Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/05/1994, 1 - TENTATIVE MAP FOR TRACT 2154 (TR 10-94) - REQUEST TO CREATE AN EIGHT UNIT RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM (PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT) ON THE NORTH SIDE OF FOOTHILL BLVD. (680 FOOTHILL) WEST OF FERRINI ROAD. III��Y1ll�lllllnlll UUI�I MEETJNG DATE: pl II Ii city or san tin s OBISPO =- a -� - COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT iTEM NUMBER: FROM: Arnold B. Jonas, Director of Community Development s PREPARED BY: Ronald Whisenand, Development Review Man ger SUBJECT: Tentative Map for Tract 2154 (TR 10-94) - request to create an eight unit residential condominium (planned unit development) on the north side of Foothill Blvd. (680 Foothill) west of Ferrini Road. CAO RECOMMENDATION: Adopt the attached resolution adopting the Negative Declaration and approving the tentative map, subject to findings and conditions as recommended by the Planning Commission. DISCUSSION: Background The City Council previously reviewed a proposal to subdivide this property into 10 condominium units in March of 1993 (TR 2112). After extensive public review and comment, the City Council denied the request based on concerns with density, parking, congestion, neighborhood compatibility, traffic, and building massing on the site. The applicant has since revised the project so as to address neighborhood and Council concerns. The number of units has been reduced from 10 to 8 and the overall height has been lowered from 31 feet to 26 feet. In addition, the design of the units has changed somewhat with an interior access roadway and individual attached garages. Finally, the project is now a small lot "planned unit development" rather than a true "condominium" subdivision involving the division of interior air space. The Planning Commission reviewed the tentative map for this project on March 09, 1994; their recommendation for approval is reflected in the attached draft Council resolution. The Architectural Review Commission granted schematic approval to the project on February 28, 1994. A hearing to consider final ARC approval is pending waiting final plans and a favorable decision by the Council. Data Summary Address: 680 Foothill Blvd. Applicant: Richard H. Porter Representative: APS Architects - Randy Rea Zoning: High-Density Residential (R4) General Plan: High Density Residential Environmental status: Mitigated Negative Declaration authorized by Director February 04, 1994 Project action deadline: To Be Determined 11111i1IIIII%P° �I�U city of San Luis OBispo COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT Site description The site is a rectangular lot with 99 feet of frontage on Foothill Blvd., and 20,690 square feet of area. A house and triplex, with paved parking, are located on the site. Several mature trees are located on the site, which slopes up from Foothill Blvd. at approximately 2%. The project site is surrounded by houses and apartments, as shown on the attached vicinity map. Project description The applicant proposes to demolish a house and a triplex, and to construct eight residential condominium units (planned unit development). The proposed structures would have a total floor area of approximately 7,500 square feet. The units would be located in four two-story buildings containing two 2-bedroom units each. Private and common open space areas would be provided, as required by City regulations. Evaluation Section 66474 of the California Government Code specifies the findings for approval of a tentative.map. These findings include: A. The proposed tentative map is consistent with the General Plan; B. The site is physically suitable for the type and density of development; C. The design of the subdivision will not cause substantial environmental damage or cause serious public health problems; and D. The design of the subdivision will not conflict with public easements through or within the property. The Planning Commission reviewed the request and determined that the required findings could be made. A discussion of how the project conforms with these findings is contained in the attached Planning Commission staff report. There was no opposition to the subdivision at the Planning Commission meeting. One neighbor spoke at the ARC meeting and her concerns were mitigated by a solid fence or wall that will be required along the rear property line. The neighborhood concerns that existed with the ten unit project appear to have been resolved with the new design. The Planning Commission unanimously recommended that the Council approve the tentative map. FISCAL PACTS Approval and construction of the project is not expected to significantly affect City revenues or expenditures. city of San WIS OBISpo 1WHIGe COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT ALTERNATIVES The State Subdivision Map Act requires the Council to deny the tentative map, if the above findings cannot be made. Note that Section 65589.50)of the California Government Code states that "A housing project which complies with City codes and policies may be denied or reduced in density only if the project would have a specific adverse impact on public health or safety, and if there is no other way of mitigating the adverse impact." ATTACHMENTS A. Draft Resolution for Approval B. Draft Resolution for Denial C. Vicinity Map D. Site Plan E. Tentative Map F. PC Staff Report G. Initial Study and Negative Declaration H. Subdivider's Statement Letter I. PC Minutes - March 09, 1994 (forthcoming) J. ARC Minutes - February 28, 1994 (forthcoming) /-3 #1 • .,proving RESOLUTION NO. (1994 Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO GRANTING APPROVAL OF TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 2154 (CITY FILE NO. 10-94) LOCATED AT 680 FOOTHILL BOULEVARD 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 tentative map of Tract 2154 and the Planning Commission's recommendations, staff recommendations, and reports thereof, makes the following findings: 1. The design of the subdivision with its eight lots is consistent with the density and housing policies of the City's General Plan. 2. The site is physically suited for the type and density of development allowed in the R-4 zone and will comply with all applicable City development standards. 3. The design of the subdivision will not cause serious health problems or result in significant environmental impacts as outlined in the Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for the project (ER 10-94). 4. The Public Works Department has assured that the design of the subdivision will not conflict with easements for access through (or usage of property within) the proposed subdivision. SECTION 2. Environmental Determination. The City Council finds and determines that the project's Negative Declaration adequately addresses the potential significant environmental impacts of the proposed subdivision and reflects the independent judgment of the City Council. The Council hereby adopts said Negative Declaration and incorporates the mitigation measures from the attached noise analysis. SECTION 3. Conditions. The approval of the tentative map for Tract 2154 (City File No. TR 10-94) be subject to the following conditions: Resolution No. (1994 Series) Tract 2154 (City File No. TR 10-94) Page 2 1. The subdivider shall dedicate a 6' wide public utility easement adjacent to Foothill Blvd. 2. Each lot shall be served individually with water, electricity, telephone, gas and cable TV, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. The on-site sewer system shall be privately owned and maintained. 3. Each unit shall have its own water meter. Water meters shall be placed in the public sidewalk per City standards. All water services and meters shall be sized to supply the fire sprinkler systems required by the Fire Department. 4. Water and sewer impact fees shall be paid prior to the issuance of building permits. 5. All run-off from improved surfaces shall discharge to an adequate point of disposal per the City's UNIFORM DESIGN CRITERIA. 6. The two trees shown on the tentative map and labeled as 20" and 18" shall be retained and protected during all construction, to the satisfaction of the City Arborist. A tree preservation guarantee may be required, as determined by the City Arborist. 7. All boundary monuments, lot corners and centerline intersections, BC's, EC's, etc..., shall be tied to the City's control network. At least two control points shall be used and a tabulation of the coordinates shall be submitted with the final map or parcel map. A 5-1/4" diameter computer floppy disk, containing the appropriate data for use in autocad for Geographic Information System (GIS) -purposes, is also required to be submitted to the City Engineer. 8. The subdivider shall upgrade the older existing dry-barrel fire hydrant (H-07-11) at the comer of Foothill Blvd. and Ferrini Road, to a commercial grade hydrant to the satisfaction of the Public Works, Utilities, and Fire Departments. 9. The subdivider shall mitigate potential noise impacts on future residents of the project by constructing all units in accordance with State standards for maximum interior noise levels, as recommended by Initial Study ER 10-94. 10. The project's overall energy efficiency shall exceed applicable State standards by an amount equal to or greater than the energy savings which would be attributed to provision of solar water heating. /rJ Resolution No. (1994 Series) Tract 2154 (City File No. TR 10-94) Page.3 11. Subdivider shall prepare conditions, covenants, and restrictions (CC&R's) to be approved by the Community Development Director prior to final map approval. CC&R's shall contain the following provisions: a. Creation of a homeowners' association to enforce the CC&R's and provide for professional, perpetual maintenance of all common areas including private driveways, drainage, parking lot areas, walls and fences, lighting, and landscaping. b. Grant to the city the right to maintain common areas 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. e. No outdoor storage of boats, campers, motorhomes, or trailers nor long-term storage of inoperable vehicles. f. No outdoor storage by individual units except in designated storage areas. g. No change in city-required provisions of the CC&R's without prior City Council approval. h. 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. L Provision of appropriate "no parking" signs and red-curbing along interior roadways as required by the City Fire Department. j. CC&R's shall not prohibit location of solar clothes drying facilities in private yards which are substantially screened from view. 12. Subdivider shall install a unit identification plan with directory at the project's entrance, to the approval of the Community Development Director. /-6 Resolution No. (1994 Series) Tract 2154 (City File No. TR 10-94) Page 4 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 1994. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk APPROVED: �YAttoey�f J2 - Denying RESOLUTION NO. (1994 Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO DENYING APPROVAL OF THE TENTATIVE MAP FOR TRACT 2154 (CITY FILE NO. TR 10-94), LOCATED AT 680 FOOTHILL BOULEVARD BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. Findings. That this Council, after consideration of public testimony, the subdivision request Tract 2154, the Planning Commission's recommendation, staff recommendations and reports thereon, makes the following findings: C-11D 1ye-t0VzW1V1W e, GXNut_) SECTION 2. The tentative map for Tract 2154 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 , 1994. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk APPROVED: City Attorney !-S PF o NO C OA N OOl V,. r� r N Al 1.84 ROMAULDO 615 AVE. N 537 539 54) 585 03 65'7(s75605 691 (095 Tp-,%e--r 9" AGS 63•105 nlol•dT C O O O GR4-51 O O A b�s &29 11 7 ,vec 8T-lo3n .i13 164 �y N . I ARC Bt•lxo 1 f . I ARC 03•9911 . 155 - /'rS I:G T.Q. YGb FRC 4 -64- 2r.5 � 3_ 43 < `:z: UN AMC St tctWrt^,:::: SA 31-`31 R - 670 IrrMfR1T G50 ':SV`VV'<c %% ;? L w t O MS 226 l3�0)550 53f 37Z CO2 C. C.SO 65Z (070 :<(o$pi t C.84 G9 Co FOOTHILL BL.VC3 _ GSt (707) 71( AIr64-S+ LLA sa GRAPHIC SCALE ARG 05-127 TR.1343 ER e7•es 0 50 100 200 300 AIS;•BS VICINITY MAP TR/ARC r0 - 14 NORTH 680 Foothill a � t n) r A s � . .. /fir M I I 1�.p,.'(�1y+ .•.�' T' � �4-r �� ; Q � � -� .»'1 'inti I� � :��"• �. r, f r y E., a �� � a';, a.,,, ^�•, N a uj -3 � :•.. dt � l O I�a i ' V�'afFa CO uj E '.' r •J. 1^SY '�' it F An •� �41 "L y 7 �.�. ��'ti':-a �� mow••', �= �:._ • P • a Y Y ww mm ,C C I•I 1 i' 1•� 1 YO Ym NN wz ww 2 06 . .' I ' p`i, C ,•gym =m 00 mm "f 0.0. • •mi 6 .01 I� .•fir�w mP ,4; ppO n•r u O t 1 1 t t t rn0 89 6� 'a mm 0 > tiY .YrY nne >> me lwa w•9•. mm as m o e me Go c c u u s •' -' -' Y c u Uuu 0y as mm .,. {IJ m e c n is O 6�O 6Se mn.mi S6 YY qy ea c m O V 0 pa ww" mows moo 0m am mq M m co m U •, 9 Y Y O Y IP as C•• 00 �� as 00 m , w v c c c c Y Y 1 a 1 e mi 4 m �° 0 y0 0yo YY oa > m n S �. 0: m6 y yGL FF O m o iJ E � a m d m o /-io n I J� ' d coil 3 oo,ss.w�t z M kk FI lb Ji v CL uj ' p ' �• •�., �->' .R... ,�. :tit `i' •�' � Z d x .,.. '-!y l '• .;kyr'\ .�»•`'`' < � d _ a\5y.N, I LL C it A �. r �,. 6 .LN11,.tit L,rtil 1i t :� 'A• f , `• 1' 1. �, '�._ i� a Vii;, `�,, ...�yea .,. ,. �• (!•�... ! �.. t, •.ti � I' 1 OA6 3 CO,SS•6Q14 t •'s .L' jv, n Z C V < ¢ _ Z U Z f .00'66 3.,OO,4;9.68N ¢ _ U W S m v < v p l a a Z I < u O ^ a I C• L a Z v. m I I N O LU _ v < - W I 0 < Z < CL _ J _ O U r n �Z u m y I FA 52 . uM�\ •o O � F •' a to s = Y 11111 I - F W U J N U O z g c I 3 F W z LL > Z W C I tWil > 0 I OCL © < C I M O a �yr Ito, �o W < W I Z W ILQ C 0 W W Z ej W • U LLJ ¢ U N VI W _ 7 L ¢ Z W kr C7 z w •: 0 ¢ W U a s 1.. g J H = p 0 a ¢ W N O ' N ► N W j 0 0 a e c • " I � a � i f F ` _ H v I 0 = ¢ 0 0 , o w + I ¢ a U U V N 1 C7 1 ; O w < a a C U ISI i t 00'66 3..00.S S.66N - a M M31 VM ..ZI a U3M IS EOA „01 •• 11/�:. IH'.:1 II 11111; 11 11 r• n•• u. CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT ITEM R / BY: Ronald Whisenand, MEETING DATE: March 09, 1994 Development Review Manager FILE NUMBER: TR 10-94 PROJECT ADDRESS: 680 Foothill Blvd. SUBJECT: Tentative tract map - request to create an eight unit residential condominium (planned unit development) on the north side of Foothill Blvd., west of Ferrini Road. RECOMMENDATION Recommend that the City Council approve the tentative map subject to the attached findings and conditions. BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS Situation The Planning Commission previously reviewed a proposal to subdivide this property into 10 condominium units in January of 1993 (TR 2112). After extensive public review and comment, the Planning Commission recommended that the Council approve the subject tentative map. The City Council heard the matter on March 2^d, 1993 and denied the request based on concerns with density, parking, congestion, neighborhood compatibility, traffic, and building massing on the site. The applicant has since revised the project so as to address neighborhood and Council concerns. The number of units has been reduced from 10 to 8 and the overall height has been lowered from 31 feet to 26 feet. In addition, the design of the units have changed somewhat with an interior access roadway and individual attached garages. Finally, the project is now a small lot "planned unit development" rather than a true "condominium" subdivision involving the division of interior air space. The proposed project also involves review by the Architectural Review Commission. The ARC granted schematic approval on February 28, 1994. Provided favorable action on the tentative map is received, the plans will require final ARC review and approval. Data Summary Address: 680 Foothill Blvd. Applicant: Richard H. Porter Representative: APS Architects - Randy Rea Zoning: High-Density Residential (R-4) General Plan: High Density Residential Environmental status: Mitigated Negative Declaration authorized by Director February 04, 1994 Project action deadline: To Be Determined /-/3 Staff Report -TR 10-94 March 09,1994 Page 2 Site description The site is a rectangular lot with 99 feet of frontage on Foothill Blvd., and 20,690 square feet of area. A house and triplex, with paved parking, are located on the site. Several mature trees are located on the site, which slopes up from Foothill Blvd. at approximately 2%. The project site is surrounded by houses and apartments, as shown on the attached vicinity map. Proiect description The applicant proposes to demolish a house and a triplex, and to construct eight residential condominium units (planned unit development). The proposed structures would have a total floor area of approximately 7,500 square feet. The units would be located in four two-story buildings containing two 2-bedroom units each. Private and common open space areas would be provided, as required by City regulations. Evaluation Section 66474 of the California Government Code specifies the findings for approval of a tentative map. These findings include: A. The proposed tentative map is consistent with the General Plan; B. The site is physically suitable for the type and density of development; C. The design of the subdivision will not cause substantial environmental damage or cause serious public health problems; and D. The design of the subdivision will not conflict with public easements through or within the property. The General Plan land use designation for the subject property is High Density Residential with a maximum allowable density of 24 units per acre. The applicant's eight units will result in a density of 17 dwelling units per acre and will be well within the allowable General Plan density range. It should be mentioned that the draft Land Use Element map indicates the area should remain in high density residential land use in the future. In addition to compliance with General Plan density provisions, the development will meet goals and policies of the City's Land Use and Housing Elements. In general, these policies encourage residential development with varying densities and characteristics. The proposed development will provide those housing opportunities that meet these policies and objectives. The property is zoned R-4, which is the most intensive residential zoning within the City. The purposes of the R-4 district are to "provide housing opportunities for smaller households desiring little private open space and to provide various types of group housing. It is further /-/y Staff Report - TR 10-94 March 09, 1994 Page 3 intended to allow for concentrations of housing close to concentrations of employment and college enrollment, in areas largely committed to high-density residential development." The applicant's proposed development certainly complies with the purpose of R-4 zoning district. In addition to meeting the purpose and intent of the R-4 zoning district, the proposed development will comply with all applicable setback, parking, height, and open space requirement of the City's Zoning Regulations. Finally, the development as conditioned will comply with the City's condominium regulations. Staff therefore finds the development physically suited for this location. The proposed development is subject to environmental review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). An initial study and environmental evaluation was prepared by staff and made available for public review and comment on February 04, 1994. Based on staff's analysis, it is recommended that a Mitigated Negative Declaration be issued. The mitigation measures pertain to noise attenuation to lower noise impacts associated with traffic on Foothill Blvd. to a level of insignificance. The applicant has agreed to design the buildings to comply with State standards for interior noise levels. Based on a review of the site plan and tentative map, the applicant intends to name the private driveway that will serve the units. Section 12.32.050 of the Municipal Code prohibits the naming of driveways. A "street" name is therefore not appropriate. Other Department Comments No other department has submitted comments which would significantly affect the design of the project. The Fire Department notes that the applicant must upgrade an older dry- barrel fire hydrant at the corner of Foothill Blvd. and Ferrini Road, to a commercial grade hydrant. The City Arborist recommends that the liquidambar tree near the front of the property as well as the ash tree near the west property line be preserved. Finally, the Utilities Department raises some questions as to how the individual units will be served with water and sewer services. These design issues will be addressed at the time of development. ALTERNATIVES The Commission may also recommend denial of the tentative map, if findings for approval can not be supported. State law limits the City's authority to reduce the number of units in a project which meets minimum standards of local ordinances. Unit reductions may be imposed only if the proposed project would have a specific, adverse effect upon the public health or safety [Govt. Code Sec. 65589.5(j)]. The laws do not limit authority to require changes which do not affect the number of units, such as the size of individual units, site planning, unit appearance, etc. . `l :iii, ';.• t.q; Staff Report = TR 10-94 March 09,.1994 Page 4 y ATTACHMENTS Findings and Conditions Vicinity Map - Site Plan Tentative.Map Initial Study Background Information TR 10-94 FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS Findings 1 . The design of the subdivision with its eight lots is consistent with the density and housing policies of the City's General Plan. 2. The site is physically suited for the type and density of development allowed in the R-4 zone and will comply with all applicable City development standards. 3. The design of the subdivision will not cause serious health problems or result in significant environmental impacts as outlined in the Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for the project (ER 10-94). 4. The Public Works Department has assured that the design of the subdivision will not conflict with easements for access through (or usage of property within) the proposed subdivision. Conditions 1 . The subdivider shall dedicate a 6' wide public utility easement adjacent to Foothill Blvd. 2. Each lot shall be served individually with water, electricity, telephone, gas and cable TV, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. The on-site sewer system shall be privately owned and maintained. 3. Each unit shall have its own water meter. Water meters shall be placed in the public sidewalk per City standards. All water services and meters shall be sized to supply the fire sprinkler systems required by the Fire Department. 4. Water and sewer impact fees shall be paid prior to the issuance of building permits. 5. All run-off from improved surfaces shall discharge to an adequate point of disposal per the City's UNIFORM DESIGN CRITERIA. 6. The two trees shown on the tentative map and labeled as 20" and 18" shall be retained and protected during all construction, to the satisfaction of the City Arborist. A tree preservation guarantee may be required, as determined by the City Arborist. 7. All boundary monuments, lot corners and centerline intersections, BC's, EC's, etc..., shall be tied to the City's control network. At least two control points shall be used and a tabulation of the coordinates shall be submitted with the final map or parcel map.: A 5-1/4" diameter computer floppy disk, containing the appropriate data for use in autocad for Geographic Information System (GIS) purposes, is also required to be submitted to the City Engineer. 1-17 Findings and Conditions - 1 H 10-94 Page 2 8. The subdivider shall upgrade the older existing dry-barrel fire hydrant (H-07-11) at the corner of Foothill Blvd. and Ferrini Road, to a commercial grade hydrant to the satisfaction of the Public Works, Utilities, and Fire Departments. 9. The subdivider shall mitigate potential noise impacts on future residents of the project by constructing all units in accordance with State standards for maximum interior noise levels, as recommended by Initial Study ER 10-94. 10. The project's overall energy efficiency shall exceed applicable State standards by an amount equal to or greater than the energy savings which would be attributed to provision of solar water heating. 11 . Subdivider shall prepare conditions, covenants, and restrictions (CC&R's) to be approved by the Community Development Director prior to final map approval. CC&R's shall contain the following provisions: a. Creation of a homeowners' association to enforce the CC&R's and provide for professional, perpetual maintenance of all common areas including private driveways, drainage, on-site sewer facilities, parking lot areas, walls and fences, lighting, and landscaping. b. Grant to the city the right to maintain common areas 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. e. No outdoor storage of boats, campers, motorhomes, or trailers nor long-term storage of inoperable vehicles. f. No outdoor storage by individual units except in designated storage areas. g. No change in city-required provisions of the CC&R's without prior City Council approval. h. 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. Findings and Conditions - TK 10-94 Page 3 i. Provision of appropriate "no parking" signs and red-curbing along interior roadways as required by the City Fire Department. j. CC&R's shall not prohibit location of solar clothes drying facilities in private yards which are substantially screened from view. 12. Subdivider shall install a unit identification plan with directory at the project's entrance, to the approval of the Community Development Director. city of San lues OBISpo �Ilf Illll���jiil!;!►ilili�;ill'' INITIAL STUDY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT SITE LOCATION lC� $() t0o�r�% a���• APPLICATION NO. 7/ WC /U PROJECT DESCRIPTION e.w .. �><1J c r. Ir ,..tkjhvr aj GrG�: 4vr&l rrJ:[uQOMej_ APPLICANT I e l aJ Per 4 rr, T STAFF RECOMMENDATION: / yy L NEGATIVE DECLARATION MITIGATION INCLUDED —EXPANDED INITIAL STUDY ''REQUIRED fI ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT REQUIRED . . PREPAREDBY W�:cr,waw0 DATE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR'S ACTION: A DATE Z�Yf lr� M�T.rtiT� /V( G4r( 40ec, e7 Tor Q w at 6..a ree r SUMMARY OF INITIAL STUDY FINDINGS L DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT-AND ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING IL POTENTIAL IMPACT REVIEW POSSIBLE ADVERSE EFFECTS A. COMMUNITY PIANS AND GOALS ............................................................ Alm B. POPULATION DISTRIBUTION AND GROWTH.......................................... /00-le C. LAND USE ................:. - D. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION .............................................. Nen r E PUBLIC SERVICES ................................................................. ,,// e.�e F. UTILITIES........................................................................ lFpSc G. NOISELEVELS ................................................................... H. GEOLOGIC&SEISMIC HAZARDS&TOPOGRAPHIC MODIFICATIONS .................... N�A c 1. Al R QUALITY AN D WIN D CON DITIONS............................................... sNen J. SURFACE WATER FLOW AND QUALITY ................................................. N do e K PLANT LIFE...................................................................... AI/D+Ie' LANIMAL LIFE....................................................................... NDA c M. ARCHAEOLOGICALIHISTORICAL ................................................... ar1( N. AESTHETIC ...................................................................... // a.,0e 4 O. ENERGYIRESOURCE USE ............................................................ NIA, P. OTHER .......................................................................... IVOn C III.STAFF RECOMMENDATION 'SEE ATTACHED REPORT seas /-a0 I. DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT AND ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING The applicant proposes to demolish a house and a triplex, and to construct eight residential condominium units (planned unit development). The proposed structures would have a total floor area of approximately 7,500 square feet. The units would be located in four two-story buildings containing two 2-bedroom units each. Private and common open space area would be.provided, as required by City regulations. The site is a 20,690 square foot parcel with 99 feet of frontage on Foothill Blvd. The site slopes up from the street at about 2%. Several mature trees are located on the site; no other notable vegetation is present. The site is surrounded by houses and apartments, most of which are one or two stories in height: In addition to environmental review, the project includes review by the City's Architectural Review Commission, and review of a planned unit development tentative tract map by the Planning Commission and.City Council. II. POTENTIAL EMPACT REVIEW A. Community Plans and Goals The proposed project is consistent.with City land use policies and regulations. No significant effects will occur. The project is located in an area designated for high density residential land use by the City's General Plan. The maximum allowable density in high density residential area is 24 units per acre. The applicant's proposed eight units will result in a density of 17 dwelling units per acre and will be well within the allowable General Plan density range. It should be mentioned that the draft Land Use Element map indicates the are should remain in high density residential land use in the future. In addition to compliance with General Plan density provisions, the development will meet goals and policies of the City's Land Use and Housing Elements. In general, these policies encourage residential development with varying densities and characteristics. The proposed development will provide those housing opportunities that meet these policies and objectives. B. Population Distribution and Growth The project will be consistent with adopted City policies and regulations relative to residential growth management. No significant adverse effect will occur. 'C. Land Use The site adjoins low-density residential development at the rear of the site. Although there is some potential for noise conflicts, this is not judged by staff to constitute a significant land use compatibility impact given the planned high density development planned for this area adjacent to a major City arterial. Environmental Analysis - TR/ARC 10-94 February 4, 1994 Page 2 D. Transportation and Circulation The project will have access to Foothill Blvd., a four lane arterial street, via a centrally located driveway. The driveway would be located approximately 150 feet from the nearest intersection, Ferrini Road. City Engineering staff has concluded that no significant traffic hazards or congestion problems will occur as a result of the project. E. Public Services Existing public service capacities are adequate to handle the project, with the exception noted below under utilities. No significant adverse impact will occur. F. Utilities The safe annual yield from all sources of municipal water supplies has been exceeded in recent years, and an extended drought period has reduced the City's available reserves of water. 'In response to this situation, the City has adopted water conservation regulations for users currently connected to the municipal water system, and has adopted allocation/retrofitting regulations which are intended to compensate for increased demand from new connections. These regulations are expected to fully mitigate cumulative effects on municipal water supply which might otherwise occur. Existing utility infrastructure appears adequate to serve the proposed project, with one exception: an additional fire hydrant will be required at the project's street frontage. Mitigation of this deficiency is required by City ordinance as a condition of permit issuance, and no significant impact will occur. G. Noise Levels Noise levels at the front half of the site exceed the level considered normally acceptable for residential use by the City's Noise Element. The attached acoustical study indicates that relatively simple mitigation measures will provide noise levels which are consistent with those standards, for both interior and private outdoor areas. Environmental Analysis - TR/ARC 10-94 February 4, 1994 Page 3 Noise impacts are potentially significant. Refer to the. attached report dated 12/21/92 for additional analysis. Mitigation includes: . Interior Noise Levels Standard mitigation measures outlined on pages 14 and 1-5 of the Acoustical Design Manual of the Noise Element for 5 dB increments beginning at 60 dBA. Future noise levels in the common recreational area are expected to remain within the requirements of the City's Noise Element, and no mitigation measures are required. H. Geologic and Seismic Hazards and Topographic Modifications No significant effects are expected. All future residential structures will need to be constructed in compliance with all applicable building codes. I. Air Quality and Wind Conditions No significant effects are expected. The project is smaller than the threshold identified by the County Air Quality Management District for special studies or mitigation measures. J. Surface Water Flow and Quality No significant adverse effects are expected. K. Plant Life Removal of several mature trees from the site is not judged to constitute a significant adverse effect. The trees to be removed do not appear to constitute significant wildlife habitat, and greater number of trees will be replanted. L. Animal Life No significant effect is expected. M. Archaeological/Historical No historic or prehistoric sites have been identified in the immediate vicinity of the project site. No significant effect is expected. s23 Environmental Analysis - TR/ARC 10-94 February 4, 1994 Page 4 N. Aesthetic Construction of the proposed two-story structures may affect the views from nearby houses and apartments. ' Approximately 12 houses and apartments are located within 100 feet of the site, where the effect will be the greatest. Mid-range to long-range views of Cerro San Luis of Bishop Peak slopes and ridge lines could :be affected, depending on the location and orientation of the affected units. Short-range views of nearby trees and structures will be affected for all nearby units. Views of the site from Foothill Blvd. and other nearby streets will also be affected. The effect on these views will be lessened by several factors: - The mid-range and long-range views of hillsides are relatively wide. Attractive views on either side of the structures will remain from locations feet or more away from the structures. No formal policies or objective tests have been adopted by the City for evaluating the level of impact on view blockages which should be considered a significant adverse effect on the environment. Nor is it clear that there will be serious public controversy regarding the level of significance, as referenced in Section 15604(h) of the CEQA Guidelines. It needs to be pointed out that the project involves a reduction of units (ten to eight) and overall height (three stories to two) from that project which received'a mitigated negative declaration on September 04, 1992. Numerous public hearings were conducted on an earlier project on this site. The current proposal has taken into consideration many of the aesthetic concerns that have been previously raised by neighbors and the City's Architectural Review Commission (ARC). The current proposal will require review by the ARC as well in order to assure aesthetic quality. O. Energy/Resource Use The project will be required to meet energy efficiency standards established by State law. No significant adverse effect is expected. P. Other No other adverse effects are expected. Environmental Analysis.- TR/ARC 10-94 February 4, 1994 Page.5 III. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staftrec_oMmends that the Director approve a mitigated.negative declaration for the proposed. project; incoipgiating the recommended mitigation.measures from.the attached noise analysis. l L __-- -__----- IE:=M-ORRO== Y4CR0^7 . July 31, 1992 Architectural Production Services 1088 Higuera St. San Luis Obispo,CA 93401 ATIT1: I& Randy Rea SUBJECT:Noise Investigation,for 680 Foothill Blvd., City of San Luis Obispo Dear Mr.Rea: At your request,we have conducted an investigation of the levels of noise at the site from traffic on Foothill Blvd. Noise measurements were made during the late afternoon on July 29, 1992 at two locations on the property(Figure 1). Three 5-minute Leq's were measured at Station 1 at the edge . of the'sidewalk at the front of the lot, and three 5-minute Leq's were measured at Station 2 located . near the westerly front corner of the existing residence, 75 feet northerly from Station 1. Instrumentation used in the measurements and terminology used in this report are summarized in Attachment A- I..- Existing Noise Levels The day-night weighted level (L dn), the standard scale used in the City's Noise Element, is essentially the same as the average noise level(Leq)during the peak-hour of traffic. The procedure used in this evaluation has been to measure 5-minute Leq's, count the number of vehicles passing the meter during the period of measurement, and adjust the measured Leq to the peak-hour Leq using the ratio of the hourly traffic volume during the measurement to the peak hour volume. . The City's Noise Element,Technical Reference Document,Appendix A,lists the existing average •daily traffic on Foothill Blvd.as 21,000 trips. Assuming 10% of trips occur during the peak hour, this value equates to 2,100 vehicles per hour or 175 vehicles in a 5-minute period This procedure avoids the problem of seasonal variations in traffic that are probably significant in this area because of Cal Poly traffic. The results of the measurements are summarized as follows: Noise Levels (dBA) Number Adj. to Peak-Hour Station Period j&q Max. Min. of Vehicles Peak Hour 1&4 (dBA) 1 4:20-4:25 69.2 78.8 50.4 82 +3.3 72.5 4:26-4:31 69.6 80.1 52.7 99 +2.5 72.1 4:32-4:37 68.7 80.3 48.8 85 +3.1 lu Average 72.1 2 4:39-4:44 56.8 69.2 42.0 83 +3.2 60.0 4:45-4:50 59.4. 74.6 41.6 109 . +2.1 61.5 4:51-4:56 57.6 70.4 40.7 81 +3.3 QU Average 60.8 Environmental Services P.O. Box 6297, Los Osos, CA 93412 805/528-2187 �'p�fo 1rf a r.• . r•\ w(1 of ' r_ I i •.s� "; I •�� " a jr_'�.F •:r_Z_,. � ]°7'��,'y r.. .� - t_. �a� � r__r� \!1 ,-� �.•!•1�� �• •:� � :\�.i1�.�. •, t' 1I{�.1 ':4t�iite��: � !I a••� _ -�' ' =' -t '•••+ � \"l�•,'7 �CC'"I � 'rte•• ebb —s y. L7 f Yf LJ 01 1;, {._-•:�t.. ; I �11:x.:.. J ; •y 11.d--ra �t•(�p. I'� . 7171°- \ d I ! 44 CD • t.; .,.•=f_. 1 Ii! e I Z X77 N J fi : � I ii .lam :Bw ej .�_ lr�x� . •�^a.r. 09 ::�-r� • . . .. ^: 1. s' - -cn I`cltr to . . ' S9 1z .3 ; •_ .. 1 � r N � 3oy ).4 o o s I -- �. G , z u 19 k 1 m ' y L•\ U G O tR G H 4I !.a \{�i S.. Y V T •, �L j' J IG Z ��`Sl-?,fir _.7 vel d I N 'N .Iµ '1.`.L���-'lLL 1•z�ti. i —.—®_.�.•. \ :J —mm x.111 .... 1 up 1 • tlaltl 71111100 .4 I ,a7 Of the noise levels reported above,the peak=hour Leq's,which are equivalent to Ldn,are the levels used in the remainder of the analysis. The maximum and minimum values are recorded by the meter,and are reported as a matter of interest. 2. Future Noise Levels without Project. Structures Noise levels at the site will increase with future increases in traffic on Foothill Blvd. The Noise Eleinetit;.Techhical Refere&76 Document, Appendix A, lists the future average daily traffic on Foothill Blvd. is 34,000 trips.-This increase of 62% in traffic will increase noise levels by 2.1 dBA.* Based on this information,the future,peak-hour noise levels at Station 1 and Station 2 are estimated as follows:- -. Station Noise Level (dB AI 1 74.2 2 62.9 The level at Station 1 is at the edge of the sidewalk adjacent to Foothill Blvd., and it is unaffected by existing features such as landscaping and adjacent structures (i.e., free field conditions). The . level at Station 2 is affecied by existing features,primarily on adjacent properties that will remain with project implementation.= Measurements at other.locations ori the frontal portion of the property were not made because of the effects of existing features that will be removed. However,it should be noted that noise levels. pea_az the ea property line will be reduced by up to 3�dBA by the barrier effect of the sorority house on the adjacent lot: The effects of this structure have been estimated in contouring future noise -. le-is•oa.Fi lam. ...-- ----- - - ---- The`noise levels sh6*n—on Figure-1 are for future,peak-hour levels of traffic (Leq).- They may -also be considered Ldn levels;as;for typical hourly traffic distributions as one would expect on Foothill Blvd theLdn is essentially the same as the peak-hour Leq. 3.. Future Noise Levels with Project Structures a.Proposed Structures The effects of the structures to be constructed at the.site are summarized as follows: • Increased Height: Noise levels tend to increase with increasing height because of decreased ground attenuation and increased effect of reflectivity off the road surface. Based on the range of increase in Table 2-1 of the Noise Element,Policy Document,of 3 dBA and our past experience with measurements, increased noise levels with increased height are estimated as follows: Structural Level Increased Noise Level (dBA) Ground Level (garages) 0 Second Level(residential) +2 Third Level(residential) +3 • Barrier Effects of Structures: The structures themselves will block about half the traffic noise along the west wall of Buildings 1,2 and 3 and along the east wall of Buildings 4, 5 and 6. This will reduce the noise levels from the contoured (free field) values by 3 dBA. 3 401 a0 Noise reductions along the internal driveway will vary from 3'dBA near the front, increasing to about 5 dBA near the common recreational area as barrier effects increase. The resulting future noise levels (Ldn) at the outside walls of the structures within-the 60 dBA - contour(free field) are shown on Figure 1 for each structural level. Values for other points along'-- - these walls can be interpolated or extrapolated from the values shown. - :. b. Outside Activity Areas The future noise level at the westerly boundary of the common recreational area without the proposed structures is 62.9 dBA. The proposed structures will reduce the sound pressure level at -this point in half which results in a noise level of 59.9 dBA,just within the standard of 60 dBA (Ldn). Noise levels in the central and easterly portions of the common recreational area will be less, generally in the range of 55 to 59 dBA with.the lowest levels being close to the north wall of Building 1 where barrier effects are at a maximum : .`4.;Mitigation-Measures ;2L Interior Noise Levels - = --- Standard mitigation measures are provided on pages 1�and 1-5 of the Acoustical Design Manual (copies of pages are enclosed) of the Noise Element for 5 dB increments beginning at 60 dBA.- =_The application of these measures can be determined by comparing the values shown on Figure 1 for each-structural level to the requirements for the increments in the Design Manual b. Outside Activity Areas _Future noise levels in the common recreational area are expected to remain within the requirements = of the City's Noise Element,and no mitigation measures are required. Should you have any questions please call me at 528-2187. The Noise•Element was only recently.. .adopted, and some clarifications may be required as we gain experience in implementing its requirements. Sincerely, Donald O.Asquith 4 x-29 5. Is the outdoor activity area sloped or not at approximately the same grade as the noise source(with the exception of aircraft noise)? C. Standardized Mitigation Packages = The following or a suitable alternative approved by the Building Official shall be required when the future noise;exposure is as shown. Interior Mitigation . . _ _.. ., 1. 60 -65 dB Ldn/CNEL - - --- - a. Air conditioning or a mechanical ventilation system > b. Windows acid sliding glass doors mounted in low air infiltration rate frames (0.5 efm or less, per ANSI specifications) _ C. Solid core exterior doors with perimeter weather stripping and thieshoId seals'' 2:__:-: 65-70 dB Ldn/CNEL —= -- _ a.-- Same as-No: la-c . b. Exterior walls consist of stucco or brick veneer. ' wood siding with'a 12": minimum thickness fiberboard ('soundboard')underlayer may also be used. . c: Glass in both windows and doors should not exceed 20% of the floor area tri a-, room. y d. Roof or attic vents facing the noise source should be baffled (see Appendix C in Acoustical Design Manual for an example of a suitable vent treatment)... e. For aircraft noise exposure, same as a-d plus: 1) Fireplaces should be fitted with tight-fitting dampers and glass doors." 2) Solid sheeting with a minimum thickness of 112' should underlay roofing materials. 3) Sky lights should not'be allowed in occupied rooms. 3. 70-75 dB Ldn/CNEL a. Same as No. 2a-e , b. The interior sheetrock of exterior wall assemblies should be attached.to studs by resilient channels. Staggered studs or double walls are acceptable alternatives. INIRODUMON PART II, NoisF- ELEmENr aBNPLAN\v9201141-PLN Acous-ncAL Dssi N MANUAL �-30 C. Window assemblies should have a laboratory-tested STC rating of 30 or greater. (Windows that provide superior noise reduction capability and that are laboratory-tested are sometimes called 'sound-rated'windows. In general,these windows have thicker glass and/or increased air space between panes. In - - contrast, standard energy-conservation double-pane glazing with an 1/8'or 1/4' air space may be less effective in reducing noise from some noise sources than _- -single-pane glazing). d. For aircraft noise eiposure, same as 3a-c, plus: - .... - 1) Fireplaces should not be allowed. __ -_ 2) Solid sheeting with a minimum thickness of 12' should underlay roofing _ materials. . =--• - - 3) Ceilings should be attached to joists by resilient channels. 4) Skylights should not be allowed in occupied rooms. PArr II, NOISE F-LEmENr 1-5 INTRODUCTION AcousncAL DFstcN MANuAL cENPtrw1v9201141.PLN TMSTOPOGRAPHIC MAP SERVICE (605) 5414-0280 440 Country Club Drtve, San Luls CNWLW , CA 93401 Steve a Franit, RCE 30412 SUBDIVIDER ' S STATEMENT This proposed subdivision comes to you as a resubmittal of Tentative Tract No . 2112. For reasons beyond my compre- hension, a 10-unit residential subdivision was denied by the City Council. The owner wishes to create an 8-unit planned development on a 0. 475 acre parcel located at 684 Foothill Boulevard . The property is zoned R-4 and no changes are requested nor required. The proposed project is being simultaneously submitted for ARC approval .The proposed commonly held , privately held and recreational areas are shown on the tentative tract map. We are not requesting any exceptions from standard subdivision design criteria. All structures are to be removed. The two major trees on the site are to remain. After demolition of the existing improvements , very little grading will be required to the site. Copies of the topographic map are attached showing retaining wall locations and heights. Steven Frank, RCE 30412 111EEnNG AGENDA DATE ffm#__a�___ draft MINUTES - CITY PLANNING COMMISSIQN City of San Luis Obispo 4C1A!CA0 OUNCIL CDD DIR March 9, 1994 AO 13 FIN DIR D FIRE CHIEF PRESENTCommrs. Gilbert Hoffman, Dodie Williams, Brett Cross, � dsoPOLICE CHF and Chairman Barry Karleskint GMTTEAM ❑ REC DIR ❑ C READ FILE ❑ UTIL DIR ABSENT: Commrs. Mary Whittlesey and Charles Senn 1' _ ❑ PERS DIR OTHERS PRESENT: Arnold Jonas, Community Development Director; Diane Wright, outgoing Recording Secretary; and Laura Murphy, incoming Recording Secretary PUBLIC COMMENT: There were no public comments. MINUTES: The minutes of the regular meeting of January 12, 1994 were approved as amended and the minutes of the regular meeting of February 9, 1994 and the special meeting of January 19, 1994 were approved as submitted. Item 1. Tract 10-94 (County File No: Tract 21541. Consideration of a tentative map to create an eight-unit residential condominium (planned unit development); 680 Foothill Boulevard; R-4 zone; Richard H. Porter, subdivider. Arnold Jonas presented the staff report and said the Commission had previously considered the item and recommended approval to the City Council, but the Council had denied the application after considerable public comment. He explained the site plan had been revised and the project had been scaled down in height and reduced from 10 units to 8 units. He said staff was recommending that the Commission recommend approval of the tentative map to the City Council. Chairman Karleskint opened the public hearing. Mark Rosen, 1088 Higuera Street, applicant's representative, said the project had been revised to address the concerns of the neighbors. He explained the project had been scaled down from 12 three-story units to 8 two-story units which complied with zoning height and setback requirements. . In answer to a question by Commr. Cross, Mark Rossen said the current design was similar to the first design which had been reviewed by the Planning Commission, including the height scaled back and with fewer units which provided private back yards and two car garages. IVIE MAR 3 0 1994 CITY CLERK P.C. Minutes March 9, 1994 Page 2 a Commr. Cross said he preferred the design the Commission.previously recommended to the Council. He expressed concern about the driveways splitting up the project. Commr. Karleskint said density and height were previous concerns. Commr. Williams moved to recommend to the City Council approval of the tentative map subject to findings and conditions. Commr. Cross seconded the motion. VOTING: AYES - Commrs. Williams, Cross, Hoffman, Sigurdson and Karleskint NOES - None ABSENT - ' Commrs. Whittlesey and Senn The motion passed. COMMENT AND DISCUSSION Arnold Jonas said there was-nothing scheduled on the agenda for the"next meetingand he asked the Commission to consider cancelling the next meeting. Commr. Cross said the Commission had a list of issues that it wished to consider such as neighborhood shopping centers and the Neighborhood-Commercial zone. He said the items could be discussed when meetings are light Arnold Jonas suggested getting together with Chairman Karleskint to address items on the work list. The Commission agreed to cancel the next regularly scheduled meeting by consensus. Arnold Jonas said that a suggestion had been received to allow the Commission to use the voting machine. He explained it would require changing the names on the wall. He asked if the Commission was interested in using the voting machine. The Commission indicated by consensus that it did not want to use the voting machine. Arnold Jonas advised that the City Council had continued the second batch of Zoning Ordinance Amendments to the first City Council meeting in April. In answer to a question by Commr. Hoffman, Arnold Jonas said the next batch of Zoning Ordinance Amendments, entitled the Neighborhood Enhancement Ordinance, would probably be coming before the Commission in a few months. He said it included concerns such as parking on front lawns.