, and wall heaters. If these features are not included or feasible in the design of new buildings, the project architect shall document why they were determined to be infeasible. The Community Development Director shall review this document and make a final decision as to the feasibility of incorporating these energy conserving features. Biological Resources 9. The applicant shall prepare a creek preservation and maintenance agreement to be recorded with the County Recorder in a form approved by the City Attorney and the Community Development Director prior to issuance of any building or grading permit. The agreement shall include the following provisions: a) Provide for professional,perpetual maintenance of the creek and open space area to the satisfaction of the City's Natural Resources Manager. b) Grant to the City the right to maintain the creek and open space area if the property owner fails to perform, and to assess the property owner for expenses incurred,and the right of the City to inspectthe site to assure conditions of the agreement and project approvb are being met. c) The creek/open space area shall be maintained by the property owner in accordance with the creek preservation and maintenance agreement as approved by the City. d) Erosion control and revegetation to restore the health of the riparian area consistent with Land Use Element policies. 10. Exterior project lighting at the rear of buildings along the creek shall be limited to bollard lighting along the proposed path at the top of bank to the satisfaction of the City's Natural Resource Manager and the Community Development Director. Energy 11. New buildings constructed on this site shall incorporate the following as feasible: • Energy-efficient lighting systems for both interior and exterior use; • Increased wall and attic insulation beyond Title 24 requirements; • Skylights or other means of maximizing natural daylighting; • Operable windows in employee work and break areas to maximize natural ventilation; • Lighting controls (occupancy and motion sensors); and • Dual glazed windows. If these features are not included or feasible in the design of new buildings, the project architect shall document why they were determined to be infeasible. The Community Development Director shall review this document and make a final decision as to the feasibility of incorporating these energy conserving features. Monitoring Program: Architectural approval, building permit issuance, and release of occupancy. Traffic and Circulation 12. The property owner shall dedicate the northerly 0.9m (3 feet) of the subject property along EI Capitan for public street purposes to accommodate the adopted right of way (additional parkway behind sidewalk) and that portion of the northwesterly corner of the property at the corner of EI Capitan & Broad (State Hwy. 23 ER 108-00 81 land 903 EI Cap.�- 227) necessary to accommodate a new City standard 9.1m (30 ft) radius curb return and handicap ramp, to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works and Caltrans. 13. The developer shall install complete frontage improvements along both public street frontages, consisting of a 6' wide integral sidewalk, curb & gutter, driveway ramps, a handicap ramp at the corner, streetlights, a sidewalk incorporated into the Caltrans bridge (Broad St.) and street pavement (between existing structural pavement and new frontage improvements), to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works and Caltrans (Broad St.). 14. Plans submitted to the Architectural Review Commission shall clearly 4iow to scale the required right-of- way dedication and frontage improvements relative to the proposed onsite improvements. 15. The applicant shall apply for a use permit for the proposed parking reduction. Action on the request shall take into account available public transit, available on-street parking, the potential impact on the EI Capitan residential neighborhood, the location and design details for long term bicycle parking and related amenities, other amenities to encourage walking and bicycling to the site,and the likelihood for additional bicycle parking to offset demand for vehicle spaces. 16. Plans submitted for architectural review shall show long term bicycle parking for both the commercial area and the apartments that is adequately sized to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director. The long-term bicycle parking for the commercial uses shall be installed as part of the shell building construction together with common shower,toilet, and clot,-,es locker facilities. 17. To avoid interference with Airport operations: a. The applicant shall grant an avigation easement to the County prior to issuance of building permits. b. Project occupants and land uses shall comply with the land use compatibility matrix.of the San Luis Obispo Airport Land Use Plan. Conditionally compatible uses (including dwellings) shall, occupy no more than 60% of the project floor area. c. Lease and rental agreements shall disclose that the property is in an airport flight traffic zone and that noise impacts may occur as a result of this. Such disclosure.statement shall be submitted to the Airport Manager for review and approval prior to occupancy. d. Radio transmissions which may interfere with airport operations shall be prohibited. e. Soundproofing shall be added to reduce indoor noise from airport operations consistent with the City Noise Element and Noise Ordinance and the ALUC's recommended conditions of approval. f. All exterior lighting shall be shielded down lights that do not shine skyward or interfere with airport operations. Search lights and strobe lights shall be prohibited. Monitoring Program: Architectural approval, building permit issuance, and release of occupancy. Noise 18. To comply with the City's Noise Element and conditions of approval recommended by the Airport Land Use Commission: a. Sleeping areas must be designed to achieve a maximum noise exposure of 40 decibels. b. Other interior areas must be designed to achieve a maximum noise exposure of 45 decibels. c. Private residential outdoor spaces must be designed to achieve a maximum noise exposure of 60 decibels. d. Common residential/commercial outdoor areas must be designed to achieve a maximum noise exposure of 65 decibels. 24 �{-99 ER 108-00 811 and 903 EI Capp' +' 11 The project shall comply with all recommended mitigation measures outlined in the noise study prepared for this project by Krause Engineering Services, date September 21, 2000, and shall include any additional measures necessary to meet requirements established by the Airport Land Use Commission. Monitoring Program: To monitor the effectiveness of mitigation measures, the applicant shall arrange for a qualified noise consultant to take interior and exterior sound level readings at the completion of construction and prior to occupancy. The number and location of readings shall be to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director. If readings do not meet specified objectives, a qualified noise consultant shall identify additional measures necessary to meet the objectives. Such measures shall be incorporated into the project prior to release of occupancy. Utilities and Service Systems 20. The new buildings shall incorporate facilities for interior and exterior on-site recycling. Plans submitted for architectural review shall show the exterior location for collecting recycling from both the commercial users and the on-site residents to the satisfaction of the garbage collection company. 21. A new sewer lateral must be installed and the existing septic system abandoned to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works. 22. A plan for recycling demolition and construction material waste shall be submitted with the demolition and building permit applications for review and approval by the Community Development Director. If asbestos is present, its removal must comply with National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants to the satisfaction of the Air Pollution Control District. Monitoring Program: Architectural approval, building permit issuance, and release of occupancy. Aesthetics 23. The applicant must submit an application for architectural review. The application shall include a color and materials board with samples of the actual colors and materials proposed for the buildings and/or color photographic excerpts from manufacturers' cut sheets depicting the proposed roofing, windows and doors, exterior walls, columns, exterior lighting, tile, etc. Architectural plans must also include a construction detail of the mechanical equipment proposed and its roof mounted installation; a construction detail of window and sill installation; a detail of the proposed cornice and eave design; a detail of the proposed upper level columns and the metal awnings on the east elevation of Building A; a detail of the overflow scuppers for the decks; a detail of short-term bike racks; a detail of long term bicycle parking in both the commercial area and the residential units; and any other design detail which the Community Development Director deems necessary to adequately evaluate the proposed project. 24. Exterior lighting shall be directed downward and not spill onto adjoining properties. The maximum height of any parking lot lighting, including fixtures, standard and base, shall not be higher than 15 feet above the finished grade. Lighting levels measured at the finished grade directly beneath the fixture shall not exceed 10 foot-candles. Any individual wall-mounted fixtures shall not be located above the first floor of the building and shall direct light downward. Exterior light fixtures shall be subject to review and approval by the Architectural Review Commission. Monitoring Program: Architectural approval, building permit issuance, and release of occupancy. The applicant shall submit a photometric diagram of parking lot lighting for review and approval as part of the building permit application. Cultural Resources 25. If any archaeological resources are found during site preparation,all earthwork within 150 feet of object(s)shall cease until the resources have been evaluated by a qualified archaeologist. Any additional 25 ER 108-00 811 and 903 EI Cap. mitigation measures recommended by the archaeologist shall be evaluated by the Community Development Director, and upon Director approval,implemented by the applicant. Monitoring Program: A qualified archaeologist shall survey the site once demolition and initial site grading are completed. Prior to foundation inspection, the archaeologist shall submit a.summary report of the survey. 26 Existing R-2 Proposed C-S/W Existing C-S \ Proposed C-S/MU 0.' I 0000':;; 000o0 . . .':• 000000 000 000000 00000 00000 .;:;:;:;:: 000000 000•.;:• 00 000000 0 300 600 Feet 00000 00000 0000000 000 00000 0 .� 0000 sri Pop Aemontloe boundary ®Comervaeonmom Spee(CJOS) _Low Donaft Reslderdw(i6-1-M Median DemYty Residentuu(W�r-1 A AIRPORT DRIVE ®Serviee Commereial(C-S) Tourist Coeueorchd(GT)or ® service Commerdat(C-S) N Rioter-way 1 * EXISTING FULLER ROAD-AERO DRIVE ANNEXATION FIGURE 1 LAND USE-EXISTING/PROPOSED Oasis Associates,Inc. 28 June 2000 Covey III—The Roadhouse Supplement to GPA/Development Plan /Dc \t'�t�f tit •� —. 1 • • \ ' fes• :: ��,�I��,,�� 111► • ,-11"111'1 . . • . • 1 \\`�� • \\\\�\\ i \ NN IN IN 1 • d E 1 11 1 • of so s ilpill III 1 1• PROPOSED ANNEXATION EDNA-ISLAY SECONDARY PLANNING AREA ` ADOPTED LAND USE & CIRCULATION ` C'N r A R f D .VM1 CP' "�• le � O V Ny , � . may'• 1. low density �•' residential : medium density ? ' --'�-�: residential � � •: ,-.;• •%% retail Q�G� :•% i commercial •::::: service commercial :. cam^-.-•`.- y •'K;✓.J improved ..l - waterways 1 • ' A NORTH linear park nnunuumunnmu�" bicycle/ 1 in. = 400 ft. Uedestrian path 1cm = 48m Ail of monommoHns Exams 112KINEW102mma": HE rail Vag ON Zool, i 01132 rri'l" pf at! NEW I- 16 MON SchmaUe Grading and Drainsp Plat 11011111111 1101111111111111, 1�::iel_ JUNE ��• Us ■I■ Imo..■��' � � ._• � ■F 'ur_ lei:■ ue r //'., el5ej■ lel ui FIN Ell 110 IWO I � u� ': �� ■rl— to Fjo M r� -s ta _ m �� n 1�9:■ le:al101 -..- 1. moo ■ lei:'■ ,. i� I WHIME 1110111I ■ ► '' VIE Ie�9E sem.- ,>_ oma, a■. IEEE� � fl": ■ •�le =I :�::,■�'' � � - it ° �r rs LNER ISOM levee— � �_ In !i ■ ■ � ,0IS o lelcc lel::l res e IiEEi � I II,� lel::■��' k o.a�rr.. , 1� _ rr. LOIN m ❑ r OEM 11011111111111 MEens��I� w rr.�anr_. f• lllw �. o � � 1 1 -!��xl Ilei It' I■°:'�1 °0■ ® I11 1_ o �l ■9° I�ec Itee 1ieell:: E■ Iii Nt �_ _ire �_�;_ �—�� IEEE I■Ec ieeltil ry Ilei i ie. ■::� ��I I�eE ■:: .:.� 191 � LcE l■E:h 1�9i ." ieel� dam_ I�cc o [� 1�:: I■:' L�x7� n� tec ■ee a• ■ Irmo I�Ec ■ee _�� 1�9:i■ l■ee lieclr� I. Iicc I■Ec r� I— I-IxMt JIM ■ _ ,tom aM 11:2 ■E9 .:: .. ® IGS I�ci I■ .=: ■:: Il,lnM Ilei�i l■ee LeeIn� 'Irr, �Ji��q�iRr 1�; HIM� �i 1.■ IOc: ■ec ■::MW ■ MM x■m "_ ISE'■ ■. �.. w 1 �, �M r II�:E j l.E l.eelmm _re I� ■ ■ee ■Ec la I�0° , ,IRm1 1�:: j lid �•:j 1�IL1 i -IR�� _� ■ 1. ii� , � ��m 1 Ilii� x�r I�E2 ■ lice I. e i I�E2;f►�, �,� 1 ■ee ■eE�_ 1�:: L:: L:: _. I�iE■ o hi m c IEEE .' ■=vi m i eee I�Ei lee is?e R , 1�'�� ''"� IIEE! .-- ■==L�I IEEE�r ■:: ■'e�r�� =I�=1® I�iE l. E l. cllrs I�eE li' licl�i WM Oii 1�1 l�ii rM■ IiEcii �ee .eE� ^ ME IOcc '�� _I'�m ^��■ l l x. I�Ee ■cc .ce lata ��h, ■eE ■ee a IieE l• a lice M= I 1� xm Imo:'j �� f. Ilei Lee Leojt�■rr i� �' �E'� 191 �Mlr l �! v I I i I I I I i I I i i i i ca i I I i a i I I I At — — — — — —I -------- — — -- 1I y I I = I :30 I I ----------- a o s_ I -- —_-------' - —_---- I_.-------. �_- I I I x I S I I I I 'ml I I — A C-P X4 ip'd Yd Yd fp'.s' Md pd ^ 1 0 � — N w so y t'i1 4,11: `' Bu(1d1aL A ROADHOUSE-IfnN Du Dndopmeat ?�e t iflh rfllltl Ploor Pinrin m nr.�� -- �n E 1 iiNlll��I�li��l k c »» e P I—Am— mW,— pr .tftlp MeE Jim 035Y f' -------- PMa4Ye f ,yea ..■.., :( I � P 6 j \ c D c a: � If q 5 i I - e e e i • _ 'v I IIIL.yJyF'iJl y€ f �._I _ Sri Sa J q gBpg� 1 E m �r 7 P7 ;a• •- a _l .: . li 1 �z EDI i f n sZ p N 1 s !!!!!I., !I!! Bundial B RDABRODSR-Rind Bu Dm lopmmt !l1 -111Hj!{t1t floor PLa■ PPO W.m a. ■..I. _ _ i+lt!1!r IN li _ L) -lD e o � : o , 4 I $ € Zl til z 0 l N � 1 �+ 1 •1• .r . 5 t!i�'i�l Building Sections ROADHOUSE-Mize a Daelapmml CON ipj 11 ib m m a A m F C F 0 o i i i r:: iOltm u K u 0 C i t ( i o i ,.11 (l�tim Building Sections ROADHOUSE-Mind On Dewdopmmt r F,1[ It7Jl�t(t�1 A:I n tiA ye CP [lljll�/l!!(e�ii r.Yb tOYP•4 .�A ••�- C� O PROPOSED LIST OF USES The Commercial Service (CS) zone allows for a variety of land uses. While the Mixed Use zone will allow for a residential component to be permitted with the CS zone and its allowable uses, the applicant has carefully considered the most appropriate uses allowed and/or conditionally allowed in the CS zone to provide for a compatible living/working condition. The following represents a listing of those uses. 1. Advertising and related services(graphic design,writing;mailing,addressing,etc.). 2. Antennas. 3. Banks and savings and loans. 4. Barbers,hairstylists,manicurists,tanning centers. 5. Broadcast studios. 6. Caretaker's quarters. 7. Catering Services 8. Churches, synagogues,temples,etc. 9. Computer services. 10. Credit reporting. 11. Day care center. 12. Delivery services. 13. Detective and security services. 14. Food banks and package food distribution centers. 15. Laboratories(medical,analytical research). 16. Offices(contractors). 17. Offices(engineering). 18. Organizations,offices and meeting rooms. 19. Photocopy services,quick printers. 20. Photofinishing-retail 21. Photofinishing-wholesale; and blueprinting and microfilming service. 22. Photographic studios. 23. Post offices and public and private postal services. 24. Printing and publishing. 25. Repair services(small household appliances,locksmiths, seamstress, shoe repair).. 26. Restaurants, sandwich shops,take-out food. 27. Retails sales(indoor sales of building materials and gardening supplies). 28. Retail sales(appliances, furniture,musical instruments; data processing equipment,business, office,medical equipment stores; catalog stores; sporting goods,outdoorsupply).. 29. Retail sales and repair of bicycles. 30. Retail sales(auto parts and accessories except tires and batteries). 31. Schools-business,trade,recreational,or other specialized.schools. 32. Secretarial and related services. 33. Ticket/travel agencies. 34. Utility companies-engineering and administration offices. 35. Wholesale and mail-order sales. Oasis Associates,Inc. 28 June 2000 Covey III-The Roadhouse. Supplement to GPA/Rezoning Request I.5 Ll -//a p y oaf K! ; ' y�l_. ��•.. }Ll i ;_�e IEc r.■ �3 f a I® T +ua ma IN fa s to " S wuli isyF w l� ol� m 4 6��1 J tm '��•, rrte�: 1 ,� ,� .� 4 ,+'! ITE-�1� • �7� f C kt 1, 1 f� e Z J # f ✓ 1 " � �� W�N..•f "y'..��iy'J AN1 a w a.; � tip, � +w �� .♦,�� L'yT" mol �` ar" ,a 'may"- '�~' ( tom ♦ d !,-; ^':i •rte � 1 L � tj" C' C� SOILS ENGINEERING REPORT AND CREEK BANK EVALUATION 811 EL CAPITAN WAY APN 076421-004 & 018 SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA PROJECT SLO1777-1 Prepared for James A. Quaglino, Inc.. 815 Fiero Lane San Luis Obispo,California 93401 Prepared by GEOSOLUTIONS, INC: 220 HIGH STREET SAN LUIS OBISPO,CALIFORNIA 93401 (805) 543-8539 �-/IS [ieosolutions, INC. 220 High Street,San Luis Obispo,CA 93401 (805)543-8539,543-2171 fax info@Geosolutions net September 25, 2000 Project SL01777-1 Mr. Matt Quaglino James A. Quaglino, Inc. 815 Fiero Lane San Luis Obispo,California 93401 Subject: Soils Engineering Report 811 EI Capitan Way APN 076-421-004 &018 San Luis Obispo, California Dear Mr.Quaglino: This Soils Engineering Report has been prepared for the property located at 811 El Capitan Way in the City of San Luis Obispo, California. Geotechnically the site is suitable for the proposed development provided the recommendations in this report for site preparation,earthwork, foundations, slabs,retaining walls,and pavement sections are incorporated into the design. Based on information provided by Architectural Production Services, the proposed development is to consist of two commercial buildings, paved parking areas, and associated utilities. One building is to be two-stories and the other one is to be three-stories in height. An existing log building that is currently used as a church occupies the property and is scheduled for demolition prior to the commencement of new construction. An unnamed drainage course is located adjacent to the southerly and easterly property boundaries. Stability of the creek bank appears good due to the subsurface soil consistency. Due to the presence of moderately expansive surface soils, it is anticipated that the commercial buildings will be constructed utilizing deepened continuous footings founded into engineered fill with slab-on-grade lower floor systems to limit the potential for distress of the foundation systems due to differential settlement and expansive soils. Thank you for the opportunity to have been of service in preparing this report. If you have any questions or require additional assistance,please feel free to contact the undersigned at(805) 543-8539. Sincerely, v PtkOFEssi .. �C��S�� G YO, N,ou/ `+� D OSOLUTIONS,INC. N0.22056 p NO.2118 9 EXR 9/30101 • CERTIFIED • Jo a Louise Otto PE John M.D. Kammer, C.E.G. ENGINEERING Oy Clyt� �p d. GEOLOGISTS� for Engineer CE 22056 � t Project Engineering Geologist 1LO/jlo Document No.SER\SL01777-1 811 EI Capitan Way.SLO\transmittal TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................................1 2.0 PURPOSE AND SCOPE.................................................................................................................I 3.0 FIELD AND LABORATORY INVESTIGATION.........................................................................2 3.1 Liquefaction Potential_...............................................................................................................3 4.0 GENERAL DISCUSSION OF SOIL-FOUNDATION PROBLEMS..............................................4 5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS...............................:...........................................4 5.1 Preparation of Building Pads..:............................................................................................4 5.2 Preparation of Paved Areas.................................................................................................4 5.3 Conventional Foundations...................................................................................................5 5.4 Slab-On-Grade Construction........................................................:..:..:................................6 5.5 Retaining Walls......................................................................:............................................6 5.6 Pavement Design.............................................................:...................................................8 6.0 ADDITIONAL GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES...................................................:..........................9 7.0 CREEK BANK EVALUATION:.....................................................................................................9 8.0 LIMITATIONS AND UNIFORMITY OF CONDITIONS............................................................10 FIGURES Site Location Map Site Plan APPENDIX A Field Investigation Soil Classification Chan Boring Logs APPENDIX B Laboratory Testing Soil Test Reports APPENDIX C Preliminary Grading Specifications i; �/l7 SOILS ENGINEERING REPORT 811 EL CAPITAN WAY APN 076421-004 & 018 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CALIFORNIA PROJECT SLO1777-1 1.0 INTRODUCTION This report presents the results of the geotechnical investigation for a-proposed commercial development to be located at 811 EI Capitan Way in the City of San Luis Obispo, California, see Figure 1, Site Location Map. The property located at the southeasterly comer of the intersection of EI Capitan Way and South Broad Street(Highway 227)near the southerly limits of the City of San Luis Obispo,see Figure 2, Site Plan. The property will hereafter be referred to as the"Site.". The Site is generally flat with a slight slope to an unnamed drainage course adjacent to the easterly and southerly site boundaries. Surface drainage of the Site follows the topography downward to the south to the unnamed drainage course,to San Luis Obispo Creek, and eventually to the Pacific Ocean. An existing log building that is currently used as a church occupies the Site and scheduled for demolition prior to the. commencement of new construction.. It is our understanding that the project will consist of two commercial buildings, paved parking areas, and associated utilities. One building is to be two-stories and the other one is to be three-stories in height. It is anticipated that the buildings will utilize slab-on-grade lower floor systems and concrete masonry exterior walls. Dead and sustained live loads are currently unknown but anticipated to be a maximum of 4.0 kips per lineal foot for continuous footings loads and 30 kips for column loads. 2.0 PURPOSE AND SCOPE The purpose of this study was to explore and evaluate the surface and sub-surface soil conditions at the Site and develop geotechnical information and design criteria. The scope of this study includes the following items: 1. A review of available published and unpublished geotechnical data pertinent to the project site; 2. A field study consisting of a site reconnaissance and an exploratory boring program to formulate a description of the sub-surface conditions; 3. A laboratory testing program performed on representative soil samples collected from our field study; 4. Analysis of the data gathered during our field study and laboratory testing. l� September 26,2000 Project SL01777-1 5. Development of recommendations for site preparation and grading, and geotechnical design criteria for building foundations, retaining walls, pavement sections, underground utilities and drainage facilities. 3.0 FIELD AND LABORATORY INVESTIGATION The field investigation was conducted on September 1 I and 12, 2000 utilizing Mobile B61 drill rig. Eight exploratory borings were placed at the locations indicated on the Site Plan with the actual locations approximated in the field. The surface materials consisted of dark to very dark olive brown sandy CLAY (CL) encountered in a slightly moist to moist and firm to very stiff condition. This material extends to approximately 3.5 to 14 feet below ground surface (BGS). Underlying this material, brown to olive brown and medium to dark yellowish brown CLAY (CL) with sand and some gravel was encountered in a slightly moist to moist and very stiff condition. Clay and/or silt lenses were encountered in all borings except B-5 and B-7. Borings B-1, B-3, B-4, B-6 and B-7 were terminated in weathered bedrock at depths of 14.5 to 20.5 feet BGS. Groundwater was detected in borings B-1, B-2 B-4 and B-8 at 10 to 12.5 feet BGS. It is anticipated that the structures will be constructed utilizing deepened continuous footings founded into engineered fill with slab-on-grade lower floors. During the boring operations the soils encountered were continuously examined, visually classified, and sampled for general laboratory testing. A project engineer has reviewed a continuous log of the soils encountered at the time of field investigation. The Boring Logs are attached in Appendix A. Structural building design parameters within the 1997 Uniform Building Code (UBC) are dependent upon several factors including site soil characteristics and faults near the Site. This data is presented below in tabular form. 1997 Uniform Building Code,-Chapter.16 Structural Design Parameters Soil Profile Type Sp—Stiff Soil Seismic Source Type Greater than 15 kilometers from an A fault Greater than 10 kilometers from a B fault. Seismic Zone Seismic Zone 4, Z=0.4 Near Source Factor No= 1.0 NV= 1.0 C,=0.44N,=0.44 (1.0)= 0.44 Seismic Coefficient Cv=0.64N,=0.64(1.0)=0.64 2 i 0 September 26,2000 Project SL01777-1 The results of the laboratory tests performed on the soils sampled from the Site during boring operations are listed below: Sample A•: ; .Sample B .,_.. .: -Sample C, Sample D Dark Olive Yellowish ;'Olive.Gray``' Yellowish Engineering Properties ` Brown Sandy `Brown Clayey, -Sandy Blastic Brown Lean Lean CLAY:` SAND(SC)`: SILT(mL CLAY w/Sand CL CL Expansion Index 63 40 31 56 Expansion Potential Medium Low Low Medium Maximum Dry Density,yd 119.9 pcf - - 123.5 pcf Optimum Moisture, m/c 13.3 % - - 11.7 % Angle of Internal Friction,0 19.10 - - 22.80 Cohesion, C 677 psf - - 791 psf Plasticity Index 21 19 36 18 ' B=S @3;51t. .B=7 @ 3 S ft. :B-3,@ 8,5 ft.: B-8 @ 3.5 ft. _. Dark Olive -.Dark Brown DarkBro -.--.,-Yellowish.,,.",'. Very Dark . Engineering" Brown San3y 5andy'_Iean Sandy CLAY Brown,Leah Brown Sandy PropertiesCLAY(CL) CLAY(CL) %� (CL), CLAY Lean CLAY */Sand-(CL).: CL Angle of Internal 27.30 21.70 26.50 - - Friction, Cohesion,C 1312 psf 902 psf 784 psf - - Consolidation @ - - 5.2% 5.9 3560 psf A detailed explanation of each laboratory test performed is provided in Appendix B, along with the laboratory data reports. 3.1 Liquefaction Potential 1. Liquefaction occurs when saturated, cohesionless soils lose shear strength due to earthquake shaking. Ground motion from an earthquake may induce cyclic reversals of shear stresses of large amplitude. Lateral and vertical movement of the soil mass combined with the loss of bearing strength usually results from this phenomenon. 2. Liquefaction potential of soil deposits during earthquake activity depends on soil type, void ratio, ground water conditions, the duration of shaking, and confining pressures on the potentially liquefiable soil unit. Fine, well-sorted loose sand, shallow ground water, high intensity earthquakes, and long duration of ground shaking are the principal factors leading to liquefaction. Based on the fine-grained nature of the soils, shallow bedrock 3 i � /ao September 26,2000 Project SL01777-1 encountered during drill operations, relative density of the in-situ soils, and the knowledge of the site geology; the potential for.seismic liquefaction of soils appears to be low. Assuming that the recommendations of the Soils Engineering Report are implemented,the potential for seismically induced settlement and differential settlement is considered to be very low. 4.0 GENERAL DISCUSSION OF SOIL-FOUNDATION PROBLEMS Based on information provided by Architectural Production Services, the proposed commercial buildings will replace the existing log structure currently occupying the Site. There is a 20-foot building setback from the top of the bank of the unnamed drainage course located adjacent to the southerly and easterly Site boundaries. Due to the presence of moderately expansive surface soils, it is anticipated that the commercial buildings will be constructed utilizing deepened continuous footings founded into engineered fill with slab-on-grade lower floor systems. 5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The Site is suitable for the proposed development provided the recommendations presented in this report are incorporated into the project plans and specifications. 1. The primary geotechnical concerns at the Site are: a. The presence of expansive surface soils. Influx of water from irrigation, leakage from the commercial or natural seepage could cause expansive soil problems; and b. The potential for differential settlement occurring between foundations supported on two soil materials having different settlement characteristics, such as soil and engineered. Therefore, it is important that all of the foundations are founded in equally competent uniform material in accordance with this report. 5.1 Preparation of Building Pads I. The native material should be over-excavated a minimum of 12 inches below the bottom of the footings or one-half of the depth of the deepest fill in any area to receive fill, whichever is deeper. The exposed surface should then be scarified an additional 12 inches, moisture conditioned to near optimum moisture content and compacted to 90 percent relative compaction (ASTM D1557-91). 5.2 Preparation of Paved Areas I. Pavement areas should be over-excavated 12 inches below grade. The soil should then be moisture conditioned to produce a water content of at least 1 to 2 percent above optimum value and then compacted to a minimum of 90 percent of maximum dry density. The top 1.2 inches of sub-grade soil under all pavements should be compacted to a minimum 4 September 26,2000 Project SL01777-1 relative compaction of 95 percent based on the ASTM D1557-91 test method at slightly above optimum. 2. Sub-grade soils should not be allowed to dry out or have excessive construction traffic between moisture conditioning and compaction, and placement of the pavement structural section. 5.3 Conventional Foundations 1. Conventional deep continuous and spread footings connected by grade beams may be used for support of the proposed structure. Isolated pad footings are not permitted. 2. For two and three-story construction, footings and grade beams should be a minimum of 12 and 15 inches wide respectively and founded a minimum of 24 inches into engineered fill. Minimum reinforcing should be one #5 bar top and bottom or as directed by the project Structural Engineer. A representative of this firm should observe and approve all foundation excavations for required embedment depth. Concrete should be placed only in excavations that have been pre-moistened to 130 percent of optimum moisture content to a depth of 30 inches below lowest adjacent grade with associated testing required and are free of loose soft soil, or debris. 3. Allowable dead plus live load bearing pressure of 1,800 psf may be used for design for continuous footings a minimum of 12 inch wide and founded a minimum of 24 inches below adjacent grade and spread footings a minimum of 2 feet by 2 feet wide and founded a minimum of 24 inches below lowest adjacent grade. An increase in bearing pressure of 20 percent may be used for each additional foot of width or depth to a maximum value of 3500 psf. Additionally, an increase of one-third shall be permitted when considering load combinations including wind or earthquake loads as permitted by the Uniform Building Code. 4. A total settlement of less than 3/4 inch and a differential settlement of less than '/a inch are anticipated. 5. Lateral forces on structures may be resisted by passive pressure acting against the sides of shallow footings and/or friction between the native soil and the bottom of the footing. For resistance to lateral loads, a friction factor of 0.35 may be utilized for sliding resistance at the base of footings extending 24 inches into engineered fill. A passive resistance of 260- pcf equivalent fluid weight may be used against the side of shallow footings into engineered fill. If friction and passive pressures are combined, the lesser value should be reduced by 50 percent. Foundation excavations should be observed and approved by a representative of this firm prior to the placement of reinforcing steel and/or concrete. 6. Foundation design should conform to the requirements of Chapter 18 of the latest edition of the Uniform Building Code. i 5 i a I September 26,2000 Project SL01777-1 7. The base of the all footings shall be level and step as required accommodating any slope of the grade, while maintaining the required minimum embedment depth. 5.4 Slab-On-Grade Construction 1. Concrete slabs-on-grade and flatwork should not be placed directly on unprepared native materials. Preparation of sub-grade to receive concrete slabs-on-grade and flatwork should be processed as discussed in the preceding sections of this"report. Concrete slabs should be placed only over sub-grade that has been pre-moistened to 130 percent of optimum moisture content to a depth of 30 inches below lowest adjacent grade with associated testing required. 2. Where concrete slabs-on-grade are to be constructed, the slabs should be underlain by a minimum of 6 inches of clean free-draining material, such as a typical I" x 44 concrete coarse aggregate mix to serves as a cushion and a capillary break. Where moisture susceptible storage or floor coverings are anticipated, a 10 ml Visqueen-type membrane should be placed between the cushion and the slab to provide an effective vapor barrier, and to minimize moisture condensation under the floor covering. It is suggested that a 2- inch thick sand layer be placed on top of the membrane to assist in the curing of the concrete. The sand should be lightly moistened prior to placing concrete. Moisture condensation under floor coverings has become critical due to the use of water-soluble adhesives; therefore it is suggested that moisture sensitive slabs not be constructed during inclement weather conditions. 3. Concrete slab-on-grades should be a minimum of 4 inches thick and should be reinforced with No. 3 reinforcing bars placed at 18 inches on-center both ways at or.slightly above the center of the structural section. Reinforcing bars should have a minimum clear cover of 1.5 inches. The aforementioned reinforcement may be used for anticipated uniform floor loads not exceeding 200 psf. If floor loads greater than 200 psf are anticipated, a structural engineer should evaluate the slab design. 4. Concrete for all slabs should be placed at a maximum slump of less than 5 inches. Excessive water content is the major cause of concrete cracking. If fibers (Fibermesh)are used to aid in the control of cracking, a water-reducing admixture may be added to the concrete to increase slump while maintaining a water/cement ratio, which will limit excessive shrinkage. Control joints should be constructed as required to control cracking. 5.5 Retaining Walls 1. Retaining walls should be designed to resist lateral pressures from adjacent soils and surcharge loads applied behind the walls. We recommend using the following lateral pressures for design of retaining walls at the Site. 6 I September 26,2000 Project SL01777-1 Lateral Pressure and Condition Equivalent Fluid Pressure,pcf Active Case,Native Drained (Ka) 55 Active Case, Granular Import Drained (Ke) 35 At-Rest Case,Native Drained (Ko) 70 At-Rest Case,Granular Import Drained(Ka) 50 Passive Case, Drained Native (KP) 260 The above values for equivalent fluid pressure are based on walls having level retained surfaces. Walls having a retained surface that slopes upward from the top of the wall should be designed for an additional equivalent fluid pressure of I pcf for the active case and 1.5 pcf for the at-rest case, for every degree of slope inclination. 2. Retaining wall foundations or keyways should have a minimum overall depth below lowest adjacent grade of 24 inches into engineered fill. A coefficient of friction of 0.35 may be used between engineered fill and concrete footings. Project designers may use a maximum toe pressure of 2,400 psf. 3. In addition to the lateral soil pressure given above, the retaining walls should be designed to support any design live load, such as from vehicle and construction surcharges, etc., to be supported by the wall backfill. If construction vehicles are required to operate within 10 feet of a wall, supplemental pressures will be induced and should be taken into account through design. 4. The above-recommended pressures are based on the assumption that sufficient sub-surface drainage will be provided behind the walls to prevent the build-up of hydrostatic pressure. To achieve this we recommend that a filter material be placed behind all proposed walls. The blanket of filter material should be a minimum of 12 inches thick and should extend from the bottom of the wall to within 12 inches of the ground surface. The top 12 inches should consist of moisture conditioned, compacted, clayey soil. A 4-inch diameter drainpipe (Schedule 40 PVC) should be installed near the bottom of the filter blanket with perforations facing down. The drainpipe should be underlain by at least 4 inches of filter type material. The filter material should consist of a clean free-draining aggregate, such as a typical I" x #4 concrete coarse aggregate mix. The filter material should be encapsulated in a permeable geotextile fabric. 5. For hydrostatic loading conditions (i.e. no free drainage behind retaining wall), an additional loading of 45-pcf equivalent fluid weight should be added to the above soil pressures. If it is necessary to design retaining structures for submerged conditions, the allowed bearing and passive pressures should be reduced by 50%. In addition, soil friction beneath the base of the foundations should be neglected. h J 7 f September 26,2000 Project SLO1777-1 6. Precautions should be taken to ensure that heavy compaction equipment is not used adjacent to walls, so as to prevent undue pressure against, and movement of the walls. 7. The use of water-stops/impermeable barriers should be used for any basement construction and for building walls that retain earth. 5.6 Pavement Design I. All paving construction and materials used should conform to applicable sections of the latest edition of the State of California Department of Transportation Standard Specifications. 2. As indicated previously, the top 12 inches of sub-grade soil under pavements should be compacted to a minimum relative compaction of 95 percent based on the ASTM D1557- 91 test method at slightly above optimum. Aggregate bases and sub-bases should also be compacted to a minimum relative compaction of 95 percent based on the aforementioned test method. 3. The following table provides the recommended pavement section based on an assumed R- Value of 10. Final design section will be determined after preliminary grading is finished and the California Test Method No. 301-F test is performed as a representative sample encountered at the Site per the City of San Luis Obispo Specifications. Recommended Minimum Asphalt Concrete Pavement Sections. "Design Thickness T.I. A.C. in. (mm) A.B in. (mm) Light Parking* 2.0(50) 6.0(150) Heavy Parking * 3.0(75) 6.0(150) 5.5 3.5 (90) 10.0 (250) 6.5 3.5 (90) 14.0 (350) 7.5 4.5 (115) 16.0 (410) 8.5 4.5 (115) 19.0 (480) T.I. =Traffic Index A.0=Asphaltic Concrete meeting Caltrans Specification for Class II Asphalt Concrete A.B. =Aggregate Base meeting Caltrans Specification for Class II Aggregate Base (R-Value=78 Minimum) A.B.S. =Aggregate Sub-Base meeting Caltrans Specification for Class III Sub-Base(R-Value= 50 Minimum) * Each 1 in. (25 mm) of asphalt may be substituted with 2 in. (50mm)of Class III Base. 2.0 in. (50 mm)minimum A.C. 1; 8 i �i 0 September 26.2000 Project SL01777-I 4. A minimum of 6 inches of Class Il Aggregate Base is recommended beneath all pavement sections and all sections should be crowned for good drainage. All pavement construction and materials used should conform to Sections 25, 26 and 39 of the latest edition of the State of California Department of Transportation Standard Specifications. 6.0 ADDITIONAL GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES The recommendations contained in this report are based on a limited number of borings and on the continuity of the sub-surface conditions encountered. It is assumed that GeoSolutions; Inc. will be retained to perform the following services: I. Consultation during plan development; 2. Plan review of grading, drainage, and foundation documents prior to construction; 3. Construction inspections and testing as required including, but not limited to, stripping, grading, over-excavating, backfill placement, imported materials, foundation excavations, pre-moistening verification, and compaction. 7.0 CREEK BANK EVALUATION A creek bank evaluation to identify creek bank stability was performed for the unnamed creek that flows in the vicinity of the southern portion of the property. The creek bank along the southeast side of the site is vertical to sloping at approximately 1:1 (horizontal:vertical). Small block failures (0.25 to 0.5 cubic yards of material) were observed within the creek sidewalls and are evidence that active erosion is occurring within the creek bank. Creek banks are composed of clayey silty sand with gravel and cobbles. No bedrock was exposed within the creek bottom or sidewalls. The creek is trapezoidal in shape and stagnate water(to 1 foot deep) was observed during our Site visit conducted September 11, 2000. Portions of the creek were thickly vegetated although banks were predominately non-vegetated. The depth of the creek channel is approximately 8 feet and the channel width is approximately 25 feet wide. Along the southwest side of the property, creek channel morphology is markedly different compared that in the southeast portion of the property. The creek bank along the southwest side of the property is gently sloping at an angle of less than 5:1 and maintains thick vegetation on the gentle slopes. Water was within this portion of the creek but active erosion was not obvious along this reach of the creek. The stream bank along this portion of the property may have achieved some level of stability within recent times due to the establishment of vegetation along the gentle slope bank. No portion of the creek along any portion of the property is within a 100-year flood zone as established within the National Flood Insurance Program (Flood Insurance Rate Map, San Luis Obispo County, California, community panel no. 060304-0625C, July 18, 1985, published by Federal Emergency Management Agency). However, a study conducted by Boyle Engineering, 1998, San Luis Obispo City Creek Master Plan, shows that a maximum of 3,570 cubic feet per second can potentially flow within the creek during a 100-year event and that the surface water r; 9 : J4 �l 1(db September 26,2000 Project SLOI777-1 elevation of this event is estimated at 160.5 feet. The finished floor of both Building A and Building B is 159.0 and 159.5 feet respectively. There is a potential for flooding of the buildings as depicted in the current plans if the potential 100-year event is realized. Densities of subsurface materials at the Site are good as exemplified in borings completed. Blow counts of the sampling tool indicate firm to hard subsurface soil consistency. Stability of the creek bank.appears good due to the subsurface soil consistency.. According to the Uniform Building Code (UBC) design guidelines, the base-of-building-footings should be setback from a descending slope surface. a distance of the total height of the slope divided by three. As the slope of the steepest bank(located in the southeast portion of the Site) is approximately 8 feet, a minimum base-of-footing setback should be 2.6 feet from the top of bank. Current Site plans indicate a minimum setback of the proposed building approximately 12 feet from the top-of bank. In its current configuration, the proposed building is setback an adequate distance from the creek bank according to UBC guidelines. It is recommended that the creek bank be observed for evidence of erosion following storm activity or large stream flow events. If erosion of the stream bank below the Site is observed following storm activity, re-assessement of bank stability may be necessary. It is recommended that top of bank activity be limited, especially in the southeast corner of the property. Disturbance of the bluff top, either by natural or man-made causes, should be severely restricted. Surface flow of drainage water should not be allowed over the top of the bank. It is recommended that the finished floor elevation of the proposed buildings be re- evaluated with respect to the estimated 100-year flood elevation. 8.0 LIMITATIONS AND UNIFORMITY OF CONDITIONS l. The recommendations of this report are based upon the assumption that the soil conditions do not deviate from those disclosed during our study. Should any variations or undesirable conditions be encountered during the development of the Site, GeoSolutions, Inc. will provide supplemental recommendations as dictated by the field conditions. 2. This report is issued with the understanding that it is the responsibility of the owner or his/her representative to ensure that the information and recommendations contained herein are brought to the attention of the architect and engineer for the project, and incorporated into the project plans and specifications. The owner or his/her representative is responsible to ensure that the necessary steps are taken to see that the contractor and subcontractors carry out such recommendations in the field. 3. As of the present date, the findings of this report are valid for the property studied. With the passage of time, changes in the conditions of a property can occur whether they are due to natural processes or to the works of man on this or adjacent properties. Therefore, this report should not be relied upon after a period of 3 years without our review nor should it be used or is it applicable for any properties other than those studied. C\Soil Engineering Reports\SLO1777-1 811 El Capitan SLO\SLO1777-1 811 EI Capitan. SER.doc !lf�J 1 10 0 � ]® John L. Wallace & Associates �g (evil Engineering•survWng 0 Flan»ing MEMORANDUM DATE: . October 4, 2000 TO: Carol Florence, Oasis Landscape Architecture and Planning FROM: Matt Wheeler, John L. Wallace& Associates SUBJECT: Flood Elevations for Roadhouse Commercial Develo ment We have reviewed information provided by the City of San Luis Obispo detailing existing and projected flows for the East Branch of San Luis Obispo Creek. The100-year water surface elevations shown for the portion of the creek immediately upstream of the bridge at HWY 227 (Broad Street) are approximately 160.3' for existing conditions and 160.6' for General Plan Build-out (future) conditions. The existing wood frame building on the site(House of Prayer Church Building)has a finished floor elevation of 161.63', which is greater than 1-foot above flood elevation. However, the proposed finished floor elevations of the future buildings are below the 100.year flood elevation. According to this information,the current building design does not meet the requirement to be at least 1-foot above future flood elevations. ts from the Boyle Storm Drainage MasterPlan prepared for the Attached you will find these excerp City of San Luis Obispo: Table 2.8—Hydrologic Runoff Summary for 100-year Hydrologic Event. Data highlighted for Peak Flow under Broad Street bridge over East Branch San Luis Obispo Creek: • Spreadsheet with water surface elevation data for HEC-RAS model of East Branch San Luis Obispo Creek. Data highlighted for cross-sections adjacent to site., • Plate 3.1 —Cross-Section Locations. • del of East Branch San Luis Obispo Creek within Cross-Sections plotted from HEC-RAS mo vicinity of site. if you have any questions or would.like to discuss the scope of this project, please don't hesitate to call Matt Wheeler @ (805) 544-4011. Thank you. tUhWO1 Wrolt238,APS AnhitecLTW F7oodAmbnu%Oans 1 o.4-oadoc OM 1115 Broad Fax Soret Stt-t Suite B-S•San lna main 93101-7963•Al 0 SIt-1011• 2W F,neaeLgaatSc°"' AIR POLLUTION ' CONTROL DISTRICT COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO TO: City of San Luis Obispo Community Development Department Whitney McLvaine FROM: Jacquie L. Bean, Air Quality Specialist IIr 1(L/ DATE: November 17, 2000 SUBJECT: Roadhouse Project; 108-00 District staff has reviewed the information contained in the referral from your office for a request to construct a mixed-use project consisting of two (2) buildings. Building"A"would consist of 13,871 SF of commercial on two-stories and Building "B"would consist of 7256 SF of commercial on the first story with 14,128 SF of residential and common areas in 16 apartments on the 2"and 3`d stories. The property is located at 811 EI Capitan in San Luis Obispo. We have the following comments regarding this referral: Site Design We commend the applicant's efforts to provide a mixed-use design for the proposed project. Mixed-use development is a key land-use strategy identified.in the Clean Air Plan to reduce dependence on private vehicle travel. Placing compatible commercial and residential uses in close proximity to one another can significantly reduce vehicle trips and emissions by providing. greater opportunity for pedestrian and bicycle access to essential services. The District also commends the applicant Construction and Operation Phase Emissions Under the current design proposal,the project is not likely to exceed the Districts emissions thresholds of significance for construction or operation. However,to address cumulative air quality impacts, please have the applicant implement three (3) of the following mitigation measures into the project: I. All glazing to be dual--pane; 2. Wall and ceiling insulation to be upgraded one level from Title 24 requirements; 3. Appliances, furnaces, water heaters and lighting to be high efficiency and energy conserving; 4. Use solar water heaters; 5. Use sodium parking lot and street lights; 6. Easements or land dedications for bikeways and pedestrian walkways; 7. Provide on-site eating, refrigeration and food vending facilities to reduce lunchtime trips; 8. Shade tree planting in parking lots to reduce evaporative emissions from parked vehicles. 9. Install bicycle lockers. 3433 Roberto Court • San Luis Obispo,CA 93401 • 805-781-5912 • FAX: 805-781-1002 cleanair@sloapcd.dst.ca.us ❖ \&ww.sloapcd.dst.ca.us alb printed on recycled paper a Roadhouse Project; 108-00 November 17, 2000 Page 2 APCD Asbestos Issues The project as described includes the demolition of the House of Prayer Building at the property site located at 811 El Capitan in San Luis Obispo. Demolition activities have potential negative air quality impacts, including issues surrounding proper removal and disposal of asbestos containing materials. Demolition activities are subject to the requirements stipulated in the National Emissions Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP), which includes but is not limited to: 1)notification requirements to the APCD, 2) asbestos survey conducted by a Certified Asbestos Inspector, and 3) applicable removal and disposal requirements of identified asbestos containing materials. Please contact Tim Fuhs or Mark Elliott of the APCD Enforcement Division at 781-5912 for further information. The project description includes the removal of at least two large trees from the property site. Please advise the applicant that burning of vegetative materials is not allowed within the City of San Luis Obispo. The applicant may contact us for information on alternatives to burning vegetative materials. Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on this project. If you have any further questions or comments please contact me at 781-5912. HAo is\plan\response\2286.J LB 1�, (� y/�/ = 1 h v � Y ,y :1 1 1 :1 1• The Roadhouse Moved Use Development Table of Contents Section Page Introduction.................................................................................. 1 Environmental Setting.......................................................................2 ProjectLocation.................................................................. 2 Study Site Description............................................................2 Surveyof Wildlife...........................................................................5 Objective.............................................................................5 Methods............................................................................. 5 Resultsof Study..............._................._..........................................7 Reach1............................................._................................7 Reach2............................................................................ 9 Wildlife Resources...... .................................................................12 Birds...............................................................................12 Reptiles and Amphibians.....................................................13 Mammals..............................................................._........ 13 Fish.................................................................................14 Potential Impacts and Mitigation.......................................................16 References Cited.._......................................................................19 Tables 1. List of Wildlife Species Observed on the Project Site..................................6 2. Sensitive Species with the Potential to Occur within SLO Creek Area..........15 Figures 1. Vicinity Map. Roadhouse Mixed Use Development Project.........................3 2. View of proposed project site & adjacent reaches......................................4 3a. View of Reach 1 facing west toward the Highway 227 Bridge......................8 3b. View of Reach 1 facing northeast toward confluence with Reach 2..............8 4. View of plunge pool on Reach 1, adjacent to Highway 227 Bridge..............10 5. View of Reach 2 facing upstream.........................................................10 Appendices A. Terrestrial Wildlife Species Known to Use Habitats Similar to Those Habitats Found Along San Luis Obispo Creek, Including Fish Species Known To Occur B. Riparian Plant Community in San Luis Obispo Creek Area C. Federally Listed Plant Species and Species of Local Concern that Occur in San Luis Obispo County Icncra 1{211(to-[W),I OTENERA Environmental Z-Na3 1 —' The RL .louse Mixed Use Development Introduction The following habitat characterization was conducted at the request of the City of San Luis Obispo in response to a proposed general plan amendment to reclassify the zoning of two parcels (APN 076-421-028 and APN 076-421-026)within the recent Fuller Road - Aero Drive Annexation. Current zoning designation for the two parcels includes 1.4 acres of Commercial Service (C-S)and 0.21 acres of Medium Density Residential (R-2). The General Plan Amendment would reclassify the zoning for the R-2 portion of parcel 103 to C-S and add a Mixed Use designation (MU)to the C-S zoning. The applicant is also proposing to replace the existing structure on the property with a mixed-use development(2 buildings). This development, the "Roadhouse Development"would consist of(1)two-story commercial building, and (1)three-story commercial/residential building. The proposed development will include related parking and site amenities. Tencia e2000-109.1 1 ®� TENERA Environmental Ll-134 i The Roadhouse Mixed Use Development. Environmental Setting Project Location The site of the proposed project is located in the 800 block of EI Capitan Way (351 14' 77" N Latitude, 1200 38' 48" W Longitude) within the Edna-Islay region of the City of San Luis Obispo, California (Figure 1). The project site is bordered by EI Capitan Way to the north and Highway 227 to the west. Tributaries of the East Fork of San Luis Obispo Creek define much of the southern boundary of the site. The in—stream and riparian corridor habitats adjacent to the project site are the.subject of this report. Study Site Description San Luis Obispo Creek and its tributaries receive water and runoff from a watershed of approximately 84 square miles in area (Cleveland, 1996). The East Fork of San Luis Obispo Creek drains the Islay Hill region of the San Luis Obispo Creek watershed and is considered a seasonal tributary (Tamagni, 1995; Cleveland, 1996). The East Fork enters the main channel of San Luis Obispo Creek approximately one half mile north of the southern terminus of South Higuera Street (Highway 101 off-ramp). The proposed Roadhouse Development is adjacent to (north of) the confluence of two small, low gradient tributaries of the East Fork of San Luis Obispo Creek (Figure 2). These un-named tributaries are referred to as the southern waterway and northern waterway in the Edna-Islay Specific Plan (MDW, 1982(a)). The southern waterway is adjacent to the southwester corner of the proposed development and the northern waterway is adjacent to the southeast comer. Three bridges (the Highway 227 Bridge, the Calle Del Caminos Bridge, and a foot-bridge) span the creek channel in the vicinity of the proposed project site. A culvert carrying runoff from EI Capitan Way discharges into the creek near the northeastern comer of the Highway 227 Bridge. Land abutting the creek channel upstream and in the vicinity of the project site is zoned for residential, commercial, and industrial uses. rcnrr, 1'. ,,,,_i„v 2 Tt—.;- TENERA Environmental V-13s- The Ro—_.rouse Mixed Use Development .ogrx* uwrmn , � Q �r 1dA M1 )R!M JCN 4 c P •L 17 S]•Q`r"f \4 \ I # �` 'lacoca _ 2. .. O 'c ,yt,i t •' V ; '` Q St. ;� a'• D s yatr rwr' F n u+a :f, ,� e` , s' =1 IVA I ' Rx G T uT srfl _ ..: r 9 t Joy ?ty .0 r Mb: fan RK v• .;; k T:r.r NNnn {ntn+.w.mn t.. •...Cls, r, to 'N rt �. ?W:^.•/ ..f.W..a+, •4 � "e CT' �• Soy._ ?s e`an Z �0t� � � � St tL�a' •f Mn I Dr �^*�� y tyy gyp ::! ai:•:�j:�•^3�f' * N �, E w s t'<h'` ,C WtiAlt fudwQr. t , thwrbtl tcwGt� c.n.,-.. —.-�-_ a.. Oyt�H i 06 \ 4� O CIfTT DAD . 121 OfMC!'a •i �R � �Ain.. .I. °'8uite Are. s � pa '1 O� p Ge,e4. PeW y • ' L..rr C� s m �" Bonen. Or. V� •• a.-n� 3 wC' u-•�e� /�� t Matrirssis / y�I r0 '�v t '�• .CT_ phut Li Y� J n t t? 3 T K f P Roadhouse Mixed F Use Development a SAN LUIS OBISPO C UNTY 4 $ AIRPORT ! f = JD+rct+trry y PaaC +" Buctlw q\ z Figure 1. Vicinity Map. Roadhouse Mixed Use Development Project, San Luis Obispo, CA. Tenera E2090-109.1 3 :' TENERA Environmental The Roadhouse Mused Use De�eloament •4 OT Reach 2 Val Figure 2. View of proposed project site and adjacent reaches of the East Fork of San Luis Obispo Creek. 4 rcn�Tat:�u(x)-ui�.t TENERA Environmental IN- The Raaahaw Mad Use Development Survey of Wildlife Obiective The primary focus of the survey was to characterize the in-stream and riparian corridor habitats and to identify the plant and wildlife species within the area. The survey was also used to determine if Federal and State listed species or species of special and local concern were present in the vicinity of the project site and if suitable habitat for such species exists. Methods Surveys of the streambed and riparian corridor in the vicinity of the proposed project site were conducted during the morning and afternoon hours on November 15 and November 18, 2000. A total of approximately 250 m (820 feet) of the East Fork of San Luis Obispo Creek was surveyed. In addition, the riparian corridor was surveyed out to approximately 15 m (50 ft) on either side of the streambed. The stream channel was divided into two reaches and each reach was surveyed separately. The physical characteristics of the existing streambed and riparian corridor were measured for each reach. Reach 1(approximately 100 m [328 ft])was defined as the section of the creek channel between the Calle Del Caminos Bridge and the Highway 227 Bridge (Figure 2). Reach 2 was the section of the northern waterway that extended from the confluence with Reach 1 and continued upstream past the third bend in the creek (approximately 150 m [492 ft]) (Figure 2). The wildlife survey included canvassing the area to identify the botanical components of the site and to determine the presence of various wildlife species. Habitat suitability was also assessed for Federally listed species and species of special concern. A series of visual surveys, aided by the use of binoculars, were conducted along each bank of both reaches. A common sense minnow seine was used to sample the pools_ All animals observed directly or indirectly by their sign (tracks, scat, nests, burrows, etc.) were recorded (Table 1). A nighttime survey of-the study site was not conducted. 5 .� TeiiiTa l--MM-ul9.t `= TEN ERA Environmental The Roadhouse VDW Use Deuelaprt�ent Table 1. List of Wildlife Species Observed on the Project Site and Adjacent Riparian Areas Along the East Fork of San Luis Obispo Creek. Common Name Scientific Name Amphibians Pacific Tree Frog* Hyla re illa Birds American Crow Corvus brach rh nchos American Robin Turdus mi ratorius Bushtit Psaltriacus minimus Cliff Swallow* Hirundo pyrrhonota Common Yellowthroat Geothlypis trichas Great Egret Casmerodius albus Hairy Woodpecker Picoides villosus Northern Mockingbird Mimus polyglottos Ruby-crowned Kinglet Regulus calendula Turkey Vulture Cathartes aura Fish Three-spine Stickleback Gasterosteus aculeatus Mammals Bobcat* Lynx rufus Opossum* Didelphis marsu ialis Raccoon* Prod on lotor *Not observed; identified through sign (tracks, scat, nests, etc.) 6 'p"a TeneTa G2O(X)-109.1 „:� TENERA Environmental `/3/ The Roadhouse Mixed Use Development Results of Survey Reach 1 Reach 1 was a low gradient section of stream extending approximately 100 m (328 ft) downstream from the Calle Del Caminos Bridge to just beyond the Highway 227 Bridge (Figures 3a and 3b). During the time of the survey (November, 2000) water in the reach was nearly stagnant. The limited water flow was directed downstream past the project site through an approximate 130-degree bend in the creek channel (from a northeasterly direction to ten degrees south of due west). The reach consisted of three pools, two shallow glides, and a plunge pool (Figure 4) that has formed below the culvert along the northern bank of the creek. The depth of the stream ranged from a few centimeters to 1.1 m (3.6 ft). Water present in the creek channel during the survey spanned a maximum width (Pool 1) of approximately 7 m (23 ft) and was 2 m (6.6 ft) in width at its narrowest point. The stream banks within the reach were approximately 3 m (9.8 ft) in height. The banks of the stream along this reach sloped steeply into the streambed except for a section of the northern bank bordering the project site. This gently sloping segment of bank was thickly vegetated with blackberry Rubus spp. and supported the only stand of willows Salix spp. within the reach. Bulrush Scapus spp., sedges Carex spp., castor bean Ricinus communis, sweet fennel Foeniculum vulgare, and a variety of grasses and exotic herbaceous species also occurred in this area. While the stream bank appeared to be stable along this stretch, evidence of erosion was present along both banks in the remainder of Reach 1 and the steep slopes supported a limited coverage of both native and exotic vegetation. Coffeeberry Rhamnus crocea, cattails Typha spp. and giant reed Arundo donax were present, however grasses, exotic weeds, and introduced plants were predominant. The plant assemblage along Reach 1 was characteristic of a disturbed habitat. Grass and landscape cuttings have been dumped along the top of the northern bank of the reach. The in-stream habitat present in Reach 1 was marginal. Streambed substrate consisted of gravel and cobble covered with a layer of algae, leaf litter, organic debris, and fine mud/silt. Most of the hard substrate within the reach was embedded and sediment 7 �� TEN ERA Environmental + I t � ➢ 14T )'`�1 s -t� r+ . '�� +� �� of 4 � rc r s - t ' t. . „f ' t� �r. x.�•. , l�?5 it _ i � • � s5 r .�� j�lbt i �r +�.� /gyp r. 5' i � 15 �l\:• Y / tS �tl ��y,� r •a"._ �).. XPi. } t . The Roadhouse Mixed Use Development deposition within the pools was moderate to heavy. Some larger cement and asphalt rubble were present in the glide and pool nearest the Highway 227 Bridge. Woody debris was not present in the streambed or along the banks. An undercut bank and exposed roots of a Sycamore tree increased the habitat quality in the middle pool of the reach. Little water flow was noted during the survey and water quality appeared to be relatively poor. An oily sheen was present on the surface of the water in each of the pools. Watercress Rorippa nasturtium-aquatica was present within the shallowest areas of both glides. Stream shading was provided by intermittent overstory coverage. Tree species representative of the local riparian zone were present along the reach as well as numerous exotic species. Native trees present included the California sycamore Platamus racemosa, coast live oak Quercus agrifolia, Fremont cottonwood Populus fremontii, black walnut Juglans hindsii hindsii, and toyon Heteromeles arbutifolia. Numerous non-native tree species were also present along the reach including eucalyptus Eucalyptus spp., Monterey pine Pinus radiata, valley oak Quercus lobata, and the pepper tree Schinus molle. Reach 2 Reach 2 was a section of the northern waterway that extended upstream for approximately 150 m (492 ft) and included 4 pools. The water flow observed in this reach was negligible and the glide that discharged water from the tributary into Reach 1 was dry (Figure 5). The two streams converged where the Reach 1 channel turns to the west. Water was present in intermittent stagnant pools and ranged in depth from a few centimeters to 0.5 m (1.6 ft). Glides were either dry or very shallow. Standing water in Reach 2 spanned no more than two meters (6.6 ft) in width. The creek channel was narrow and steep, averaging approximately 3 m (9.8 ft) in width (bank top to bank top). The banks were generally less than 2 m (6.6 ft) in height and there was ample evidence of past erosion problems. Several areas of the bank have been reinforced with concrete rubble, scrap metal, automobile body parts, etc. This reinforcement material also littered the pools and glides. Grass, landscape cuttings, engine parts, and trash have been dumped into the streambed from numerous points along the bank. I,, ? , 9 Ij TENFRA Envronmental Al/�� , f -rte i}_. - �] y�: n �, • �,:�� l i' •�L v - K -.�•.P r. t '1. nr -.N l:}•i ?'- _ _ .... _ - '/rte• 'Ai ........ ,517 'd n' �' •v it`�• ' ✓- ,a _ - 1 r The Roadhouse Muted Use Development The riparian corridor along much of Reach 2 has been highly degraded by human activity. The banks along the beginning and middle portions of the reach are largely devoid of native riparian vegetation, however, the upper third of the reach supported a thick stand of willows (Salix spp.). The upper banks of the first two-thirds of the reach have either been cleared or did not support a significant growth of bank-stabilizing vegetation. Coffeeberry and wild rose Rosa califomica were present along this degraded stretch. An overstory of exotic tree and shrub species formed the canopy over the creek at the first bend (and pool) but upstream, both banks were vegetated with grasses, exotic herbaceous species, and introduced ornamentals. The in-stream habitat along Reach 2 was marginal. Standing water was present only in intermittent shallow pools and water within the pools was clear. Sedimentation was not. as heavy as in Reach 1. Material eroded from the degraded banks along Reach 2 was probably swept downstream and out of the reach during periods of high flow. The streambed substrate was composed of sand, gravel, and cobble. Willow branches and exposed roots were present in the streambed along the upper one third of the reach. No submergent or emergent aquatic vegetation was observed. Native riparian trees present along this reach include the California bay-laurel Umbellularia califomica, Fremont cottonwood, black walnut, and California sycamore. Introduced Monterey cypress Cupressus macrocarpa, Monterey pine, Chinese elm Ulmus parvifolia, pepper tree, eucapyptus, and Ficus Ficus spp. were also observed along the banks of Reach 2. 121111iI-I(N 11 �,� TENERA Environmental The Roadhouse Moved Use Development Wildlife Resources The survey was conducted in mid-November, following a series of nights in which the ambient temperature dropped to freezing or near freezing. The afternoon surveys were conducted during relatively cool temperatures and windy conditions. Neither the season nor the local weather conditions were optimal. Riparian habitat.provides vital resources to a wide variety of wildlife. Many animals require streamside habitat for at least part of their lives, and a few species depend entirely on the resources of the riparian zone during their life cycle. Riparian habitat provides food, water, shelter, and nesting and breeding areas, as well as migration and dispersal corridors for many mammals, birds, amphibians, fish, and reptiles (Appendix A). Birds A number of bird species were identified during the survey in the riparian corridor adjacent to the proposed project site. Table 1 lists the species observed during the survey and should not be considered a complete account of the bird fauna in the area. The presence, abundance, and activity of birds in an area is affected by seasonal and migratory factors, as well as local environmental conditions. Bird identifications were made by direct observation, sound, and the presence of nests. The most common bird species observed were the Ruby-crowned kinglet Regulus calendula and the Common Bushtit Psaltriparus minimus. Ruby-crowned kinglets were observed in many of the trees on the site and in the adjacent riparian corridor. Flocks of Common Bushtits were observed only within stands of willows (Salix spp.). Table 2 shows the Federally listed species and species of local concern that have the potential to occur within the San Luis Obispo Creek area. One of these species, the Great egret Casmerodius albus was observed during the survey. Great egrets forage in. open areas and also along streams in wooded country. They have been observed foraging in estuaries, marshes, along edges of lakes, and in among cattle. The surveyed area does not provide good nesting habitat for the Great egret. r , r:: r?uun_iuv 12 Tw TENERA Environmental Z/11�� C, The Roadhouse Mixed Use Development While a limited variety of birds were observed during the surrey, the habitat within the survey area was suitable for nesting and foraging by a number of birds, notably the Cooper's hawk Accipiter cooperii. These hawks inhabit streamside groves and prey largely on songbirds. The tall sycamore and eucalyptus trees with nearby open space provided suitable habitat:for these raptors. Reptiles and Amphibians A number of reptile and amphibian species are commonly found within the riparian corridors of San Luis Obispo Creek (QEC, 1997). These include the western fence lizard Sceloporus occidentalis, the Pacific tree frog Hyla regilla, the bullfrog Rana catesbeiana, and the western toad Bufo boreas. In addition to these common species, four species of special concern, the southwestern pond turtle Clemmys marmorata pallida, the two-striped garter snake Thamnophis hammondi, the California red-legged frog Rana aurora draytonii,.and the California tiger salamander Ambystoma tigrinum califomiense are known to inhabit riparian habitat similar in structure and composition to that found along San Luis Obispo Creek and its tributaries. The southwestern pond turtle is the only special status species that has been recently identified in the San Luis Obispo Creek riparian corridor (QEC, 1997). No reptiles were observed during the survey. One amphibian species, the Pacific tree frog, was present in both of the surveyed reaches. The presence and activity of ectothermic animals such as reptiles and amphibians is affected by season and temperature. California red-legged frogs are reported to be less active during cold or windy weather conditions and surveys are not considered reliable if conducted during the colder months of the year(i.e., after November 1) (FWS, 1997). Habitat for reptile and amphibian species in the surveyed area was limited in both quantity and quality. While potential habitat may be present, the occurrence of special status reptile and amphibian species in the vicinity of the proposed project site was not confirmed or ruled out. Mammals A variety of mammals are common to riparian zone habitats and rely on the stream and its associated vegetation for food, water, and shelter. Mammals reported to be common within the riparian corridor habitat of San Luis Obispo Creek include the striped skunk rerlera 1 1211 0 0-1(11) 13 C-5 TENERA Environmental �� The Roadhouse Mixed Use Development Mephitis mephitis, raccoon Procyon lotor, opossum Didelphis virginiana, and dusky- footed woodrat Neotoma fuscipes (QEC, 1997). Deer Odocoileus hemionus, coyote Canis latrans, and bobcat Lynx rufus also utilize, but are not limited to, riparian habitats within the San Luis Obispo Creek watershed(QEC, 1997). A variety of bat species occur in San Luis Obispo County. The Yuma myotis Myotis yumanensis is listed by the California Department of Fish and Game as a Species of Special Concern, and the big free-tail bat Tadarida mo/ossa and the pallid bat Antrozous pallidus are listed by the City of San Luis Obispo as Species of Local Concern. Many of the mammals discussed above are primarily nocturnal and no mammals were directly observed during the survey. Numerous raccoon tracks were identified in soft sediment along the stream bank and raccoon scat was found in the stand of willows adjacent to the Highway 227 Bridge. One set of bobcat tracks was also found during the survey. Bats utilize a variety of structures as roosts, including holes in the underside of bridges such as those present under the Highway 227 Bridge. While no bats were observed during the survey, and bat guano did not appear to be present in the vicinity of the holes, potential habitat for bats was present in the area. Fish A variety of fishes are found within the San Luis Obispo Creek watershed including five native species and several introduced species. The native species include the speckled dace Rhinichthys osculus, three-spine stickleback Gasterosteus aculeatus, prickly sculpin Cottus asper, Pacific lamprey Lampetra tridentata, and South/Central California Coast ESU (Evolutionary Significant Unit) steelhead trout Onchorhynchus mykiss irideus (Tamagni, 1995). Introduced species include bluegill Lepomis macrochirus, brown bullhead Ictalurus nebulosus, channel catfish Ictalurus punctatus, golden shiner Notemigonus crysoleucus, fathead minnow Pimephales promelas, goldfish Carassius auratus, green sunfish Lepomis cyanellus, large-mouth bass Micropterus salmoides, and mosquito fish Gambusia affinis (Tamagni, 1995). One native fish species, the three-spine stickleback; was observed and identified during the survey. Three-spine stickleback were abundant in the pools of Reach 1 and were present in Reach 2. No other fish species were identified, observed, or captured. The water clarity of the pools was poor and due to obstructions on the bottom, seining was I.Iwla 1 _0(It-uw 14 TENERA Environmental —� � The Roadhouse Mixed Use Development not possible in the deeper sections of the pool adjacent to the Highway 227 Bridge. It is possible that other fish species were present and either evaded the net or held in areas of the pool where they were not visible. Steelhead trout are listed federally as a threatened species and are the primary fish species of concern in the San Luis Obispo Creek watershed. Steelhead trout rely on high water quality and relatively undisturbed riparian and in-stream.habitat to complete their life cycle. No steelhead trout were observed or captured in either reach of the survey area. Water quality at.the time of the survey appeared to be poor and in-stream habitat was marginal. Nevertheless, the presence of pools greater than 1 m (3.3 ft) in depth (after months without significant rainfall), overhanging willows, undercut banks, and exposed roots indicate that potential habitat for the species exists. The pools of Reach 1 (present survey)were designated as one of ten steelhead trout nursery areas existing along the East Fork of San Luis Obispo Creek in 1988 (Land Conservancy of SLO, 1988). Table 2. Sensitive Species with the Potential to Occur within the San Luis Obispo Creek Area. State Species Scientific Name Federal Species of Species of Status Special Local Concern Concern Steelhead Trout Onchorhynchus mykiss irideus Threatened California Red-legged Frog Rana aurora draytonii Threatened Southwestern Pond Turtle Clemmys marmorata pallida California Tiger Salamander Ambystoma tigrinum caldbmiense Two-striped Garter Snake Thamnophis hammondi Cooper's Hawk Accipiter cooperii Northern Hamer Circus cyaneis Bats Many species California Newt Taricha torosa Westem Skink Eumeces skiltonianus Western Toad Bufo boreas Great Blue Heron Ardea herodias Snowy Egret Egretta thula Great Egret Casmerodius albus Rufous Hummingbird Selasphorus rufus Prickly Sculpin Coitus asper I enis: I nuo-luv 15 v= TEN ERA Environmental The K. dhouse Mixed Use Development Potential Impacts and Mitigation The observations made during this survey suggest that the riparian corridor and in- stream habitats adjacent to the proposed Roadhouse Mixed Use Development are best characterized as disturbed, and moderately to heavily degraded. This is not to say that the habitat is of little value to the species observed or to special status species occurring in the area. The integrity of the in-stream and riparian habitats present should be preserved, and even enhanced if possible. In order to assess the potential biological impacts of the development, and provide City planners and decision makers with the information necessary to fulfill their commitments under CEQA, a description of the pertinent aspects of the development and its potential impacts is provided. Also provided are suggested mitigation measures for each of the potential impacts identified. The proposed Roadhouse Mixed Use Development entails approving an amendment to the City's general plan to re-zoning 0.21 acres of medium density residential (R-2) property as Commercial Service (C-S) and adding a mixed-use designation to existing and newly redesignated C-S property. This re-designation of the zoning of two parcels would allow the applicant to develop a mixed-use project that includes a new two-story commercial building and a new three-story commercial-residential building in the place of an existing structure. The development includes 71 parking spaces and 16 residential apartment units. The three-story structure is situated along the creek bank and the apartment units occupy the building's upper two floors. The proposal calls for the existing edge of pavement to be retained. Plans for the development include a two rail fence along the top of the creek bank. No alteration or reinforcement of the existing streambed is proposed and heavy equipment use in the streambed is not anticipated. Potential impacts may occur directly during the construction phase of the project, or indirectly. There are several ways in which a creek side development could potentially impact the plant and animal communities present within the riparian corridor. These include: • The displacement or deposition of fill material or rubble onto/over the banks of the creek during grading and construction. Teneri E2000-109.1 16 TENERA Environmental The Roadhouse Mixed Use Development • The elimination of riparian corridor vegetation and stream canopy cover through cutting of trees, clearing of brush, or sustained/increased foot-traffic. • Increased illumination or other disturbance of resident and migratory animal species (domestic animals, noise, increased human use). • Additional discharge of pollutants into the stream. All of these potential impacts can be mitigated through relatively simple measures. Deposition of fill material or rubble onto/over the banks of the creek during grading and construction can be mitigated by promoting a heightened awareness of the boundaries of the project site among construction personnel and heavy equipment operators. The boundaries of the site should be conspicuously marked to reduce the possibility of inadvertent deposition of fill material into undesired locations. The potential for this impact would be minimized if material was graded away from the creek bank. The proposed plan includes removal of several trees. None of the trees slated for removal contribute to the riparian zone canopy cover, so adherence to the plan for tree removal would eliminate the potential for this impact. The increased illumination associated with lighting on the side of the building facing the creek may disturb some nocturnal species. This potential disturbance could be minimized through modification of the lighting pattern or light intensity on the backside of the building. Motion detection sensors on these lights might help to avoid hours of un- needed illumination. Restoration and maintenance of dense stands of willows and other riparian corridor vegetation is another measure that may minimize the potential disturbances resulting from building and parking lot lights. A healthy riparian corridor would also buffer resident and migratory animal species from increased noise and human presence as well as providing more abundant shelter and escape corridors (from predators and domestic animals). Development of the proposed residential and commercial structures would result in greater use and storage (parking) of automobiles on the site. A variety of pollutants (oil r ;,«, i;, „n_lno, 17 =TENERA Environmental �5 The Roadhouse Mixed Use Development grease, etc.) accumulate on the surface of a parking lot and are washed into storm drains with runoff. Runoff from the parking lot at the proposed development site is discharged into the East Fork of San Luis Obispo Creek from a culvert adjacent to the Highway 227 Bridge. Because both the volume of traffic and the regularity of use can be expected to increase significantly, discharge of pollutants into the stream can also be expected to increase. Many of the pollutants in runoff from streets and parking lots are detrimental to aquatic organisms. The additional discharge of polluted runoff can potentially be mitigated through installation of oil and grease filters (Fossil Filter) in the parking lot storm drain(s). 1 18 ®/.m TEN ERA Environmental ��/ C� FJ The Roadhouse Mixed Use Development References Cleveland, Paul A. 1996. San Luis Obispo Creek Habitat Inventory and Investigation. California Regional Water Quality Control Board. Contract No. 4-106-253-0. 26 pages. MDW Associates, 1982(a) Edna-Islay Specific Plan. SLO Department of Community Development. MDW Associates, 1882(b) MDW Associates, San Luis Obispo Creek Flood Control Modifications. City of San Luis Obispo. Nokes, George D. 1966. A biological survey of San Luis Obispo creek. Central Coast Rregional Water Quality Control Board. Project No. 4103-053. 28 pages. Questa Engineering Corporation, 1997. Stream Corridor Management Plan for San Luis Obipo Creek Phase I Study Area.. Volume I Resource Inventory, Alternative Analysis, and Preliminary Design Recommendations. Land Conservancy of San Luis Obispo County, 1988. SLO Creek Restoration Plan. San Luis Obispo, California. Tamagni, Charles D. 1995. Distribution of the five native fish species in the San Luis Obispo creek watershed. Cal Poly State University, Senior Project. 43 pages. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1997. Guidance on Site Assessment and Field Surveys for California Red-legged Frogs (Rana aurora draytonfi). 19 W TEN ERA Environmental The Roadhouse Mined Use Development Appendix A Terrestrial Wildlife Species Known to Use Habitats Similar to Those Habitats Found Along San Luis Obispo Creek, Including Fish Species Known to Occur in San Luis Obispo Creek 1'cnera1..N10u_109.1 TENERA Environmental Cl; The Roadhouse Mixed Use Development Appendix A. Terrestrial Wildlife Species Known to Use Habitats Similar to Those Habitats Found Along San Luis Obispo Creek, Including Fish Species Known to Occur in San Luis Obispo Creek. (Source: MDW Associates, 1982(b); QEG, 1997;Tamagni, 1995). Common Name Scientific Name Common.Name Scientific Name Amphibians Birds(cont) Arboreal Salamander Aneides lugubns Golden-crowned Kinglet Regulus satrapa California Newt Taricha torosa Water Pipit Anthus spinoletta Ensatina Ensatina eschscholtz# Cedar Waxwing Bombycilla cedrorum Pacific Tree Frog Hyla regilla Starling Stumus vulgaris Red-leggedFrog Rana aurora Hutton's Vireo Vireo huttoni Slender Salamander Batrachoseps attenuatus American Coot Fulica Americana Tiger Salamander Ambystoma tigninum Killdeer Charednus vocfferus Western Toad Bufo boreas Sandpipers Many species Yellow-legged Frog Rana muscosa Rock Dove Columba livia Bullfrog Rana catesbeiana Bam Owl Tyto alba Birds Screech Owl Otus kennicottii Great Blue Heron Ardea herodias Great Homed Owl Bubo virginianus Green-backed Heron Butorides striatus Anna's Hummingbird Cal"anna Snowy Egret Egretta thula Rufous Hummingbird Selasphonrs rufus Black-crowned Night Heron lWcorax nycticorax Acorn Woodpecker Melanerpes formicrvorus Mallard Anas platyrhynchos Hairy Woodpecker Picoides villosus Cinnamon Teal Anas cyanoptere Downy Woodpecker Picoides pubescens Turkey Vulture Cathartes aura Nuttall's Woodpecker Picoides nuttallii White-tailed Kite Elanus leucurus Western Flycatcher Empidonax difrrcilis " Cooper's Hawk AWpitercooperii Western Wood-Pewee Contopus sordidufus Red-tailed Hawk Buteo jamaicensis Rough-winged Swallow Stelgidopteryx serripennis Northern Harrier Circus eyaneis Bam Swallow Ripana riparia American Kestrel Falco spanredus Tree Swallow Tachymneta bicolor Virginia Rail Rallus limicola Olive-sided Flycatcher Contopus borealis Blade Phoebe Sayomis nigricans Violet- ,green Swallow Tachyoineta thalassina Sora Rail Porzana carolina Warbling Vireo Vireo gilvus Swainson's Thrush Catharus ustulatus Yellow Warbler Dendroica petechia House Wren Troglodytes aedon Nashville Warbler Vermivora mficapilia Mockingbird Mimus polyglottos Townsend's Warbler Dendroica townsendi American Robin Turdus migratonus Black-throated Gray Warbler Dendroica nigrescens Bewick's Wren 7hryomanes bewfckii Scrub Jay Aphelocoma coerulascens Belted Kingfisher Ceryle alcyon Plain Titmouse Parus inomatus Western Bluebird Sialia mexicana American Crow Corvus bradVhynchos Blueyray Gnatcatcher Pofioptila caerulea Orange-crowned Warbler Vermivore celata Red-winged Blackbird Agelaius phoeniceus Hermit Warbler I Dendroica occidentalis Ruby-crowned Kinglet Regulus calendula i +nrc: ! wu -icrr.i I TENERAEnvironmental —�j� The Roadhouse Mixed Use Development Appendix A. (continued) Common Name Scientific Name. Common Name Scientific Name Birds(cont) Mammals(cont.) _. - MacGillivray's Warbler Oporomis folmisi Opossum Didelphis marsupialis House Sparrow Passer domesticus Vagrant Shrew Sorex vagrans Common Yeiiowthroat Geothlypis triches California Mole Scapanus latimanus Wilson's Warbler Wilsonia pusilla Bats Many species Red-winged Blackbird Agelaius phoeniceus Blacktail Jackrabbit Lepus califomicus Brewer's Blackbird Euphagus cyanocephalus Western Gray Squirrel Sciurus griseus Brown-headed Cowbird Molothrus ater Pocket Gopher Thomomys bottae Hooded Oriole Icterus cucullatus Western Harvest Mouse Reithrodontomys megalotis Northern Oriole Icterus galbula Deer Mouse Peromyscus maniculatus Western Tanager Piranga ludoviciana Dusky-footed Woodrat Neotoma fuscipes Black-headed Grosbeak Pheucticus melanocephalus California Meadow Mouse Peromyscus califomicus Lazuli Bunting Passerina amoena Muskrat Ondatra zibethicus American Goldfinch Carduelis tristis Norway Rat Rattus norvegicus Rufous-sided Towhee Pipilo erythrophthalmus Black Rat Rattus rattus Dark-eyed Junco Junco hyemalis Gray Fox Urooyon cinereoargenteus White-crowned Sparrow Zonotnchia feucophrys Raccoon Procyon lotor Golden-crowned Sparrow Zonotrichis atticapilla Long-tailed Weasel Mustela frenata White-breasted Nuthatch Sitta carolinensis Bobcat Lynx nifus Brown Creeper Certhia ameticana Striped Skunk Mephitis mephitis Fox Sparrow Passerella iliaca Coyote Canis latrans Lincoln's Sparrow Melospiza.lincolnii Mule Deer Odocoileus hemionus Reptiles Fish Alligator Lizard Gerrhonotus muNicarfnatus Pacific Lamprey Entosphenus tridentatus California Tiger Salamander Ambysoma tigrinum califomiense Prickly sculpin Coftus asper Common Garter Snake Thamnophis sirtalis Speckled Dace Rhinicthys osculus Common King Snake Lampropeltfs getulus Steelhead Trout Onchorhynchus mykiss Legless Lizard Anniella pulchra Three-spine stickleback Gasterosteus aculeates Racer Coluber constrictor Bluegill Lepomismacrochirus Gopher Snake Pituophis melanoleucus Brown.Bullhead' Ictalurus nebulosus Southwestern Pond Turtle Clemmys marmorata pallida Channel Catfish' Idalurus punctatus Two-striped Garter Snake Thamnophis hammondi Fathead Minnow' Pimephales_promelas Western Aquatic Garter Snake Thamnophis couchi Golden Shiner' Notemigonus crysoleucus Western Skink Eumeces skillonianus Goldfish' Carassius auratus Western Fence Lard Sceloporus occidentalis Green sunfish' Lepomis cyanellus Mammals Large-mouth Bass' Micropterus salmoides Opossum I Didelphis marsupialis Mosquito fish• Gambusta alFnts Introduced fish species rrner:i F_1(1116.1 (h TENERA Environmental r � The Roadhouse Mixed Use Development Appendix B Riparian Plant Community in San Luis Obispo Creek Area ;ellem i., l _i(1,) i TENERA Environmental —�j� The Roa3house Mbaed Use Development Appendix B. Riparian Plant Community in San Luis Obispo Creek Area. Common Name Scientific Name Common Name Scientific Name Trees Shrubs cont Arroyo Willow Saler lasiole is German I Senecio m9kaniodes Shining Willow Sala lucida spp. Japanese Honeysuckle* Loniceraa onica Black Walnut &4qfam hindsn Blackberry Rubus ursmus Coast Live Oak Quercus a rifolia Arroyo Willow Sala lasiole is California Sycamore Platamus racemosa Poison Oak Toxicodendron diversilobium Black Cottonwood Po ulus balsamifera California Sycamore Platamus racemosa Black Locust* Robina pseudoaccacia Mule Fat Bacchans saficifofia Monterey Cypress Cu ressus macrocatpa Castor Bean* Ricinus communis To on Heteromeles arbutiforia Giant Reed* Arundo donax California Bay Umbellularia ca6fomica Tree Tobacco* Nicodana glauca Freemont Cottonwood Po ulus frenion6i Scotch Broom* Cytisus sco anus Monterey Pine* Pinus radiata Himalayan Blackberry* Rubus spp. Tree of Heaven* Ailanthus altissima Herbs Yellow Tree Willow Sara lasiandra Bristly Oz-ton ue* Picris echioides Euca us* Eucalyptus spp. Bulrush Scrius spp. Pepper Tree* Schinus mole Cattails T ha spp. Red Willow Safes lae ' ata Horsetail E uisetum spp. Shrubs Kiki u Grass* Pennisetum clandestinum California Sagebrush Artemisia cafrfomica Monkeyflawer Mimulusatus To on Heteromeles arbutifolia Mu ort Artemisia dou lasiana Elderberry Sambucus mexicana Periwinkle* Vinca major Red Willow Safes lae ' ata Poison Hemlock* Conium maculatum Fuchsia-flowered gooseberry Ribes s eciosum Scouring Rush E uisetum laevi atum Wild Rose Rosa caf bmica Sedges Carex sop. Coyote Brush Baccharis pilularis Stinging Nettle Uffica spp. Coffeeberry Rhamnus cafifomica Sweet Fennel* Foeniculum vu are Cocklebur* Xanthium spp. Watercress Ronppa nasturtium-a uaticum Virgin's Bower Clematis lasianta *Exotic species Tins I'.20M-109.1 ' TEN ERA Environmental The Roadhouse Mixed Use Development Appendix C Federally Listed Plant Species and Species of Local Concern that Occur in San Luis Obispo County 1 , ,; 1 zn 141-1w; i Tf—� TEN ERA Environmental (S i � I The Roadhouse Mimed Use De�elorxrierrt Appendix C. Federally Listed Plant Species and Species of Local Concern that Occur in San Luis Obispo County. Federal Species of Common Name Scientific Name Status Local Concern Chorro Creek Bog Thistle. Cirsium fontinale var.obispoense Endangered San Joaquin Wooly-threads Lenrbertia congdorifi Endangered California Jewelflower Caulanthus califomicus Endangered Gambel's Watercress Rorippa gambelfu Endangered Marsh Sandwort Arenaria paludicola Endangered California Seablite- Suaeda ca6fomica Endangered Morro Manzanita Arctostaphylos moiroensis Threatened Indian Knob Mountaintialiri Eriodictyon aftsimum Endangered Pismo Clarkia Ctarkia speciosa var. immaculafa Endangered Hoover's Woolly-star Ehastrum hooveri Threatened Salt Marsh Bird's-beak Cordylanthus mantimusspp..mardimus Endangered La Graciosa Thistle Cirsium loncholepis Endangered Niporno Mesa Lupine Lupins nipomensis Endangered Camatta Canyon Amole Chlorogalum purpureum var. reductum Threatened Purple Amole Chbrogalum pufpureum var.purpureum Threatened Gaviota Tarplant Hem¢onia incresens spp. villosa Endangered Clay Mariposa Lily Calochortus argillosus Club-Haired Mariposa Lily Calochortus claratus Hoover Button Celery Eryngium spp. ,;. /--D 7 Tell ]:-,)Oix,-ioO.i m;:c: TENERA Environmental Krause Engineering Services . . S Oasis Landscape Architecture and Planning September 21, 2000 3427 Miguelito Court San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Attn: Carol Florence Subj: Noise Study for Proposed Development The Roadhouse, San Luis Obispo 1 Introduction The study subject a proposed mixed-use development in the City of San Luis Obispo, with a project site exposed to potentially significant levels of transportation noise.The study objective is to assess noise exposure and to recommend mitigations for compliance with the City's Noise Element criteria and with conditions recommended by the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC). The study includes exposure predictions based on Noise Element methods and on results of a recent site noise survey. 2 Setting The project site is located at the intersection of El Capitan Way and South Broad Street(aka State Route 227) as shown in Figure 1;the area is part of the recently-approved(1999) Fuller Road-Aero Drive Annexation Area. Adjacent land uses on the east and south sides are existing residences; land use on the north side is mixed residential and commercial. The west side fronts on Broad Street, with commercial land use beyond the west side of Broad Street Figure 2 shows the site location with respect to nearby noise sources identified in the Noise Element These include operations of the Union Pacific Railroad and the County Airport, as well as the traffic on Broad Street Contour lines of predicted future noise exposure are shown; areas exposed to 60 dB Ldn or greater have potentially significant noise exposure. The site location is about 2500'from the airport primary runway centerline and 2100' from the railroad centerline. The proposed site arrangement is shown in Figure 3. Building "A" has two floors of commercial space. Building "B" has a two floors of apartments as shown in Figure 4, above a ground floor of commercial space. The site is essentially flat and level, except for the open space area of a creek arroyo along the southern edge and southwest comer of the lot;the creek bed is heavily vegetated with numerous mature trees. Highway 227 crosses the creek at a bridge at the southwest corner of the lot;the bridge and abutments have a continuous 3' high concrete barrier wall along the open space west side. The highway has two traffic lanes,a center turning lane,and two parking lanes,with a total width of 80 feet curb to curb; the roadway is about 4'above the building site elevation. Also shown in Figure 3 are locations of survey stations used for the noise survey: Station 1 is 100' from the roadway centerline, at the outdoor activity area; Station 2 is 15U from the roadway centerline, near the apartment unit closest to the road. 58 VIA LA CUMBRE GREENBRAE, CA 94904 (415) 461-5403 , 1 _/`_p C Roadhouse Noise Study Page 2 3 Noise Metrics Sound is a form of energy consisting of small air pressure variations which spread outward from a source. Sound magnitude is measured using a decibel (dB) scale to describe the relative intensity of acoustical pressure waves. The subjective impression of a given sound is a function of both sound wave magnitude and frequency content,and is called loudness. Loudness is measured using a frequency weighting scale(A-weighting) which relates measurements to human hearing response. Noise is rated using A-weighted sound levels expressed in dB. Annoyance due to noise is associated with how often the noise is present and how long it persists. The variation of time-varying noise is quantified using a term called Energy Equivalent Sound Level (Leq), which describes the average noise level over a given time period The figure of merit used in evaluation of traffic noise exposure is Ldn, the Day/Night Average Sound Level. Ldn uses hourly 1.4s averaged over a 24-hour day, with the addition of a 10 dB penalty for the nighttime hours between 10 pm and 7 am. 4 Noise Criteria Transportation noise exposure criteria define"normally acceptable"as up to 60 dB Ldn. Noise sensitive land uses (residences, hotels, motels) for developments with potential future transportation noise exposure greater than 60 dB Ldn are "subject to noise analysis and potential mitigation. The noise exposure criterion of 60 dB Ldn is used to demonstrate compliance with noise insulation standards contained in the California Administrative Code. These require construction methods superior to those of the Uniform Building Code(UBC) for mitigation of new noise sensitive land uses in areas exposed to greater than 60 dB Ldn, in order to achieve an indoor noise level not greater than 45 dB Ldn; this is the level above which intrusive sounds are likely to cause interference with sleep. (The ALUC recommends a more restrictive indoor noise maximum of 40 dB Ldn for sleeping quarters, in recognition of the intrusive character of airport operation noise.) Individual residential outdoor activity areas(such as decks and patios) are allowed in areas exposed to 60 dB Ldn or less; this is the noise level above which intrusive sounds are likely to cause speech interference in normal conversations at close distances. Common outdoor recreation areas (such as neighborhood parks) are allowed in area exposed to 65 dB Ldn or less. (According to County noise plan criteria, residential outdoor activity area exposures of up to 65 dB Ldn also are allowed, . when feasible mitigations are included and interior noise isolation is in compliance.) 5 Baseline Traffic Noise Predictions Predicted traffic noise exposures along major area roadways are included in the Noise Element, based on"existing" traffic volumes as determined by a 1990 survey, with projected future growth in traffic through."build-out" in the year 2010. This is presented in a series of maps and tables with locations of 60, 65,and 70 dB Ldn future noise contours, as shown in Figure 2. Contour definitions and traffic volume assumptions for roadway segments are listed in the Noise Element. The following table lists the Average Daily Traffic(ADT) volume assumptions and contour definitions used for the local road segment of Highway 227 (from Price Canyon to Tank Farm): Traffic Distance to Roadway Center(feet) ADT 60 Ldn 65 Ldn 70 Ldn Year 1990 11,000 174 81 37 Year 2010 23,900 292 135 63 Roadhouse Noise Study Page 3 Current(year 2000) traffic volume on the local highway segment, projected from recent annual Caltrans "Traffic Volumes on California State Highways" data books, is about 15,000 ADT; this is consistent with both the range of Noise Element assumptions listed above and with actual traffic counts made during the recent noise survey. Current traffic noise levels predicted by the Noise Element method are 65 dB Ldn at Station 1 (100' distance) and 62 dB Ldn at Station 2 (150' distance). These are generalized predictions which assume that the traffic flows freely along a roadway of unlimited extent in either direction,and that there are no intervening objects which affect the direct sound paths from the roadway to the noise receptor location; site-specific predictions, which include realistic local condition effects, usually result in lower sound levels than the baseline predictions. 6 Noise Survey A sound measurement-survey was performed on August 13, 2000 to provide site-specific traffic noise data. The survey used the two stations located as shown in Figure 3. Station 1 was at the proposed location of an open plaza space,at a distance of 100' from the highway centerline; the microphone was five feet above the ground. Station 2 was near the proposed location of the apartment nearest to the highway, at a distance of 150' from the roadway centerline; the microphone was 12' above the ground. Data was taken between 11:30 am and 12:30 pm; weather was clear and winds light to moderate from the northwest. The recording station logged sound level samples at one-second intervals for a total survey period of 30 minutes for each session. Maximum and minimum sound levels were recorded, and average sound level (Leq) was calculated, for the duration of the survey period All readings were A- weighted, and the instruments were calibrated prior to each session. Instantaneous sound levels ranged from 45 to 70 dB(A) at both stations. Minimum levels occurred only during occasional lulls in traffic, and were due to insects,birds, and distant traffic or other human activities. Maximum levels occurred during large truck or noisy auto passbys on the highway,and during helicopter overflights (the site is near the airport area routinely used by helicopter flight training instructors). Average sound level at Station 1 was 61 dB Leq;average sound level at Station 2 was 55 dB Leq. The Noise Element traffic model for this roadway segment assumes that about 8 % of the traffic occurs at night, when the 10 dB penalty is added to hourly Leq values to obtain day-night average Ldn equivalents. This results-in predicted average Ldn values which are about 1 dB higher than the typical daytime average Leq values obtained in a survey; for the project site, this corresponds to about 62 dB Ldn at Station 1 and 56 dB Ldn at Station 2. Traffic counts taken during the noise survey indicated an average of 890 vehicles per hour passing by the site,with 1.7 % heavy trucks and 2.5 % medium trucks. This extrapolates to an overall average traffic volume of about 14,500 ADT, which is consistent with Caltrans estimates and Noise Element assumptions. Baseline noise exposures predicted by the Noise Element for these traffic conditions are significantly greater than those observed during the survey,due to the screening effect of the creek bridge barrier wall, and due to the absorption effect of the creek arroyo foliage. Station 1 survey data was about 3 dB less than baseline predictions; Station 2 was about 6 dB less than baseline predictions. z_1 16a /0 Roadhouse Noise Study Page 4 7 Future Traffic Noise Exposure Assumed future (year 2010) traffic volume for the local segment of Highway 227 is about.24,000 ADT. Baseline noise exposures predicted for this traffic volume are 67 dB Ldn at Station 1 and 64 dB Ldn at Station 2. The proposed site design provides significant noise mitigation by placing the buildings as shown in Figure 3. The mass of Building"A" will act as a partial noise barrier to block direct sound paths from the portion of Broad Street north of the bridge to all residences of Building "B"; the magnitude of this effect is estimated to be about 3 dB of additional noise reduction. The mass of Building "B"will also act as a barrier to block direct sound paths from the portion of Broad Street south of the bridge to all residences on the north side of Building "B"; magnitude of the combined effects is estimated to be about 9 dB noise reduction. If the corrections noted above for bridge barrier wall screening, creek arroyo foliage absorption, and Building "A" screening are applied, estimated future traffic noise exposure at the proposed plaza area(Station 1 - 100' from roadway centerline) would be about 61 dB Ldn. If the corrections noted above for screening by both Buildings "A" and "B"are applied, estimated worst-case future traffic noise exposure on the the north side of Building "B"would be about 55 dB Ldn (at the apartment units nearest to the road- 150' from the roadway centerline). Other units along the north side of the building will have exposures which are slightly less, due to increased distance from the roadway. Because the proposed residences are located on the second and third floors, the bridge rail screening effect will be minimal for residences on the south side of Building "B". If the corrections noted above for creek arroyo foliage absorption and Building "A" screening are applied,estimated worst-case future traffic noise exposure on the south side of building "B" (at the. apartment unit nearest to the road- 150' from roadway centerline) would be about 61 dB Ldn. Other units along the south side of the building will have exposures which are slightly less, due to increased distance from the roadway. 8 Railroad Noise Exposure Railroad noise exposure contours are also shown in Figure 2. The site is sufficiently distant from the railway centerline to be well beyond the 60 dB Ldn contour, so train noise will be audible but not significant, when compared to Broad Street traffic noise and airport noise. 9 Airport Noise Exposure Predicted future airport noise contours due to main runway and ramp operations are shown in Figure 2. Extrapolation of the noise contours to the project site would predict a worst-case site noise exposure of about 55 dB Ldn. This is significantly less than the traffic noise exposure, and is also beyond the recommended limits of the airport noise prediction method(FAR Part 150), which is usually used for large metropolitan airports with routine heavy commercial jet traffic.) The generalized contours shown in Figure 2 neglect all operations not on the main runway (i.e. aircraft overflights in the traffic pattern,helicopters, maintenance run ups, secondary runway activity). Limited validity of the airport noise predictions is likely the basis for the ALUC's recommendation of a 5 dB greater noise isolation criterion than that of the Noise Element. Addition of this 5 dB increment to the extrapolated contours would make the site exposure about 60 Ldn, just at the threshold of noise impact significance. Roadhouse Noise Study Page 5 The ALUC's concern recognizes the intrusiveness of occasional but relatively high level noise events, which contribute only slightly to long-term averages but are a potential cause of annoyance. A recommended alternate approach is to design residential noise isolation for the maximum sound levels likely to be encountered, instead of average sound exposure levels. Recommended design criterion for this site is 70 dB, the nominal maximum found during the noise survey due to all transportation sources. 10 Indoor Noise Mitigation- Requirements The difference between outdoor and indoor noise is called Noise Level Reduction (NLR). Normal construction per UBC is sufficient to provide NLR of 15 dB, even if some doors or windows are partially open for ventilation. Greater values can be achieved only if doors and operable windows are fully closed and have tight seals. The following standard mitigation package is recommended by the Noise Element, for NLR of 25 dB (70 dB outdoor exposure and 45 dB indoor criterion): 1) Forced-air mechanical ventilation system (so that doors and windows can be kept fully closed) 2) Windows and sliding glass doors with low air leak rate frames (less than 0.5 cfm per foot of crack length,per standard test) 3) Exterior doors of solid-core construction (with full perimeter weather stripping and threshold seals) 4) Exterior walls faced with stucco or brick veneer (wood siding with full sheathing underlayment as alternate) 5) Glass area in any room facing source less than 20% of floor area (dual glazing or laminated glass as alternate) 6) Roof or attic vents provided with line of sight noise baffles (applies to walls directly facing noise source) In addition to the above, the following mitigations are required for exposure to aircraft sources: 7) Tight-fitting dampers and glass doors for fireplaces, if used 8) Solid wood sheathing (minimum 1/2" thick) under roof coverings 9) No skylights in occupied room ceilings 11 Indoor Noise Mitigation - Implementation The project is presently in conceptual design stage, so detailed plans and specifications are not available for review as part of this study. The mitigations listed above should be incorporated into project plans as the design is developed. Planning department approvals should be contingent on inclusion of all mitigations listed above in project documents. Roadhouse Noise Study Page 6 12 Outdoor Noise Mitigation Proposed common outdoor activity areas include the open plaza space (near survey Station 1), where predicted future noise exposure is about 61 dB Ldn. This is less than the allowable maximum of 65 dB Ldn for neighborhood parks, so mitigation is not required. Proposed individual outdoor activity areas include a small porch for each apartment unit in Building "B", as shown by shaded areas in Figure 4. All porches include solid deck railings up to wainscot height Units on the north side of the building will be exposed to 55 dB Ldn or less, so mitigation is not required Units on the south side of the building will be nominally exposed to 61 dB Ldn or less, depending on distance from the roadway. All of these use part of the porch area for an enclosed water heater cabinet which reduces usable space. Units 6, 7, and 8 have porches which are inset next to bedrooms or adjacent units, providing barriers for direct sound paths west to the roadway. Unit 5 has the water heater cabinet on the west side,providing a partial barrier to the.west,recommended design detail is to provide a screen wall adjacent to the cabinet as shown in Figure 4. When the effect of these local barriers is included, noise exposures on porch areas will be reduced to less than 60 dB Ldn, so additional mitigation is not.required. Nick Krause, P.E. Krause Engineering Services 1�/SOS Figure 1 Site Location tP Existing R-2 Proposed C-S/MU Existing C-S \ \ Proposed C-S/MU I�L � \\ o000�:;:�•. 00000 0oo000 • 000 0000oo ��i�:�::. 00000 00000 .:: : :::: 00000 000,.;:• ': :•:•: 00 00000 0 300 600 Feet 0000000000 000000000 b 000000 0 .0 0000 o asset iyape aed Annexation boundary ®Coaservatlon/Open Space(CIOS) - Low Density Residential(R-13P) - AIRPORT DRIVE Medium Density Residential(R-2-3P) ® Service Commercial(C3) Commercial(4T)or Service V V M SerNca COmmerelal(C-S) N 0 waht-af-way *EXISTING FULLER ROAD-AERO DRIVE ANNEXA'nON FIGURE 1 LAND USE—EXISTING/PROPOSED Oasis Associates.Inc. 28 June 2000 / Covey III–The Roadhouse Supplement to GPA/Development Plan Figure 2 Transportation Noise Sources •• a Y= C0µ) f t .A�17R LVIs OB •Ie a.•L,•7o c IW YI 60_Lan CNEL u Y�� % C _ 65 CMEL Ln SITt� w q / 60 )) es of ( � ra.e �l • w) 4S� 1 Y r.M • m4.1) O DC7 , ( r+i a s J ti •r G OkkQ �C ) '1 J+ 1 C �•( I 1 0 •( Pll / - , lu• 1 O I Qar�t 1 ; I 1 N A ---- SAN L OBISPOD SA IS OBISPO COUN \� O AIBP TY t o j)•,; ----- — - L A RT CM I f � CME ..••--�_- )E SCC. 7 - CMSEC. �/r•.I T a'I� I --1Ir� Y ~7✓ C 1 a y � • a.rl.W ' ..•I,y lyM INI• H f..l•11. � 1 • Y. • 12 E60 , , � r•l pr 1 , I M.i mme a ' }. LUIS OBISPO '• • : • i; . 00 (N 800 •.•' • SECTION Y-34 ' Imo•. j1 a Figure 3 Site Arrangement E L C A P I T A N IY A Y V I'`~:tel �J�1 rT„ g% 11 _3�.. ` 1 , ) •1 ' I� I •ti .e•. w 1 I l u , , e i Ldj est R-2 Lai 1 s \ Not A➢ul 4.2 b 1r ng y / C°rwt R @ C! Bandl .`. t s, Y / Ww hw.. pp I a s e10 / Mot.A Carl is G ) 1 w ,/ Ir ,0._,. 4'_10• ,\. fy !! � s , 11 I e V I •Nek..Ns CV I f•-'---' 3C-C 1 I 1•!y % I it " II IEl. ;I- ) I r• ty or Q ' I Y I 0 TNI 0Y M `�'F ie•N -= — - .r .t � T1 11 ® 11 Is le %❑ , f e El- '+. -::ti' u •1 Building .B. .. �~1:;\ase'•\\'� b r• , 7 $teff l 9l RlaGt -- _ \\]�.�•• d w 1•,.1 I ]J.f1.) a ,� I� 16 tae ;;�� lie�'•, � tii.;r � 3' cov-z- •\JAI,u o to qo Go 8o loo �G MAr� 5CAL - F Figure 4 Bldg. "B" - Upper Floors V�1!T7 X y 0 .•L Y 3 e 1-i C!C! I e I i _n o > rN« N N O ��a a e e oa « v3 I 12 I =a I I V e - It / 1 O 1 � •� PP 1 C rt O e I I � O : 1 e d O d .b G a3 n.an� Krause Engineering Services Oasis Landscape Architecture and Planning August 28, 2000 3427 Miguelito Court San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Attn: Carol Florence Subj: Noise Study for Proposed Development The Roadhouse, San Luis Obispo Introduction The study subject a proposed mixed-use development in the City of San Luis Obispo, with a project site exposed to potentially significant levels of transportation noise.The study objective is to assess noise exposure and to recommend mitigations for compliance with the City's Noise Element criteria and with conditions recommended by the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC). The study includes exposure predictions based on Noise Element methods and on results of a recent site noise survey. Setting The project site is located at the intersection of El Capitan Way and South Broad Street(aka State Route 227) as shown in Figure 1; the area is part of the recently-approved(1999) Fuller Road-Aero Drive Annexation Area.. Adjacent land.uses on the east and south sides are existing residences; existing land use on the north side is mixed residential and commercial. The west side fronts on Broad Street, with commercial land use beyond the west side of Broad Street. Figure 2 shows the site location with respect to nearby noise sources identified in the Noise Element. These include operations of the Union Pacific Railroad and the County Airport, as well as the traffic on Broad Street. Contour lines of predicted future noise exposure are shown; areas exposed to 60 dB Ldn or greater have potentially significant noise exposure. The site center is about 2500'from the airport primary runway centerline and 2100'from the railroad centerline. The proposed site arrangement is shown in Figure 3. Building "A" has two floors of commercial space. Building "B" has a two floors of apartments as shown in Figure 4,above a ground floor of commercial space. The site is essentially flat and level, except for the open space area of a creek arroyo along the southern edge and southwest comer of the lot; the creek bed is heavily vegetated with numerous mature trees. Highway 227 crosses the creek at a bridge at the southwest corner of the lot; the bridge and abutments have a continuous 3'high concrete barrier wall along the open space west side. The highway has two traffic lanes,a center turning lane, and two parking lanes, with a total width of 80 feet curb to curb; the roadway is about 4'above the building site elevation. Also shown in Figure 3 are locations of survey stations used for the noise survey: Station 1 is 100' from the roadway centerline, at the outdoor activity area; Station 2 is 150' from the roadway centerline, near the apartment unit closest to the road. 58 VIA LA CUMBRE GREENBRAE, CA 94904 (415) 461-5403 , / _ `7D Roadhouse Noise Study Page 2 Noise Metrics Sound is a form of energy consisting of small air pressure variations which spread outward from a. source. Sound magnitude is measured using a decibel (dB) scale to describe the relative intensity of acoustical pressure waves. The subjective impression of a given sound is a function of both sound wave magnitude and frequency content, and is called loudness. Loudness is measured using a frequency weighting scale(A-weighting) which relates measurements to human hearing response. Noise is rated using A-weighted sound levels expressed in dB. Annoyance due to noise is associated with how often the noise is present and how long it persists. The variation of time-varying noise is quantified using a term called Energy Equivalent Sound Level(L.eq), which describes the average noise level over a given time period The figure of merit used in evaluation of traffic noise exposure is Ldn, the Day/Might Average Sound Level. Ldn uses hourly L.eq's averaged over a 24-hour day, with the addition of a 10 dB penalty for the nighttime hours between 10 pm and 7 am. Noise Criteria Transportation noise exposure criteria define normally acceptable as up to 60 Ldn. Noise sensitive land uses(residences,hotels, motels) for developments with potential future transportation noise exposure greater than 60 Ldn are subject to noise analysis and mitigation. The noise exposure criterion of 60 Ldn is used to demonstrate compliance with noise insulation standards contained in the California Administrative Code. These require construction methods superior to those of the Uniform Building Code(UBC) for mitigation of new noise sensitive land uses rn areas exposed to greater than 60 Ldn, in order to achieve an indoor noise level not greater than 45 Ldn; this is the level above which intrusive sounds are likely to cause interference with sleep. (The ALUC recommends a more restrictive indoor noise maximum of 40 Ldn for sleeping quarters, in recognition of the intrusive character of airport operation noise.) Outdoor activity areas such as decks and patios are normally allowed in areas exposed to 60 Ldn or less;this is the noise level above which intrusive sounds are likely to cause speech interference in normal conversations at close distances. (According to County noise plan criteria,exposures of up to 65 Ldn also are allowed, when feasible mitigations are included and interior noise isolation is in compliance.) Baseline Traffic Noise Predictions Predicted traffic noise exposures along major area roadways are included in the Noise Element, based on "existing" traffic volumes as determined by a 1990 survey, with projected future growth in traffic through "build-out"in the year 2010. This is presented in a series of maps and tables with locations of 60, 65, and 70 Ldn future noise contours, as shown in Figure 2. Contour definitions and traffic volume assumptions for roadway segments are listed in the Noise Element. The following table lists the Average Daily Traffic(ADT)volume assumptions and contour definitions used for the local road segment of Highway 227(from Price Canyon to Tank Farm): Traffic Distance to Roadway Center(feet) ADT 60 Ldn 65 Ldn 70 Ldn Year 1990 11,000 174 81 37 Year 2010 23,900 292 135 63 � - l7/ Roadhouse Noise Study Page 3 Current traffic volume on the local highway segment,projected from recent annual Caltrans "Traffic Volumes on California State Highways"data books, is about 15,000 ADT; this is consistent with both Noise Element assumptions and with traffic counts made during the noise survey. Current noise levels predicted by this method are 65 Ldn at Station 1 (100' distance) and 62 Ldn at Station 2 (150' distance); this is a generalized result which neglects local effects such as terrain and screening and is thus usually higher than actual field conditions. Noise SurveX `,,p A sound measurement survey was performed on August 13, 2000 to provide site-specific traffic noise data. The survey used the two stations located as shown in Figure 3. Station 1 was at the proposed location of a open plaza space, at a distance 100' from the highway centerline; Station 2 was at the proposed location of the residence nearest to the highway,at a distance of 150' from the J roadway centerline. Data was taken between 11:30 am and 12:30 PM; weather was clear and winds light to moderate from the northwest AV The recording station logged sound level samples at one-second intervals for a total survey period of 30 minutes for each session. Maximum and minimum sound levels were recorded,and average sound level(Leo was calculated, for the duration of the survey period. All readings were A- weighted, and the instruments were calibrated prior to each session. (� Instantaneous sound levels ranged.from 45 to 70 dB(A) at both stations. Minimum levels occurred only during occasional lulls in traffic,and were due to insects and birds and distant outdoor human activities. Maximum levels occurred during large truck or noisy auto passbys on the highway,and during helicopter overflights (the site is near the airport area routinely used by helicopter flight training instructors). (� Average sound level at Station 1 was 61 dB Leq; average sound level at Station 2 was 55 dB Leq. I I / The Noise Element traffic model for this roadway segment assumes that about 8 % of the traffic occurs at night, when the 10 dB penalty is added to hourly Leq values to obtain day-night average h Ldn equivalents. This results in predicted Ldn values about 1 dB higher than the Leq values obtained in a typical daytime traffic survey,or 62 Ldn at Station 1 and 56 Ldn at Station 2. These values are significantly less than the baseline noiseedictions, due to the screening effect of the creek bridge barrier wall and the absorption effect of the creek arroyo foliage. Station survey data is about 3 dB less than baseline predictions; Station 2 is about 6 dB less than baseline predictions. Corrected Future Traffic Noise Exposure Assumed future(year 2010) traffic volume for the local segment of Highway 227 is about 24,000 ADT. Baseline noise exposures predicted for this traffic volume are 67 Ldn at Station 1 and 64 Ldn at Station 2. If the connections noted above for bridge barrier wall screening and creek arroyo foliage absorption are applied,the predicted traffic noise exposures are 64 Ldn at Station 1 and 58 Ldn at Station 2. Roadhouse Noise Study Page 4 Railroad Noise Exposure Railroad noise exposure contours are also shown in Figure 2. The site is far enough from the railway to be well beyond the 60 dB contour, so train noise will be audible but not significant when compared to traffic noise. Airport Noise Exposure Predicted future airport noise contours for 60, 65, and 70 Ldn due to main runway and ramp operations are shown in Figure 2. The project site is well beyond the 60 Ldn contour, meaning that no airport noise mitigation would be required for compliance with average sound level limits of the Noise Element. Extrapolation of the noise contours to the project site would predict a noise exposure of about 55 Ldn. This is significantly less than the traffic noise exposure, and is also beyond the recommended limits of the noise prediction method The prediction method(FAR Part 150) is usually used for large airports with heavy commercial jet traffic. The generalized contours shown in Figure 2 neglect all operations not on the main runway(i.e. aircraft overflights in the traffic pattern, helicopters, maintenance run ups, secondary runway activity). Limited validity of the airport noise predictions is likely the basis for the ALUC's recommendation for a 5 dB more restrictive average noise exposure criterion than the Noise Element Addition of this to the extrapolated contours would make the site exposure 60 Ldn, the threshold of significant impact. This recognizes the intrusiveness of occasional but relatively high level noise events, which contribute only slightly to long-term averages. A recommended alternate approach is to design for the maximum sound levels likely to be encountered, instead of for average exposure. This would be 70 dB,the nominal maximum found during the noise survey due to all transportation sources Indoor Noise Mitigation The difference between outdoor and indoor noise is called Noise Level Reduction (NLR). Normal construction per UBC is sufficient to provide NLR of 15 dB, even if some doors or windows are partially open for ventilation. Greater values can be achieved only if doors and operable windows are fully closed and have tight seals. The following standard mitigation package is recommended for NLR of 25 dB (70 dB exposure and 45 dB indoors): 1) Air conditioning or mechanical ventilation system (so that doors and windows can be kept fully closed) 2) Windows and sliding glass doors with low air leak rate frames (less than 0.5 cfm per foot of crack length,per standard test) 3) Exterior doors of solid-core construction (with full perimeter weather stripping and threshold seals) 4) Exterior walls faced with stucco or brick veneer (wood siding with full sheathing undedayment as alternate) 5) Glass area in any room facing source less than 20% of floor area (dual glazing or laminated glass as alternate) 6) Roof or attic vents provided with line of sight noise baffles (applies to walls directly facing noise source) L) �l Roadhouse Noise Study Page 5 In addition to the above, the following mitigations are required for exposure to aircraft sources: 7) Tight-fitting dampers and glass doors for fireplaces,if used 8) Solid wood sheathing (min. 12") under roof coverings 9) No skylights in occupied rooms Outdoor Noise Mitigation The only proposed outdoor activity area.is the open space near Station 1, where predicted future noise exposure is 61 dB Ldn. The arrangement of Building "A" will provide a barrier to partially block existing sight lines to the portion of the highway to the north of the site,this will provide 2-3 dB of noise reduction. Thus noise exposure at-Station 1 will be less than 60 Ldn and further mitigation is not required. Implementation The project is presently in early conceptual design stage, so detailed plans and specifications are not available for review as part of this study. The mitigations listed above should be incorporated into project documentation as the design is developed Nick Krause, P.E. . Krause Engineering Services �-17� Figure I Site Location 1X* Existing R-2 Proposed C-S/mu % Existing C-S Proposed C-S/MU 0* 00* 00000 000000 0* 000000 0*00*1 00000 00 4) '0000V 00 000000 0 300 600 Feet 0000\0 0 **0 0 0 000000 MOO 2!5�— 0000 0000 MEME P epo ed Annwmtlon boundary Conservation/Open 3pace(CLOS) Low Density Residential(R-1-SP) I AIRPC DRIVE M"urn Density Residential(R-2-SP) Semice Commerclal(C-3) Tousist C4mmerctal(CM or semice Coromandel(GS) N lught-OfLway EXIS'nN:G FULLER ROAD-AERO DRM ANNMXAdnON FIGURE I LAND USE—EXISTING/PROPOSED Oasis Associates,Inc. 28 June 2000 Covey III—The Roadhouse Supplement to CPA/Development Plan Figure 2 Transportation Noise Sources Ea4 U a A�JO LUIS OBI a.•N•le 51 60.L.y, CNEL Bs M�,dCMELp' * SITS ,0 fit •.J \ ,a 4 17 q. 1 �i +a. �1 • 'p• tly I RI T 1 Y • ew • , 6y.1 � p .4C 7 r 601 lee � 1 I•a as I r e \ �--- SAN L OBISPOD e.1.•. e.a...r SA UIS OBISPO \ COON C TY AIRP -�i,.••� ..,. q.•.. c f QS� I SE SEC. 7 gh AO rCNF t , I p_ - SEC. u C. is IT --'�1 T• W I _4� �..rw a v.•e.na 1 R. ,` '�`. I c . . nu.y - E el(j 1 ' ' I wieee• \ ' LUIS OBISPO • , ' � L..j. • . • � j4 . 00 400 800 ..•• "`•e^u SECTION Y-34i f77 / 1 1� Figure 3 Site Arrangement E L C A P I T A N W A Y m , , T _ — — �' I \ �`� rte• ',• a rut a __-•_•__•_• • �_.r. o g :,1, 7111 I if I •� . I 1�' . IJP 'a i ' 1• t\ I '• o..i• '• � 1-2 Int j • \ Hot 1 Part 41 i i E 2 SIG T / wefP ,. I R 8 s . i g SL• i , y / ww.nwe• a J p.0,.0 / Net A Part I. 1, •G f M SCrew4 y e _ I If wM 1 11 y 1 Tf,. C\J yy I f , 1 c •taekwM I F-- 1 I It �•, l i ,*14 Itt i r y I to So I u N 'we" -+r r �. Q . I �, 0 TNt aru `JO"�w.n'u ` 1 •v •[ ` 14 12 f > f leM\ , - I 1 f ,1 " I I r' f 1• T ``•��_';�= '•r 1 Building 'B' � s y Story 1 Q. -... ti 1 fd•.� ♦'. 1 7 (LI :�C,`�yy:• n A 1 rJ.'fu 5 TY. v+ is t „� .�'-� _--,tee •'-••....'.•ori•.�' � .:•=ris• I ,•�\i 1: 3` GpNZ. uJAL L o Z o qo 4 p So loo K rZArte.. I ScAL� - FsET �` •21z7 Figure 4 Bldg. "B" - Upper Floors 077 i2212 sr m I A%I co vD r La a .1 L co twne is nempu 4) C O 1 u ildmout Noise v A \ \ V j \ / 0.08 0 0.08 0.16 Mies zy Norse70d6bnildouhraihmd_shp p Norse7UdblanlldoLA oeds.slw O nmw SshopMshp p Norse Prado M.shp A T p nowpradowMshp l� p nesse W[ockMshp p mw LM Mahp p Noise65dhbu W=-raitrmdshp Noise65cU3Mcl=.foed9shp noise Bishop 65shp noise pa(b noise Prado w65.shp C i �— mise bullock 65shp —:noise LOMM shp NoiseW*bWftA-mftad.shp Noise60 ilclmd4oa sshp raise BishroP Wzhp noise Prado 6oshp noise pratlo w60shp now bullock W shp noise LOUR 60shp 4 —17� Penfield • SmHh ENGINEERS SURVEYORS 101 EAST VICTORIA STREET 2051 NORTH SOLAR DRIVE P.O. BOX 98 SUITE 225 SANTA BARBARA, CALIFORNIA.93102 OXNARD. CALIFORNIA 93030 805-963-9532 • FAX 805-966-9801 805-983.7499 • FAX 805.983-1826 W.O. 13,812.01 September 1.1, 2000 Ms. C.M. Florence Oasis Associates, Inc. 3427 Miguelito Court San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 SUBJECT: Traffic Engineering Analysis of the Mixed Use Development Proposed at El Capitan and SR-227; San Luis Obispo, California Dear Ms. Florence: Penfield & Smith (P&S) is pleased to submit this letter report summan'z g our findings and analysis of the potential traffic related impacts that can be expected with the development of the proposed project. Our task was to provide a traffic analysis of the potential mixed-use development consisting of a blend of office, commercial and residential. This traffic analysis will be part of an overall submittal package to the City of San Luis Obispo and to Caltrans in their review of the project. This report incorporates the changes associated with the comments received from the City and Caltrans on the previous June 15, 2000 report. Project Description The proposed project is located on the southeasterly corner of the intersection of Broad Street and El Capitan Way in the City of San Luis Obispo. The project as proposed contains surface parking with two multi-story buildings. The development assumption for up to 22,000 square feet of leasible space for commercial space. In .addition to the commercial space, 16 residential.apartments were assumed. Access to the project would be-provided via two driveways on El Capitan Way. The combination of the residential and commercial uses on the same site should offer some business owners the ability to live and work in the same vicinity. The combination of the location of the transit route on Broad Street, employees located at the site and workers going to other sites would provide the opportunity for a reduction in the typical number of trips generated for the project. This is a true mixed-use project. Existing Conditions For the purposes of this traffic analysis, the two intersections on Broad Street closest to the project site were analyzed. These intersections are located at-El Capitan Way and at Tank Farm Road. Broad Street, in the vicinity of the project site, provides four travel lanes (two in each direction of travel) with a center left-turn storage lane. The speed limit along this portion of Broad Street is 45 MPH. Further, this section of Broad Street is maintained by the State of California (Caltrans) as State Route 227. P a S Ms. C. M. Florence September 11, 2000 Page 2 El Capitan Way is constructed as a short cul-de-sac street with commercial uses located near Broad Street and residential uses located in the vicinity of the cul-de-sac. The intersection of Tank Farm Road and Broad Street is controlled by a multi-phase traffic signal. The right-of-way for the Broad Street/El Capitan Way intersection is controlled with a STOP sign for El Capitan Way and the commercial driveway located on the opposite side of the highway. P&S collected traffic counts during March and April 2000 for the two project intersections. This data is summarized in Figure 1. The intersection operation was estimated using the methodologies presented in the most recent version of the Highway Capacity Manual. The resulting intersection average delay and level of service (LOS) is summarized in Table 1. Table 1 Existing Conditions Intersection Average Delay and Level of Service P �b Broad St at 11.4 sec/veh- 13.1 sec/veh - 19.5 sec/veh - 19.5 sec/veh - El Capitan Way LOS B LOS B LOS C LOS C Broad St at 46.1 sec/veh- 48.5 sec/veh - 55.2 sec/veh - 64.2 sec/veh - Tank Farm Rd LOS D LOS D LOS E LOS E As seen in Table 1, the project intersection at El Capitan Way operates at LOS B and C during the AM and PM peak hours, respectively. At-Tank Farm Road, the intersection operates at LOS D during the AM peak hour. One key factor in the apparent poor intersection operation is the sharp peak in traffic volume demand between the times of 7:45 AM and 8:00 AM. The traffic volumes during this 15-minute time frame represent about 33% of the entire peak hour volume. Based on our observations during many other hours of the day and during the remainder of the AM peak hour, the intersection operates very well and is estimated to be at LOS B. During the PM peak hour, a similar situation exists. During the 4:30-4:45 PM and 5:15-5:30 PM time frames, two-thirds of the peak hour traffic volume flows through the intersection. Based on our observations during many other hours of the day and during the remainder of the PM peak hour, the intersection operates very well and is estimated to be at LOS B. Project Traffic At this time, there is no specific delineation for the prospective tenants of the commercial space. The applicant has provided a list of potential commerical uses allowable within the C-S zone. A trip generation rate based on nine general uses that have specific matches to the City's current trip generation rates published in July P o S Ms. C. M. Florence September 11, 2000 Page 3 2000 was developed. In the appendix to this report a table have been prepared summarizing these calculations. In summary, the average commercial Average Daily Traffic (ADT) rate was found to be 137.97 trips per 1000 square feet. During the AM peak hour, the trip rate was found to be 8.34 trips per 1000 square feet. Similarly, during the PM peak hour, the average trip rate was found to be 11.11 trips per 1000 square feet. Based on these average trip generation rates and the City of San Luis Obispo trip rate for the residential component, the project would be expected to generate 3142 daily trips, with 191 AM and 254 PM peak hour trips at the project driveways. During the AM peak hour, 114 trips would be oriented toward the site, with 77 trips leaving the site. During the PM peak hour, 114 trips would be oriented toward the site, with 140 trips leaving the site. As with most commercial land uses, trip making patterns during the PM peak hours are not always considered primary or destination trips. Along a commuter corridor, many trips to commercial type uses are considered pass-by trips or trips that are already on the corridor but choose to stop by on there primary trip. These trips are not new to the road system and should not be considered in the traffic impacts associated with new development projects. Using the same land uses that were used to develop the trip generation rate for the commercial project component, the pass-by factor for the commercial use was found. The source of these factors was the ITE trip generation reference. On the average for the commercial uses, the pass-by factor was found to be 38%. In other words, 62% of the trips generated by the project are not new to the road system. They are counted at the site driveway (El Captian Way intersection) but are reduced beyond that location. The distribution on the road system of the traffic volumes estimated for the project, as summarized in Table 2, is depicted on Figure 2. Table 2 Project Trip Generation Summary Commercial 22.0 KSF 3,036 113 70 183 107 137 244 Residential 16 APT 106 1 7 8 7 3 10 t. KSF denotes 1000 square feet APT denotes apartments P S Ms. C. M. Florence September 11, 2000 Page 4 Traffic Impact Analysis To assess the potential impact of the project, the project traffic was superimposed on the existing conditions traffic volumes and the intersection operation was re- evaluated. The results of these calculations are summarized in Table 1. As shown in this Table, the project does not change any of the intersection levels of service. The intersection of Tank Farm Road at Broad Street will continue to operate at LOS D during the AM peak hour and at LOS E during the PM peak hour. While the addition of project traffic does not create a significant impact, the project traffic would contribute to the poor pre-existing intersection operation. Cumulative Analysis The project's cumulative effect was evaluated based on the future build-out land use scenarios being prepared for the City's Specific Plan update for the Airport Area. The traffic engineering company preparing that analysis was contacted and the future cumulative.PM peak hour traffic volumes were obtained. These volumes reflect the change in the circulation system with Prado Road terminating at Broad Street. The cumulative traffic volumes are graphically depicted on Figure 3. The intersection operation was recalculated with the cumulative future traffic volumes and improvements recommended in the Circulation Study. These intersection improvements include a second eastbound (Tank Farm Road) left turn lane, a separate eastbound right turn lane, a second northbound (Broad Street) left turn lane, and a separate northbound right tum lane. The resultant intersection operation is summarized in Table 3. Table 3. Cumulative Future Intersection Average Delay and Level of Service _ b Broad St at El Capitan Way LOS F LOS F Broad St at Tank Farm Rd 52.5 sec veh -LOS D 54.4 sec veh -LOS D As seen in this table, the cumulative future intersection levels of service at the Tank Farm Road intersection during the PM peak hour are expected to improve with the planned roadway widening even though the traffic volumes increase. However, the unsignalized intersection level of service at the El Capitan Way at Broad Street study location is expected to degrade to LOS F under cumulative conditions. The project traffic was then superimposed on the cumulative base traffic conditions and the intersection operation recalculated. The addition of project traffic does not significantly change the level of service, and does not result in a significant impact as El Capitan Way is considered a"local street" and can experience significant delays during the peak hours as identified in the City's General Plan Circulation Element and City Transportation Department comments. Z) PoS Ms. C. M. Florence September 11, 2000 Page 5 Mitigation Measures The project traffic contribution to the two intersections was determined as the project itself does not create a significant impact, but contributes to it. The project would contribute 2.6% to the peak hour traffic volumes at the intersection of Tank Farm Road at Broad Street under existing conditions. At build out, the project would contribute 1.7% of the trips to the Broad Street and Tank Farm Road intersection and 7.5% at the El Capitan Way intersection with Broad Street. Based on the small amount of traffic generated by the project, the most effective method to reduce the impact of the project on the surrounding road system would be through a Transportation Demand Management program. The goals of this program would be to increase the number of occupants per vehicle, riding the bus, walking or bicycling. The cumulative effect of the use of the alternate modes of travel will reduce the net impact of the project on the City road system. The trip reduction benefits that can be expected with the mixed-use components of the project have not been taken into account during the impact evaluation. Therefore, the actual impact of the project will most likely be less than presented in this report. The combination of the land uses proposed for the project, the location of the project along a major commuter route lends itself to a successful transit, carpool and cycling program for the residents and tenants of the project. While the expected traffic impacts are expected to be reduced through the implementation of these TDM measures, no reductions in the impacts or mitigation measures have been assumed. To improve the long-term operation of the El Capitan Way intersection (where the project contributes 7.5% of the overall traffic using the intersection at build out), there are several options available to improve the operation of the intersection. 1. Accept the LOS F under cumulative conditions for unsignalized intersections along Broad Street. 2. Install a traffic signal at the El Capitan Way intersection and develop a traffic signal coordination system with the other intersections along Broad Street. The cost of a traffic signal at this location is likely to be $85,000 and may not be needed for 5-10 years. 3. Install a raised median on Broad Street to prohibit left turns out of El Capitan and the private driveway on the westside of Broad Street and maintain the STOP sign control for El Capitan Way. The cost of a raised median for this location is likely to be $35,000 and may not be needed for 5-10 years. Prior to selecting a preferred method to improve the operation of this single intersection along the Broad Street/Edna Road/Highway 227 corridor, a comprehensive study of the existing and future operation along the corridor must be conducted. Coordinating improvements along the corridor is the best solution for the motoring public. As the City is finalizing the traffic volumes associated with the Specific Plan update for the Airport Area, it vital that the City, County and Caltrans review the corridor information and come to a cohesive solution for traffic management strategies along the corridor. pea C Ms. C. M. Florence September 11, 2000 Page 6 A study of this magnitude is beyond the scope of this project. The most equitable solution is for the project to contribute its fairshare of the intersection improvement to the El Capitan/Highway 227 Corridor to reduce the cumulative impact. Should you have any additional questions, feel free to contact me directly. Very truly yours, pFESoS/0�� 4 PENFIE�LD & SMITH �OQ�r�N A. 091�$c li I y No. 1209 `ACM T StpYfe''// l J� A. Orosz, QIE., P.T.O.E. UJ R+ Principal Traffic Engineer -�= fgAFF�G qrE OF CAI�E�Q Pa _1 �lo 0 0 cp R� ado ✓�9 6�\86 c 3,�Ik2i-- moo= FPRM �3'I 1228-1 �v�ir c PSK 2201 � o`� a E\- a+ p� !�\Ar 2� loP SITE LEGEND XX/YY = AM/PM EXISTING PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES ROADHOUSE MIXED-USE PROJECT Penfield S11r11th ENGINEERS • SURVEYORS 13812.01 13812EX1.dw N.T.S. 1 O 90 ft0 is 0 �1 P i f PRM _LA c tPNK �� CPp�t PSN o 0%_ g1 r�0� 1103 �� AZO r35 C 13j SITE LEGEND XX/YY = AM/PM PROJECT TRAFFIC VOLUMES ® ROADHOUSE MIXED-USE PROJECT PenfleldtSmith $ ENGINEERS • SURVEYORS 4_/ A 13812.01 13812EX2.dw N.T.S. A 0 0 RO li200 � Oo ��30 i � 58y'" 0 f PRM 9�0� TANK CPP�Z PSN E 0 �,0 0 0 SITE N� CUMULATIVE BASE PM PEAK 140 J` TRAFFIC VOLUMES PenfieldtSmith ® ROADHOUSE MIXED-USE- PROJECT ENGINEERS • .SURVEYORS /v v 13812.01 13812EX3 N.T.S. 3 0 w U fc a) LL c) T 2 a V, V O O O V' m O y V N M 0 D) (D O N O cl) U t0 a) D_ a 70 0 LO O v M O N CD fD �paorDO V V tnvtntntn ca C Q U a) N 0_ C O O O V (L) — r' v O O O V• O V• It V• co a m 0 CL CL C') m �c a) O CL c 0 a) m m m t0omconoo � ao c 0pr- coV� V• V• vV• vc� c� o � a) c _c y E a`� N QD_ C CD LO Goo w m Ln � Ln m COOCOOCON a) is o: r� o g � acgnonaoo � c�i (a Q e- V' N O c6 c R - O co a) c CD CD d F- ao r- 0) ti Q In V' n �- co co N 00, co V' co Dj , - O Q 0 0 0) O n n n 0 to M r r r r O) C 'n. n 0 (A c d d 0- Cl) cm a) to E U p (� d 3 = M (Cp m O L O N LL a) 7 -10m00m0LL = LLQ �=/89 bAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY > DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND BUILDING VICTOR HOLANDA,AICP DIRECTOR BRYCE TINGLE,AICP ASSISTANT DIRECTOR ELLEN CARROLL ENVIRONMENTAL COORDINATOR FORREST WERMUTH CHIEF BUILDING OFFICIAL NOTICE OF AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION ACTION HEARING DATE: AUGUST 16, 2000 RECOMMENDATION TO: THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO WHITNEYMCLVAINE, PLANNER SUBJECT: COVEY III C/o MATT QUAGLINO for a recommendation to the City of San Luis Obispo, Whitney McLvaine/City Planner, Application # 108-00, for a request to amend the land use element and zoning map designation from C-S (Commercial service) and R-2 (Residential medium density) to C-S-MU (Commercial service and mixed Use) . The site is located at 811 EI Capitan Way in the city Of San Luis Obispo; in the Airport Land Use Zone 5. On August 16, 2000, the Airport Land Use Commission recommended APPROVAL for the above referenced application to the City of San Luis Obispo. Copies of the Final Findings and Conditions are attached. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact me at (805) 781-5718. Sincerely, Chris Macek, Secretary Airport Land Use Commission (Planning Department Use Only) Date NOFA Mailed Mailed Hand-delivered Enclosed: X Staff Report with final findings and conditions COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER • SAN LUIS OBISPO • CALIFORNIA 93408 • (805)781-5600 1.500-834-4636 EMAIL: ipcoping. gloneLorg 9 FAX: (805)781-1242 or 5624 • WEBSITE: http://www.sionetorgtvv/ipcoping C� C Staff Report San Luis Obispo County Airport Land Use Commission DATE: AUGUST 16, 2000 TO: AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION FROM: BILL ROBESON,ALUC STAFF SUBJECT: COVEY M/MATT QUAGLINO ZONING AMENDMENT- CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO.AMEND LAND USE ELEMENT AND ZONING MAP DESIGNATION FROM C-S AND R-2 TO C-S-MU(COMMERCIAL SERVICE,MIXED USE).THE SITE IS LOCATED AT 811 EL CAPITAN WAY, IN THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO AND IN THE SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY AIRPORT PLAN/AREA 5. RECOMMENDATION Recommend approval of the project to the City of San Luis Obispo based on the following: Finding- The proposed development can be compatible with the 1973 San Luis Obispo County Airport Land Use Plan, with the recommended conditions in this report. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Proposal: Request to amend land use element and zoning map designation from C-S and R-2 (Residential medium density)to C-S-MU(commercial service,mixed use)in the City of San Luis Obispo. See the attached list of proposed uses in C-S submitted by the applicant. Location: The site is located at 811 El Capitan Way in the City of San Luis Obispo. The site is located in the San Luis Obispo County Airport Plan/Area 5. City General Plan: Existing zoning - (C-S) Commercial Service, small portion of(R-2)Residential medium density Proposed zoning 4C-S) Commercial Service, (MU)Mixed Use San Luis Obispo County Airport Plan: Airport Land Use Areas: The proposed development is within Area 5 Other Land in Runway Extensions: Commercial Uses are compatible in zone 5, however; some of the uses listed by the applicant are conditionally compatible such as schools, daycare centers and churches. SETTING Existing Uses: Church Facility and parking lot County Government Center, San Luis Obispo, CA 93408-18051 549-5600 1)-191 August 16, 2000 � Page 2 COVEY III/MATT QUAGLINO - zoning amendment Site Area: 3.5 acres approximately Topography:. nearly level topography Vegetation: Grasses and ornamentals DISCUSSION The applicant requests to amend land use element and zoning map designation from C-S and R-2(Residential medium density)to C-S-MU(commercial service, mixed use)in the City of San Luis Obispo. The uses listed by the applicant that are conditionally compatible are schools (trade/business type), churches and daycare centers. Building"A"is all commercial service use area and the first floor ofbuilding`B"is commercial area. These conditionally compatible uses, even in combination would most likely not utilize the commercial area in both structures but it is a possibility. It is also possible for the entire project to be made of daycare center, church,business school and residential apartments. Therefore,a limit to the mixed use portion of the project and or conditionally compatible uses is appropriate. In addition, a project description submitted by the applicant's agent shows a total of 16 apartment units located on the second and third floor of building "B".The conditions recommended by the Airport Plan include.: granting an avigation easement, soundproofing and limiting the amount of conditionally compatible uses in the project. FAR Part 77 The proposed project does not activate the notice requirements of FAR Part 77, Subchapter B. FAR Form 7460-1 "Notice of proposed Construction or Alteration" is not required. Summary The ALUC staff advises that your Commission recommend to the City that this project be approved, with conditions. This is because the airport land use plan shows that in Area 5 institutional uses and residential multi family uses are"conditionally compatible" and commercial uses are"compatible". Conditions from the airport land use plan are provided below. RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS Conditions for entire site: 1. Soundproofing shall be added to reduce indoor noise from airport operations,where required by the City's Noise Element and the San Luis Obispo County Airport Land Use Plan. 2. Grant an avigation easement for the protection of the San Luis Obispo County Airport, the City of San Luis Obispo, and the County of San Luis Obispo. 3. All project occupants and land uses shall comply with the compatible land use matrix of the San Luis Obispo Airport Land Use Plan. 4. All exterior lighting shall be shielded down-lights that do not shine skyward or interfere with aircraft flights or aircraft operations. Search-lights and strobe lights shall be prohibited. ��9a r i August 16, 2000 J Page 3 COVEY III/MATT QUAGLINO - zoning amendment 5. The conditional uses that may occupy the proposed project shall be limited to a maximum of 601/o (21,153 square feet) of the floor area of the square footage of both buildings (35,255 sq ft.). The residential portion of the project is 14,128 square feet, therefore, 7,025 square feet can be occupied by conditionally compatible uses. The remaining 14,102 square feet shall be occupied by compatible commercial uses. 6. The residential portions of the project(including caretaker units)are to have a maximum 40decibles (dB) in sleeping areas and a maximum of 55decibles(dB) in living areas. 7. Owner and/or property manager shall disclose to all perspective and actual Leasee/Renters that the subject property is in an airport-flight traffic zone and possible noise impacts may occur. This disclosure shall be part of"rental agreements" which is signed by the leasee/ren.ter. 8. No radio transmissions which would interfere with aircraft operations. �-/93 EL Z En U # c _ i l�' '``••ai..j• ✓ f�'.�_/ l tea. PIP p '��5-�-'i_.� �.. •.��- � �/�)��' .,...-1 'a I"kms r:. - _•` �� _�.� N cn _, O /: �.r.' _'•4= f� ,'`� ��\ " / 4J \' ' / '` J •-ter' 0 QCL Op /-`� _'�"" /yam } F�\ .J � ',•', ,J..i i „ 4�L. �S..,S ` \� , � ./ ��✓- CL � J. :�:�, sf �•.'. _Q - C ate, —� _�. /„ £ ./fir t , ► ' f '-•�' - r•'I p i � , t. .'•f1.`t.f. � ,kms •� ' e• _ A4 •�/ o (S ■ . JL ��` �f deo/..• ; � ��=.�� .'.�3 sr .�:,. `I! /_ .t � f Lj Z `� 1n •�,, t I i ..� � .s: _ 'v y� s_>., t f. i W W H m 14 1 g CA 71, jIrNWap¢ 7 /O� �Qm¢Oa QZp2 /aQ .S �E 42W MW 2 t r,n/ a 1. \ `? ¢ ? \ ��.., __"_n '^ r/. fiA'n..!`tl'rf% i �1� ., ,':��`\i`1• p /,';r,� 't(`�r 1.'J ] Q W Q �P - ''c~•• i 1 ' -.'}i;'iyl t . '...f''L ��f;(�' II°f :r• ��YIJs �( Y. aFff ZffffQo 4 >,: ��, ,'•'i e O? f a .�•'.•' 1 'jr� .•'''(,� '� "j�l c i ¢ W DO W W O • ' r ��.� >/_� ,r �^' ,a,;'� �; u°( i ''�1.��/�, z "r Q�0 Z ff I I a a 0 0 a — z. � i1•..1 ry� 1(��' F\ c=N l7 ff ID 6G .- ,�, ,, _7, '.,:� _ .•, •a is%�:;r�' -_��.._ z1 .,� '1-�� - (n a +ir C Public Works The following are comments, conditions and code requirements of development: Comments 1. The parking lot easterly of the carpet shop is proposed to remain as a"separate parcel". The Public Works Dept. recommends that this property not be maintained as a separate parcel, particularly because it includes "required parking". A parcel merger should be required. 2. Hopefully, CalTrans has been sent a copy of the plans for.their input. Pw staff proposes to have the existing curb return and curb ramp at the SW corner of Broad & El Capitan realigned to meetthe curb alignment established for El Capitan. That would also allow for maintaining most of the existing landscaping adjacent to the proposed sidewalk. A major issue is the need for the extension of sidewalk across the creek. This will require a pedestrian bridge, abutments, etc., to the satisfaction of CalTrans and Public Works. There may be reimbursement available through CalTrans, under Measure A or B funding. Applicant should contact CalTrans for particulars. �. There is a dedication requirement (0.9 m; or 3 ft. wide) to complement the existing right of way along the El Capitan frontage to accommodate the full 56 ft. right of way. Conditions 1. The property owner shall dedicate the northerly 0.9m (3 feet) of the subject property along El Capitan for public street purposes to accommodate the adopted right of way (additional parkway behind sidewalk) and that portion of the northwesterly comer of the property at the corner of El Capitan& Broad (State Hwy. 227) necessary to accommodate anew City standard 9.1m (30 ft) radius curb return and handicap ramp, to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works and CalTrans. 2. The developer shall install complete frontage improvements along both public street frontages, consisting of a 6' wide integral sidewalk, curb&gutter, driveway ramps, a handicap ramp at the comer, streetlights, pedestrian bridge incorporated into, or contiguous with, the CalTrans bridge (Broad St.) and street pavement (between existing structural pavement and new frontage improvements), to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works and Caltrans (Broad St.). The bridge extension will be subject to applicable approvals and any applicable permits from the respective regulatory agencies. (Caltrans, Corps of Engineers, U.S. Fish& Wildlife Service, California Department of Fish& Game, et al). 3. The developer shall pay reimbursement fees to the City or negotiate with the subdivider of Tract 2248 for the right to make connections to sewer and water mains in El Capitan. . O O 4. A hydrologic and hydraulic study, prepared by a licensed civil engineer, is required which identifies any adverse effects by this development on adjacent and downstream properties.. The study must analyze adjacent and downstream public and private drainage facilities, shall identify any creek bank erosion and incorporate acceptable mitigation measures to protect improvements, private property and the environment,to the satisfaction of the City's Public Works Director and Natural Resources Manager. Any such work will be subject to applicable approvals and permits from the respective regulatory agencies. (Corps of Engineers, U.S. Fish& Wildlife Service, California Department of Fish & Game, et al) Detention facilities will not be required, based on the amount of existing impervious surfaces. . 5. The developer shall process and complete preliminary and final Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) "Letter of Map Amendment" (LOMA) and/or"Letter of Map Revision" (LOMR), as a condition of development. The preliminary approval must be acceptable to FEMA prior to issuance of building permits on any of the parcels and final approval will be required prior to final occupancy of any buildings. 6. All proposed building pads that are subject to flooding during a 100-yr storm must be graded to provide minimum pad elevations that are at least one foot above the 100-yr storm elevation. All areas subject to flooding shall be documented. Code Requirements 1. Street trees will be required to be planted per City standards at the rate of 1 tree per I Om (35 ft.) of both frontages, prior to occupancy release. Species to be approved by the City Arborist. 2. Traffic impact fees must be paid prior to issuance of a building permit. J Building (Site Grading) 1. The project will require a noise study. 2. Parking stall 5.1 and 52 are awkwardly oriented requiring a vehicle to some 50 to 60 feet in order to exit the stalls.. 3. There does not appear to be a turn around for vehicles that ender the parking area to the East of building B. If the lot is full, vehicles must back up to 220 feet in order to turn around. 4. The plan does not show how this project is affecting the drainage from the carpet store site if at all. 5. It is not clear what the proposed finish grades will be. Transportation Bicycle Parking: 1. The number and type of bicycle parking spaces shall be calculated as follows: Commercial Service Uses(1) Vehicle Spaces(70.42) x .15 = 10.56= 11 Residential Occupants: (2) 16 units x .66 = 10.56x 2.1.12 =21 Residential Guest: (3) .05 x vehicle spaces (24) = 1.2 = 1 Total required bicycle parking: 33 spaces 1. The more retail in character the proposed uses allowed on the site are, the more that the "retail commercial'parking standard in Table 6.5 of the zoning regulations should be used. The more "office" and "service commercial' the proposed land use mix is, the more that the "C-S & M" standard be used. Planning should assume a mixture (percentageof commercial floor area), then apply appropriate standards. (Note: the more retail oriented, the less long-term and the more short-term spaces should be provided.) 2. Residential units require that bicycle lockers or space within each dwelling (or accessory structure) be reserved for at least two bicycles (re Table 6.5, Note d., Zoning Regulations). 3. Guest Parking can be handled by bicycle rack located on ground floor level and a shared credit may be give if equally accessible to residential and commercial uses. For other parking demand, staff does not support a shared use reduction for bicycle parking spaces between residential and commercial activities on the site. 4. The plans need to demonstrate where on the site the require bicycle parking will be provided (number of lockers, spaces in racks, or enclosed building areas reserved for residential bicycle storage). I. Bicycle Parking Reduction Credit: Provision of 60 bicycle parking spaces for this project (in order to achieve a vehicle parking reduction) is excessive. The statistics provided above should be used to. calculate any parking reduction potential. For example, if 60 spaces is found to be an acceptable number, than the reduction shall be calculated as follows: 60 spaces provided — 33 required = 27 additional spaces (an 82% increase)/5 = 5.4 or 5 vehicle parking space reduction credit. C 2. Content and Conclusions of Traffic Impact Analysis (Penfield & Smith):The following comments critique the content of the project's traffic impact study, which should be revised to address these concerns. Trip Generation Discrepancies The traffic impact study includes discrepancies regarding trip generation rates used for calculating daily trips from the proposed project. The description of office uses contained on page 3 is incorrect in describing ITE rate characteristics for the general office land use category. More than sufficient case studies are included in ITE category 710 to determine trip generation for office landuse between 10,000 to 20,000 square feet. The report should be revised to include these rates or a more specific description of why these rates are not being used. The study uses a commercial rate that is unsubstantiated and does not reference any ITE, San Diego or City approved trip rate. Table 1 below is a comparison between the studies trip rates and those in the City's approved trip rates. The study should revise its commercial trip rate to more accurately reflect potential trip rates for allowed uses in the CS zone. Included are five of the highest generators allowed in the CS zone to demonstrate the potential error in forecasts currently included in the study. Table 1—Trip Rate Comparisons with City Approved Trip Rates ��- r?. a f' �' .t-" - ,r, ,� n!'ti-^:.-'f��.i•�.��: _y:^'f��y1 ;„, ..fM. "C M.+f ��\�"y.. , ✓. . t ' __moi-.,.....s.e-.....�.,_ ....°.-.,.s�.�a....m.._.. . .�...Y� ,. . .._'^.>.a.w_. ._...L.�_....�•`�.`^ a' .. +<.. .,• +'. Study Office ? 20 2.62 2.83 Commercial ? 40.8 2.53 1.2 -..Y-`. � ..d_"+Cz+....--. a:,.':7'7Z`_ F .l.a..�.'C E :.. +.N : General Office(<50 710, San Diego 11.57 1.72 1.1.78 ksf) Neighborhood San Diego Study 198.63 17.39 5.13 Commercial(< 10 ksf) .a. -,-t✓'4 .��w sr..�ti+--w�+.* + W�'P ceW'�..;+.&FL��.�� •��yM^4��:ir ..Rh�*r •1 :et w..yf{�Y 1_ ttwr�,lrry. -�,'e�;T: ;V..++}Tiy�•'r M�1 � �`?a( '{ ,+.,,.mow.. yR�- "y�.l':r 'i -J t s3 yc35t�'%4 s . .. r<...... .. % �s..�:'-. Y.-._�...a.v ..^�k�L•�'a..K-.n.iat..............ZYi[r� Walk-in Bank 911, San Diego 156.48 33.15 4.07 School(Day Care) 565, San Diego 79.26 13.20 12.71 Post Office 732, San Diego 108.19 10.79 8.02 Take Out San Diego Study 130.34 10.86 9.27 Restaurant(sit Down High Turnover) Hardware/Paint 816, San Diego 51.29 4.42 1.08 Store(outdoor sales) AVG: 105.11 14.49 7.03 �X99 As demonstrated, the commercial component of the project could be substantially under- forecast. Cumulative Analysis The cumulative volume forecasts included in Figure 3 and described on pages 3 and 4 appear to be incorrect. The volume forecasts for the intersection of Broad Street/EI Capitan Way are below those calculated for the Existing + Project (E+P) scenario for cross street traffic along El Capitan. The cumulative scenario must reflect the worst-case scenario of project and. cumulative forecast traffic and must not simply use the City's traffic model forecast numbers that will not accurately reflect project specific volume generation. In ordento be accurate the cumulative scenario, description and analysis should be revised to reflect these factors. Mitigation Measures Broad Street/El Capitan Way Page 5 of the study contains descriptions of the mitigation measures proposed for the project While the study's description of the project impact to the intersection of Tank Farm Road/Broad Street is accurate, the description of Broad Street/El Capitan Way is inaccurate. The study contains a misnomer in stating that the project reflects only a 2.5% impact of the required mitigation to this"intersection. Because the cross traffic added traffic for the project and other land use along El Capitan and the opposing driveway are the primary' factors leading to LOS delay calculations at the intersection. The severe delay to vehicles using these intersecting approaches is the primary factor in contributing to delay at this location and are the necessary cause for mitigating the main line facility (Broad Street) that would not be needed if the project is not built Calculations relating to proportionate share of mitigation for this location should only include cross traffic volumes as a basis for calculations. Using cumulative traffic along at this intersection does not truly reflect the project's required participation in mitigation of this intersection. The more accurate calculation percentage should be: (Project Trip Generation/Cumulative Cross Traffic Volumes). The revised Cumulative Cross Traffic Volumes as mentioned above (see above section)should be used. Finally, the study is not decisive in determining the exact mitigation strategy for the intersection of Broad Street/El Capitan Way. It is unlikely that the City or Caltrans will support signaliz tion of the intersection.Therefore,unless-the project can demonstrate this as a mitigation measure...it should not be included. If the study determines that the project should close off the left-toms at this intersection for delay and safety mitigation, .which should be clearly stated in the report.. Transportation Demand Management The study refers to TDM as a way of mitigating the project but does not recommend any TDM program or components. The study should be clear in recommending mitigation measures identified for the project. Page U.8,Project Description Report Page I1.8, paragraph 4 of the Project Description report states, "Based upon the distribution and the amount of traffic associated with the project, analysis of intersections beyond these two locations was determined to not be statistically reliable." I have no idea what this means. It might be poor wording/description but it is unclear. The report should be revised accordingly. Comments on Mitigation Options Concerning the recommended mitigation options shown on Page 5 of the transportation staff recommends that Option 41 (accept LOS F under cumulative conditions at the Broad/El Capitan intersection) is the most appropriate to pursue at this time. Since El Capitan is a "local street" where the significant delays would occur and not on Broad Street, the City's General Plan Circulation Element Level of Service (LOS) Standards do not apply. While delay may be significant, the number of motorists effected will not. Most queuing will occur on El Capitan and not effect traffic flows on the dominant traffic route (Broad Street). Also, there appears to be ample queuing capacity within the existing southbound left turn lane on Broad Street between Tank Farm Road and El Capitan to accommodate the forecasted number of left turns from Broad onto El Capitan. In the future, if more control is needed at the intersection to provide for traffic safety, Mitigation Option #3 (raised median to preclude left turns out of EI Capitan onto Broad) may be pursued, at the City's'discretion. Mitigation Option 92 is not acceptable at this time. The project will contribute Traffic Impact fees which will provide a fair-share contribution to these potential mitigations. Utilities Code Requirements A water allocation is required, due to the additional demand on the City's water supplies. Currently, a water allocation can only be obtained through the water retrofit program. The City's Water Conservation division will determine the needed allocation and the necessary number of retrofits. Water Conservation can be reached by calling 781-7258. The cost of retrofitting is directly credited against the project's Water Impact Fees, at a rate of$150 per bathroom retrofitted. Water and Wastewater Impact Fees shall be paid at the time building permits are issued. Both the Water and the Wastewater Impact Fees are based on the size of the water meter serving each parcel, with appropriate credit given for any existing service. Water and Wastewater Impact Fees are based on the size of the water meter. If a well is to be used for domestic purposes, the domestic usage will be measured with a City meter, in order to properly bill for wastewater collection. The well meter shall be installed in accordance with City Standard 6240. An agreement for the metering of the private well must be signed, notarized, and recorded with the.County Recorder. Appropriate backflow prevention will.be necessary on any connection to the City water system if the property includes an active well. A separate connection shall be required for automatic fire sprinklers. A monthly service fee of $22.40 shall be required if the property does not have a connection to the City system for domestic use. On-site use of any well will be allowed to continue only on the parcel overlying the well. Upon failure of the well, the owner will be required to connect to the City water distribution system.. The applicant would then be required to develop an allocation and pay water impact fees. Conditions Demolition of the existing facilities warrants the need for a recycling plan for disposal of the demolition. debris. The plan should demonstratehow the majority of the tonnage (typically concrete and asphalt) will be recycled. Comments �aDa C, It appears that the new commercial buildings have the potential to be converted to condominium units at some point in the future. The owner should consider this possibility and the associated separation of water and.sewer services to each potential unit. Uniform Plumbing Code standards and City policies would require separate utility services to each air-space condominium unit. Fire Prevention Bureau Memorandum To: Whitney McLvaine From: Darren Drake, Fire Marshal Date: July 26, 2000 Re: Roadhouse 811 Ei Capitan Fire Department Access: Access shall be in accordance with Article 9 of the California Fire Code. Access roads shall have an unobstructed width of not less than 20 feet. Access roads shall be designed and maintained to support the imposed loads of a 60,000 pound fire apparatus and shall be provided with a surface so as to provide all-weather driving capabilities. Water Supplies: Water supplies shall be in accordance with Sections 901 and 903 of the California Fire Code. An approved water supply connected to the City distribution system and capable of providing the required fire flow for fire protection is required. The fire flow shall be determining using Appendix III-A of the California Fire Code. Fire Hydrants: Fire hydrants shall be installed in accordance with Section 903.4 of the California Fire Code. The location, number and type of hydrants connected to the City system shall be determined using Appendix III-B of the California Fire Code and the approved City Engineering Standards. Project will require the installation of a fire hydrant along HWY 227 at the south end of the property. Fire Protection Systems and Equipment Fire protection systems shall be in accordance with the Califomia Fire Code and California Building Code as amended by the City. Applicant shall coordinate and obtain approval from the Fire Department for the location of all fire protection equipment and system controls. Fre Safety Du-dng Construction: Buildings undergoing construction, alteration or demolition shall be in accordance with Article 87 of the California Fire Code. RESOLUTION NO. 9121 (2000 Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO UPHOLDING AN APPEAL OF THE CULTURAL HERITAGE COMMITTEE'S ACTION,THEREBY NOT FINDING PROPERTY AT 811 EL CAPITAN TO BE A HISTORIC RESOURCE AND NOT ADDING THIS PROPERTY TO THE LIST OF CONTRIBUTING HISTORIC PROPERTIES (GP/R/ER 108-00) WHEREAS, on September 25, 2000, the Cultural Heritage Committee conducted a public hearing and, based on the documentation and public testimony presented, found the property at 811 El Capitan to be historically and architecturally significant and recommended that the City Council add the property to the list of contributing historical properties; and WHEREAS, Carol Florence, Oasis Associates, Inc., filed an appeal of the Cultural Heritage Committee's action on behalf of the property owner, Matt Quaglino, on September 26, 2000; and WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing on November 21, 2000, and has considered testimony of the appellant, interested parties, the records of the Cultural Heritage Committee hearings and action, and the evaluation and recommendation of staff; and NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. Findings. That this Council, after consideration of the Cultural Heritage Committee's recommendations, the appellants' statement; staff recommendations and reports thereof, makes the following findings: 1. The property at 811 El Capitan is not historically or architecturally significant because it does not adequately satisfy any of the historic resource criteria outlined in the City's Historical Preservation Program Guidelines. 2. Property at 811 El Capitan is not eligible for inclusion on the contributing historical properties list because it does not adequately satisfy the historic resource criteria outlined in the City's Historical Preservation Program Guidelines, specifically; a. Architectural Style, I: The building is not a pure expression of a traditional style. It is a false log cabin with a lamella roof.. The building is not an example of a once popular style. The building's alterations have undermined its original integrity. b. Environmental Design Continuity, V: The spatial relationships between the building and its site,•environment, and setting has been much altered throughout its life. It has never had strong associations with these elements, particularly the street and the creek. It is not a contributor to the continuity of a district or geographically definable area. c. Historic Context, VIII: The building is not associated with nor a prime illustration of predominant patterns of political, social, economic, cultural, medical, educational, governmental, military, industrial, or religious history. R 912'1 1 Resolution No. 9121 (2000 Series) Appeal Upheld: 811 El Capitan Page 2 SECTION 2. Appeal Upheld. The appeal of the Cultural Heritage Committee's action is hereby upheld. On motion of Council Member Romero, seconded by Council Member Ewan and on the following roll call vote: AYES: Council Members Ewan, Marx, Romero, Vice Mayor Schwartz and Mayor Settle NOES: None ABSENT: None The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 9`h day of November, 2000. Mayor Allen ettle ATTEST i { Lee Price, City C erk APPROVED AS TO FORM: *ittPeYyff7G.Jorgensen �/ao� 6e13913ILMnn5, INC. 220 High Street,San Luis Obispo,CA 93401 (805)543-8539,543-2171 fax info@GeoSolutions.net January 10, 2001 Project No. SL1777-2 Ms. Carol Florence OASIS LANDSCAPE, ARCHITECTURE, AND PLANNING 3427 Miguelito Court San Luis Obispo, California 93401 SUBJECT: Slope Stability Evaluation Existing Stream-Bank Slopes 811 and 903 EI Capitan Way San Luis Obispo, California INTRODUCTION As requested, we have completed a slope stability evaluation of existing stream-bank slopes located at 811 and 903 EI Capitan Way, San Luis Obispo, California. Figure 1 depicts the location of the Site. The purpose of the evaluation was to determine the stability of the existing stream-bank slopes adjacent to proposed Site improvements. This evaluation included review of the referenced Soil Engineering Report and other available geotechnical data. Topographic information for the slope stability calculations was obtained from Architectural Production Services. The results of this analysis form the basis of our conclusions and recommendations. SLOPE CONFIGURATION Three separate numerical analyses were completed on stream-bank slopes adjacent to the Site. Figure 2 identifies the location of the three portions of slope that were analyzed. The three locations reflect areas where the slope is nearest to the proposed improvements as well as being the steepest. These are the most critical locations with the remainder of the slopes being generally more stable. Along the east side of the property, Analysis #1 incorporated soil data obtained from boring B-1 and topographic information in the area depicted on the figure. The near vertical slope at this location is approximately 6 feet high. In the southeastern area of the property, Analysis #2 incorporated soil data obtained from boring B-2 and topographic information in the area depicted on the figure. The bank at this location is approximately 9 feet high. In the southwest portion of the property, Analysis#3 incorporated soil data obtained from boring B-5 and topographic information in the area depicted on the figure. The bank at this area is approximately 7 feet high. A numerical analysis was performed utilizing uniform homogeneous material and no moisture. Calculations were performed for cross sections at maximum slope height. SLOPE STABILITY Utilizing the results of laboratory testing performed on representative samples of subsurface material from the adjacent borings, a numerical slope stability analysis was performed. The numerical analysis performed utilized the method presented in Duncan and Buchignani, 1975. Department of Navy documents (1982) allow a factor of safety for reasonable assurance of stability as no less than 1.5 for permanent or sustained loading conditions (similar to those found at parking areas) and a safety factor of no less than 2 for foundations of structures to limit critical movement at foundation edge. January 10,2001 J Project No.SL01777-2 Direct shear test data was performed in accordance with ASTM D3080-90 on a soil samples collected from the site. Tests were performed using the "consolidated undrained" method, with constant rate of strain and the failure envelope developed for the saturated condition. The purpose of these tests was to determine the soil resistance to deformation, which is shear strength, inter-particle attraction or cohesion, and resistance to inter-partical slip called the angle of internal friction. All three numerical analyses utilized data obtained from Boring 1 which is a worst case scenario for each of the stream banks. Boring 1 had a cohesion value of 677 psf and angle of internal friction of 19.1 degrees. A moisture density relation curve, developed in accordance with ASTM D1557-91, five-layer method, was performed on representative samples. The purpose of the relation curve was to determine the maximum density and optimum moisture content as well as to evaluate the stability of the soils. The numerical analysis utilized data from Boring 1: Maximum Dry Density of 119.9 pcf and Optimum Moisture Content of 13.3 percent. The analysis assumed creek flow at maximum bank height, reflecting a worst-case condition within the analysis. In addition, vehicle loading was reflected as a surcharge in analysis locations-#I and#2, where parking is proposed near the top of the slope. The results of the analysis are as follows: Location #1 with a factor of safety of 2.2; Location#2 with a factor of safety of 2.2; and Location#3 with a factor of safety of 6.9. CONCLUSIONS The numerical analysis confirmed that existing stream-bank slopes are stable both in the current and after- development configuration. A factor of safety of 2.2 was calculated for both stream-bank Analysis #1 and Q. A factor of safety of 6.9 was calculated for Analysis#3. The results of the analysis reflect the inherent stability of the existing slopes and the more critical post-development site conditions. A factor of safety for sustained loading should exceed 1.5 or greater where adjacent to parking areas and greater than 2 near building foundations (Dept. of Navy, 1982). Historically, the most common required factors of safety in southern California have been 1.5 for static long-term stability (CDMG, 2000). RECOMMENDATIONS Based upon the evaluation performed, the following recommendation is provided; Over Slope Drainage: concentrated over slope drainage is to be strictly prevented. Drainage water at the top of slopes should be maintained in secure pipelines or other approved erosion resistant Structures. Curbing should be installed along parking areas to prevent over-top-of-bank erosion. It has been a pleasure performing professional services for you. Should you have any questions regarding content of this report, please do not hesitate to contact us at 805-543-8539. Sincerely, , De Geosolutions, Inc. Qy" �4•0• NO.2118 9 • CERTIFIED • John M.D. Kammer, C.E.G. ENGINEERING GEOLOGIST Project Engineering Geologist `.f'+� Nr CAGeology 8 Hydrology\Gen. Geology-Eng. Geo\Slope Stability\SL1777 EI Capital Way slopes\S11777-2 Slope stabil letter.doc li �-ao9 January 10,2001 Project No.SLO1777-2 REFERENCES California Division of Mines and Geology (CDMG), November, 2000, Recommended Procedures for Implementation of DMG Special Publication 117 Guidelines for analyzing and Mitigating Landslide Hazards in California. Department of the United States Navy, May, 1982, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Soil Mechanics, Design Manual, NAVFAC DM—7.1 Duncan, J.M., and Buchignani, A.L., March, 1975, Engineering Manual for Slope Stabilties, University of California at Berkeley. GeoSolutions, Inc., September 25, 2000, Soils,Engineering Report, 811 EI Capitan Way, APN 076-421-004 & 018, San Luis Obispo, California. MCA' 5 2 6 XRM' RD �IA cl TANK FARH RD IV &,� ZStAr HILL '.V4 V4 ir .011 OR VAff,-- JAN LUIS T % CUTTOW P VINERY 15 rs 93401 THREE SISTER jq/ EVANS 14 MING R V Dy _F13 SA V L J ix 7 CQJ lAl A rrE z'4 V Vc -If, 3 4k V&LO WIS GREW RD cmam am /* f Map from 1999 Thomas Guide GeoSolutions, Inc. SITE LOCATION MAP FIGURE 220 High Street I San Luis Obispo,CA 93401 811 EL CAPITAN WAY PROJECT (805)543-8539 Fax:(805)543-2171 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CALIFORNIA SLA 1777-2 41 7:77/f z 0 G 0 0 a . J C k I k NO U m m int. ij`� �{t11 ► , r+; 1� 1y�1 � 1 , � `" __ z 0 F a - N !V Z ~ ^O C W 1p •, O N �W f � �' /• ii i � R ;�1 t I 1 6 I 11 Y � a It aS Y ,_-____-______ - I _ % e. zz AtlMH � IH COVEY III , ems A Real Estate Investment Partnership March 6,2001 Mayor Allen Settle and Members of the City Council 990 Pahn Street San Luis Obispo,CA 93401 Re:Roadhouse Mixed Use Development We have worked very hard to create what we thought to be a great project. We asked for and received direction from specific staff members with specific expertise,we worked their direction into our project only to have their direction reversed by other staff members. We have studied historical significance, archaeology,noise,traffic,creek bank stabilization and creek biology. I think we have covered it all. We designed a project around as much input as we could gather. The Airport Land Commission and City Planning Commission recommended our project for approval. We were asked and complied with a request to sign a Mitigation agreement. I was lead to believe,until last Thursday,Staffs job was to present the Planning Commissions recommendations to Council at tonight's meeting,apparently that is not the case. We were prepared to present our project to Council tonight until we were completely caught off guard by Staffs recommendation for a 35'creek setback. We learned about this little bombshell by reading tonight's staff report last Thursday. Never during the 12-month process has a 35'creek setback been discussed or mentioned. Where is the cooperation? What is wrong with the process? Where is the service? To date I have spent in excess of$100,000 over a twelve month period in an attempt to process this project through the system. I do not think I need to tell you how frustrated I am. I have been told Council would like to give us direction tonight.. At first I was not sure that was such a good idea however,after thinking about it direction from Council may finally bring an end to all of the indecisiveness we have been experiencing the past twelve months. If I understand;the issues are creek setbacks,parking reductions and the list of uses. We are open to discussion and direction and will gladly entertain any since of order at this point. Another issue for discussion is our request for a fee reduction. The representation in the staff report is inaccurate and far from our original request. The issue is what we feel to be a flaw in the application process resulting in a duplication of fees;it is certainly not a request for a free lunch. Thank you for your consideration on our project. I am available to answer any questions,please do not hesitate to contact our representative Carol Florence of Oasis Associates or me. Sincerely, RECEIVED Matt Quag 'no MAR 0.$ 2001 ASLO CITY CLERK 815 B Fiero Lane, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Phone: 805/543-0560 Fax: 805/543-0679 MAR-05-01 01 :53 PM Or1SIS 905 5A6 0535 P. 01 t OPETING AGENDA 6 ITEM # O A 5 1 5 L A N 15 5 1A t E UNCIL O CM DIR ARCMITt= T_U_RF 0 0 R DIP AND P1.A NTNG O 0FIK7:I7F RNEY O Ft'i 0.3 ZLERK/ORIG ❑POL1::= CHF 5 March 2001 ❑MCMT)TENA ❑EEC DIR O llTll DIR 0 e N �_ p PERS DIR ity Council Members / o,Ms.Lee Price,City Clerk 7 + rI Y OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 90 Palm Street an Luis Obisim,CA 43401 THE ROADHOUSE MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT— City rile 6 GP/RIVER 108 00 Request for Continuance-Public Hearing Ilam No.4, Council Agenda,06 March 2001 Gentlemen and Ladies, is office represents the applicant, Covey III, in their attempt to pursue a General Plan Amendment (GPA) and rezone (R-2 to C-S, and subsequently, to C-S/M[ . The staff report has raised a new issue regarding the required creek setback. While the PIanning Cununission reviewed and recommended approval of the Negative Declaration, General Plan Arnendment, a use permit and pariring reduction, and the applicant agreed to specific mitigation treasures and conditions (including a 20 foot creek setback).wY are now working with staff to clarify statements in the staff report regarding intetpratation of the Creek Setback Classes Map,Creek Map(Figure d-Open Spate Element)and language in the Zoning Regulations 6I7.16.U25 Creek Setbacks. Our intention has always been to create a project that complies with all applicable City plaits,policies and urdinanccs. It is with this sentiment in mind that we respectfully request that your review of the prapnsed amendment/rezoning be continued until a future date to allow us to work with staff to Clarify the issue at hand. Thank you for your time to date to review the staff report. We look forward w presenting the proposed mixed-use project to you in the ncarfuturc. 4cqtl1iIy,S C TES,INC. ncc,Agent COVEY III cc: M.Quaglino R.Whisenand/Development Review Mgr. K.Hampian/CAO 00.0026 matrcnrr/cmf CrlRoaAlrousPlronrinunnre requostAoe 805.541 4.5110 FAX 005.5 6.05:5 3427 M'GL ELITO CT SAN LUIS DRSPO (.;AURDI4N A 93401 1 U �� i�i �i►IIIIIIIIIIII@��°°""�i► III City .o B,sp 0 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 February 23,2001 CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE 811 El Capitan Application Number R 108-00 You are being notified that the San Luis Obispo City Council will hold a public hearing to consider a request for a General Plan Amendment and Rezoning to service commercial with a mixed use and specific plan overlay(C-S-MU-SP)to enable a mixed residential and commercial development and possible use permit fee waiver on property at 811 El Capitan,Matt Quaglino, applicant. The Public Hearing portion of the meeting will be held on Tuesday—March 6,2001, beginning at 7:00 p.m.in the Council Chamber at City Hall,990 Palm Street. The public is welcome to attend and comment.Written comments are encouraged. Other items may be discussed before or after this item. Please know that if you challenge this action in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised during the public hearing described in this notice,or in written correspondence delivered to the City Council at, or prior to,the public hearing. The agenda report, including recommendation by staff,will be available for review in the City Clerk's Office(Room#1 of City Hall)the Wednesday before the meeting. For more information,please contact Whitney McEvain of the unity Development Department at 781-7164. Lee Price, C. .C. r City Clerk a �0 75 811 El Capitan GP/R/U/ER/ R 108-00 OThe City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services, programs and activities. �� Telecommunications Device for the Deaf(805) 781-7410. ��iili►Ilhllllllillllllllll��;��pllhl II II� �� kil- cityof san lui omspo 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 February 23, 2001 Covey III c/o Matt Quaglino 815 Fiero Lane San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 SUBJECT: General Plan Amendment and Rezoning at 811 El Capitan Dear Applicant: The San Luis Obispo City Council will hold a public hearing to consider the request for a general plan amendment and rezoning to service commercial with a mixed use and specific plan overlay(C-S-MU-SP)to enable a mixed residential and commercial development and possible use permit fee waiver on property at 811 El Capitan. The meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, March.6, 2001, beginning at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber at City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo. Other hearings may be held before or after this item. Please know that if you challenge this action in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City Council at, or prior to, the public hearing. For additional information or questions concerning this item, please contact the Community Development Department .at 781-7169. The Council agenda report with recommendation by staff will be sent to you on the Wednesday before the meeting. Please call the City Clerk' s Office at 781-7103 if you would prefer to pick up the agenda report. Sincerely, Lee Price, CMC City Clerk c: Jim Levy,5401 So. Soto Street, SLO 93401 C.M. Florence, 3427 Miguelito Court, SLO 93401. Whitney MclIvaine,Planner The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services, programs and activities. V Telecommunications Device for the Deaf(805) 781-7410. pj (/ FILE NUMBER:108-00 FILE NUMBER:108-00 FILE NUMBER: 108-00 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 4090 BROAD 4115 BROAD# Bi 8563 Sueldo Street#1 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401- SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401- San Luis Obispo,CA 93401 FILE NUMBER:108-00 FILE NUMBER:108-00 FILE NUMBER:108-00 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 4115 BROAD# B4 4115 BROAD# B5 4115 BROAD# B6 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401- SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401- SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401- FILE NUMBER: 108-00 FILE NUMBER:108-00 FILE NUMBER:108-00 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 4115 BROAD# B7 4115 BROAD#B10 4211 BROAD# A SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401- SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401- SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401- FILE NUMBER:108-00 FILE NUMBER:108-00 FILE NUMBER:108-00 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 4211 BROAD# B P.O.Box 12053 860 CALLE DEL CAMINOS SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401- San Luis Obispo,CA 93406 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401- FILE NUMBER:108-00 FILE NUMBER:108-00 FILE NUMBER:108-00 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 861 CALLE DEL CAMINOS 863 CALLE DEL CAMINOS 867 CALLE DEL CAMINOS SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401- SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401- SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401- FILE NUMBER:108-00 FILE NUMBER:108-00 FILE NUMBER:108-00 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 869 CALLE DEL CAMINOS 875 CALLE DEL CAMINOS 880 CALLE DEL CAMINOS SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401- SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401- SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401- FILE NUMBER:108-00 FILE NUMBER:108-00 FILE NUMBER:108-00 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 882 CALLE DEL CAMINOS 906 CALLE DEL CAMINOS 908 CALLE DEL CAMINOS SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401- SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401- SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401- FILE NUMBER:108-00 FILE NUMBER:-106-00 FILE NUMBER:108-00 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 811 EL CAPITAN 835 EL CAPITAN 840 EL CAPITAN SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401- SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401- FILE.NUMBER:108-00 FILE NUMBER:108-00 053-410-013/FILE#:108.00 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT BARKSDALE JEFFREY&LORI 885 EL CAPITAN 907 EL CAPITAN 894 EL CAPITAN WAY SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401- SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401- SLO CA 93401-7943 0 053-410-014/FILE#:108-00 053-410-009/FILE#:108-00 053-410-006/FILE#:108-00 BEESLEY BEN BERGER TRACY M&MARY E BEZEK DEBRA C ETAL 898 EL CAPITAN WAY PO BOX 5314 866 EL CAPITAN WY SLO CA 93401-7943 SLO CA 93401-7943 SLO CA 93401-7943 053-411-014/FILE#:108-00 053-411-013/FILE#:108-00 053-411-001/FILE#:108-00 BLAIR BARBARA A ETAL BLAIR RAY T&BARBARA A COVEY 3 A CA GEN PTP %BETTY F WISBERG 4300 BROAD ST %JIM LEVY 4370 BROAD ST SLO CA 93401-7928 5401 S SOTO ST SLO CA 93401-7994 SLO CA 93401-8937 076-411-039/FILE#:108-00 076-412-002/FILE#:108-00 053-411-008/FILE#;108-00 COVEY 3 A CA GEN PTP COVEY 3 A CA GEN PTP COWAN CRAIG A TRE 34497 KNOX BUTTE RD 815-B FIERO LN 265 INDIAN KNOB ROAD SLO CA 93401-8937 SLO CA 93401-8937 SLO CA 93401-8004 076-411-052/FI LE#:108-00 053-411-009/FILE#:108-00 053-410-001/FILE#:108-00 Cannon I,LLC ELIJAH MATHEWS&ANAUNDDA FOSTER GENE D&NANCY L 364 Pacific Street 898 CALLE DEL CAMINOS 840 EL CAPITAN WAY San Luis Obispo CA 93401- SLO CA 93401-7942 SLO CA 93401-7943 053-410-024/FILE#:108-00 053-410-003/FILE#:108-00 053-410-007/FILE#108-00 GEARHART KELLY V ETAL GIN WAYNE HILL KEVIN S&ELAINE L 6205 ALCANTARA AVE 852 EL CAPTAIN WAY 870 EL CAPITAN WAY ATASCADERO CA 93422-5168 SLO CA.93401- SLO CA 93401-7943 053-083-024/FILE#:108-00 053-410-012/FILE#108-00 076-412-001/FILE#:108-00 INTERNET SLO LLC A CA LLC JOHNSON MICHAEL P&TAUSCHA C LEN JASON TRE ETAL %CORPORATE TAX DEPT-RE 749 892 EL CAPITAN WAY 1771 CORBETT CANYON RD ONE STATE FARM PLAZA SLO CA 93401-7943 ARROYO GRANDE CA 93420-4917 SLO CA 93401.2770 053-411-002/FILE#:108-00 053-410-004/FI LE V A 08-00 053.410-016/FILE#:108-00 LIVERMORE LAWRENCE T&MERLIE.P LYLE JOHN P MORIN MICHAEL 833 EL CAPITAN WAY 858 EL CAPITAN WAY 4090 Broad Street SLO CA 93401-7943 SLO CA.93401-7943 SLO CA 93401'- 053-411-015/FILE#108-00 053-411-011/FILE#108-00 053-410-011/FILE#:108.00 MUSCARELLA JP JR TRE RHODES GEORGE AL TRE ETAL SHARP HARRY W JR TRE ETAL 1360 Red Brome Place 855 CALLE DEL CAM]NOS 3330 BARRANCA CT ARROYO GRANDE CA 93420-4948 SLO CA 93401-7942 SLO CA 93401-6069 053-410-010/FILE#:108-00 053-411-006/FILE.#:108-00 053-411-010/FILE#108-00 SIMARD PAUL&LISA A SKAGGS RANDALL L ETUX SKAGGS RANDY ETUX 884 EL CAPITAN WAY 665 MOUNTAIN VIEW PO BOX 14042 SLO CA 93401-7943 SLO CA 93405-2348 SLO CA 93406-4042 053-410-005/FILE#:108-00 053.410-008/FILE#:108-00 053-410-002/FILE#:108-00 STEARNS ALAN 8 SHERYL STRAMPE GREG W&JACKIE. TRIPP DAVID A 8 JENNIFER J 862 EL CAPITAN WAY 876 EL CAPITAN WAY 850 EL CAPITAN WAY SLO CA 93401-7943 SLO CA 93401-7943 SLO CA 93401-7943 053-411-012/FILE#:108-00 076.411-043/FILE#:108.00 WARD VIRGINIA A TRE WILLIAMS GERALD A TRE ETAL 895 CALLE DEL CAMINOS 5365 CANDELABRA SLO CA 93401-7942 SLO CA 93405- C, C 02/21/01 15:47:23 Sstendah Label List Page 1 Occupants 0 meters File Number: U 108-00 Source Address: 0 U Owners 100 meters Additional Source Addresses: 053-411-010' Occupants OCCUPANT 4090 BROAD OCCUPANT 4101 BROAD non-mail OCCUPANT 4115 BROAD# B1 OCCUPANT 3563 Sueldo Street#1 (for 4115 BROAD) OCCUPANT 4115 BROAD# B4 OCCUPANT 4115 BROAD# B5 OCCUPANT 4115 BROAD# B6 OCCUPANT 4115 BROAD# B7 OCCUPANT 4115 BROAD#B10 OCCUPANT 4211 BROAD duplicate OCCUPANT 4211 BROAD# A OCCUPANT 4211 BROAD# 8 OCCUPANT P.O.Box 12053(for 4211 BROAD) OCCUPANT 860 CALLE DEL CAMINOS OCCUPANT 861 CALLE DEL CAMINOS OCCUPANT 863 CALLE DEL.CAMINOS OCCUPANT 867 CALLE DEL CAMINOS OCCUPANT 869 CALLE DEL CAMINOS OCCUPANT 875 CALLE DEL CAMINOS OCCUPANT 880 CALLE DEL CAMINOS OCCUPANT 882 CALLE DEL CAMINOS OCCUPANT 885 CALLE DEL CAMINOS non-mail OCCUPANT 898 CALLE DEL CAMINOS duplicate OCCUPANT 906 CALLE DEL CAMINOS OCCUPANT 908 CALLE DEL CAMINOS OCCUPANT 811 EL CAPITAN OCCUPANT 811 EL CAPITAN# non-mail OCCUPANT 833 EL CAPITAN non-mail OCCUPANT 835 EL CAPITAN OCCUPANT 840 EL CAPITAN OCCUPANT 865 EL CAPITAN non-mail OCCUPANT 885 EL CAPITAN OCCUPANT 903 EL CAPITAN non-mail OCCUPANT 905 EL CAPITAN non-mail OCCUPANT 907 EL CAPITAN Owners BARKSDALE JEFFREY&LORI 894 EL CAPITAN WAY BEESLEY BEN 898 EL CAPITAN WAY BERGER TRACY M&MARY E PO BOX 5314(for 878 EL CAPITAN) BEZEK DEBRA C ETAL 866 EL CAPITAN WY BLAIR BARBARA A ETAL %BETTY F WISBERG 4370 BROAD ST BLAIR RAY T&BARBARA A 4300 BROAD ST COVEY 3 A CA GEN PTP %JIM LEVY 5401 S SOTO ST(for 811 EL CAPITAN) COVEY 3 A CA GEN PTP 34497 KNOX BUTTE RD(for 4211 BROAD) COVEY 3 A CA GEN PTP %JIM LEVY 5401 S SOTO ST(for 811 EL CAPITAN) duplicate COVEY 3 A CA GEN PTP 815-B FIERO LN COWAN CRAIG A TRE 265 INDIAN KNOB ROAD(for 906 CALLE DEL CAMINOS) Cannan 1,LLC 364 Pacific Street(for 4041 BROAD) City of San Luis Obispo Administration 990 Palm Street(far 900 EL CAPITAN) non-mail ELIJAH MATHEWS&ANAUNDDA 898 CALLE DEL CAMINOS FOSTER GENE D&NANCY L 840 EL CAPITAN WAY 02121/01 15:47:23 Sstendah moi' Label List Page 2 Occupants 0 meters File Number. U 108-00 Source Address: 0 U Owners 100 meters Additional Source Addresses: 053-411-010" GEARHART KELLY V 6205 ALCANTARA AVE(for 885 EL CAPITAN) duplicate GEARHART KELLY V 6205 ALCANTARA AVE(for 865 EL CAPITAN) duplicate GEARHART KELLY V ETAL 6205 ALCANTARA AVE(for 919 EL CAPITAN) GEARHART KELLY V ETAL 6205 ALCANTARA AVE(for 917 EL CAPITAN) duplicate GEARHART KELLY V ETAL 6205 ALCANTARA AVE(for 911 EL CAPITAN) duplicate GEARHART KELLY V ETAL 6205 ALCANTARA AVE(for 909 EL CAPITAN) duplicate GEARHART KELLY V ETAL 6205 ALCANTARA AVE(for 913 EL CAPITAN) duplicate GEARHART KELLY V ETAL 6205 ALCANTARA AVE(for 915 EL CAPITAN) duplicate GEARHART KELLY V ETAL 6205 ALCANTARA AVE(for 921 EL CAPITAN) duplicate GEARHART KELLY V ETAL 6205 ALCANTARA AVE(for 907 EL CAPITAN) duplicate GIN WAYNE 852.EL CAPTAIN WAY HILL KEVIN S&ELAINE L 870 EL CAPITAN WAY INTERNET SLO LLC A CA LLC %CORPORATE TAX DEPT-RE 749 ONE STATE FARM PLAZA(for 735 TANK FARM) JOHNSON.MICHAEL P&TAUSCHA C 892 EL CAPITAN WAY LEN JASON TRE ETAL 1771 CORBETT CANYON RD(for 850 FIERO) LIVERMORE LAWRENCE T&MERLIE P 833 EL CAPITAN WAY LYLE JOHN P 858 EL CAPITAN WAY MORIN MICHAEL 4090 Broad Street MUSCARELLA JP JR TRE 1360 Red Brome Place(for 936 FULLER) RHODES GEORGE AL TRE ETAL 855 CALLE DEL CAMINOS SHARP HARRY W JR TRE ETAL 3330 BARRANCA CT(for 888 EL CAPITAN) SIMARD PAUL&LISA A 884 EL CAPITAN WAY SKAGGS RANDALL L ETUX 665 MOUNTAIN VIEW(for 905 EL CAPITAN) SKAGGS RANDY ETUX PO BOX 14042(for 903 EL CAPITAN) STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INS %CORPORATE TAX DEPT-RE 749 ONE STATE FARM PLAZA(for 4058 BROAD) duplicate STEARNS ALAN&SHERYL 862 EL CAPITAN WAY STRAMPE GREG W&JACKIE 876 EL CAPITAN WAY TRIPP DAVID A&JENNIFER J 850 EL CAPITAN WAY WARD VIRGINIA A TRE 895 CALLS DEL CAMINOS WILLIAMS GERALD A TRE ETAL 5365 CANDELABRA(for 4101 BROAD) 63 labels printed on 62/21/01 at 15:47:23 by Sstendah council V n V m R V o Rt Item NmIK C I T Y OF SAN LU IS OBISPO FROM: Ronald Whisenand, Development Review Manager(L Prepared By: Whitney McIlvaine, Associate Planner SUBJECT: APPEAL OF A SIDEWALK CAFE PERMIT FOR MO-S BBQ AT 970 HIGUERA STREET. File# O 4-01. Larry Kowalski, Applicant. Brian Christensen, Appellant. CAO RECOMMENDATION Deny the appeal and uphold the Hearing Officer's action to approve a sidewalk cafe permit. DISCUSSION Data Summary Address: 970 Higuera Street Applicant: Larry Kowalski, owner of Mo's BB , Q 1 i CII£ s, �§tV��C,B['s9�f 4;9E•,:r ;,� ,q Appellants: Brian Christensen — Il Zoning: Central-Commercial (C-C) I General Plan: General Retail Environmental status: Exempt ) Project Description The applicant has applied for a sidewalk cafe permit to allow outdoor dining in front of his restaurant consistent with the provisions of the sidewalk cafe ordinance adopted by Council on January 4, 2000. The sidewalk in front of Mo's BBQ was recently widened in conjunction with the Higuera Street bridge project. The project site plan showing the location of tables and chairs is attached. Details of the street furniture to be used in conjunction with the cafe will be presented to the Council by the applicant at the hearing. Hearing Officer's Action On February 6, 2001, the Hearing officer approved a sidewalk cafe permit for Mo's BBQ based on findings and subject to conditions. The letter of approval and hearing minutes are attached (Attachments 6&7). The 3 findings and 21 conditions follow directly from the ordinance provisions, as does the term of approval. The sidewalk cafe ordinance is attached to this report for reference. (Attachment 8) Pursuant to the Section 5.50.065 of the sidewalk cafe ordinance, actions of the Hearing Officer may be appealed to City Council. Council Agenda Report—March 6,2001 Appeal of Sidewalk Cafe Permit for Mo's BBQ—O 4-01 Page 2 Appellant's Statement The appellant's statement (Attachment 3) is somewhat general in nature. He states that he is appealing based on the findings, conditions and terms of approval for the project. At the hearing, the appellant raised the following issues, most of which are already addressed in the sidewalk cafe ordinance and project conditions of approval: Clearance: The project is conditioned to provide clearance for pedestrians as required by the ordinance. See conditions 6, 11, and 12. Smoking: The Hearing Officer added to condition 21 the requirement for "no smoking" signs on all outdoor tables. Outdoor speakers: Condition 16 allows outdoor speakers to play music only during Farmer's Market. Farmer's Market: The appellant felt the sidewalk cafe would interfere with Farmer's Market. The applicant feels that it will offer Market goers a seating option. Parking: The appellant felt the outdoor seating would generate the need for more parking than required by the zoning ordinance. The appellant suggested that the parking requirement for outdoor seating should be greater than the requirement for indoor seating. Staff and the applicant disagree. The City consciously chose to apply to a different parking standard for uses in the C-C zone to promote denser, more pedestrian and shopper friendly development. Furthermore, outdoor seating is dependent on favorable weather conditions. The applicant noted that while outdoor dining offers patrons a choice of seating, the seating option wouldn't always result in an increase in covers. On some days, many of normally anticipated number of patrons will simply choose to sit outside rather than inside. Architectural Review: The appellant felt that the project should be subjected to review and approval of the Architectural Review Commission. The sidewalk cafe ordinance allows for this additional level of review at the discretion of the Planning Director. Staff recognizes that attention to design details is critical to the success of the City's outdoor dining program. Conditions 2 and 14 address this concern. The applicant will present details of his proposed street furniture for City Council's review and approval at the hearing. Term of Approval: The appellant recommended a one-year review to ensure compliance with conditions of approval. Staff felt that would be redundant given that the ordinance enables the City to revoke or suspend the permit upon 24 hours written notice for any reason, including failure to comply with conditions. �a Council Agenda Report—March 6,2001 Appeal of Sidewalk Cafe Permit for Mo's BBQ—O 4-01 Page 3 Staff Conclusion The City Council approved a sidewalk widening policy and a sidewalk cafe ordinance to encourage outdoor dining in this area of town. The Hearing Officer deemed the application consistent with the intent and specific provisions of the sidewalk cafe ordinance. The 21 conditions of approval should ensure adequate City control over the proposed outdoor dining use. To date, staff and the applicant have worked diligently to make this a successful addition to the City's downtown. Further encumbering the process with additional reviews and application fees may only serve to discourage the very thing the sidewalk widening policy and sidewalk cafe ordinance intended to encourage. CONCURRENCES The Public Works and Fire Departments reviewed the proposed sidewalk cafe and support the proposal. Their comments are included in the use permit conditions of approval. ALTERNATIVES 1. Approve the draft resolution upholding the appeal and modify the conditions of approval. 2. Continue with direction to the applicant and staff. ATTACHMENTS Vicinity map A. Project site plan 3. Appellant's statement �. Draft resolution denying the appeal 5. Draft resolution approving the appeal fo.Letter outlining the Hearing Officer's action '7. Minutes of the February 2, 2001 Administrative Hearing 8.Sidewalk cafe ordinance s3 AlTAQ,VAENr1 970 HIGUERA 002-431-004 0� vicinity map], � ✓ � 1 5=� L I z ' Q � / ,� .�� tit + "'- • � � t' 6 hl,i.1 � ; ATTORM 12 -TD6ST 7r Lp { Yr�z X POP. LI LU I $ �• r 7- w Q EB .01 � . S-S A11I� �,� of sAn NONE APPEAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL ATTACHMENT 3 In accordance with the appeals procedures as authorized by Title, 1, Chapter 1.20 of the . San is Obispo Mu icipal ode, the undersigned hereby appeals from the decision of ' rendered on ID which consisted of the following (i.e., explain what you are appealing and the grounds for submitting the appeal. Use additional sheets as needed.) .Q91 The undersigned is ssecisio being appealed with: fjy, on Name/Dep ent (Date) Q Appellant Name/ itle Mailing Address (&Zip Code) Home Phone Work Phone Representative: - Name/ToI Mailing Address (& Zip Code) For Official Use Only: Calendared for M a rcln (o, 2 00 1 Date & Time Received: c: City 4ttomey City Administrative Officer Copy to the following department(s): RECEIVED K.wtu s:enact FEB 1 21001 yV V. M6I.tya.i n e SLO CITY CLERK Original in City Clerk's Office �-^ CITY 0ISAN W60sYV FEB I t ! q � ATTACHMENT 4 RESOLUTION NO. (2001 Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO DENYING AN APPEAL AND THEREBY UPHOLDING THE HEARING OFFICER'S ACTION TO APPROVE A SIDEWALK CAFE PERMIT FOR MO'S BBQ AT 970 HIGUERA STREET 04-01 WHEREAS, the Administrative Hearing Officer conducted a public hearing on February 2, 2001 and recommended approval of the sidewalk cafe permit; and WHEREAS, On February 12, 2001, aq appeal of the Hearing Officer's action was filed; and WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing on March 6, 2001 and.has considered the appellant's statement, testimony of interested parties, the records of the administrative hearing and action, and the evaluation and recommendation of staff; and BE IT RESOLVED,by the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. The City Council finds and determines that the project is exempt from environmental.review(CEQA Section 15301). SECTION 2. Findings. That this Council, after consideration of sidewalk cafe permit O 4-01 and the Hearing Officer's recommendations, staff recommendations, public testimony, and reports thereof, makes the following findings: 1. As conditioned, the proposed outdoor dining area will be compatible with pedestrian traffic and surrounding uses. 2. As conditioned, the project will be consistent with Municipal Code Section 5.50 Sidewalk Cafds. 3. The project is exempt from environmental review pursuant to CEQA Section 15301 (Existing Facilities). SECTION 3. Denial The appeal of sidewalk cafe permit.for Mo's BBQ at 970 Higuera Street (File# O 4-01) is hereby denied, thereby upholding the Hearing Officer's action to approve the permit subject to the following conditions and terms and expiration: Conditions: 1. The applicant shall obtain an encroachment permit form the Department of Public Works. 3-- ATTAomm Denial Resolution for appeal of O 4-01 No. (2001 Series) Page 2 2. The placement, color, style, and types of outdoor furniture; signage and barriers shall be consistent with and complement the design and appearance of the affected building to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director. 3. Establishments that serve alcohol must obtain any additional permits required by the Alcohol Beverage Control Board of the State of California. A copy of such permits shall be submitted to the Community Development Department.. 4. Hours of operation shall not begin prior to 8:00 a.m. nor extend Pater than 10:00 p.m. 5. Parking shall be provided as required for restaurants in the Zoning Regulations. Based on the site plan submitted (attached) and comments from the Public Works Department, the area to be used for a sidewalk cafe will be approximately 300 square feet. In the Central- Commercial zone, restaurants shall provide one parking space per 350 square feet. This project represents an expansion of the existing restaurant use and requires one additional parking space. This requirement may be satisfied by providing on-site parking, off-site parking, paying an in- lieu fee, or provision of 5 bicycle parking spaces. 6. A path of travel for pedestrians with a minimum width.of six (6) feet, maintained free and clear of any existing obstacles (street furniture, utilities, etc.) and any items placed on the sidewalk in conjunction with the outdoor dining operation, shall be provided along the contiguous length of the area proposed for outdoor dining to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director. Such clear pathway shall link with pathways on each side of the property. 7. Moveable barriers are required to delineate outdoor dining areas except where only one row of tables and chairs immediately abutting the business storefront is proposed. 8. Moveable barriers shall be designed and attached to the sidewalk in a manner approved by the Public Works Director. 9. Where umbrellas or awnings are used, a vertical clearance of at least 7 feet must be maintained. 10. Items used within the outdoor dining areas may not be left outdoors overnight or when not in use. 11. The outdoor dining area shall not encroach into the street tree well; shall be a minimum of 5 feet from the driveway into the Court Street parking lot; and shall be minimum of 18 inches from the face of curb to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director. 12. Outdoor dining shall not interfere with building egress to the satisfaction of the Denial Resolution for appeal of O 4-01 No. (2001 Series) ATTACHMENT Page 3 Chief Building Official and the Fire Marshall. 13. Outdoor dining areas shall be used for sit-down food and beverage service only. No stand-up or take-out service is permitted in the outdoor dining area. 14. The outdoor dining area must be maintained in a clean and safe condition at all times with appropriate provision for trash disposal and recycling. Food shall be served using non-breakable dishware (no glass). 15. There shall be no outdoor heaters unless expressly approved by the Fire Marshall in writing. 16. There shall be no outdoor speakers or paging systems, except that outdoor speakers may play music during Fanners' Market. 17. The operation must meet all required County Health Department standards and obtain any necessary permits. 18. The permit issued shall not be transferable in any manner. 19. The outdoor dining operation shall in no way interfere with access to utilities. 20. Smoking shall be prohibited in the outdoor dining area. A sign indicating this restriction shall be placed on each table. 21. The applicant shall submit a revised site plan that complies with all conditions of approval to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director. The revised site plan will be the officially approved plan for purposes of monitoring compliance. 22. The operation must meet all required County Health Department standards and obtain any necessary permits. Terms and expiration: A sidewalk cafe permit will be for an unlimited term, unless the Community Development Director deems a limited term appropriate. The permit shall automatically expire upon expiration of the business tax certificate or upon failure to pay the required annual sidewalk use fee. Operators wishing to renew an expired permit shall submit a new application with. appropriate fees. Pursuant to Section 5.50.60 of the Municipal Code, the City retains the right to revoke or suspend the permit upon twenty-four (24) hours written notice to the sidewalk cafe operator for t Denial Resolution for-appeal of O 4-01 No. (2001 Series) Page 4 any cause, regardless of conformance with these provisions. Situations that may merit suspension or revocation include, but are not limited to: 1. Emergencies, parades, necessary construction or maintenance, at the discretion of the Public Works Director; 2. Suspension, revocation, or cancellation of any necessary health permit(s); 3. Incorrect or inadequate insurance coverage; or 4. Failure to comply with conditions of permit approval. Within 24 hours of receipt of written notice of revocation or suspension, regardless of any appeal of the action, the operation shall cease and the sidewalk cafd operator shall restore the sidewalk to the condition existing prior to the placement of outdoor dining facilities or to some other condition acceptable to the Public Works Director. On motion of , seconded by , and on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this_day of , 2001. Mayor Allen Settle ATTEST: City Clerk Lee Price APPROVED AS TO FORM: i tto eftJo en RESOLUTION NO. (2001 Series) AnAcmmw ;5 A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO UPHOLDING AN APPEAL OF THE HEARING OFFICER'S ACTION TO APPROVE A SIDEWALK CAFE PERMIT FOR MO'S BBQ AT 970 HIGUERA STREET AND THEREBY MODIFYING CONDIONS OF APPROVAL 04-01 WHEREAS, the Administrative Hearing Officer conducted a public hearing on February 2, 2001 and recommended approval of the sidewalk cafe permit; and WHEREAS, On February 12, 2001, an appeal of the Hearing Officer's action was filed; and WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing on March 6, 2001 and has considered the appellant's statement, testimony of interested parties, the records of the administrative hearing and action, and the evaluation and recommendation of staff, and BE IT RESOLVED,by the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. The City Council finds and determines that the project is exempt from environmental review (CEQA Section 15301). SECTION 2. Findings. That this Council, after consideration of sidewalk cafe permit O 4-01 and the Hearing Officer's recommendations, staff recommendations, public testimony, and reports thereof, makes the following findings: 1. As conditioned, the proposed outdoor dining area will be compatible with pedestrian traffic and surrounding uses. 2. As conditioned, the project will be consistent with Municipal Code Section 5.50 Sidewalk Cafds. 3. The project is exempt from environmental review pursuant to CEQA Section 15301 (Existing Facilities). SECTION 3. Approval. The appeal of sidewalk cafe permit for Mo's BBQ at 970 Higuera Street (File # O 4-01) is hereby upheld, thereby upholding the Hearing Officer's action to approve the permit subject to conditions of approval and terms and expiration, modified as follows: (The Council should specify modifications to the following conditions) ��a �� uwIL4�4.IV{ - Resolution upholding appeal of O 4-01 No. (2001 Series) ATTACHMENT $ Page 2 ... Conditions: 1. The applicant shall obtain an encroachment permit form the Department of Public Works. 2. The placement, color, style, and types of outdoor furniture, signage and barriers shall be consistent with and complement the design and appearance of the affected building to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director. 3. Establishments that serve alcohol must obtain any additional permits required by the Alcohol Beverage Control Board of the State of California. A copy of such permits shall be submitted to the Community Development Department. 4. Hours of operation shall not begin prior to 8:00 a.m. nor extend later than 10:00 p.m. . 5. Parking shall be provided as required for restaurants in the Zoning Regulations. Based on the site plan submitted (attached) and comments from the Public Works Department, the area to be used for a sidewalk cafe will be.approximately 300 square feet. In the Central- Commercial zone, restaurants shall provide one parking space per 350 square feet. This project represents an expansion of the existing restaurant use and requires one additional parking space. This requirement may be satisfied by providing on-site parking, off-site parking, paying an in lieu fee, or provision of 5 bicycle parking spaces. 6. A path of travel for pedestrians with a minimum width of six (6) feet, maintained free and clear of any existing obstacles (street furniture, utilities, etc.) and any items placed on the sidewalk in conjunction with the outdoor dining operation, shall be provided along the contiguous length of the area proposed for outdoor dining to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director. Such clear pathway shall link with pathways on each side of the property. 7. Moveable barriers are required to delineate outdoor dining areas except where only one row of tables and chairs immediately abutting the business storefront is proposed. 8. Moveable barriers shall be designed and attached to the sidewalk in a manner approved by the Public Works Director. 9. Where umbrellas or awnings are used, a vertical clearance of at least 7 feet must be maintained. 10. Items used within the outdoor dining areas may not be left outdoors overnight or when not in use. J —�3 Resolution upholding appeal of O 4-01 No. (2001 Series) AOA W" Page 3 11. The outdoor dining area shall not encroach into the street tree well; shall be a minimum of 5 feet from the driveway into the Court.Street parking lot; and shall be minimum of 18 inches from the face of curb to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director.. 12. Outdoor dining shall not interfere with building egress to the satisfaction of the Chief Building Official and the Fire Marshall. 13. Outdoor dining areas shall be used for sit-down food and beverage service only. No stand-up or take-out service is permitted in the outdoor dining area. 14. The outdoor dining area must be maintained in a cleanand safe. condition at all times with appropriate provision for trash disposal and recycling. Food shall be served using non-breakable dishware (no glass). 15. There shall be no outdoor heaters unless expressly approved by the Fire Marshall in writing. 16. There shall be no outdoor speakers or paging systems, except that outdoor speakers may play music during Farmers' Market. 17. The operation must meet all required County Health Department standards and obtain any necessary permits. 18. The permit issued shall not be transferable in any manner. 19. The outdoor dining operation shall in no way interfere with access to utilities. 20. Smoking shall be prohibited in the outdoor dining area. A sign indicating this restriction shall be placed on each table. 21. The applicant shall submit a revised site plan that complies with all conditions of approval to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director. The revised site plan will be the officially approved plan for purposes of monitoring compliance. 22. The operation must meet all required County Health Department standards and obtain any necessary permits. Terms and expiration: A sidewalk cafe permit will be for an unlimited term, unless the Community Development Director deems a limited term appropriate. The permit shall automatically expire upon expiration of the business tax certificate or upon failure to pay the required annual sidewalk �� 7 Resolution upholding appeal of O 4-01 No. (2001 Series) Pae 4 ATTACHMENT c5 Page use fee. Operators wishing to renew an expired permit shall submit a new application with appropriate fees. Pursuant to Section 5.50.60 of the Municipal Code, the City retains the right to revoke or suspend the permit upon twenty-four (24) hours written notice to the sidewalk cafd operator for any cause, regardless of conformance with these provisions. Situations that may merit suspension or revocation include, but are not limited to: 1. Emergencies; parades, necessary construction or maintenance, at the discretion of the Public Works Director; 2. Suspension, revocation, or cancellation of any necessary health permit(s); 3. Incorrect or inadequate insurance coverage; or 4. Failure to comply with conditions of permit approval. Within 24 hours of receipt of written notice of revocation or suspension, regardless of any appeal of the action, the operation shall cease and the sidewalk cafd operator shall restore the sidewalk to the condition existing prior to the placement of outdoor dining facilities or to some other condition acceptable to the Public Works Director: On motion of , seconded.by , and on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this_day of 2001. Mayor Allen Settle ATTEST: City Clerk Lee Price Resolution upholding appeal of 0 4-01 No. (2001 Series) A�'ia( rM Page 5 APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Attorney Jeff Jorgensen ATTACHMENT 6 ��111IIIIII�II�IIIflllllll��IIIIIIIIIIII I �� aid; Cityof s�►n WIS OBISPO 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 February 6, 2001 Mo's Smokehouse BBQ 970 Higuera Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 SUBJECT: Sidewalk Cafe Appl. O 4-01 970 Higuera Street Dear Business Owner: On Friday, February 2, 2001, 1 conducted a public hearing on your request to. allow a sidewalk cafe, at the above location. After reviewing the information presented, I approved your request, based on the following findings and subject to the following conditions: Findings 1. As conditioned, the proposed outdoor dining area will be compatible with pedestrian traffic and surrounding uses. 2. As conditioned, the project will be consistent with Municipal Code Section 5.50 Sidewalk Cafes. 3. The project is exempt from environmental review pursuant to CEQA Section 15301 (Existing Facilities). Conditions 1. The applicant shall obtain an.encroachment permit form the Department of Public Works. 2. The placement, color, style, and types of outdoor furniture, signage and barriers shall be consistent with and complement the design and appearance of the . affected building to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director. 3. Establishments that serve alcohol must obtain any additional permits required by the Alcohol Beverage Control Board of the State of California. A copy of such permits shall be submitted to the Community Development Department. ® The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services, programs and activities. Telecommunications Device for the Deaf(805)781-7410. / 7 Sidewalk Cafe Approv., Page 2 ATTACHMENT e 4. Hours of operation shall not begin prior to 8:00 a.m. nor extend later than 10:00 p.m. 5. Parking shall be provided as required for restaurants in the Zoning Regulations. Based on the site plan submitted (attached) and comments from the Public Works Department, the area to be used for a sidewalk cafe will be approximately 300 square feet. In the Central-Commercial zone, restaurants shall provide. one parking space per 350 square feet. This project represents an expansion of the existing restaurant use and requires one additional parking space. This requirement may be satisfied by providing on-site parking, off-site parking, paying an in-lieu fee, or provision of 5 bicycle parking spaces. 6. A path of travel for pedestrians with a minimum width of six (6) feet, maintained free and clear of any existing obstacles (street furniture, utilities, etc.) and any items placed on the sidewalk in conjunction with the outdoor dining operation, shall be provided along the contiguous length of the area proposed for outdoor dining to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director. Such clear pathway shall link with pathways on each side of the property. 7. Moveable barriers are required to delineate outdoor dining areas except where only one row of tables and chairs immediately abutting the business storefront is proposed. 8. Moveable barriers shall be designed and attached to the sidewalk in a manner approved by the Public Works Director. 9. Where umbrellas or awnings are used, a vertical clearance of at least 7 feet must be maintained. 10. Items used within the outdoor dining areas may not be left outdoors overnight or when not in use. 11. The outdoor dining area shall not encroach into the street tree well; shall be a minimum of 5 feet from.the driveway into the Court Street parking lot; and shall be minimum of 18 inches from the face of curb to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director. 12. Outdoor dining shall not interfere with building egress to the satisfaction of the Chief Building Official and the Fire Marshall. 13. Outdoor dining areas shall be used for sit-down food and beverage service only. No stand-up or take-out service is permitted in the outdoor dining area. 14. The outdoor dining area must be maintained in a clean and safe condition at all times with appropriate provision-for trash disposal and recycling. Food shall be served using non-breakable dishware (no glass). Sidewalk Cafe Approv,, % Page 3 ATTR 15. There shall be no outdoor heaters unless expressly approved by the Fire Marshall in writing. 16. There shall be no outdoorspeakers or paging systems, except that outdoor speakers may play music during Farmers' Market. 17. The operation must meet all required County Health Department standards and obtain any necessary permits. 18. The permit issued shall not be transferable in any manner. . 19. The outdoor dining operation shall in no way interfere with access to utilities. 20.' Smoking shall be prohibited in the outdoor dining area. A sign indicating this restriction shall be placed on each table. 21. The applicant shall submit a revised site plan that complies with all conditions of approval to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director. The revised site plan will be the officially approved plan for purposes of monitoring compliance. Please note the following: The operation must meet all required County Health Department standards and obtain any necessary permits. Terms and expiration. A sidewalk cafe permit will be for an unlimited term, unless the Community Development Director deems a limited term appropriate. The permit shall automatically expire upon expiration of the business tax certificate or upon failure to pay the required annual sidewalk use fee. Operators wishing to renew an expired permit shall submit a new application with appropriate flees. Pursuant to Section 5.50.60 of the Municipal Code, the City retains the right to revoke or suspend the permit upon twenty-four (24) hours written notice to the sidewalk cafe operator for any cause, regardless of conformance with these provisions. Situations that may merit suspension or revocation include, but are not limited to: 1. Emergencies, parades, necessary construction or maintenance, at the discretion of the Public Works Director; 2. Suspension, revocation, or cancellation of any necessary health permit(s); 3. Incorrect or inadequate insurance coverage; or 4. Failure to comply with conditions of permit approval. Sidewalk Cafe Approva�, Page 4 A7TACHRI W Within 24 hours of receipt of written notice of revocation or suspension, regardless of any appeal of the action, the operation shall cease and the sidewalk cafe operator shall restore the sidewalk to the condition existing prior to the placement of outdoor dining facilities or to some other condition acceptable to the Public Works Director. My decision is final unless appealed to the City Council within 10 days of the action. Any person aggrieved by the decision may file an appeal. If you have any questions, please call Whitney Mcllvaine at 781-7164. Sincerely, R aldWhise and Hearing Offi r cc: Public Works Department Don Wright, Code Enforcement Coordinator Attachment: City-approved site plan Sidewalk Cafe Agreement Liability Release Agreement Ord. No. 1362 (2000 Series) �� QV ATTACHMEtqT 6 F7 Od MOP <ix 40 .t� m)c 17�1 :sc C) �A�ENT 4' ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING - MINUTES FRIDAY FEBRUARY 2, 2001 970 Higuera St. Use Permit App. A O 4-01; Request to allow sidewalk cafe seating in association with an existing restaurant; C-C-H zone; Mo's Smokehouse BBQ, applicant. Whitney Mcllvaine, Associate Planner, presented the staff report explaining it's a request for a sidewalk cafe permit at 970 Higuera Street. She explained it's the first request since the City has adopted a policy for sidewalk cafes. Ms. Mcllvaine stated that she has met with the applicant, Larry Kowalski. They discussed modifying the submitted site plans, which is to maintain. 18 inches from the face of the curb as a setback and stay outside of the tree well. The applicant is also to include a trash facility as part of the street furniture. Ms. Mcllvaine stated that Public Works and Fire staff has reviewed plans at the initial proposal.. She noted that an encroachment permit from Public Works Department will be needed. Mr. Whisenand asked if the umbrellas would be free standing. He also asked if the conditions address having signage on umbrellas. Ms. Mcllvaine responded that there is no signage proposed specifically with it. However, there is a condition regarding types of furniture, signage and barriers to be specifically approved by the Community Development Director. Ms Mcllvaine stated staff is recommending approval based on the findings and subject to the conditions, which she outlined. The applicant, Larry Kowalski, spoke stating that the umbrellas in between the tables are for shade and ambiance, but felt that only three umbrellas instead of seven would be needed. He explained they wanted to possibly stencil their logo, a pig, on a couple of spots on the umbrellas. Mr. Whisenand expressed some concern that it be done tastefully so it would set a precedence for someone who may later want to put Budweiser and Corona umbrellas in the future. Brian Christensen spoke that he did not get to see the site plan to determine how many tables were going to be involved. He expressed that there should be a signage stating its a no smoking area. Mr. Christensen'was also concerned about the speakers playing music now. Mr. Whisenand stated that the condition was made in attempt to correct the current situation of the speakers while Mr. Kowalski clarified that they would have six or seven staggered tables. The tables would have a 6-foot clearance on both sides of the property and enough space for people to get in and out of the chairs. �=a l ATTACHMENT Administrative Hearing Minutes February 2, 2001 Page 2 Mr. Christensen was also concerned about the access on the court street sidewalk Mr. Christensen expressed since this is the first time type-of-permit it might be appropriate to have ARC review this to establish some curfews and see what their established guidelines may be. Ms. Mcllvaine expressed she didn't think that Architectural Review would be necessary or beneficial. She expressed she felt very comfortable that the conditions as written would provide adequate control to ensure a quality design. Mr. Christensen felt there may not be enough parking. He stated that since it's a high traffic area, especially on Thursday nights, there should be an evaluation done to see what the impact would be. In addition, he felt it would be appropriate to have a one- year review to see works out. Mr. Kowalski stated that since they have widened the sidewalk, the flow would be the same as before and doesn't foresee a problem on Farmer's Market night. He felt that it would be a benefit since people do need places to sit down. Even though the customers may not be their customers, . monitoring who sits there would be very minimal. Ms. Mcllvaine explained that she spoke with Debra Holly from the Downtown Association specifically on this project, and she stated Ms. Holly didn't have concerns about it. Ms. Mcllvaine explained that the sidewalk is 8 feet wider than it previously was. She stated the what the applicant is proposing to use is about 8 to 10 feet wide. She also stated that since the tables and chairs are movable, it's possible that the applicant may not want to use them on Farmer's Market night. Ms. Mcllvaine explained that the City Council has a different parking requirement for the downtown area, which is less than in other parts of town. This is done to encourage building-to-building density thereby making it a pleasant walkable space. She stated that the parking requirement for restaurants downtown is one space for 350 sq. feet of use. The Council has provided several different ways to satisfy that requirement, one being the payment in lieu fees. Ms. Mcllvaine also explained that the ordinance is very restrictive and it regulates the permit by allowing revoking or suspending the permit upon 24-hour written notice for any cause regardless of conformance with these provisions, situations that may merit suspension or revocation. She felt that a one-year review would not be necessary since this ordinance is in effect. The public hearing was closed. n s-aa ATTACHMENT Administrative Hearing Minutes February 2, 2001 Page 3 Mr. Whisenand explained that he felt that this use would be great for downtown and felt that the applicant is also very much concerned as the City is that it be successful. He felt that a small sign on the table regarding not allowing smoking would be appropriate. He expressed that traffic still flows quite well on Thursday nights in the downtown streets that have not been widened. He felt the majority of the people walk down the center of the street on that night. Should there be any problems that arise through the Downtown Association it could be addressed through the use permit process.. Mr. Ron Whisenand approved the use permit, with one modification in Condition No. 20 as noted subject to the following findings and subject to the following conditions: Findings 1. As conditioned, the proposed outdoor dining area will be compatible with pedestrian traffic and surrounding uses. 2. As conditioned, the project will be consistent with Municipal Code Section 5.50 Sidewalk Cafes. 3. The project is exempt from environmental review pursuant to CEQA Section 15301 (Existing Facilities). Conditions 1. The applicant shall obtain an encroachment permit form the Department of Public Works. 2. The placement, color, style, and types of outdoor furniture, signage and barriers shall be consistent with and complement the design and appearance of the affected building to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director. 3. Establishments that serve alcohol must obtain any additional permits required by the Alcohol Beverage Control Board of the. State of California. A copy of such permits shall be submitted to the Community Development Department. 4. Hours of operation shall not begin prior to 8:00 a.m. nor extend .later than 10:00 P.M. 5. Parking shall be provided as required for restaurants in the Zoning Regulations. Based on the site plan submitted (attached) and comments from the Public Works Department, the area to be used for a sidewalk cafe will be approximately 300 square feet. In the Central-Commercial zone, restaurants shall provide one parking space per 350 square feet. This project represents an expansion of the existing restaurant use and requires one additional parking space. This J o�J ATTACHMENT Administrative Hearing Minutes February 2, 2001 Page 4 6. Requirement may be satisfied by providing on-site parking, off-site parking, paying an in-lieu fee, or provision of 5 bicycle parking spaces. 7. A path of travel for pedestrians with a minimum width of six (6) feet, maintained free and clear of any existing obstacles (street furniture, utilities, etc.) and any items placed on the sidewalk in conjunction with the outdoor dining operation, shall be provided along the contiguous length of the area proposed for outdoor dining to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director. Such clear pathway shall link with pathways on each side of the property. 8. Moveable barriers are required to delineate outdoor dining areas except where only one row of tables and chairs immediately abutting the business storefront is proposed. 9. Moveable barriers shall be designed and attached to the sidewalk in a manner approved by the Public Works Director. 10. Where umbrellas or awnings are used, a vertical clearance of at least 7 feet must be maintained. 11. Items used within the outdoor dining areas may not be left outdoors overnight or when not in use. 12. The outdoor dining area shall not encroach into the street tree well; shall be a minimum of 5 feet from the driveway into the Court Street parking lot; and shall be minimum of 18 inches from the face of curb to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director. 13. Outdoor dining shall not interfere with building egress to the satisfaction of the Chief Building Official and the Fire Marshall. 14. Outdoor dining areas shall be used for sit-down food and beverage service only. No stand-up or take-out service is permitted in the outdoor dining area. 15. The outdoor dining area must be maintained in a clean and safe condition at all times with appropriate provision for trash disposal and recycling. Food shall be served using non-breakable dishware (no glass). 16. There shall be no outdoor heaters unless expressly approved by the Fire Marshall in writing. 17. There shall be no outdoor speakers or paging systems, except that outdoor speakers may play music during Farmers' Market. r Administrative Hearing Minutes ATTACHMENT 7 February 2, 2001 Page 5 18. The operation must meet all required County Health Department standards and obtain any necessary permits. 19. The permit issued shall not be transferable in any manner. 20. The outdoor dining operation shall in no way interfere with access to utilities. 21. Smoking shall be prohibited in the outdoor dining area. A sign indicating this restriction shall be placed on each table. The applicant shall submit a revised site plan that complies with all conditions of approval to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director. The revised site plan will be the officially approved plan for purposes of monitoring compliance. Mr. Whisenand explained that his decision is final unless appealed to the Planning Commission within ten days of the action. He also noted that anyone may file an appeal. �=as �Z//9 ATTACHME� ORDINANCE NO. 1362(2000 Series) F AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO RELATING TO SIDEWALK CAFES (TA 198-99) WHEREAS, the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo held a public hearing on December 7, 1999 to consider amendments to ordinances of Title 5 (Licenses, Permits, and Regulations) of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code to add Chapter 5.50 Sidewalk Cafes; BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. Environmental determination. The City Council finds and determines that the proposed amendment to the Municipal Code relating to permitting sidewalk cafes is exempt under CEQA Sections 15301 (permitting a negligible expansion of existing uses)and 15,305 (minor alterations in land use limitations related to issuance of minor encroachment permits). SECTION 2. Amendment. The San Luis Obispo Municipal Code is hereby amended to add Chapter 5.50 Sidewalk Cafes as follows: 5.50.010 Intent. This section is intended to ensure opportunities for properly licensed and permitted restaurants to offer outdoor dining on public sidewalks, in a manner compatible with pedestrian traffic and surrounding uses, in commercial zones where restaurants are allowed. 550.015 Permits required. A. A sidewalk cafe permit is required to operate an outdoor dining service in the public right- of-way. Applications for a revocable permit shall be made to the Community Development Department. B. An encroachment permit shall be required pursuant to Chapter 12.04 of this code. 5.50.020 Architectural review. At the Community Development Director's discretion, architectural review may be required pursuant to Chapter 2.48 of this code. 550.25 Application content. Applications shall be made jointly by the business operator requesting use of a sidewalk area for outdoor dining and the property owner(s)of the building in which the business is located. Such application shall be accompanied by: • Signed consent of business owner(s) and property owner(s);. • A copy of a current business tax certificate issued to the business operator; • Proof of liability insurance, meeting City standards; which names the City as additionally insured for the term of the permit to the approval of the City Risk Manager; • A liability release agreement wherein the recipient(s) of the permit agrees to hold the City harmless from liability arising from the operation of such sidewalk cafe; 01362 S�b . Ordinance No. 1362 (2�LJSeries) `_ ' ATTACHMENT 8 Page 2 ATTACHMENT J • A detailed site plan, drawn to scale, noting dimensions of the area proposed for outdoor dining; the proposed number and location of tables,chairs and other furnishings to be included in the dining area; the relationship of the outdoor dining area to the indoor dining area; and all sidewalk obstructions in the vicinity; • . A detailed description of the type,color, and material of all proposed outdoor furniture, such as tables,chairs, barriers, planters, umbrellas, signs, and lighting; • An explanation of how any required additional parking will be provided; • A statement of proposed hours of operation; and • Any other information deemed necessary by the Community Development or Public Works Directors. 5.50.030 Fees. In addition to application fees, the applicant(s)shall pay an annual sidewalk use fee. Fees shall be as adopted by resolution of the City Council. 550.035 Review procedures. Public noticing and review procedures shall be the same as those required for an administrative use permitas described in Chapter 17.58 of the Zoning Regulations. 550.040 Eligible sites. Outdoor dining must be within the frontage of an existing restaurant with on-premises seating and incidental to the operation of that restaurant. 5.50.045 Required operational standards. A. Alcoholic beverage restrictions -Establishments that serve alcohol must obtain any additional permits required by the Alcohol Beverage Control Board of the State of California. B. Hours of operation shall not begin prior to 8:00 a.m. nor extend later than 10:00 p.m. C. Parking shall be provided as required for restaurants in the Zoning Regulations. D. A path of travel for pedestrians with a minimum width of six (6) feet;maintained free and clear of any existing obstacles (street furniture,utilities,etc..) and any items placed on the sidewalk in conjunction with the outdoor dining operation, shall be provided along the contiguous length of the area proposed for outdoor dining to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director. Such clear pathway shall link with pathways on each side of the property. E. Moveable barriers are.required to delineate outdoor dining areas except where only one row of tables and chairs immediately abutting the business storefront is proposed. F. Moveable barriers shall be designed and attached to the sidewalk in a manner approved by the Public Works Director. G. Where umbrellas or awnings are used, a vertical clearance.of at least 7 feet must be maintained. H. The placement, color, style, and types of outdoor furniture and barriers shall be consistent with and complement the design and appearance of the affected building to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director. I. Items used within the outdoor dining areas may not be left outdoors overnight or when not in use. Ordinance No. 1362 (200 Series) u Page 3 ATTAOW g J. Outdoor dining facilities shall be confined to the area shown on an approved site plan exhibit and shall not interfere with building egress to the satisfaction of the Chief Building Official and the Fire Marshall. K. Outdoor dining areas shall be used for sit-down food and beverage service only. No stand- up or take-out service is permitted in the outdoor dining area. L. The outdoor dining area must be maintained in a clean and safe condition at all times with appropriate provision for trash disposal and recycling. M. The operation must meet all required County Health Department standards and obtain any necessary permits. N. The permit issued shall not be transferable in any manner. O. The outdoor dining operation shall in no way interfere with access to utilities. P. Smoking shall be prohibited in the outdoor dining area. 5.50.050 Terms and expiration. A sidewalk cafe permit will be for an unlimited term, unless a limited term is deemed appropriate by the Community Development Director. The permit shall automatically expire upon expiration of the business tax certificate or upon failure to pay the required annual sidewalk use fee. Operators wishing to renew an expired permit shall submit a new application with appropriate fees. 5.50.055 Grounds for denial of permit. The Community Development Director shall deny the sidewalk cafe permit if the operation will not meet provisions of this chapter. 5.50.60 Revocation,or.suspension of permit. A. The City retains the right to revoke or suspend the permit upon twenty-four(24) hours written notice to the sidewalk cafe operator for any cause, regardless of conformance with these provisions. Situations that may merit suspension or revocation include, but are not limited to: 1. Emergencies, parades, necessary construction or maintenance, at the discretion of the Public Works Director; 2. Suspension, revocation, or cancellation of any necessary health permit(s); 3. Incorrect or inadequate insurance coverage; or 4. Failure to comply with conditions of permit approval. B. Within 24 hours of receipt of written notice of revocation or suspension,regardless of any appeal of the action, the operation shall cease and the sidewalk cafe operator shall restore the sidewalk to the condition existing prior to the placement of outdoor dining facilities or to some other condition acceptable to the Public Works Director. 5.50.065 Appeals. Decisions of the Community Development Director to approve, deny; revoke or suspend a sidewalk cafe permit may be appealed to the City Council subject to the provisions of Chapter 1.20. SECTION 3. Summary. A summary of this ordinance, together with the names of Council members voting for and against, shall be published at least five (5)days prior to its final passage, in saw Ordinance No. 1362 (20G, jeries) AnaCHQ� Page 4 8 The Tribune, a newspaper published and circulated in this City. This ordinance shall go into effect at the expiration of thirty(30)days after its final passage. INTRODUCED on the 7`h day of December, 1999, AND FINALLY ADOPTED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo on the 4th day of January, 2000, on the following roll call vote: AYES: Council Members Ewan, Marx, Romero, Vice Mayor Schwartz and Mayor Settle NOES: None ABSENT: None AllenX. Settle, MaYbr ATTEST: % t Lee Price, City Cler APPROVED AS TO FORM: �1 e e y G. J rge Attorney s-�9 � n I�II�II ut� of say hA S ONSPO " h APPEAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL In accordance with the appeals procedures as authorized by Title, 1, Chapter 1.20 of the San is Obispo Mu icipal ode,,the undersigned hereby appeals from the decision of 7Frendered on . which consisted of the following (i.e., explain what you are appealing and the grounds for submitting the appeal. Use additional sheets as needed.) The undersigned is sse cisio being appealed with: on Name/Dep ent (Date) Q Appellant: Name/Title Mailing Address (& Zip Code) � 38� Home Phone Work Phone Representative: Namefffflb Mailing Address (& Zip Code) For Official Use Only: Calendared for M a rch (o, 2 00 1 Date & Time Received: c: City Attorney City Administrative Officer Copy to the following department(s): RECEIVED R•wh, s ertavud FER 12 2001 W. WIkraine SLO CITY CLERK Original in City Clerk's Office _ rumasww¢�su FEB i2a WSO ZIUJ MAZ 30 YTIO ras : -31 r r _ _ L . ail III III I II III � ��;��I �IIIIII I II� city Of SAn WIS OBISPO 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 February 23, 2001 CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE 970 Higuera Street Application Number O 4-01 You are being notified that the San Luis Obispo City Council will hold a public hearing to consider an appeal of a sidewalk cafd permit for Mo's Bar-b-que at 970 Higuera Street. The Public Hearing portion of the meeting will be held on Tuesday—March 6,2001,beginning at . 7:00 p.m in the Council Chamber at City Hall,990 Palm Street. The public is welcome to attend and comment. Written comments are encouraged. Other items may be discussed before or after this item. Please know that if you challenge this action in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised during the public hearing described in this:notice,or in written correspondence delivered to the City Council at, or prior to,the public hearing. The agenda report,including recommendation by staff, will be available for review in the City Clerk's Office (Room#1 of City Hall)the Wednesday before the meeting. For more information,please contact Whitney McIlvaine of the Community Development Dept. at 781-7164. nn Lee Price, C.M.C. City Clerk /O The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services, programs and activities. v Telecommunications Device for the Deaf(805) 781-7410. FILE NUMBER:4-01 FILE NUMBER:4-01 FILE NUMBER:44)1• OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 1026 CHORRO# 7 1015 COURT 1019 COURT SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-3230 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-3203 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-3203 FILE NUMBER:4-01 FILE NUMBER:4-01 FILE-NUMBER:4-01 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 1075 COURT#201 1075 COURT#204 1075 COURT#205 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-3234 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-3234 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 934013234 FILE NUMBER:4-01 FILE NUMBER:4-01 FILE NUMBER:4-01 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 1075 COURT#206 P.O.Box 1025 1075 COURT#208 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 934013234 Pismo Beach,CA 93448 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 934013234 FILE NUMBER:4-01 FILE NUMBER:4-01 FILE NUMBER:4-01 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 1075 COURT#209 P.O.Box 14859 1075 COURT#215 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-3234 San Luis Obispo,CA 93401 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-3234 FILE NUMBER:4-01 FILE NUMBER:4.01 FILE NUMBER:4-01 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 1075 COURT#216 887 HIGUERA 891 HIGUERA SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-3234 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-3609 SAN LUIS OBISPO;CA 934013609 FILE NUMBER:4-01 FILE NUMBER:4-01 FILE NUMBER:4-01 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 949 HIGUERA 952.HIGUERA Nancy Harkenridger SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-3601 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 934013602 132 Bridge Street Arroyo Grande,CA 93420 FILE NUMBER:4-01 FILE NUMBER:4-01 FILE NUMBER:4-01 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 958 HIGUERA 964 HIGUERA 973 HIGUERA# A SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-3602 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-3602 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-3614 FILE NUMBER:4-01 FILE NUMBER:4-01 FILE NUMBER:4-01 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 973 HIGUERA# B 973 HIGUERA# C 895 MONTEREY SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-3614 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-3614 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-3224 FILE NUMBER:4-01 FILE NUMBER:4-01 FILE NUMBER:4-01 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 951 MONTEREY 953 MONTEREY 955 MONTEREY SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-3204 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 934013204 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 934013229 FILE NUMBER:4-01 FILE NUMBER:4-01 FILE NUMBER:4.01 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 955 MONTEREY#201 955 MONTEREY#202 955 MONTEREY#203 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-3229 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-3229 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-3229 FILE NUMBER:4-01 FILE NUMBER:4-01 FILE NUMBER:4-01 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 955 MONTEREY#204 955 MONTEREY#205 955 MONTEREY#206 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-3229 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-3229 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-3229 FILE NUMBER:4-01 FILE NUMBER:4-01 FILE NUMBER:4-01 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 955 MONTEREY#207 955 MONTEREY#208 955 MONTEREY#209 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-3229 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-3229 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 934013229 FILE NUMBER:4-01 FILE NUMBER:4-01 FILE NUMBER:4-01 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 955 MONTEREY#210 955 MONTEREY#212 955 MONTEREY#214 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-3229 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-3229 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-3229 FILE NUMBER:4-01 FILE NUMBER:4-01 FILE NUMBER:4-01 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 955 MONTEREY#216 955 MONTEREY#218 .955 MONTEREY#220 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-3229 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-3229 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-3229 FILE NUMBER:4-01 FILE NUMBER:4-01 FILE NUMBER:4-01 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 955 MONTEREY#222 955 MONTEREY#224 .955 MONTEREY#301 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-3229 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-3229 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-3229 FILE NUMBER:4-01 FILE NUMBER:4-01 FILENUMBER:4-01 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 955 MONTEREY#302 955 MONTEREY#303 955 MONTEREY#304 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 934013229 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 934013229 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-3229 FILE NUMBER:4-01 FILE NUMBER:4-01 FILE NUMBER:4-01 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 955 MONTEREY#305 955 MONTEREY#306 955 MONTEREY#307 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-3229 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-3229 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 934013229 FILE NUMBER:4-01 FILE NUMBER:4-01 FILE NUMBER:4-01 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 955 MONTEREY#308 955 MONTEREY#309 955 MONTEREY#310 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-3229 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-3229 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 934013229 FILE NUMBER:4-01 FILE NUMBER:4-01 FILE NUMBER:4-01 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 955 MONTEREY#312 955 MONTEREY#314 955 MONTEREY#316 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-3229 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-3229 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-3229 FILE NUMBER:401 FILE NUMBER:401 FILE NUMBER:4-01 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 955 MONTEREY#318 955 MONTEREY#320 955 MONTEREY#322 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-3229 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-3229 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-3229 FILE NUMBER:4-01 FILE NUMBER:4-01 FILE NUMBER:4-01 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 955 MONTEREY#324 955 MONTEREY#401 955 MONTEREY#402 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-3229 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-3229 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 934013229 FILE NUMBER:4-01 FILE NUMBER:4-01 FILE NUMBER:4-01 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 955 MONTEREY#403 955 MONTEREY#404 955 MONTEREY#405 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-3229 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-3229 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-3229 FILE NUMBER:4-01 FILE NUMBER:4-01 FILE NUMBER:4-01 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 955 MONTEREY#406 955 MONTEREY#407 955 MONTEREY#408 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-3229 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-3229 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-3229 FILE NUMBER:4-01 FILE NUMBER:401 FILE NUMBER:4-01 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 955 MONTEREY#409 955 MONTEREY#410 955 MONTEREY#412 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-3229 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 934013229 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-3229 FILE NUMBER:401 FILE NUMBER:401 FILE NUMBER:4-01 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 955 MONTEREY#414 955 MONTEREY#416 955 MONTEREY#418 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-3229 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-3229 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-3229 FILE NUMBER:4-01 FILE NUMBER:4-01 FILE NUMBER:401 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 955 MONTEREY#420 955 MONTEREY#422 955 MONTEREY#424 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-3229 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-3229 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-3229 FILE NUMBER:4-01 FILE NUMBER:4-01 FILE NUMBER:401 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 955 MONTEREY#501 955 MONTEREY#502 955 MONTEREY#503 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-3229 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-3229 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-3229 FILE NUMBER:401 FILE NUMBER:4-01 FILE NUMBER:4-01 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 955 MONTEREY#504 955 MONTEREY#505 955 MONTEREY#506 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-3229 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-3229 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-3229 FILE NUMBER:4,01 FILE NUMBER:4-01 FILE NUMBER:401 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 955 MONTEREY#507 955 MONTEREY#508 955 MONTEREY#509 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-3229 SAN LUIS OBISPO,.CA 93401-3229 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-3229 FILE NUMBER:401 FILE NUMBER:401 FILE NUMBER:401 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 955 MONTEREY#510 955 MONTEREY#512 955 MONTEREY#514 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-3229 SANLUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-3229 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-3229 FILE NUMBER:401 FILE NUMBER:401 FILE NUMBER:4-01 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 955 MONTEREY#516 955 MONTEREY#518 955 MONTEREY#520 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-3229 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-3229 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-3229 FILE NUMBER:401 FILE NUMBER:401 FILE NUMBER:401 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 955 MONTEREY#522 955 MONTEREY#524 963 MONTEREY SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-3229 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-3229 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-3204 FILE NUMBER:4-01 FILE NUMBER:4-01 FILE NUMBER:401 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 965 MONTEREY 969 MONTEREY 1009 MORRO#202 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-3204 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-3204 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-3227 FILE NUMBER:4-01 FILE NUMBER:401 FILE NUMBER:401 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 1009 MORRO#206 1016 MORRO 1019 MORRO SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-3227 SAN LUIS OBISPO;CA 93401-3211 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-3210 FILE NUMBER:401 FILE NUMBER:401 FILE NUMBER:401 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 1020 MORRO 1021 MORRO Stacy Everly SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-3203 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-3210 P.O.Box 747 San Luis Obispo,CA 93406 FILE NUMBER:401 FILE NUMBER:401 FILE NUMBER:4-01 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 1023 MORRO 1116 MORRO 1120 MORRO SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-3210 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-3604 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-3604 FILE NUMBER:4-01 FILE NUMBER:4-01 FILE NUMBER:4-01 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 1126 MORRO 1128 MORRO 1128 MORRO# 2 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-3604 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-3686 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-3636 FILE NUMBER:4-01 FILE NUMBER:4-01 FILE NUMBER:4-01 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 1128 MORRO# 4 1128 MORRO# 5 1128 MORRO# 6 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-3636 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-3636 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-0636 FILE NUMBER:4-01 FILE NUMBER:4-01 FILE NUMBER:4-01 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 1128 MORRO# 7 1128 MORRO# 8 1128 MORRO# 9 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-3636 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-3636 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-3636 FILE NUMBER:4-01 FILE NUMBER:4-01 FILE NUMBER:4-01 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 1128 MORRO# 10 1128 MORRO# 11 1128 MORRO# 12 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-3636 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-3636 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-3636 f FILE NUMBER:4-01 FILE NUMBER:4-01 FILE NUMBER:4-01 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 1128 MORRO# 14 1128 MORRO# 15 1128 MORRO# 16 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-363 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-3636 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-3636 FILE NUMBER:4-01 FILE NUMBER:4-01 FILE NUMBER:4-01 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 1128 MORRO# 17 1128 MORRO# 18 1128 MORRO# 19 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-3636 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-3636 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-3636 FILE NUMBER:401 FILE NUMBER:4-01 FILE NUMBER:4-01 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 1128 MORRO# 20 1128 MORRO# 21 1128 MORRO# 22 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-3636 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401.3636 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-3636 FILE NUMBER:4-01 FILE NUMBER:4-01 002-431-005/FILE#:401 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 955 PARTNERSHIP A GEN PTP 1130 MORRO 1135 OSOS# A 620 CALIFORNIA BLVD STE J SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-3604 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401-3632 SLO CA 93401-2542 002-431-006/FILE#:4-01 002-425-011/FILE#:401 002-431-004/FILE#:401 BUCKETT OF BLOOD LLC A CA LLC COPELANDS PROPERTIES LLC COVEY 3 A CA GEN PTP P O BOX 1117 PO BOX 1348 815 B FIERO LN SUMMERLAND CA 93067-1117 SLO CA 93406-1348 SLO CA 93401-8937 002-432-005/FILE#:4-01 002-431-003/FILE#:4-01 002-425-010/FILE#:4-01 HAROUTUNIAN HENRY TESTAMENTARY HOLDGRAFER GARRY&EVELYN MAINO MICHAEL M TRE ETAL %SIRVART R HAROUTUNIAN PO BOX 467 PO BOX 1025 543 CUESTA DR SLO CA 93406-0467 SLO CA 93406-1025 SLO CA 93405-1152 002-427-014/FILE#:4.01 002-432-010/FILE#:4-01 SAN LUIS OBISPO DOWNTOWN CENTRE LLC WILSON ELIZABETH S TRE ETAL 966 MONTEREY ST PO BOX 1117 SLO CA 93401-3205 SUMMERLAND CA 93067-1117 Q P 0 t 0 5. 0 c� Solid = Owner and Occupant Diagonal Lines= Occupant Only Cross Hatch = Owner Only CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO GEODATA SERVICES 955 MORRO STREET SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401 (905)781-7167 02/21/01 15:29 osiosi2ool 16:57 FAX 8055430214 Jae _MEETING AGENDA laol. ATE �i ITEM # COVEY III A Real Estate Investment Partnership CIL ❑Cd^DIR O FIN C'!!rCAO ❑FIR: =r March 5, 2001 NEY 0 FW D.1 0 r0U-- CRF IR To: Mayor Allen K Settle and member of the City Council °I""' TEtid o UnL DIR 0 PERS DIR From: Matt Quaglino t7i�& Re: Agenda item#5,Appeal of a sidewalk Caft Permit for MO's BBQ We own and lease the property housing MO's BBQ. I am writing this memo to express my opinion of the pending appeal for a sidewalk cafes permit. The concept of adding sidewalk bulb-outs lbr the purpose of outdoor dinning was brought to our attention approximately one year ago. In March of 2000, 1 was contacted by Barbara Lynch of the Public Works department In addition I was contacted by Whitney Mcilvane several months later to discuss the same issue. It was my understanding that these sections of sidewalk were to be altered as bulb-outs as a trial to see if the concept of sidewalk dinning would work. If the trial was successful the City would consider additional sidewalk areas to be altered for the same purpose. I was contacted as the property owner to ask my opinion and feed-bads I was definitely in favor of the concept and thought it would be a valuable addition to the downtown. The only concern I expressed to Barbara was, who would be responsible for the initial cost of extending the sidewalks and would their long term use result in cost to our tenants. I was told by Barbara that the property owner or tenants would not be responsible for costs resulting from the construction or use of the same. I followed up our conversation with a letter reiterating my understanding, copy attached. 1 was under the impression that was the case until I read the Iona list of conditions imposed on MO's for the use of the sidewalk. Unfortunately not only did the use result in initial costs to our tenant but resulted in the tenant actually having to lease that portion of the sidewalk from the City. If I may say this without sounding.to cynical; I am not surprised. With all of that said I want to express my support of MO's and any other downtown business who may want to use extended sidewalks for outdoor activities_ I feel it would enhance our downtown and only further the dues efforts to make our downtown the special place that it truly is. Thank you for your considerabon. If you have any questions or concerns please do not hesitate to contact me. 815 B Fiero Lane, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Phone:6051543-0560 Fax: 805/543-0679 03/05%2001 16:57 FAX 8055430214 JAA MEETING AGENDA X02 _ITEM # , COVEY III A Real Estate Investment Partnership 91�ouNCIL ❑CC-n MR A0 ❑FM i.. VAC, ❑1`IR21 =r el�DRNEY ❑FW D.-_i U°K10RIG ❑r0LIJ:0:iF ❑M A!A /)O REC DIR f ❑UTIL DIR 0 PERS DIR March 23, 2000 Barbara Lynch City of San Luis Obispo• 955 Morro Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Re: Sidewalk bulb-out at Mo's Dear Barbara: As we discussed, We are in full agreement with the City to construct sidewalk bulb-outs in front of our property at Mo's BBQ on Higuera Street It is my understanding that the improvements will not result in any cost to us or our tenants. The exclusive use of the improvements will be by the tenants that the improvements front. I look forward to the completion of the work. I think it will be a great improvement to the downtown. Please do not hesitate to call me if you have any questions or require further assistance. Sincerely, Matt Quagllno 815 Fiero Lane, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 •Phone:8051543-0560• Fax;805/543-0679