Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/06/1988, 7 - TRACT 1652 - CONSIDERATION OF A TENTATIVE TRACT MAP CREATING A 26-UNIT RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM SUBDIVISION ON THE WEST SIDE OF NORTH CHORRO STREET, NORTH OF FOOTHILL BOULEVARD (275 NORTH CHORRO STREET). MEETING DATE � l� city Of San LUIS OBISPO 11.49-88 COUN 1L AGENDA REPORT,, STEM NUchael Multari, Community Development Director; BY: Pam Ricci, Assoc i to Planner SUBJECT: Tract 1652 - Consideration of a tentative tract map creating a 26-unit residential condominium subdivision on the west side of North Chorro Street, north of Foothill Boulevard (275 North Chorro Street). CAO RECOMMENDATION: Adopt the attached resolution to approve the tentative tract map based on required findings and subject to conditions recommended by the planning commission with or without contested Condition No. 27 discussed below. DISCUSSION The applicant is requesting approval of a tentative tract map to create 26 fee simple condominium units. With a fee simple condominium, individual lots, often referred to as "postage stamp" lots, are created where the property owner has title to the unit and the small plot of land on which it sits. On October 26, 1988, the planning commission held a public hearing regarding Tract 1652. Adjoining property owners expressed concerns with conveyance of cross-lot drainage, but the primary issues discussed by the commission were the need for additional on-site parking spaces, the amount of project open space and the preservation of trees. The commission voted 3-1 to recommend approval of the tentative tract map to the council. As part of their recommendation for approval, the commission added Condition No. 27 requiring that the number of units in the project be reduced from 26 to 25 based on the finding that reducing the number of project units was the only feasible alternative to mitigate previously noted commission concerns. The applicant has indicated that eliminating a unit from the project would jeopardize his ability to go forward with the project from a financial standpoint. Therefore, the applicant is in agreement with the commission's recommendation for tentative map approval with the exception of added condition No. 27. SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS With mitigation measures noted in the attached initial environmental study, no significant environmental effects are expected from the project. CONSEQUENCES OF NOT TAKING ACTION If the council denies approval of the tentative map, the project could not be developed at this time as a condominium with the sale of individual lots. The project could proceed as an apartment project with final approval of development plans by the Architectural Review Commission. jj���► �milllliillp�N"►g1�11 city of San tins OBISp0 COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT Tract 1652 Page 2 BACKGROUND Data Summary Address: 275 N. Chorro Street Subdivider: Bob Takken Representative: Charles Crotser Zoning: R-4 General Plan: High density residential Environmental Status: A negative Declaration of environmental impact was granted by the Director on August 10, 1988. Project Action Deadline: December 10, 1988 Site Descriotion The rectangular-shaped site consists of 1.2 acres and slopes gently from the street to the rear. The site is made up of two legal lots of record which will be combined through the required tract map process. Numerous mature trees of various species exist on the property. The location and proposed status of all trees is indicated on Sheet No. I of architectural plans. All existing buildings on the site including five duplexes, a single dwelling and a shed are all proposed to be removed to accommodate development of the project. Neighborhood land uses include a condominium project to the north, apartments to the south and east, and single family homes and apartments to the west. Proiect Descriotion The 26 condominium units will be housed in five separate buildings which are proposed in four, five, and eight-unit attached modules. All units have two bedrooms and a total floor area of about 1135 square feet (not including garages, water heaters, or storage areas). Most units have a ground floor fenced patio area and a second floor balcony to meet private open space requirements. All units have been designed with two car garages. EVALUATION As with the previous project proposed for the site and most projects proposed in multiple family zones, concerns with lack of open space and overbuilding the site are inevitably discussed. The current proposal addresses several of the concerns that surfaced during the review of the previous project by reducing the total number of units (from 29 to 26), adding more guest parking spaces, and providing a larger usable common open space area. While the current project proposed is superior to the earlier in several regards, the intensity of development still raises some significant site planning issues. The following paragraphs discuss the project and its consistency with pertinent regulations: 1. Density The General Plan designates this site as high density residential allowing 24 units per net acre. The subject site consisting of 1.2 acres has a maximum development potential j of 28.8 equivalent units. The applicant's proposal to construct 26 2-bedroom units would have an equivalent density of 26 which would be allowed. �����► uuI11111�1►� ����11 city of San Luis osIspo HiS COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT Tract 1652 Page 3 The Planning Commission's recommendation regarding approval of the tract included the addition of Condition No. 27 requiring the number of project units to be reduced from 26 to 25. State Government Code Section 65589.5 prohibits decisionmakers from requiring that a project be developed at a lower than allowed density unless specific findings can be made. Required findings need to demonstrate that the project would have adverse impacts on public health or safety if approved at the density proposed and that the only feasible alternative to mitigating the adverse impacts is to condition the project to be developed at a lower density. The Planning Commission found that reducing the number of units was necessary to protect public health, safety and welfare considering the need for the project to provide open space, adequate parking and to protect trees. 2. Parkins The minimum total parking requirement for the project (based on 26 2-bedroom units) is 57 automobile spaces and three motorcycle and three bicycle spaces. The project exceeds the minimum auto parking requirement contained in the zoning regulations (2.2 spaces/unit) by providing 62 parking spaces for a parking ratio of 2.4 spaces/unit. In general, the Planning Commission and City Council have required a parking ratio of 2.5 spaces per unit for most condominium projects. A 2.5 parking ratio would be equivalent to 65 spaces - 52 spaces in garages and 13 guest spaces. If the 2.5 parking ratio is required as a majority of the Planning Commission recommended, then the site plan would need to provide three additional auto spaces. In addition, the area designated for motorcycle and bicycle spaces needs to be enlarged slightly to meet city standards (three motorcycle and three bicycle spaces are required). Plans initially reviewed by the ARC showed 64 parking spaces including 12 guest parking spaces, one space short of meeting the 2.5 parking ratio. The two additional guest parking spaces were located in the common recreation area near the site's largest walnut tree. The ARC directed the subdivider to remove these two spaces because of concerns with the proximity of the spaces to existing walnut trees and encroachment into the common open space area. Elimination of these spaces is reflected in the latest project site plan. The 2.5 parking ratio was primarily devised to more closely approximate actual parking demand for projects in close proximity to Cal Poly. Parking demand for student complexes is generally higher since customarily the standard two-bedroom unit houses more than two students and many students have their own cars. In such cases, the ordinance parking requirement does not accommodate actual parking demand. Proposed parking exceeds the minimum ordinance parking requirements, but does not meet the 2.5 parking ratio. There are limited opportunities to provide the extra three parking spaces needed to meet the 2.5 parking ratio with the current site plan. Alternatives to providing the three spaces include eliminating a unit, providing excess motorcycle and/or bicycle spaces, exploring the use of different size and type of units in the project or encroaching into the common recreation area. till ��IIIIIII�I City of San LUIS OBISpo Ni4 COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT Page 4 The Planning Commission recommended that a unit be deleted to lessen the amount of project parking required, to enlarge the common open space area, and to allow for better protection of existing trees. The ARC did not support allowing parking spaces to encroach into the common open space area. The option for additional bicycle spaces may be at least a partial solution in this case because the project's proximity to campus may encourage bicycle use. Plans have not been submitted showing a different mix or alternative sizes for units that might help mitigate concerns with providing adequate parking and open space. The council needs to determine whether proposed parking is adequate or if changes to the site plan need to be made to accommodate three additional parking spaces. If the council feels that the three parking spaces need to be provided, then retention of the Planning Commission's recommended Condition No. 27 would be appropriate. If the council is comfortable with the site plan submitted, then approval of the map with the deletion of Finding No. 6 and Condition No. 27 would be appropriate. If the council would like to see other site plan alternatives explored, then a continuance would be in order. 3. Site Planning Issues Buildings are laid out around the perimeter of the site and in the center of the project. This layout has several positive features: a. It allows for an efficient on-site circulation with two well-separated access points; b. Parking spaces are effectively screened from the street; C. Most prominent trees are preserved. However, the layout of buildings also raised concerns when the project was considered by the ARC: a. Cavernous Appearance: The rows of buildings depicted on the initial set of plans the ARC reviewed tended to give the project a "cavernous" appearance when viewed from the street. This concern has been substantially mitigated by reorienting Buildings D and E. Buildings D and E have been modified from two rows of buildings separated by rear yard areas with narrow ends of the buildings facing the street to the present orientation with the rows of buildings moved together into a single mass and the rear yard areas eliminated. Detailing of the side elevations of buildings with end unit entries facing the street and stamped concrete paving for project driveway entries further help to mitigate this concern. b. Open Snace: The issue was raised that the project provided considerable private open space areas, but that the amount of usable common open space was limited. I The usability of the common recreation area has been improved and its size � increased by the elimination of the two compact parking spaces from that area. The ARC agreed that these site planning issues had been substantially mitigated by changes made to plans since the initial submission and granted the project as shown in current plans schematic a roval IIi��1Hi�NIII�IIpa ���lUl city of san tui s oBi spo r,c 1 2 UNCIL AGENDA REPORT Page 5 4. Tree Removals The site contains a variety of mature trees whose location, size, species, and disposition are shown on Sheet No. 1 of plans submitted for architectural review. The applicant is proposing to retain most of these existing trees. However, the City Arborist, planning staff and the ARC were concerned with the applicant's previous proposal to remove three existing trees (two ash trees along the south property line and a walnut where Unit #2 is proposed). Building C has been shifted on the site to allow retention of the two ash trees. Also a pine tree (keynote #20) located in the street yard that was previously proposed to be removed is now shown as being retained. The walnut tree where Unit #2 is proposed is still shown as being removed. Given the applicant's effort to retain other trees, especially the two ash trees, staff, including the City Arborist, feels that removal of this walnut tree is acceptable. The subdivider must post a tree preservation bond and erect protective fencing around all trees to be retained (Conditions No. 24 & 23). 5. Conformance with Condominium Development Regulations a. Ooen Soace - Private open space requirements are met for units in Buildings A, B and C by provision of fenced rear yard areas and upper floor decks. The dimensions of the rear yard areas of units in Building A, B, and C vary with the location of the unit, but in all cases, the area of the private open space provided exceeds the minimum of 100 sq. ft. by at least a 2:1 margin (in some cases by as much as a 6:1 margin). Units in Buildings D and E do not have ground level private open space, but do meet minimum private open space requirements, by providing upper floor decks. Minimum common and total open space requirements are also exceeded with the proposed site plan. b. Common Recreation Facilities - Projects in the R-4 zone need to provide a minimum of 40 sq. ft. per unit of improved outdoor recreation facilities. Plans indicate that these facilities will be provided in the common open space area in the northwest corner of the project, but specific information on what these facilities will consist of has not yet been provided. In staff's opinion, the details for improving this area could be reviewed by the ARC at the time of final architectural review. C. Storage Areas - The requirement for providing at least 200 cubic feet of enclosed, weather-proof and lockable private storage space for each unit is met by enclosed rooms accessible through unit garages. I �I►►�����imiIIIIII�p� i��lU city of san tins owpo WnW iOUNCIL AGENDA REPORT ract 1;2 Page 6 d. Solar Water Heating - The regulations require that each unit within a condominium development be designed to provide solar water heating. The majority of the buildings have been located with a predominantly north/south orientation to provide optimum solar access. Those units with a more east/west orientation (Building B) will have greater difficulty providing for solar access. Collector panel locations and any modifications needed to the roof form to accommodate collectors to provide effective water heating need to be shown on elevations submitted for final architectural review. PREVIOUS REVIEW A previous proposal to develop the site (ARC 85-25) that included 29 units was continued by the commission on March 18, 1985 because it did not meet property development standards or condominium development regulations and provided little usable open space. The project was never revised and the application eventually expired. On July 7, 1988, the Cultural Heritage Committee (CHC) reviewed the proposed demolition of all buildings on the site. The CHC made the finding that the buildings were not historically, architecturally or culturally significant and recommended to the Architectural Review Commission that they could be demolished or relocated. On August 15, 1988, the ARC continued consideration of the present proposal with direction to restudy the site layout to address open space and overlook concerns, to modify Building C to preserve two existing ash trees and to delete the two guest parking spaces in the common recreation area adjacent to existing walnut trees. On September 19, 1988, the ARC granted the project schematic approval. On October 26, 1988, the Planning Commission recommended that the council approve Tentative Tract Map No. 1652 based on staff recommended findings and conditions and the addition of Condition No. 27 requiring project units to be reduced from 26 to 25. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Approve the tentative map subject to required findings and recommended conditions with or without inclusion of Condition No. 27 recommended by the Planning Commission. 2. Continue the project to allow revisions to plans or presentation of additional information. Specific direction should be given to the subdivider and staff. 3. Deny the tentative map with the appropriate findings. OTHER DEPARTMENT COMMENTS: No department has objected to the approval of this project. The Public Works Department's requirements have been incorporated into recommended conditions of the tract map. Il���i ►�uIIIII�P ��dIU MY Of San LUIS OBISPO COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT rnot 1651 Page 7 RECOMMENDATION: Adopt the attached draft resolution which: A. Concurs with the Community Development Director's determination of a negative declaration based on the finding that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment; and B. Approves the tentative map for Tract 1652 based on recommended findings and conditions. If the council feels that the additional three parking spaces to meet the 2.5 parking ratio are necessary, then their motion should include Finding No. 6 and Condition No. 27 (Planning Commission Recommendation). If the council feels that the site plan is acceptable as submitted, then their motion should delete Finding No. 6 and Condition No. 27 (applicant's preference). Attachments: Draft Resolution Vicinity Map Tract Map Reduction Initial Study ER 36-88 Memo from Roger Picquet dated 5-17-85 Enclosed: Tract Map ARC Plans pr#5:appeal I RESOLUTION NO. (1988 Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO GRANTING APPROVAL OF TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 1652 LOCATED AT 275 N. CHORRO STREET BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. Finding That this council, after consideration of the vesting tentative map of Tract 1652 and the Planning Commission's recommendations, staff recommendations and reports thereon, makes the following findings: 1. The design of the tentative map and proposed improvements are consistent with the general plan. 2. The site is physically suited for the type and density of development allowed in an R-4 zone. 3. The design of the subdivision and the proposed improvements are not likely to cause serious health problems, substantial environmental damage or substantially and unavoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat.' 4. The design of the subdivision or the type of improvement will not conflict with easement for access through (or use of property within) the proposed subdivision. 5. The proposed subdivision will not have a significant effect on the environment and has been granted a negative declaration. 6. The project would have an adverse impact on public health, safety, and welfare because of concerns with the amount of parking spaces provided, the adequacy of open space and the preservation of trees, and there is no feasible way to mitigate or avoid this adverse impact on'public health, safety, or welfare except by reducing the number of dwellings to 25. SECTION 2. Conditions. That the approval of the vesting tentative map for Tract 1652 be subject to the following conditions: 1. Tract corners shall be set by a registered civil engineer or land surveyor. 2. A registered civil engineer or land surveyor shall certify that the structures are located correctly prior to release of structures for occupancy. 3. All lots shall be served by individual sewer, water and utilities. All new and existing utilities within the tract shall be placed underground in easements to the approval of the appropriate utility company and the City Engineer. 4. Final map shall show a 6-foot public utilities easement and 10-foot wide street tree easement along the project's public street frontage. --Resolution No. (1988 Series) Tract 1652 Page 2 5. Final map shall note entire common lot area as a blanket utility easement acceptable to the utility companies and City Engineer. 6. All on-site driveways, nonstructural parking improvements, and utilities shall be installed as subdivision improvements. 7. Sewer and water mains shall be public and to city standards. Easements over the mains and access to mains shall be to the approval of the City Engineer. 8. Subdivider shall install individual water services for each dwelling unit. Meters shall be clustered in the public sidewalk to the approval of the Public Works Department. 9. Subdivider shall install new sewer mains within the site to connect and discharge into the existing manhole in North Chorro Street to the satisfaction of the Utilities Department. 10. Subdivider shall submit finish floor elevations with final development plans to determine whether sewer backwater valves will be necessary. 11. On-site drainage system shall be designed to the approval of the City Engineer and Chief Building Official. If piped to Ferrini Street by the proposed storm drain easement, a safe overflow must be constructed to the approval of the City Engineer. 12. All grading shall comply with the recommendations contained in the soils report prepared for the property. 13. Subdivider shall pay water and sewer charges and park in-lieu fees as calculated by the City Engineer prior to final map approval., 14. Subdivider shall install one street tree per 35 feet of property frontage to city standards to the approval of the Public Works Department. 15. Subdivider shall install an on-site hydrant to the approval of the City Fire Department. The required hydrant shall be connected to an existing 18-inch water main in North Chorro Street. 16. Subdivider shall provide and the homeowners' association shall maintain appropriate 'no parking' signs and red-curbing along interior roadways as required by the City Fire Department. 17. Subdivider shall install automatic fire sprinkler systems in all buildings. 18. Subdivider shall prepare conditions, covenants, and restrictions (CC&R's) to be approved by the City Attorney and Community Development Director prior to final map approval. CCAR's shall contain the following provisions: - 9 Resolution No. (1988 Series) Tract 1652 Page 3 a. Creation of a homeowners' association to enforce the CC&R's and provide for professional, perpetual maintenance of all common area including private driveways, drainage, parking lot area, walls and fences, lighting, and landscaping in a first class condition. b. Grant to the city the right to maintain common area if the homeowners' association fails to perform, and to assess the homeowners' association for expenses incurred, and the right of the city to inspect the site at mutually agreed times to assure conditions of CC&R's and final map are being met. C. No parking except in approved, designated spaces. d. Grant to the city the right to tow away vehicles on a complaint basis which are parked in unauthorized places. C. Prohibition of storage or other uses which would conflict with the use of garages for parking purposes. f. No outdoor storage of boats, campers, motorhomes, or trailers nor long-term storage of inoperable vehicles. g. No outdoor storage by individual units except in designated.storage areas. h. No change in city-required provisions of the CC&R's without prior City Council approval. L Homeowners' association shall file with the City Clerk the names and addresses of all officers of the homeowners' association within 15 days of any change in officers of the association. 19. All units shall be numbered in accordance with an addressing plan approved by the Community Development Department. 20. Subdivider shall install a unit identification plan with directory at each of the project entrances to the approval of the Community Development Department staff. 21. Subdivider shall submit plans showing proposed collector locations for solar water heating and a detail on collector types to the approval of the Architectural Review Commission. 22. All garages shall be equipped with automatic garage door openers and occupants shall be provided two remote-control units. 23. Subdivider must erect protective fencing around all trees to be retained to the satisfaction of the City Arborist. 24. Subdivider must post a tree preservation bond in an amount determined by the City Arborist. Resolution No. (1988 Series) Tract 1652 Page 4 25. Subdivider shall provide required motorcycle and bicycle spaces to the approval of the Architectural Review Commission. 26. Subdivider shall repair existing curb, gutter, and sidewalk to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. All modifications to the existing frontage will require a curb, gutter, and sidewalk permit from the Public Works Department. 27. The number of project lots shall be reduced from 26 to 25. 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 1988. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk APPROVED: City Administrative Officer City orney Community Development Director VICINITY MAP ARC 88-99 010- c/oS 0 0 R-4 0 0 O10O � ' 4so y O 4$ati r0 0 . 0 IrL 4 .0e, 21 0 0 ................. is 4 \\ R-4 0 ...... y. 447 491 495 $ :':":'`� O �` ti L , 0 0 0 I � O �S Te 0 0 oL Afll 0 r1]K��K.]II , O F\ 0 o CE C-N Fal 0 0 .0 1m (D oc�j 0 1c: Yi ."'c' lic 77, FOOTHILL BLVD. 115 771 7qf 45t 745 Vic] V�A MA 64-19 z z� GD/R 10119 at l -lu 0 I 1 7(-S AM94-v 03 c M t Y M � � I l p d QJso oi = ¢00 CA Lit N r x 1 V I , 1 I 1 .rsrti'.W-r Ma.•.e r -- 'O testi � am ; < 0 m � y � O , j i NO �O STREET city of San LUIS oBIspo INITIAL STUDY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT SITE LOCATION 2�5 N • Gho r ro % {reef APPLICATION NO. E:R 3(a'BS PROJECT DESCRIPTION DeyeloR a 26 -unlf- YeSlden'f'lal rune ominium DroleL-i- an a 1•2 -acre site zoned R-4 - APPLICANT Bob Takken STAFF RECOMMENDATION: NEGATIVE DECLARATION MITIGATION INCLUDED EXPANDED INITIAL STUDY REQUIRED ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT REQUIRED PREPARED BY Pam I cL I -, Associate Planner DATE-B - 8 -SS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTORS ACTION: DATE o -,;r 1 Dec- SUMMARY OF INITIAL STUDY FINDINGS 1.DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT AND ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING IL POTENTIAL IMPACT REVIEW POSSIBLE ADVERSE EFFECTS A. COMMUNITY PLANS AND GOALS ................................................... N n B. POPULATION DISTRIBUTION AND GROWTH.......................................... lw'n C. LAND USE ....................................................................... 1N1 o D. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION .............................................. �,,1IID E. PUBLIC SERVICES ................................................................��1 n F. UTILITIES........................................................................ 1e5rn��;n,�F,'on inclu.lPd. • G. NOISE LEVELS ..................................................................... N O H. GEOLOGIC S SEISMIC HAZARDS&TOPOGRAPHIC MODIFICATIONS .................... N I. AIR QUALITY AND WIND CONDITIONS............................................... n ,N J. SURFACE WATER FLOW AND QUALITY .............................................. �/hI l) K PLANT LIFE...................................................................... I e S* ml'I'IQ3f1an included L. ANIMALLIFE..................................................................... No `` M. ARCHAEOLOGICALIHISTORICAL ................................................... '-I(l N. AESTHETIC ......................................................................_�� O. ENERGYIRESOURCEUSE ........................................................... _N�av�e' mili[]r3 ' n inr_lude P. OTHER .............................................................. . ........ ... 111.STAFF RECOMMENDATION / 'SEE ATTACHED REPORT ER 36-88 Page 2 I. DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT AND ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING The applicant is proposing to construct a 26 two-bedroom residential condominium project on a 1.2-acre site zoned R-4. Each two-story unit has a two-car garage, upper floor balcony and fenced rear yard area. The rectangular site slopes gently from the street to the rear. The site is made up of two legal lots of record which will be combined through the required tract map process. Numerous mature trees of various species currently exist on the property. The proposed status of each tree is indicated on the site plan. There are several buildings on the site including five duplexes, a single dwelling, and a shed, all of which are proposed to be removed. Neighborhood land uses include a new condominium project to the north, apartments to the south and east, and single family homes and apartments to the west. II. POTENTIAL IMPACT REVIEW F. Utilities Water Under current conditions, development of the project would reduce the level of water service for city customers. City water use in spring 1988 (8,042 acre-feet per year) exceeded safe annual yield (7,357) by about nine percent. Safe annual yield is the amount of water which can be withdrawn from reservoirs year after year, without running out of water during a drought like that which has been experienced since the reservoirs have been in use. As water use increases above safe yield, cut-backs from usual water use will be needed more often and they will have to be more substantial to avoid running out of water. In response to two-years of below-average rainfall, the city is aiming for a 25-percent reduction in water use during 1988-89. More substantial reductions may be needed in following years. While the city is pursuing conservation and several supplemental sources of water, new supplies may not keep pace with added demand due to development. Therefore, the City Council has adopted development controls (the Water Allocation Regulations) to help correct the current imbalance between water use and supply. The controls could delay or prevent issuance of building permits. 'This project is expected to use 6.76 acre-feet per year, (100% from city water sources). Depending on when a building permit is sought to develop the site, water service may be delayed or unavailable. Fire Hydrant The Fire Department is requiring the installation of a new on-site fire hydrant with development. An existing 6-inch main in North Chorro Street is too small to provide the required fire flow for the hydrant. ER 36-88 Page 3 Mitigation Measure The developer shall make required improvements to connect the hydrant to an existing 18-inch main in North Chorro Street to the satisfaction of the City Utilities Engineer. K. Plant Life The site contains a variety of mature trees whose location, size, species, and disposition are shown on Sheet No. 1 of plans submitted for architectural review. The applicant is proposing to retain most of these existing trees. However, the City Arborist is opposed to the applicant's proposal to remove three trees (two ash trees along the south property line and a walnut where Unit #2 is proposed). Removal of these trees will change the number and diversity of plant species on the site. Mitigation Measure There shall be no cut or fill within the dripline of trees to be retained on the site. A porous paving material or equal shall be used within the dripline of the existing trees to remain. The proposal to remove the walnut and two ash trees shall be reviewed by the Architectural Review Commission (ARC). If the ARC determines that the trees can be removed against the recommendation of the Arborist, then the City Tree Committee would needs to determine appropriate mitigation for proposed removals or concur with the Arborist's recommendation. Appeals of the Tree Committee's decision would be resolved by the City Council. M. Archaeological/Historical Several older structures currently exist on the site. All of these structures are proposed to be removed with further development of the site. The site is not located in a historical district and the structures are not included on the city's master list of historical resources. On July 7, 1988, the Cultural Heritage Committee reviewed the demolition requests and determined that the structures were not historically, architecturally or culturally significant and could be demolished or relocated. O. Energy/Resource Use The city's Condominium Development Regulations require that all new units within a condominium development be equipped with solar water heating. The majority of the buildings have been located with a predominately north/south orientation to provide optimum solar access. Those units with a more east/west orientation and Units 19-26 because of the proximity of Buildings D & E will have greater difficulty providing effective water heating. Mitigation Measure The ARC shall review proposed solar panel locations and any modifications needed to the roof to accommodate collectors to provide effective w,ntcr heating. ER 36-88 ` r Page 4 III. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The staff recommends that a negative declaration, incorporating the indicated mi.igatio_n measures 6e prepared .for the,•ptoject. i, pr#4:ER36=88 76 Ilili118�1! � cit of san WIS OBISPO y l OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY 990 PALM STREET• Post Office HordfN • San LUIS Obispo.CA 99 Q6 ONA 805/549,7140 P.O.Box 8100 San Luis Obispo.CA 97403.8100 May 17, 1985 ME MORANDLIM To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council From: Roger Picquet, City Attorney Subject: Requirements for Findings when Disapproving or Conditionally Approving Residential Projects Councilmember Dunin has asked whether any findings are necessary whenever the Council approves or disapproves a residential development project. Generally, when the Council is acting in a legislative capacity, no specific findings are required. When the Council is acting in a quasi-adjudicatory capacity, findings are required. This basic expression of Council authority is well-understood by Council. There is one situation, however, which may require specialized findings even if the Council is acting in a traditional legislative capacity. Government Code Section 65589.5 provides as follows: "When a proposed housing development project complies with the applicable general plan, zoning, and development policies in effect at the time that the housing development project's application is determined to be complete, but the local agency proposes to disapprove the project or to approve it upon the condition that the project be developed at a lower density, the local agency shall base its decision regarding the proposed housing development project upon-written findings supported by substantial evidence on the record that both of the following conditions exist. " (a) The housing development project would have a specific; adverse impact upon the public health or safety unless the project is disapproved or approved upon the condition that the project be developed at a lower density. " (b) There is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the adverse impact identified pursuant to subdivision (a) , other than the disapproval of the housing development project or the approval of the project upon the condition that it be developed at a lower density." (emphasis supplied) Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council May 17, 1985 Page 2 Government Code Section 65589.6 states as follows: "In any action taken to challenge the validity of a decision by a city ... to disapprove a project or approve a prodtec upon the condition that it be developed at a lower density pursuant to Section 65589.5, the city... shall bear the-burden- of- proof that its decision has conformed to all of the conditions specified in Section 65589.5." (emphasis supplied) The first law became effective January 1, 1983, and the latter became effective January 1, 1985. The language is unambiguous. A residential project that otherwise meets all planning, zoning and development criteria and requirements should not be disapproved (or conditionally approved based on a density reduction) without the required findings being concurrently made. Because the burden of proof in a later court challenge would be on the City (a complete reversal from the traditional presumption of validity whenever a Council action is at issue) the findings should be carefully drawn with specific detail to demonstrate the factual connection between the project and the adverse impacts upon the public health and safety and the lack of feasible mitigation methods. For any given residential development project which is before Council for consideration, the Cacmunity Development Department will be prepared to advise, suggest and prepare draft findings should such become desirable. I believe Councilmember Dunin's questions are answered by this information. Please contact me or Toby if you have any specific or additional questions in this regard. RP:ajr c: Paul Lanspery Toby Ross Sc.