The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About01/21/2003, PH2 - REVIEW OF A PROPOSED NINE-UNIT RESIDENTIAL PROJECT WITH PD ZONING, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP, ENVIRONMENT councit M.&°°� j ac,En6a 12Epoizt Item N=ba CITY O F SAN LUIS 0 B I S P 0 FROM: John Mandeville,Community Development Diree Prepared By: Michael Codron,Associate Planner SUBJECT: REVIEW OF A PROPOSED NINE-UNIT RESIDENTIAL PROJECT WITH PD ZONING, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP, ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW AND REQUESTED FINANCIAL INCENTIVES FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING; 3301 ROCKVIEW(PD/TR/ER 155-02). CAO RECOMMENDATION 1. Adopt a resolution approving the proposed tentative tract map and mitigated negative declaration, as recommended by the Planning Commission, and approving financial incentives for the project in the amount $41,957, per the city's Affordable Housing Incentives Ordinance, to be allocated from the Affordable Housing Fund. 2. As recommended by the Planning Commission, introduce an ordinance approving the proposed Planned Development(PD) zoning. REPORT-IN-BRIEF The applicant is proposing to develop a condominium project with 9 two-bedroom dwellings on a hillside location in the R-2 zone (Attachment 1). The applicant has requested approval of PD zoning, a tentative tract map, and environmental review. The Planning Commission is recommending that the Council approve the project and Mitigated Negative Declaration, based on findings and subject to conditions of approval. 22% of the proposed dwellings (2 of 9) are proposed to be affordable to moderate income households. This exceeds the City's Inclusionary Housing Requirement by one unit and the applicant has requested financial incentives from the City. Staff is recommending approval of incentives, consistent with the City's Affordable Housing Incentives Ordinance, to be allocated from the Affordable Housing Fund, but for a lesser amount than requested by the applicant. DISCUSSION Situation/Previous Review The City has received a request for Planned Development (PD) zoning and a tentative subdivision map for a condominium project with 9 two-bedroom dwellings. Two of the nine units proposed would be affordable to moderate income households through a contract of affordability with the City and the applicant has requested financial incentives, per Chapter 17.90 of the Municipal Code (Attachment 5). As part of the project, the applicant is proposing to dedicate approximately 3 acres of open space land to the City for preservation of unique plant resources located on the hillside above the project site. The project was reviewed by the Planning Commission on December 4, 2002. The Commission recommended that the City 1 Council Agenda Report TR, PD, ER 155-02 (Rockview Close) Page 2 Council approve the project on a 5-0 vote (Caruso and Boswell absent, Attachment 3). The Architectural Review Commission reviewed the project on December 16, 2002 and granted final approval to the proposed building designs on a 4-0 vote (Howard, Boudreau, and Schultz absent), subject to Council approval of the requested PD rezoning and tentative map approval (Attachment 4). Data Summary Address: 3301 Rockview Place Applicant/Property Owner: J.H. Edwards Company Representative: EDA, Inc. (Mike Hodge) Zoning: R-2 (Medium Density Residential) General Plan: Medium Density Residential Environmental status: A Mitigated Negative . Declaration was recommended by the Community Development Director on 11-19-02 Site Description The project site is located at the southeastern edge of the South Street Hills, along the upslope side of Rockview Place. The project is bordered by open space to the west and south. A new apartment project is presently being developed across Rockview Place, to the east of the project site. A residential neighborhood with mixed single-family and multi-family development is located on Rockview Place to the north of the project site. The location is characterized by steep slopes and a sparsely vegetated hillside marked by serpentine rock formations and outcroppings. The site is close to the Rockview/Broad Street intersection, and to commercial services along Broad Street such as the Brickyard, Crossroads Center and Marigold Center. Proiect Description The project is a Planned Development (PD) rezoning and tentative tract map to subdivide an existing 4.41 acre site into eleven lots with development to include 9 two-bedroom condominium units. Six of the units would be attached and three are detached. On-site parking is provided for 24 vehicles. The project is located on a steep hillside and foundations will include continuous and spread foundations, anchored in subsurface rock. Caisons may be used where the rock is too deep to use a conventional foundation design. Seven of the units would be accessed via a private driveway, which would have a slope of 15% or less. Two of the units would have garage access directly from Rockview Place. The project site includes 1.48 acres of land zoned for residential development and 2.94 acres of land zoned Conservation/Open Space. The Open Space land is proposed to be dedicated, in-fee, to the City to insure the protection of unique plant resources in this area. Two of the proposed units would be developed under a long-term affordability agreement with the City. �i �a Council Agenda Report - TR, PD, ER 155-02 (Rockview Close) Page 3 Evaluation PD rezoning is reserved for projects that provide exceptional benefits to the residents of the project or to the City as a whole. In order to approve Planned Development zoning for the project, the City Council must find that the project meets one or more of the six findings listed in Section 17.62.040 of the Zoning Regulations. The Planning Commission is recommending that the Council make three of the six findings (see Attachment 11, Section 1). Specifically, the project transfers allowable development from the most environmentally sensitive areas on the project site, to the least sensitive areas. This is because the proposed improvements are pushed towards the street, as recommended by Land Use Element Policy 6.2.2.E, keeping people and buildings away from the hillside area where unique plant resources have been identified. The project also provides more affordable housing than would normally be possible because the project exceeds the Inclusionary Housing Requirement by one unit. Finally, the project provides exceptional public benefits because a large area of environmentally sensitive open space will be dedicated to the City. This fee dedication is supported by General Plan policy, which states that the City should pursue fee ownership of land that contains delicate habitat requiring monitoring and enforcement (Open Space Element Policy 15.2.13; GP Digest). The open space area that would be dedicated to the City is also desirable because it is contiguous to another sensitive open space area that will be dedicated to the City as part of the Damon Garcia Sports Fields project. Development Specifics The attached Planning Commission Agenda Report includes a detailed evaluation of the components of the proposed development, including an evaluation of relevant General Plan policies (Attachment 3). The table below provides a synopsis of the project's physical characteristics,with requested exceptions in bold under the Project Proposal column. Project Feature Zoning Standard Project Proposal Density R-2 Zone (Slope between 21 9 units/1.5 acres= and 25%) =4 units per acre 6 units per acre plus a 25% density bonus. entitlement for qualifying proj ects Parking 2 per unit plus 1 guest,space 24 parking spaces are per 5 units = 20 total spaces provided, including 6 guest required. spaces. Setbacks 20 ft. street yards 16 ft. street yards for Unit 5 ft. side yards, min. #3 and #4. Units#8 has a 5 ft. side yard where 11.5' is standard. Otherwise all setbacks meet standard. Building Height 35 ft. max. All units meet standard. a� 3 Council Agenda Report TR, PD, ER 155-02 (Rockview Close) Page 4 The proposed density exception is permitted by the Zoning Regulations (Municipal Code Chapter 17.16.010, Table 1), provided findings are made that the parcel in question "is essentially surrounded by development at least as dense as the proposed development." The proposed density of development was supported by both the Planning Commission and ARC. At six units per acre, the project site would be developed at a lesser density than the apartments presently being constructed across Rockview and the Ridge Point Condominiums, also across Rockview. Three condominium projects located on 3003, 3023, and 3045 Rockview are all developed at 12 units per acre, and the 3045 Rockview project also received an exception to the slope-rated density reduction. Two lots immediately adjacent to the project site at 3291 and 3295 Rockview are developed with single-family homes at the equivalent density of 3.5 units per acre, but are likely to be redeveloped at a greater density in the future, consistent with the pattern of recent development in the neighborhood. The ARC and the Planning Commission also supported the proposed setback exceptions described in the table above. The reduced street yards for Units #3 and #4 involve a small amount of floor area and should be considered minor exceptions. The side yard exception was supported because the building will not have solar shading impacts on the adjacent property, due to its orientation and location adjacent to the hillside. Affordable Housing Proposal and Requested Financial Incentives The applicant has submitted a request for financial incentives, consistent with Chapter 17.90 of the Municipal Code (Affordable Housing Incentives, Attachment 5). Affordable Housing Incentives work in conjunction with the City's Inclusionary Housing Requirement to encourage the development of affordable housing. This project qualifies for incentives, even though one of the units is provided in order to satisfy the Inclusionary Housing Requirement. When a developer agrees to construct at least twenty percent of the units otherwise allowable under the zoning regulations for moderate income households, the developer is entitled to a density bonus of 25% and is eligible to receive at least one of several development incentives described in Section 17.90.050.B of the Affordable Housing Incentives. This project qualifies for incentives because 22% (2 of 9) of the dwellings will be sold to moderate income households through a long-term affordability agreement with the City. The developer is not asking for a density bonus and has submitted an alternative proposal for consideration by the council, as provided for by Section 17.90.050.A. of the Affordable Housing Incentives. The applicant's proposal for financial incentives are detailed in the fee waiver request and financial pro-forma, provided for the Council in the Council Reading File. The request includes the following items for an estimated financial value of $68,403. The staff recommendation is for approval of a lesser value, $41,597, as discussed further in this evaluation. Applicant's Requested Financial Incentives 1. Waiver of all impact fees, building and public works related fees for the affordable units. (Estimated value = $18,000.) 2. Waiver of all parkland in-lieu fee for the entire project. (Value=$24,234.) Q - 4 Council Agenda Report TR, PD, ER 155-02 (Rockview Close) Page 5 3. Elimination of the requirement to construct sidewalks along the project frontage, or City funding of those off-site improvements. (Value=$12,500.) 4. Refund of application fees paid as related to the market rate housing units. (Value = $13,469.) 5. Waiver of any fees related to the demolition of the existing residences. (Value= $200) In the past several years, the City has adopted separate resolutions that automatically provide financial incentives for affordable dwellings. Council Resolution No. 8415 provides a waiver of all Planning Application Fees and Water Meter Installation Fees for affordable units, whether or not they are provided to satisfy the Inclusionary Housing Requirement (Attachment 6). This incentive has a value of $4,727. Council Resolution No. 9131 only applies to affordable dwellings provided in excess of the Inclusionary Housing Requirement and exempts those additional affordable dwelling units from all City-wide impacts fees (Attachment 7). This exemption represents a value of $12,306 to the developer. The total value of the entitled incentives is $17,033. Staff has considered the value of the proposed affordable dwelling units to the City as part of formulating a recommendation on the incentive request. The applicant has the ability to meet the City's Inclusionary Housing Ordinance in a number of ways. The applicant could: pay an in-lieu fee, convert existing market-rate rental units to affordable units, or donate land to the City for the purpose of developing affordable housing. In this case, the applicant is going to build two affordable dwellings units to sell to moderate income households, which exceeds the Inclusionary Housing Requirement by one unit. Staff believes that this method of compliance represents the greatest value to the City because it will immediately add new housing stock to the City that is affordable. It is important to note that this project would be the fust to build units for-sale under the City's Inclusionary Housing Requirement. The only other private, for-profit, development projects in the City that have built for-sale affordable housing units are the DeVaul Ranch projects and the Villa Rosa project, which are all much larger and preceded the City's Inclusionary Housing Ordinance. In general, the inclusion of affordable units in small, in-fill projects will help the City achieve its goal of developing mixed-income neighborhoods and housing rather than housing that is segregated by economic status(Housing Element Goal 4.1.1, GP Digest). Staff is recommending approval of a portion of the proposed incentives, including waiving all impact fees, building and public works related fees for both affordable dwellings (Value = $18,000), and waiver of park-land in-lieu fees for the two affordable units (Value= $6,924). The total value of the incentive package recommended by staff is equivalent to $24,924. This amount would be in addition to the entitled incentives of$17,033, for a total City subsidy of$41,957. When incorporated into the applicant's financial pro-forma, the proposed incentive package would raise the rate of return on the project from 10% (with no incentives granted) to 10.7%. Therefore, the proposed incentives contribute in a meaningful way to the financial feasibility of the project and will add two for-sale units to the City's stock of affordable housing. If the applicant's incentive request were granted in total, the expected rate of return on the project would be approximately 12%. Council Agenda Report TR, PD, ER 155-02 (Rockview Close) Page 6 Eligibilityfor Affordable Housing Funds Council Resolution No. 9263 (Attachment 8) established criteria for allocating money from the City's Affordable Housing Fund. There are six requirements contained in the resolution and the proposed project meets each of requirements, as detailed in Section 4 of the recommended resolution (Attachment 10). If financial incentives are approved by the Council, staff is recommending that the incentives be awarded from the Affordable Housing Fund because the project meets the Council established criteria and use of these funds would reduce the fiscal impact of the project to the City's General Fund. CONCURRENCES The project has been reviewed by the Public Works, Utilities, Finance, Fire, and Police Departments and the Natural Resources Manager. Comments have been incorporated into the recommendation as conditions of approval and code requirements as appropriate. The Airport Land Use Commission has determined that the project is consistent with the Airport Land Use Plan. The City's Finance Director has reviewed the proposed incentive request and concurs with the staff recommendation, including the use of the Affordable Housing Fund. FISCAL IMPACT When the General Plan was prepared, it was accompanied by a fiscal impact analysis, which found that overall the General Plan was fiscally balanced. Accordingly, since the proposed project is consistent with the General Plan, it has a neutral fiscal impact. As discussed in the body of this report, an award from the Inclusionary Housing Fund would reduce the amount of General Fund moneys necessary to the support the proposed incentive request. The fiscal impact of past Council resolutions that encourage affordable housing was evaluated at the time those resolutions were approved. In general, the exemption of affordable housing from certain fees has an impact on the General Fund, but that impact has been determined to be acceptable with respect to the overarching need for affordable housing in this community. ALTERNATIVES 1. Deny the proposed project, or approve the project with a modified project description. 2. Continue consideration of the project and provide direction to staff if new or additional information is necessary to make a final decision on the project. Attachments: Attachment 1: Vicinity map Attachment 2: Reduced Scale Project Plans Attachment 3: Planning Commission Agenda Report with Action Letter and Meeting Minutes Attachment 4: Architectural Review Commission Action Letter and Meeting Minutes Attachment 5: Municipal Code Chapter 17.90 (Affordable Housing Incentives) �' 1P t Council Agenda Report TR, PD, ER 155-02 (Rockview Close) Page 7 Attachment 6: Council Resolution No. 8415 (Misc. fee waivers for affordable housing) Attachment 7: Council Resolution No. 9131 (Impact fee waivers for affordable housing) Attachment 8: Council Resolution No. 9263 (Criteria for allocating Affordable Housing funds) Attachment 9: Initial Study of Environmental Impact with attachments Attachment 10: Draft Resolution as recommended by the Planning Commission and staff Attachment 11: Draft PD Ordinance as recommended by the Planning Commission and staff Attachment 12: Alternative Draft Resolution to deny the proposed project Council Reading File: Applicant's Fee Waiver Request and Project Financial Pro-Forma Umcodron/counciV3301 Rockview(155-02).doc IIIIINIIIIIIINI� ��M 7� I� ' � ' , nnmmw�� n pnnnk" 7 �I iE $ c jY s yl � V ! 1•j ! f j ;si 19 "zu� �eB t k W }3. 6 � q�9� Fp€ 11$ y!Y yx 555¢@l: ®... z ?fpi.Y QFp FE��BYiF �� ffgn Eiji h$s I 01113 I`'�:, pfi l ./ / / � t I I aF$Eea59eaecie�8ifitifi int p y at I` eg \ 'c ......... 1 9 1 19p s �gI it I `k;u._ ��t .Lp: � � 118 L,fI I I �,;� \ 1 ' I Y •• O Poll111 �gi✓;� ;,;��; \ \ 1..` /tea / � •' // � q WON IR \\ 6e`.,, '�i," 5. co Attachment 2 .. ................... Ot 7_4 F T5. ,BE LYlt J12 j sa Alta ao , Q k W w � � S � tl A• s 9� I 1 / 1 I I I I X q. I • 8 s .t. " P It Q / II 3 I 1 L Q F LL Z• \ \\ I —i — ,�/^ r A�e• I iii Ii O U Y � �� I '1 II \\ \eV jI♦ EQ. `�\`\ I � I� °� I � ///}TT'�� g 06 U 4 � I W �� 1 •� U `y8[i�e 0•F� \ _ 1 � I) � II Q�e tip I 1 I r?I I 1 1 v I..L 1 1 1 I_ 11 1 \ q N \ 1 I 1 1 1 1 Vf � • s F ^' a s _ 4 `I I� 1 k" `� , �0 1` — i—Vi./� i IpiF � 55 g kik fn Ci n 3 9 E i -s gF 1 � B S � i 'v ? "s \pst•--- \`\1 1\ it I � i `\ IR IIS CN N { 1 I II l J t I V I elf p}x ` Y Syi�ys 3E = a u q R \ I11 W 3 3io a 06 to Y�'i_Yd 4E'Y ^ -�Io y FBS i =c�?ggsg$g vg-geB99 �E�.�pA pppY7Y�4ci 944s Sg r4-sa�.;:�''3a9c t,2.°60�3tla 30 �djx 3y 4a�R3a d9�e" _g"be 30�i 3su a � � �" ,1 � W :achment 2 �� N 4A1/ + +1 MT. , , +{i+i S � N E L L Mho C: LL4 ^tsio _ _ LL LL ..�..� H O , , \ N \ O O CN '1 L N E gip. _ AttachmQ ent 2 °Nue } a) a) p"ae ee 4=e e$ CL I I I � I � � I � I � I I s t t � I I 4 _ �j�Lsae — — — — _ i —. — .— — — Q • I 1 ; U a4 — — — i `-- — — — — l I I 1 � N O0 N i al,s Attachment 2 y - �• l / rZ r (on u - 47 A . . 7C3 y P .XV.. y •• �� 5 ry � � h � � �WE l i _ � a fit.� ��\ ♦ J r.. ? ♦r C _ O lArsS •r.,I �' Ir 3 �'k.•. lEe g [ 14 1 ,]j _ r 8°v • gBb o I ` ilW D U m9ag � _^� yvy�P 6 t€ IB ■ U F-�I C7 .0 ■ w I I 1 3 5 5 F yC GG GC yG 6 J sya _ y W d0 " �L)_ N r, O M[ ,J L ea' JC C X11 S aD a� a 'fill� �x t � t y �7-•` I IRA[ +' I i �t Illllllllilllllll � IlAllr 11111111111 �� ®® 1 i IIIIM`►11111111 -�- �� 11111111. 111111 • �� 1 i.■■■■■■■■■■■I s4�� ttt� � • ' Ilk It � 1 wx _ • a .rte • s CN co Ic 0 CN 0 C4 C14 CN 10 ON 01 N N O� 0U') � n Cl) �I 10 �� N 10 ^ H 01 N O 10 Cl P N N Q) J `o C W Vf ^ J N Z t= / N Q C U o Q J J N J W W Q Q (7 0 LUH Z Up 0 'w^^ ° < m J O o O V O V ui Q \ LU LULU LU o CL L, 3Z p� CLF a� LU o \ a ate. L O \ _O \ LL 0 0 u �-- o C/) o a O 0 U CSV CV O m IF,€ t u Q) n —V � u V () C • 6 O H2 }(L toa yCO N C w. p � > i t ^Y: � V O LW z � o J C) 70 N \ a o qK ..� •to C� C)Lu Vrl � QQ GzQ ° 3\ UWCL ° O Q 4-.0 Attachment 3 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT ITEM#2 BY: Michael Codron, Associate Planner(781-7175) MEETING DATE: December 4, 2002 FROM: Ron Whisenand, Deputy Director- Development Reviecl FILE NUMBER: TR, ER 155-02 PROJECT ADDRESS: 3301 Rockview SUBJECT: Review of Planned Development zoning, tentative tract map and Mitigated Negative Declaration for a proposed nine-unit residential project. SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION Recommend approval of the proposed Planned Development rezoning, tentative tract map and Mitigated Negative Declaration to the City Council, based on findings and subject to conditions of approval. BACKGROUND Situation The City has received a Planning Application for a proposed nine-unit Planned Development. PD zoning is requested in order to allow for variable setbacks and the proposed density of approximately 6 units per acre in this hillside location.. As part of the project, two of the proposed units would be developed under a long-term affordability agreement with the City, exceeding the Inclusionary Housing Requirement by one unit. The applicant has requested financial incentives for providing the additional affordable unit, as provided for in the Zoning Regulations (Chapter 17.90 Affordable Housing Incentives). The request for incentives will be considered by the City Council during their review of the project. The applicant is also proposing to make a fee or easement dedication of approximately 3 acres of open space to the City, which will help the City preserve unique botanical resources that are present on the hillside. The Planning Commission is being asked to make a recommendation oil the proposed PD zoning, tentative tract map and Mitigated Negative Declaration to the City Council. The Architectural Review Commission will consider the proposed development plan and building design on December 16, 2002. Data Summary Address: 3301 Rockview Applicant/Property Owner: J.H. Edwards Co. Representative: Engineering Development Associates, Inc. (Mike Hodge) Existing Zoning: R-2-S (Medium Density Residential —Special Considerations) General Plan: Medium Density Residential Environmental Status: A Mitigated Negative Declaration was recommended by the Community Development Director on November 20, 2002. Attachment TR, ER 155-02 (3301 Rockview) Page 2 Site Description The project site is located at the southeastern edge of the South Street Hills, along the upslope side of Rockview Place. The project is bordered by open space to the west and south. A new apartment project is presently being developed across Rockview Place, to the east of the project site. A residential neighborhood with mixed single-family and multi-family development is located on Rockview Place to the north of the project site. The location is characterized by steep slopes and a sparsely vegetated hillside marked by serpentine rock formations and outcroppings. The site is close to the Rockview/Broad Street intersection, and to commercial services along Broad Street such as the Brickyard, Crossroads Center and Marigold Center. Proiect Description The project is a Planned Development (PD) rezoning and tentative tract map to subdivide an existing 4.41 acre site into eleven lots with development to include 9 two-bedroom condominium units. Six of the units would be attached and three are detached. On-site parking is provided for 24 vehicles. The project is located on a steep hillside and foundations will include continuous and spread foundations, anchored in subsurface rock. Caisons may be used where the rock is too deep to use a conventional foundation design. Seven of the units would be accessed via a private driveway, which would have a slope of 15% or less. Two of the units would have garage access directly from Rockview Place. The project site includes 1.48 acres of land zoned for residential development and 2.94 acres of land zoned Conservation/Open Space. The Open Space land is proposed to be dedicated, in-fee, to the City to insure the protection of unique plant resources in this area. Two of the proposed units would be developed under a long-term affordability agreement with the City. EVALUATION The following evaluation is intended to provide a framework for the Planning Commission to discuss the project. Staff has evaluated the project with respect to consistency with the City's General Plan and with all of the development related codes, including the Zoning Regulations and Subdivision Regulations. In addition to Chapter 17.16 of the Zoning Regulations (Property Development Standards), this project is subject to the requirements contained in Chapter 17.82.140 of the Zoning Regulations (Property Improvement Standards for New Condominium Projects, Attachment 3). The Planning Commission should consider each of the following issue areas when formulating a recommendation on the project to the City Council. 1. Subdivision Design and Property Development Standards The subdivision is designed to take advantage of an existing driveway that serves two single- family homes on the project site. The proposed driveway and turn-around would be accessible to emergency access vehicles and an on-site fire hydrant is proposed, as required by the Fire Code. The width of the driveway would be at least 20 feet, allowing for two-way traffic, but no parking would be allowed along the drive other than in designated guest parking spaces. Garages are -1 Attachment 3 TR, ER 155-02 (3301 Rockview) Page 3 bordered by peninsula planters and other types of landscape planters that are of sufficient size to provide for canopy tree planting. The driveway entrance to the project will be a street type entrance. A four-foot high chain-link fence is proposed above the driveway to catch falling rocks, a concern noted in the soils engineering report for the project. The project site sits above Rockview Place on a steep slope. The proposed buildings would be graded into the hillside above Rockview and would be perched above the street. The setbacks from Rockview vary to add interest to the elevation and to avoid continuous wall and building planes. The slope below the buildings would be landscaped and held with a new retaining wall. The site sections provided with the project plans show how the grading conforms to the hillside, consistent with General Plan policies for hillside development. The subdivision is a type of Common Interest Development called a Planned-Unit Development (PUD). PUDs are similar to condominiums except that the lots are separated by real property lines and the owners within the project would have a separate interest in the land between their property lines. Owners would also have a partial interest in Lot 10, which includes the driveway and common open space area above the driveway. PD zoning is usually required with this type of subdivision because setbacks, lot coverage and density can vary widely. All of the buildings on the project site would be developed with reduced side yard setbacks, which are normally required to be at least 5 feet. Density and Slope In the R-2 (Medium Density) residential zone, the maximum number of dwelling units per acre is 12. In this case, the maximum allowable development is reduced because of the slope of the project site (Zoning Regulations, Chapter 17.16.010). The average cross-slope for the project site has been calculated by staff and by the project engineer to be between 21% and 25%, reducing the allowable density to 4 units per acre. The project site includes approximately 1.5 acres of R-2 zoned land, which would allow for the development of six two-bedroom dwellings. The applicant has requested approval of an exception to the slope-rated density reduction as part of the PD to allow for development of 9 two-bedroom units, which is equivalent to a density of 6 units per acre. PROJECT DENSITY Lot Size Slope Allowable Development Proposed Development 1.5 acres 21%-25% 1.5 acres x 4 units/acre = 9 2-bedroom units= 6 density units 9 density units Attachment 3 TR,ER 155-02 (3301 Rockview) Page 4 The proposed density exception is permitted by the Zoning Regulations (Chapter 17.16.010 Table 1), provided findings are made that the parcel in question "is essentially surrounded by development at least as dense as the proposed development." At six units per acre, the project site would be developed with less density than the apartments presently being constructed across Rockview and the Ridge Point Condominiums, also across Rockview. Both of those project sites include steep slopes and both are developed at approximately 12 units per acre. Three condominium projects located on 3003, 3023, and 3045 Rockview are all developed at 12 units per acre, and the 3045 Rockview project received a similar exception to the slope-rated density reduction. Two lots immediately adjacent to the project site at 3291 and 3295 Rockview are developed with single-family homes at the equivalent density of 3.5 units per acre, but are likely to be redeveloped at a greater density in the future. Staff supports the proposed density of development because all of the recent development projects that border the site have been developed at a higher density, and because of prior density exceptions that have been granted by the City in this neighborhood. Staff also supports the exception because the additional density allowed by the PD is providing for the development of two affordable units on-site (as well as one additional market rate dwelling). The applicant could meet the Inclusionary Housing Requirement by paying an in-lieu fee, but has-been encouraged by Staff to build the proposed affordable dwellings on-site. Given the exception, the project would have a density equivalent to 6 units per acre, which is half of what would normally be allowed on a flat site of the same area. Setbacks Street yard reductions are proposed for Lots #3 and #4. The street yard exceptions are clearly noted on Sheet Al of the project plans and involve a small, triangular portion of the buildings. The proposed setback is 16 feet, where normally 20 feet would be required. The total area of each building that encroaches into the required street yard is well under 100 square feet. This type of exception is permitted by the Zoning Regulations because the exception is not for a garage. Units#1 and #2, with garages that exit directly on Rockview, both have 20 foot setbacks as required by code. Side yard exceptions are required in most PUD developments because real property lines are established, providing individual ownership of each lot. Three of the units are attached and have no setback between buildings. Other side yard setbacks are limited to three feet, allowing for openings such as windows and doors. Although side yard setbacks are normally required to be at least five feet, the requirement would not further the design or livability of the project, and such exceptions are typical in PUD style developments. A side-yard exception to an exterior property line is proposed for Unit #8. In this case, the 5-foot minimum required yard is maintained, but the height of the building (27') would normally require an 11.5 foot setback. This exception should be considered minor because the adjacent property is open space and solar access to residential land would not be impacted by the exception. a �� Attachment 3 TR, ER 155-02 (3301 Rockview) Page 5 Parking Parking on the project site is provided primarily in two-car garages. Unit #2 will have a single- car garage and a dedicated uncovered parking space. There are also five uncovered "guest" parking spaces provided off of the driveway, for a total of 23 parking spaces. The total parking requirement for the project is 20 spaces (2 spaces per dwelling, plus 1 space per five dwellings for guest parking). Two of the proposed parking spaces are for compact cars, which would not normally be allowed. Staff supports the proposed compact spaces because they are not required parking spaces, but will help to alleviate parking shortages that may occur on Rockview Place. Rockview is only a 40-foot wide right-of-way and on-street parking will be prohibited along the project frontage to insure adequate street width for emergency vehicle access. Since on-street parking will not be available immediately in front of the project site, it makes sense to allow for more vehicle parking on the project site. Bike parking, at the rate of two bikes per unit, will be satisfied through dedicated bicycle parking areas in the garages. Common and Private Open Space Common open space and private open space are required to be provided by the City's Property Development Standards for New Condominium Projects (Chapter 17.82.140 of the Zoning Regulations). These standards require each unit to have a minimum of 250 square feet of private open space, and 500 square feet of common open space per unit for a total of 4500 square feet of common open space. Common open space areas are not necessarily accessible for recreation, but must be outside of required yard areas. This project meets these standards through a combination of decks, patios, terraces and hillside open space. Each unit is provided with at least the minimum required private open space, and the common open space portion of Lot 410 far exceeds the 4,500 square foot requirement. 2. General Plan Consistency In order to rezone the property and approve the proposed subdivision, the City Council must find that the project is consistent with the General Plan. The following is an analysis of General Plan policies that pertain to the proposed development. Land Use Element (LUE) Goal 31 - Grow gradually outward from its historic center until its ultimate boundaries are reached, maintaining a compact urban form. The project helps the City achieve this goal by proposing a plan for development at increased density, reducing pressure for the City to expand to provide residential capacity. At 6 units per acre, the project site would be intensified, but would still be less dense than is typical for other development in the vicinity. The project site is within the City's 1994 City Limits and is considered in-fill development for the purposes of planning and water allocation. g-aa Attachment 3 TR, ER 155-02 (3301 Rockview) Page 6 LUE Policy 2.2.12: Residential Project Objectives - Residential projects should provide: A) Privacy,for occupants and neighbors of the project; Each unit of the project has individual decks that are immediately accessible from the unit, but some of the decks appear to present privacy conflicts. For instance, the kitchen for Unit 96 looks across to the deck of Unit 95. The living room of Unit #7 looks out to the deck of Unit#6. These potential overlook and privacy issues can be dealt with through the Architectural Review process for the project, by requiring specific window placement and fencing treatments. The project is developed away from buildings on adjacent lots and will not impact the privacy of neighbors. B) Adequate usable outdoor area, sheltered from noise and prevailing winds, and oriented to receive light and sunshine; C) Use of natural ventilation, sunlight, and shade to make indoor and outdoor spaces comfortable with minimum mechanical support; D) Pleasant views from and toward the project; H) Noise and visual separation from adjacent roads and commercial uses. The project provides adequate usable outdoor area by complying with the City's requirements for private outdoor space. As discussed in the environmental document, the project is outside of any noise contour area that would require additional sound attenuation measures. The orientation of the project is more of a response to the hillside condition than solar access, but the most of the decks will have good solar exposure. Staff is recommending that skylights be incorporated into the building design to improve natural day-lighting of interior spaces. The views from the project are of both the Santa Lucia foothills and out towards Islay Hill and the Edna Valley. The project is well designed and will provide a pleasant accent to the hillside, without significantly obstructing the views of the South Street Hills. Broad Street will be visible from most of the units, but would constitute a small portion of the viewshed. E) Security and safety; F) Separate paths for vehicles and for people; and bike paths along collector streets; At 20 feet wide, the driveway is large enough to accommodate both vehicles and pedestrians, however, the project plans do not delineate a separate path for pedestrians. Because driveway width is physically limited by the hillside, staff is recommending that decorative paving be used on one or both sides of the driveway to help define pedestrian paths, without requiring a deeper cut into the hillside to accommodate a separate sidewalk. One appropriate treatment for the the pedestrian defined area would be stamped and colored concrete. G) Adequate parking and storage space; As discussed previously, the project provides parking in excess of City requirements. Staff is also recommending a condition of approval to insure that garage use is maximized on the project site. Storage opportunities are available with shelving along the sides of the garages and within the living space of each unit. �.a3 Attachment 3 TR, ER 155-02 (3301 Rockview) Page 7 I) Design elements that facilitate neighborhood interaction, such as front porches, front yards along streets,and entryways facing public walkways. Because of the hillside location, this policy is difficult to implement, but one aspect of the project that is appealing is the fact that Units #1 and #2 will have garages and front doors that face Rockview. This will be an amenity of the project and will soften the overall appearance of the Rockview streetscape, which would otherwise be entirely separated from the public street. .17 Buffers from hazardous materials transport routes, as recommended by the City Fire Department. The City Fire Marshall has reviewed the proposed project for compliance with this standard and raised no concerns. LUE Policy 6.2.2 Hillside. Development Standards — Development including buildings, driveways, fences and graded yard areas on hillside parcels shall: A) Be entirely with the urban reserve line or development limit line, whichever is more restrictive. The project is an intensification of a previously developed site and is completely within the City's Urban Reserve. B) Keep a low profile and conform to the natural slopes. The grading plan for the project involves a significant amount of cutting into the hillside to lower the profile of the overall building mass. However, the building design itself is not particularly low profile, as there is no floor area on the upper floor plan that extends out over the living rooms. This provides the living rooms with very high ceilings and a nice open floor plan, but also increases building massing. Overall, the project still maintains a low profile because the buildings do not silhouette the skyline when viewed from the Broad Street perspective. Views of the South Street Hills ridges are maintained. The proposed building will be a matter for the Architectural Review Commission to consider, and the Planning Commission should provide input to that process fa lower profile building design is preferred. C) Avoid large, continuous walls or roof surfaces, or prominent foundation walls, poles or columns. The project provides staggered setbacks along Rockview to avoid continuous walls and to reduce the prominence of the foundation stem walls. Landscaping along the slope at the base of the buildings will also help to soften the view toward the project. �r� Attachment 3 TR, ER 155-02 (3301 Rockview) Page 8 D) Minimize grading of roads. The project will make use of the existing driveway to provide access to seven of the proposed units. One additional cut will be made in the hillside to provide access to garages for two other units. E) Minimize grading on individual lots; generally, located house close to the street; minimize the grading of visible driveways.. The project minimizes grading and re-contouring significantly by cutting much of the living area into the hillside. This reduces the overall profile of the development and satisfies the recommendations of the soils engineering report by removing a large quantity of undocumented fill dirt that is located over the building area. The houses are pushed close to the street, in order to avoid cutting into the hillside at the rear of the site for the driveway. F) Include planting that is compatible with native hillside vegetation and that provides a visual transition from developed to open areas; The project landscape plan will be reviewed by the Architectural Review Commission for consistency with this standard. In general, new planting will be discouraged on the hillside behind the project to protect existing resources in this area. The final landscape plan will be reviewed by the Natural Resources Manager. G) Use materials, colors, and textures that blend with the natural landscape and avoid high constrasts; Colors and materials for the project are compatible earthen tones. The Architectural Review Commission will approve the color selection, consistent with this General Plan policy. H) Minimize exterior lighting. As a small-scale residential project exterior lighting will be minimal. Exterior lighting will be reviewed by the Architectural Review Commission for consistency with this policy. Housing Element Policy 7.2.2: Location of Infill Housing Within established neighborhoods, infill housing should be located on appropriate sites, but not on sites designated in the General plan for parks, open space, or similar uses of neighborhood importance. The project site is designated for medium density residential development and is currently developed with two small homes, well under the site's potential. The project site presents a good infill opportunity, and there are few remaining sites in the City with similar infill potential. Attachment 3 TR, ER 155-02 (3301 Rockview) Page 9 3. Affordable Housing The City's Inclusionary Housing Requirement for the project can be satisfied through the payment of an in-lieu fee, the development of one affordable dwelling unit (ADU) on-site, the conversion of one market rate unit to an ADU, or through the dedication of land to be used for the development of affordable housing. The applicant is proposing to build two ADU on the project site. Staff has encouraged the applicant to meet the City's affordable housing requirement by building the required ADU on-site, and to offer the unit for sale, as opposed to renting it. Staff has also encouraged the provision of an additional ADU because the required Planned Development findings encourage the development of affordable housing. By providing an additional affordable dwelling over the requirement, the applicant also qualifies for financial incentives per Chapter 17.90 of the Zoning Regulations. The applicant's request for incentives. will be considered by the City Council during their review of the project.. The proposed ADU's are located on Lots #1 and #2 and both have two-bedroom floor plans. Although the full-scale project plans .show a one-bedroom and a two-bedroom floor plan, the applicant has revised those plans so that both units have two-bedroom floor plans and an equivalent amount of floor area to the market-rate units. The Planning Commission should consider the following General Plan policy with respect to the applicant's affordable housing proposal. H 4.2.2 Apartments and Condominium Projects (GP Digest) Within apartment or condominium projects incorporating both market-rate and affordable units, the unit types should be intermixed and the affordable units should not stand out as being special or inferior. Although the units are not intermixed, they will not stand out to neighbors or residents of the project, or to the occupants of those dwellings, as being special or inferior. There are differences.. One of the units will have only a one-car garage, which is a physical limitation of the site and is a trade-off for the second bedroom. Also, the affordable units will not have views that are as spectacular as the homes that are located farther up the hill. Staff believes that these are minor differences that do not make the affordable units inferior. The sales prices for affordable two- bedroom dwellings is presently $162,900, which is an affordable price for moderate income families. The applicant has clearly indicatedthat he could not afford to build the second affordable dwelling unit if it were required to be placed farther up the hill, because of the value of those view lots. Staff has had an opportunity to review the applicant's financial pro-forma and concurs with the .applicant on this issue based on the proposed sales prices of the view lots. Overall, staff strongly supports the proposal and believes that the intent of this General Plan policy is clearly met. n �� Attachment 3 TR, ER 155-02 (3301 Rockview) Page 10 4. Grading. Drainage and Utilities Grading for the project is basically limited to the cuts required for the foundations and the removal of undocumented fill that is identified in the soils engineering report. Grading will also be done to widen the driveway and to provide a level building area for Lot #9. Overall, 4200 cubic yards of dirt will be removed from the project site. Staff is recommending condition of approval that will require the applicant to detail the disposal location for the dirt in the required construction materials recycling plan, which is reviewed and approved by the City's Solid Waste Coordinator. Drainage from the developed portions of the project site will be conveyed to the City's storm drain system through the use of gutters and drains. The soils engineering report for the project identifies erosion of exposed soils as a major concern. As a result; a mitigation measure is recommended to insure that concentrated water flows are not released onto the slope above Rockview. Landscaping of this slope is also required to bind the soils and prevent erosion from rainwater. The Public Works Department has accepted the proposed drainage plan on a preliminary basis, but additional detail will need to be provided prior to permit issuance to insure compliance with City codes. In particular, new concentrated water flows will not be allowed to be released over property lines. Drainage from the hillside is proposed to be diverted from the developed portion of the site with a new concrete lined drainage swale. If the applicant can show through a hydrological analysis that this system will not increase overland water flows on the adjacent property, then the proposed design could work. However, the applicant may be required to convey all of the water that is collected into the storm drain system instead of releasing it, as proposed. Use of an earthen swale may be a better approach because it would allow for some of the water to percolate, reducing the concentration of water at the property line. The applicant would like to use an earthen swale, if possible. These details of the plan will be evaluated as part of the Public Works Department's review of the final map, and conditions of approval are recommended to insure compliance with City standards. Utilities for the project site, including gas, cable TV, electricity, water and sewer, will be provided underground. Specific recommendations for the proposed sewer lateral system were not made in the soils engineering report, and must be addressed in the final report. The Public Works and Utilities Departments have indicated that the proposed system would work, but the locations of the sewer laterals must be carefully plotted to insure that there are no conflicts with the geo-grid supports for the retaining walls for the slope above Rockview. These are details that are typically considered with the final project design, and the Public Works Department has accepted the preliminary utilities plan, subject to recommended conditions of approval. 5. Subdivision Findings and Planned Development Findings In order to approve the proposed tentative map, the Subdivision Map Act requires that the City Council make specific findings with respect to several issue areas. The required findings address Attachment 3 TR, ER 155-02 (3301 Rockview) Page 11 General Plan consistency, the suitability of the project site for the proposed type and density of development, and the suitability of the project with respect to potential environmental impacts. Each of the required findings are included in the recommended Planning Commission Resolution (Attachment 5), and are expanded to address this particular project. In order to approve Planned Development zoning for the project, the City Council must find that the project meets one or more of the findings listed in Section 17.62.040 of the Zoning Regulations. Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission make three of the six findings. Specifically, the project transfers allowable development from the most environmentally sensitive areas on the project site, to the least sensitive areas. This is because the proposed improvements are pushed towards the street, as recommended by Land Use Element Policy 6.2.2.E, keeping people and buildings away from the hillside area where unique plant resources have been identified. The project also provides more affordable housing than would be normally be possible because the project exceeds the Inclusionary Housing Requirement by one unit. Finally, the project provides exceptional public benefits because a large area of environmentally sensitive open space will be dedicated to the City. This fee dedication is supported by General Plan policy, which states that the City should pursue fee ownership of land that contain delicate habitat requiring monitoring and enforcement (Open Space Element Policy 15.2.13; GP Digest). The open space area that would be dedicated to the City is also desirable because it is contiguous to another sensitive open space area that is anticipated to be dedicated to City as part of the Damon Garcia Sports Fields project. Attachment 5, Section 2, includes a complete list of the findings recommended by staff in support of the proposed Planned Development zoning. 6. Environmental Review The Community Development Director has recommended a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project. The environmental document is attached to this staff report (Attachment 4). Staff identified potentially significant effects of the project in the areas of air quality, geology/soils, and hydrology. Many of the project's potential impacts are addressed by existing ordinances, such as the City's new Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Program. Air Ought The Air Pollution Control District has new standards for construction projects that may encounter naturally occurring asbestos in rock and native soils. A mitigation measure is recommended to insure that the applicant contacts APCD and prepares the appropriate plans for possible asbestos dust during grading and construction activities.. The applicant must contact the APCD prior to submitting a building permit application for the project.. Staff will monitor this requirement through contact with APCD staff. a�2� Attachment TR, ER 155-02 (3301 Rockview) Page 12 Biology The Natural Resources Manager has stated that some California Native Plant Society List 1B plants (rare and endangered in California and elsewhere) may be found on the cut slope above the driveway for the site. The Open Space element defines such listed species as unique resources, and says that they should be preserved and maintained in a natural state (OS Policy 6.2.3, GP Digest). At least one such species (Dudleya blochmaniae) has been found; and two others (Calochortus obispoensis and Chorizanthe breweri) are to be expected. In order to protect these rare plants and their habitat, the Natural Resources Manager strongly suggests that the City accept the applicant's offer of dedication. The area of dedication is specifically defined as Lot 11 on the tentative map. According to the Natural Resources Manager, the dedication of this land (either in fee or by easement) fully mitigates the potential impacts of the project because the proposed development area is not as suitable for these species as the upslope areas on the site. In addition, none of these sensitive plants have been found on the lower portions of the project site. Geology/Soils The soils engineering report for the project identifies undocumented fill dirt across the development area and makes specific recommendations for building pads, foundations, retaining walls, and erosion. Specifically, all building foundations will be required to be anchored in rock to insure slope stability and to. avoid differential settlement. A mitigation measure is recommended to insure that the recommendations of the report are incorporated into the project design, to the approval of the Chief Building Official. This mitigation measure is monitored through the review of plans submitted with the building permit application. Some Planning Commissioners and residents of the neighborhood may remember a landslide that occurred on the project site approximately five years ago. This event is noted in the soils engineering report for the project and the report concludes that shallow landslides have occurred on the faces of cut slopes, but that no landslides have been detected in areas of natural slopes. The City issued a permit in 1998 to build reform the hillside adjacent to Rockview and to build the existing retaining wall. At the time of the slide there was no retaining wall in this location. The recommendations of the soils engineering report, together with the proposed mitigation measure, will insure that the new slope bank is properly compacted and retained to avoid any slope instability in this location in the future. Hydrolo�y Concerns with hydrology relate to the potential for erosion to occur on the slope bank above Rockview and below the developed portion of the site. A mitigation measure is recommended to prohibit the release of concentrated run-off on this slope. Landscaping also required to prevent erosion and loss of top soil on this slope. �r a , - Attachment 3 TR, ER 155-02 (3301 Rockview) Page 13 REFERRALS The project proposal was routed to various City departments and other interested agencies such as the Air Pollution Control District and utility companies. Comments received have been incorporated as conditions of approval where appropriate. ALTERNATIVES 1. Recommend denial of the project. This action should be based on the findings from the Subdivision Map Act listed in the body of the report under the heading "Required Findings." 2. Continue the project with direction to the applicant and staff on changes to the project or additional information necessary to support approval of the project. Attachments: Attachment 1: Vicinity Map Attachment 2: Reduced Size Development Plan Attachment 3: Property Improvement Standards for New Condominium Subdivisions (SLOMC 17.82.140) Attachment 4: Initial Study of Environmental Impact and Mitigated Negative Declaration Attachment 5: Draft Planning Commission Resolution with findings and conditions as recommended by staff Included: Project plans with exhibits relating to proposed plan revisions ar Attachment 3 �Illl IIIA cityo san tulSO' BISPO 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 December 6, 2002 J.H. Edwards Co. P.O. Box 6070 Los Osos, CA 93412 SUBJECT: TR, PD and ER 155-02: 3301 Rockview Place Request to create a 9-unit planned development with variable setbacks, and environmental review Dear Mr. Edwards: The Planning Commission, at its meeting of December 4, 2002, recommended that the City Council adopt the mitigated negative declaration of environmental impact, and approve the 9-unit planned development project with exceptions, based on findings and subject to conditions and code requirements noted in the attached resolution. The Planning Commission also forwarded a recommendation to the Architectural Review Commission to consider reducing the height of Unit #7. 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 January 21, 2003. This date, however, should be verified with the City Clerk's office at (805) 781-7102. If you have any questions, please contact Michael Codron at (805) 781-7175. Sincerely, cc: SLO County Assessor's Office Ro ald Whisenand EDA Deputy Community Development Director Mike Hodge Development Review 1998 Santa Barbara Avenue San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Fletta Faustino Attachment: Resolution No. 5354-02 3301 Rockview Place SLO, A 93401 © The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services, programs and activities. L Telecommunications Device for the Deaf(805) 781-7410. Attachment 3 RESOLUTION NO. 5354m-02 A RESOLUTION OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REZONING, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON 3301 ROCKVIEW PLACE TR/ER 155-02 (Tract 2502) WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted public hearings in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on December 4, 2002 for the purpose of considering Application PD/TR/ER 155-02, a Planned Unit Development with 9 two-bedroom dwellings; and WHEREAS, said public hearing was for the purpose of formulating and forwarding recommendations to the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo regarding the project; and WHEREAS, notices of said public hearing were made at the time and in the manner required by law; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed and considered the Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impact and the mitigation monitoring program prepared for the project; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has duly considered all evidence, including the testimony of the applicant, interested parties, and the evaluation and recommendations by staff, presented at said hearing. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: Section 1. Subdivision Findings. Based upon all the evidence, the Commission makes the following findings: 1. The proposed map is consistent with the General Plan because the subdivision will provide for medium density residential development in a manner consistent with the Hillside Development Standards of Land Use Element Policy 6.2.2. 2. As conditioned, the design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is consistent with the General Plan because each dwelling has access to a compact, private open space area and the development will occur as part of the neighborhood pattern anticipated for the medium density residential zone. 3. The site is physically suited for the proposed type of development because the soils engineering report has concluded that the site can support the proposed improvements, provided the recommendations of the report are followed 4. As conditioned, the site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development because the site is within an existing City block and is essentially surrounded by a�3� Planning Commission Resolution#5354-02 Attachment .3 PD/TR/ER 155-02 (3301 Rockview) development that is at least as intense as proposed. New development in this area is occurring with a density of 12 units per acre, and due to the steepness of the slopes on the project site, the proposed density of development is kept at 6 units per acre. 5. The design of the subdivision, or the type of improvements, is not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and unavoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat because the site does not have any creeks or other potentially significant habitat areas for fish or wildlife and the unique plant resources on the project site are going to be protected through a fee dedication of open space land to the City. 6. The design of the subdivision, or type of improvements, is not likely to cause serious public health problems because the type of improvements are residential and development will be designed to meet existing building and safety codes. 7. The design of the subdivision, or the type of improvements, will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, property within the proposed subdivision because no such easements exist. 8. The Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project adequately identifies and evaluates the potential impacts associated with this project and where impacts are potentially significant, mitigation measures are provided to reduce these impacts to less than significant levels. Section 2. Planned Development Findings. Based upon all the evidence, the Commission makes the following findings in support of Planned Development zoning for the project site: 1. The project design transfers allowable development, within a site, from areas of greater environmental sensitivity or hazard to areas of less sensitivity or hazard because the proposed buildings are moved closer to the street, as required by Land Use Element Policy 6.2.2.E, thereby avoiding putting people and development closer to Lot 11 and the hillside areas at the back of the project site where unique plant resources have been identified. 2. The project provides more affordable housing than would be possible with conventional development because the applicant is providing two affordable dwelling units, where the City's Inclusionary Housing Requirement only requires the development of one such unit. 3. The project provides exceptional public benefits because a large area of environmentally sensitive open space (Lot 11) will be dedicated to the City, insuring the preservation of unique plant resources that have been identified upslope from the development area. The proposed fee dedication is consistent with Open Space Element Policy 15.2.13 (GP Digest) because it will allow the City to monitor and enforce restrictions in this habitat area. Section 3. Environmental Review. The Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project, with the following mitigation measures and monitoring program. a,-33 Planning Commission Resurution#5354-02 Attachment $ PD/TR/ER 155-02 (3301 Rockview) 1. Mitigation: The applicant shall contact the Air Pollution Control District prior to submitting a building permit application for the project and shall comply with all requirements of the Asbestos ATCM, to the approval of APCD and the Community Development Director. • Monitoring Program: City staff will contact staff at the Air Pollution Control District to ensure that the applicant has complied with this mitigation measure at the time of building permit application submittal. 2. Mitieation: All recommendations of the Soils Engineering and Engineering Geology Report (soils report), prepared by Earth Systems Pacific, September 11, 2002, shall be implemented as part of the development of the project improvements where applicable, to the approval of the Chief Building Official.. • Monitoring Program: Plans submitted with the building permit application for the project will be reviewed with respect to the recommendations included in the report, and City staff shall require the applicant to implement the recommendations of the report through the plan check process. 3. Mitigation: No new concentrated water flows are to be released down slope from the developed portions of the site. • Monitoring Program: The City will evaluate plans submitted with the building permit application for the project to insure incorporation of drains and gutters, and to insure that no surface gutters or swales are designed to dispose over grade on any steep slopes on the site. 4. Mitigation: The project shall employ small-scale Best Management Practices, such as listed in the handout attached to this initial study, wherever soil is disturbed. Soil disruption is anticipated to occur during construction of the road, extension of utilities, and with removal and recompaction of undocumented fill on the site. Soil disruption will also occur during construction of foundations for proposed buildings. • Monitoring Program: This mitigation measure will be monitored through the review of plans submitted with the building permit application for the project, including the project landscape plans. If an early grading plan is issued, special care shall be taken to insure that disturbed areas that are not intended to be reworked within 30 days are hydro-seeded or stabilized in another approved manner to prevent erosion,in addition to other erosion control measures. Section 4. Recommendation. The Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council approval of application PD/TR/ER 155-02, subject to the following conditions and code requirements. a� 34 ` Planning Commission Res�nution#5354-02 Attachment 3 -- PD/TR/ER 155-02 (3301 Rockview) 1. Skylights shall be incorporated into the proposed building designs to insure maximum use of natural day-lighting in indoor areas. 2. A pedestrian pathway shall be delineated within the proposed 20-foot wide driveway so that vehicles are more aware of people walking along the driveway. The pathway may be delineated with stamped, colored concrete, or other method to the approval of the Community Development Director. 3. The project Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions shall include a requirement that garages be kept available for parking of vehicles at all times, and shall not be used for general storage: 4. All mitigation measures are hereby made conditions of approval of the project. 5. The applicant shall detail the disposal location for excess dirt removed during grading operations in the required construction materials recycling plan, which is reviewed and approved by the City's Solid Waste Coordinator. 6. The applicant shall use an earthen swale instead of a concrete swale above the driveway for drainage, unless the hydrology analysis for the project shows that an earthen swale is not feasible. 7. The final map for the project shall reflect an Irrevocable Offer of Dedication for Lot 11, or an Easement Offer of Dedication, per the applicant's project description, to the approval of the Public Works Director and the Natural Resources Manager. 8. The private driveway will be clearly marked and identified as a fire lane. Parking on Rockview Place will be limited do to the required 20' width required for fire apparatus access. 9. Curb parking shall be prohibited between the project's access driveway and the south end of the individual driveway serving Unit B. 10. The subdivider shall dedicate a 2m wide public utility easement across the Rockview Place frontage and the common driveway, to the satisfaction of the utility companies. 11. The subdivider shall dedicate a minimum 3m wide street tree easement across the Rockview Place frontage. Said easement shall be adjacent to and contiguous with the public right-of-way. The street tree easement width shall be adjusted as necessary to provide adequate street tree clearances from the top of the existing and/or proposed retaining walls. 12. Curb, gutter, sidewalk, and street improvements shall be completed per city standards as a condition of final map approval. Curb and gutter shall be placed to conform to the existing. The sidewalk shall be constructed to the base of the existing retaining wall and shall not be less than 1.5m (5') in width, inclusive of the curb. Sidewalk extensions per ADA and City standards shall be provided at all driveway approaches. Pedestrian access dedications shall be provided for all sidewalks where extended beyond the public right- of-way. 0'2` Planning Commission Resik. . don#5354-02 � ._� Attachment 3 PD/TR/ER 155-02 (3301 Rockview) 13. The existing retaining wall drain outlet locations shall be identified on the improvement plans and shall terminate at an approved location, to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director. New retaining walls shall include drainage provisions accordingly. 14: The proposed new retaining wall along the street frontage shall terminate within the subject property, unless an offsite easement is acquired to transition the grading and/or retaining wall beyond the tract boundary. Grading and/or slope bank stabilization beyond the end of sidewalk shall be approved to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director and as recommended by the soils engineer. Since that adjoining property lies within unincorporated land, approval by the County Building Department must be submitted. 15. The public sewer main in Rockview Place shall be extended further to serve Lots 1 through 9, to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director and Utilities Director.. Individual laterals for Lots 1 through 5 shall be provided. A common private main/lateral to serve Lots 6 through 9 shall be constructed (probably between Lots 6 & 7) and maintained by the Homeowner's Association (HOA), within an easement. The private sewer laterals shall include analysis of soil stability and incorporate recommendations from the soils engineer. 16. Rockview Sewer lift station charges may be required to be paid prior to building permit issuance for the new dwellings. 17. All utilities serving the existing dwellings. shall be abandoned to the satisfaction of the city. 18. The demolition of the existing buildings triggers the Utilities Department Sewer Lateral Abandonment Policy. This policy states that the sewer lateral must be abandoned at the main prior to demolition unless the lateral is intended for reuse and it passes a video inspection. If the sewer lateral is intended for reuse, the owner shall submit a VHS videotape documenting the internal condition of the pipe to the Utilities Department for approval. 19. The subdivider shall place underground, all existing overhead utilities along the public street frontage to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director and utility companies. The existing terminal (Pac Bell) utility pole with street light#908 shall be replaced with a city standard street light. Power to the new street light shall be served by an underground service, per City standards. The street light location shall be placed with consideration for available sidewalk width and disabled access requirements. The existing phone and cable services shall be placed underground from the next service pole to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director and serving utility companies. 20. Separate utilities, including water, sewer, gas, electricity, telephone, and cable TV shall be served to each parcel to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director and serving utility companies. Utilities to new residences shall be underground. 21. The final map shall include any required public or private easements as required for the proposed development of the tract. Easements may include, but are not limited to, grading, drainage, water, sewer, storm drainage, access, vehicle turn-around, and utilities. oti Planning Commission Resu ution# 5354-02 _ Attachment 3 PD/TR/ER 155-02 (3301 Rockview) Any maintenance or common driveway agreements shall be completed and recorded concurrent with final map approval, presumably in the tract CC&Rs. 22. All lots shall be graded to preclude cross-lot drainage, or, appropriate easements and drainage facilities shall be provided, to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director. 23. Improved or diverted upslope drainage shall be directed in a non-erosive manner to an approved point of disposal. Any needed off-site easements shall be secured prior to map recordation. Otherwise, the final drainage system design shall direct runoff to the public street. If it is discovered that the existing terrace drainage has a historic outlet to the easterly offsite property, level spreaders may be considered for approval by the Public Works Director and project soils engineer to re-establish sheet flow beyond the building pads. 24. Improvement and building plans shall include a complete grading and drainage plan and appropriate calculations. The grading plan shall include existing and proposed contours to clearly depict the proposed grading and drainage for this development. 25. Final alignment and design of the rock barrier fence and drainage swale shall be approved to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director. 26. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66474.9(b)(1), the subdivider shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the city or its agents, officers and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding against the city or it agents, officers or employees to attack, set aside, void or annul an approval of the city, advisory agency, appeal board or legislative body concerning this subdivision. The city shall promptly notify the subdivider of any claim, action or proceeding and shall cooperate fully in the defense. 27. The CC&R's for the project shall include a restriction to prohibit residents from accessing the open space area above the project site (Lot 11), except by way of an approved City trailhead. Code Requirements: 27. A water allocation is required, due to the additional demand on the City's water supplies. The City currently has water to allocate, and does so on a "first-come, first-served" basis. Water is allocated at the time building permits are issued and the Water Impact Fee is paid. Both the Water and the Wastewater Impact Fees are based on a per residential unit basis. 28. By ordinance, the applicant is required to prepare a recycling plan for approval by the City to address the recycling of construction waste for projects valued at over$50,000 or demolition of structures over 1000 square feet. The recycling plan shall be submitted to the Building Department with the building plans. The City's Solid Waste Coordinator can provide some guidance in the preparation of an appropriate recycling plan. 29. The tentative map indicates a single meter will be replaced with two water meters. This may or may not be possible, depending on the size of the water service and the sizes of the proposed water meters. Generally, the water meters will need to be a minimum of 1" Planning Commission Res__jtion#5354-02 Attachment 3 PD/TR/ER 155-02 (3301 Rockview) in order to provide sufficient flow to fire sprinklers. The water service must be 2" in order to serve two I" water meters. 30. The tentative map shows a new 6" water service serving 7 water meters. This is not allowed. Up to four 1" water meters can be served by a single 2" water service. The tentative map shall be revised to show two separate 2" services, with up to four 1" water meters on each manifold. Mapping and Misc. Requirements 31. Complete public improvement plans including a street improvement and curb grade plan, prepared by a registered civil engineer, shall be submitted to the Public Works Director for review and approval. All grades, layout, staking and cut-sheets necessary for the construction of street paving and frontage improvements shall be the responsibility of the developer. 32. The subdivider shall submit a final map to the city for review, approval, and recordation. The map shall be prepared by, or under the supervision of a registered civil engineer or licensed land surveyor. The final map shall be prepared in accordance with the Subdivision Map Act and the Subdivision Regulations. 33. The map shall be tied to at least two points of the City's horizontal control network, California State Plane Coordinate System, Zone 5 (1991.35 epoch adjustment of the North American Datum of 1983 also referred to as "NAD 83" - meters) for direct import into the Geographic Information System (GIS) database. Submit this data either via email, CD or a 3-1/2" floppy disc containing the appropriate data for use with AutoCAD, version 2000 or earlier (model space in real world coordinates, NAD 83 - m). If you have any questions regarding format, please call prior to submitting electronic data. 34. The final map, public improvement plans and specifications shall use the International System of Units (metric system). The English System of Units may be used on the final map where necessary (e.g. - all record data shall be entered on the map in the record units, metric translations should be in parenthesis), to the approval of the City Engineer. 35. Electronic files and stamped and signed drawings shall be submitted for all public improvement plans prior to map recordation or commencing with improvements, whichever occurs first. Submittal documents shall include the electronic drawing files (.dwg) and any associated plot files along with one original, stamped and signed, ink on mylar set of plans. 36. Prior to acceptance by the City of public improvements, the developer's engineer shall submit a digital version of all public improvement plans and record drawings, compatible with AutoCAD (Digital Interchange Format, DXF) for Geographic Information System (GIS) purposes, to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director. On motion by Commr. Cooper, seconded by Commr. Loh, and on the following roll call vote to wit: dCr 31 Planning Commission Re..-,ution#5354-02 Attachment PD/TR/ER 155-02 (3301 Rockview) AYES: Commrs. Christianson, Aiken, Cooper, Loh, Osborne NOES: None REFRAIN: None ABSENT: Commrs. Bosewell and Caruso The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 4`h day of December, 2002. Rona Whisenand,Secretary Planning Commission Attachment 3 DRAFT SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 4, 2002 CALL TO ORDER/PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: The San Luis Obispo Planning Commission was called to order at 7:03 p.m. on Wednesday, December 4, 2002, in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California. ROLL CALL: Present: Commissioners Carlyn Christianson, Jim Aiken, Allan Cooper, Orval Osborne, and Chairwoman Alice Loh. Absent: Commissioners Michael Boswell and James Caruso. Staff: Associate Planners Lynn Azevedo, Michael Codron, Deputy Community Development Director Ronald Whisenand, Assistant City Attorney Gil Trujillo Transportation Planner Terry Sanville, and Recording Secretary Irene Pierce. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 2. 3301 Rockview Place. TR, PD and ER 155-02; Request to create a 9-unit planned development with variable setbacks, and environmental review; R-2-S zone; J.H. Edwards, applicant. Associate Planner Michael Codron presented the staff report recommending the Commission recommend approval of the proposed Planned Development rezoning, tentative tract map and Mitigated Negative Declaration to the City Council, based on findings and subject to conditions. Commr. Cooper questioned why an archeological study was not done. Planner Codron replied the development area of the project is an area that has already been previously developed and greatly disturbed. Commr. Cooper noted there is mention of a street tree planting program along Rockview and questioned if this is an absolute requirement for this program. Planner Codron replied it is a City standard that any development project requires street trees at the discretion of the City Arborist. Jeff Edwards, J.H. Edwards Co., presented a brief presentation on the project and noted concurrence with the recommended conditions of approval. He stated they would welcome using Oak trees as the street tree for this project. '241) - _ Attachment 3 Draft Planning Commission N., _.les Excerpt- Item 2: December 4, 2002 Page 2 Commr. Cooper noted a statement in the Planning Commission Resolution that curb — side parking shall be prohibited between the project's access driveway on the south end of the initial driveway serving Unit B. He asked if they would be amenable to have this noted in the CC & R's. Mr. Edwards replied this would not be a problem. Planner Codron noted there would be a red curb along Rockview Place in that location. Commr. Cooper commented on the proposed 4-foot high chain link fence to catch falling rocks and asked if there is another way to do this. Mr. Edwards responded the recommendations for this have come from the GEO Technical Analysis, which determines the relative size and velocity of rock that might. fall. Commr. Christianson expressed a concern on the aesthetics portion of the environmental checklist, and noted there is no discussion on open space policies and the Circulation Element, regarding roads traveled by scenic development. Mr. Edwards felt aesthetics are present with this design. Planner Codron explained the areas of high scenic value are Islay Hill, Santa Lucia Foothills, and out towards Edna Valley. He noted this site would be graded down. Chairwoman Loh expressed a concern with lot 7, and felt the building is too high. Dennis Shalherger, SLO, explained most of these units have a lower level so they step down the slope. Donald Avery, Project Architect, explained unit 7 is the corner unit and the lower floor is below the level of the garage. Chairwoman Loh felt that even the lower floor is too high. Mr. Avery explained that it would be difficult to lower the garage, which is related to the driveway elevation, and noted they could not have lowered it into the grade without creating a conflict. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Art Murphy, 2974 Rockview Place, stated he strongly supports projects such as this. MaryBeth Schroeder, 2085 Wilding Lane, commented that she is familiar with what Rockview Place used to look like and expressed support for this project. Martin Holman, 329 Rockview, expressed concerns regarding the number of the variances and exceptions that are proposed. a� �A Attachment 3 Draft Planning Commission Mt, es Excerpt- Item 2: December 4, 2002 Page 3 Planner Codron clarified that the density of the project site that is proposed is six units per acre; the development across the street is 12 units per acre and should be half as dense. He noted the 275-foot elevation marks the boundary between the R-2 residential zone and the Conservation/Open Space zone. He commented about the people going up the hill and explained it is a conservation easement so it would not be a recreation area and suggested a statement be made in the CC& R's that could address this. He stated the property development standards that are contained in the Zoning Regulations for condominiums require private open space for each unit.. There were no further comments made from the public. COMMISSION COMMENTS: Commr. Christianson noted an error in the Environmental Checklist that refers to Highway 101, which is meant to read Highway 227. Assistant City Attorney Gil Trujillo interjected that he would like to propose a condition 36, which is a standard condition, included in all subdivision maps regarding indemnity. He offered some language that states, "Pursuant to Government Code Section 66474.9 Subdivision B, the subdividers shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City and or its agents, officers, and employees from any claim/action or proceeding against the City and or its agents, officers, or employees to attack, set aside, void or annul the approval by the City of the subdivision and all actions relating thereto including but not limited to environmental review. Commr. Cooper moved to recommend approval of the proposed planned development rezoning and tentative tract map and Mitigated Negative Declaration to the City Council based on _findings and subject to conditions of approval, and with the following amendments: have a specific reference made under Section 2, Planned Development Findings to lot 11 in both numbers 1 and 3 that refer to project design transfers allowable development in a site from areas of greater environmental sensitivity i.e. lot 11, and under 3 the proiect provide exceptional public benefits because a large area.of the environmental sensitive open space i.e. lot 11 to make clear, and under Section 4 the Resolution under 9 that a reference be made to the .proiect conditions covenant restrictions shall require curb parking be prohibited, which should be stated in the CC & R's, and include condition 36 as stated, and to reconsider the heights of the buildings where possible. Planner Codron suggested they add a condition _.that the CC&R's also indicate that people are not allowed to go up the hill. The motion maker and seconder concurred on the added motion. �r`ca Attachment 4 �il�lllll�lllll�ll��;� ��11111111 IIIIIIIII . III city of sAn lui s OBISIIV slime990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 December 18, 2002 Jeff F4wards J.H. Edwards Co. P.O. Bax 6070 Los Osos, CA 93412 SUBJECT: ARC 155-02: 3301 Rockview Pl. Review of a proposed 9-unit planned development project Dear Jeff Edwards: The Architectural Review Commission, at its meeting of December 16, 2002, granted final approval to the design of the proposed buildings and site improvements,based on the following findings and subject to the following conditions: Findings: 1. The proposed house designs are architecturally compatible with the project site and with the neighborhood because the building foundations and facades are stepped to conform to the hillside and design elements such as wood trellises, carriage style garage doors, and compatible hillside colors integrate the buildings with the site and with structures on adjacent properties. 2. The project is consistent with General Plan policies for Hillside Development because the foundations and building forms conform to the hillside and much of the lower floor area of the buildings is below the driveway. Conditions: 1. The landscape plan for the project shall be revised with a focus on creating a transition between the developed portions of the project site and the open space areas beyond. Alternative tree and plant species to consider include Holly Oak, instead of Tan Bark Oak, Black Wood Acacia, and California Pepper. Additional shrubs to consider include Pacific Wax Myrtle and Buckwheat. 2. A four-foot wide pedestrian path shall be delineated with colored concrete along the building side of the driveway, to the approval of the Community Development Director. 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)781-741o. ARC 192-01 and 193-61 Attachment 4 Page 2 3. This approval shall not go into effect unless and until the City Council approves the requested PD rezoning and tentative tract map for the project. 4. Rail pickets at the balconies shall have a large enough dimension to provide presence. The decision of the Commission is final unless appealed to the City Council within 10 days of the actin. While the City's water allocation regulations are in effect, the Architectural Review Commission's approval expires after three years if construction has not started, unless the Commission designated a different time period. On request, the Community Development Director may grant a single one-year extension. If you have questions, please contact Michael Codron at 781-7175. Sincerely, Ron d Whisenand Deputy Community Development Director Development Review cc: County of SLO Assessor's Office Mike Hodge EDA P.O. Box 1829 San Luis Obispo, CA 93406 Fletta Faustino 3301 Rockview Place San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Rl r 11'`f ' Attachment 4 EXCERPT- DRAFT SAN LUIS OBISPO ARCHITECTUAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 16, 2002 ROLL CALL: Present: Commissioners Allen Root, Jim Lopes, David Smith, Rob Schultz and Chairperson Charles Stevenson. Absent: Commissioners Michael Boudreau and Zeljka Howard Note: Vice-Chair Schultz was not present for Item 2. Staff: Associate Planners Michael Codron and Pam Ricci and Recording Secretary Irene Pierce. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1. 3301 Rockview Place. ARC 155-02; Review of a proposed 9-unit planned development project; R-2-S zone; J.H. Edwards, Co., applicant. Associate Planner Michael Codron presented the staff report recommending approval of the design of the proposed buildings and site improvements, based on findings and subject to conditions of approval. Chairperson Stevenson asked if this would be one building face. Planner Codron replied yes, and explained there is a plate at the bottom that would be extruded, which has a tile cap. Chairperson Stevenson asked if they would install heavy landscaping to help obscure the height of the wall. Planner Codron replied yes, and explained the balconies have doors that open, but they are not true balconies. Commr. Lopes asked where the landscape setback is located along the wall on Rockview Place. Planner Codron replied the original plans did not show the sidewalk, but felt it should be addressed. Commr. Smith felt the ground is too dry for a Sycamore tree. 5'4 At- Planner Codron responded there was no sub- Fay water found in the Soils Engineering Report that would have an impact on geology or the stability of the foundations. He mentioned they could have a landscape architect evaluate the ability of a Sycamore to do well on that hillside. ' Draft ARC Minutes Attachnierd 4 Excerpt Item 2— December 16, 2002 Page 2 Jeff Edwards, applicant, explained he has incorporated some changes into the project such as converting unit 2 into a two car garage because it was one parking space short, and breaking the dimension of the building. He mentioned there would be landscaping to provide additional visual buffer. Mike Hodge, EDA, Inc., noted the existing wall should be connected and extend down the street to the end of the project so they could remain in that alignment and provide a landscape buffer. Mr. Edwards stated they would consult with a landscape architect to discuss the Sycamores. Don Avery, Architect, mentioned the buildings are staggered both horizontally and vertically. He noted they want colors that refer to the rocky hillside. He explained there was not a lot of landscaping shown on the elevation because they did not want to hide the building faces. He discussed the Sycamores with a landscape architect and the architect felt they would do fine in this area, but noted all the trees would need a little water to get started. Chairperson Stevenson expressed a concern about the height of the building and felt the rocky.soil is going to be problematic. Mr. Avery replied the lower part is not that rocky and noted they have done a soils test there. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Mr. Edwards asked that condition 3 be deleted since they modified the Unit 2 garage from a single-car to a two-car garage. Planner Codron commented why condition 3 was modified and noted the first sentence could be stricken, but the Commission might want to consider leaving the second sentence. COMMISSION COMMENTS: Commr. Smith asked for the selling price of the affordable house/ Planner Codron replied units 1 and unit 2 would be sold in the $160,000 range. Chairperson Stevenson expressed a concern with the appearance of the downhill lot and questioned if cantilevering any balconies or deck had been considered. Mr. Avery replied the structures became too tall as they came out and he felt that cantilevering doesn't work on this type of Mediterranean structure. Chairperson Stevenson asked if they could bring the base out to step the verticality. -- Attachment 4 Draft ARC Minutes Excerpt Item 2—December 16,2002 Page 3 Mr. Avery replied it does come out, and has a the cap. Commr. .Lopes suggested changing the two stories into one story and setting back the second story. Mr. Avery responded they just reviewed that option and stated they would step back the upper floor with all the units. Commr. Lopes questioned where the step is proposed. Mr. Avery explained which units would have the stepped back second floor. Chairperson Stevenson commented he really likes this suggestion. Commr. Lopes offered some alternative landscape planting and trees. He suggested Holly Oak, Blackwood Acacias, California Pepper, London Plane, and Wax Myrtle, Buckwheat as a groundcover, and suggested moving the trees up the hill. Mr. Avery mentioned the notion is to integrate these units into the project; but noted they are stand-alone units. Commr. Lopes moved to approve the design and site improvements as recommended in the staff report with the findings and condition, and chances to the following findings.: that finding 1 would include "because the building foundations and facades are stepped to conform to the hillside": and finding 2 would include: "foundations and building forms conform to the hillside":. Condition 1 - the second sentence that recommends the planting of trees.in the open space area shall be eliminated and strike significantly reduced; and first sentence would stay and second sentence would be deleted, but.the alternative species that were mentioned at the. ARC meeting shall be considered, and strike condition 3. Seconded by Commr. Smith. Chairperson Stevenson suggested they consider a Mill Guard Vinyl. Commr. Root asked about the roof material. Mr. Avery replied it is terracotta tile. Commr. Root questioned if it has a variegated color. Mr. Avery replied yes. Chairperson Stevenson asked what size tubing would be used for the railing on the balconies. Mr. Avery replied it is a standard one-inch vertical with the dimensional cap. Chairperson Stevenson suggested that the railing stand out. Attachment 4 Draft ARC Minutes Excerpt Item 2—December 16, 2002 Page 4 There was discussion on the railing. Commr. Lopes suggested the railing have enough dimension to provide a presence. He reiterated that a landscape strip should provide vines and shrubs. AYES: Commrs. Lopes, Smith, Root, and Stevenson NOES: None ABSENT: Commrs. Boudreau, Howard, and Schultz ABSTAIN: None The motion carried 4-0. �� T 0 Attachment 5 San Luis Obispo Municipal Code Chapter 17.90 AFFORDABLE HOUSING INCENTIVES Sections: 17.90.010 Purpose. 17.90.020 Definitions. 17.90.030 Standard incentives for housing projects. 17.90.040 Standard incentives for conversion of apartments to condominium projects. 17.90.050 Alternative or additional incentives. 17.90.060 Relationship to other city procedures. 17.90.070 Agreements for affordable housing. 17.90.080 Fees. 17.90.090 Affordability standards. 17.90.100 Occupant screening. 17.90.010 Purpose. The purpose and intent of this chapter is to encourage housing projects which incorporate units affordable to very-low, lower, and moderate income households, and qualifying seniors, and which conform to city development policies and standards, by providing density bonuses, or other equivalent incentives, as required by California Government Code Section 65915, et seq.(Ord. 1282 § 2, 1995; Ord. 1035 § 1 (part), 1985) 17.90.020 Definitions. For the purposes of this chapter, the following words and phrases shall have the meaning set forth below: A. "Density" means residential density as defined in Section 17.16.010 of this code. B. "Density bonus" means a density increase of at least twenty-five percent over the maximum density otherwise allowable under the zoning regulations. C."Director"means the community development director or his authorized representative. D. "Lower income households" shall have the meaning set forth in California Health and Safety Code, Section 50079.5; provided the income of such persons and families shall not exceed eighty percent of the median income within the county. E. "Very-low income households" shall have the meaning set forth in California Health and Safety Code, Section 50105. F. "Moderate income households" shall include those persons and families whose incomes exceed eighty percent but are less than or equal to one hundred twenty percent of the median income within the county. G. "Affordable" shall mean residential rent costs or sales prices which conform to the standards issued by the director and updated periodically to reflect state and/or federal housing cost indices. (Ord. 1282 § 2, 1995; Ord. 1035 § 1 (part), 1985) 17.90.030 Standard incentives for housing projects. Printed from Folio Views Page 1 Attachment 5 San Luis Obispo Municipal Code A.This section shall apply only to housing projects consisting of five or more dwelling units. B. When a developer agrees to construct at least twenty percent of the units otherwise allowable under the zoning regulations for persons or families of lower or moderate income,the director shall grant the developer, upon the developer's request, a density bonus equivalent to an increase in density of at least twenty-five percent over the density otherwise allowed by the zoning regulations; and the developer shall be eligible to receive at least one of the development incentives described in Section 17.90.050. C. When a developer agrees to construct at least ten percent of the units otherwise allowable under the zoning regulations for very-low income households, the director shall grant the developer, upon the developer's request, a density bonus equivalent to an increase in density of at least twenty-five percent over the density otherwise allowed by the zoning regulations; and the developer shall be eligible for at least one of the development incentives described in Section 17.90.050. D. When a developer agrees to construct at least fifty percent of the total dwelling units in a residential project for qualifying senior residents, as defined in Section 51.3 of the Civil Code, the director shall grant the developer, upon the developer's request, a density bonus equivalent to an increase in density of at least twenty-five percent over the density otherwise allowed by the zoning regulations; and the developer. shall be eligible to receive at least one of the incentives described in Section 17.90.050. E. If a developer agrees to construct housing for two or more of the categories listed in Section 17.90.030.(B), (C), and (D) above, the developer shall be entitled to a densitybonus of at least twenty-five percent and shall be eligible to receive at least one of the development incentives described in Section 17.90.050. The city may, upon the developer's request, negotiate additional incentives in exchange for the increased provision for affordable housing. F. The developer may submit a preliminary proposal for the development of affordable housing prior to the submittal of any formal requests for general plan amendments, zoning amendments or subdivision map approvals. The city council shall, within ninety days of receiving a written preliminary proposal, notify the housing developer in writing of the procedures under which the city will comply with this chapter. G. Any request for a density bonus or other incentives shall be in writing, and shall include the following information,as well as any additional information required by the director: 1. The name of the developer; 2. The location of the proposed project; 3.The density allowed under the zoning regulations, as well as the proposed density; 4. The number and type (bedroom count) of dwellings and identification of those dwellings which are to be affordable to each household income category; 5. Whether the dwellings will be offered for sale or for rent; 6. The proposed sales price, financing terms, rental rates or other factors which will make the dwellings affordable to very-low, lower and moderate income households. (Ord. 1282 § 2, 1995; Ord. 1035 § I (part), 1985) 17.90.040 Standard incentives for conversion of apartments to condominium projects. A. When an applicant for approval to convert apartments to condominium units agrees to provide at least thirty-three percent of the units of the proposed condominium project to households of lower or moderate income, or fifteen percent of the units of the proposed condominium project to very-low Printed from Folio Views Page 2 a��o -� _ Attachment 5 San Luis Obispo Municipal Code income households, and agrees to pay for the reasonable, necessary administrative costs incurred by the city pursuant to this section,the director shall grant a density bonus equivalent to an increase in the units of twenty-five percent over the number of apartments, to be provided within the existing structure or structures proposed for conversion; provided, the director may place such reasonable conditions on the granting of the density bonus as he finds appropriate including, but not limited to, conditions which assure continued affordability of units to the targeted income groups or qualifying seniors. B. Nothing in this section shall be construed to require the city to approve a proposal to convert apartments to condominiums. C. An applicant shall not be eligible for a density bonus under this section if the apartments proposed for conversion constitute a housing development for which a density bonus or other incentives were provided under Sections 17.90.030 or 17.90.050. D. The city shall grant the developer's request for development incentive(s) unless the city council makes written findings of fact that the additional incentive(s) are not required to achieve affordable housing objectives as defined in Section 50062.5 of the Health and Safety Code, or to ensure that rents for the targeted dwelling units will be set and maintained in conformance with city affordable housing standards. (Ord. 1282 § 2, 1995; Ord. 1035 § 1 (part), 1985) 17.90.050 Alternative or additional incentives. A. When a developer agrees to construct housing for households of very-low, lower or moderate income households, or for qualifying senior households, and desires an incentive other than a density bonus as provided in Section 17.90.030 of this chapter, or when an applicant for approval to convert apartments to a condominium project agrees to provide housing for households of very low, lower, or moderate income, or for qualifying senior households,and desires an incentive other than a density bonus as provided in Section 17.90.040,the developer or the applicant shall submit a proposal for consideration by the council. B. If the proposal is submitted. by a developer of a housing project, the proposal shall include information set forth in Section 17.90.030 (G), as well as a description of the requested incentive, an estimate of the incentive's financial value in comparison with the financial of the density bonus allowed in Section 17.90.030, as well as the basis for the comparison estimate. Alternative incentive proposals may include but are not limited to one or more of the following: 1. Density bonus in excess of that provided in Section 17.90.030; 2. Waiver of application and processing fees; 3. Waiver of utility connection or park land in-lieu fees or park land dedication requirement; 4. City funded installation of off-site improvements which may be required for the project, such as streets or utility lines; .5. Write-down of land costs; 6. Direct subsidy of construction costs or construction financing costs; 7. Approval of exceptions to subdivision or zoning property development standards, but only to the extent that such exceptions would be authorized by relevant provisions of this code; provided, that any proposal for an incentive which requires a direct financial contribution from the city shall also include provisions for assuring continued availability of designated units at affordable rents or sales prices for a period of not less than thirty years,or as otherwise required by State law. 8. Provide other incentives of equivalent financial value to a density bonus based upon the land Printed from Folio Views Page 3 Attachment 5 San Luis Obispo Municipal Code cost per dwelling unit. C. If the proposal is submitted by an applicant for approval to convert apartments to a condominium project, the proposal shall include those relevant items set forth in Section 17.90.030 (G), plus the requested incentive, an estimate if the incentive's financial value in comparison with the financial value of the density bonus as set forth in Section 17.90.040, and the basis for the comparison estimate.Nothing in this section shall be construed to require the city to provide cash transfer payments or other monetary compensation. The city may reduce or waive requirements which the city might otherwise apply as conditions of conversion approval. D.Nothing in this section shall be construed to require the council to approve any alternate incentive. The developer or applicant has the standard incentive of a density bonus under Sections 17.90.030 and 17.90.040 if the council fails to approve an alternative incentive. E. The council action on any alternative incentive proposal shall be by resolution. Any such resolution shall include findings relating to the information required in subpart B or C of this section. F. The council shall respond to a proposal within ninety days after submittal of a complete proposal. The city clerk shall notify the developer or the applicant of the council's response. Should the council fail to approve a proposal for alternative incentives within ninety days after submittal of a complete proposal, the proposal shall be deemed denied, and the city clerk shall so advise the developer or applicant in writing. (Ord. 1282 § 2, 1995; Ord. 1035 § I (part), 1985) 17.90.060 Relationship to other city procedures. A. Projects incorporating affordable housing and receiving density bonuses, incentives,or alternative incentives as provided in this chapter shall receive high priority processing, to the extent allowed by law. Operation of Sections 17.90.030 or 17.90.040, or approval of alternative incentives as provided in Section 17.90.050 shall not be-construed as a waiver of standard development review procedures or an exemption of the project from city development standards other than those explicitly listed in the approving resolution. Should a project fail to receive any required city approval, the density bonus or alternative incentive granted under this chapter shall be null and void. B. Applications of Sections 17.90.030 and 17.90.040 to projects shall be ministerial acts for purposes of environmental review. Environmental documents need not be filed solely for recordation of agreements concerning the density bonus and provision of affordable housing. Normal environmental review procedures shall apply to the project applications. C. If the council approves an alternative incentive as provided in Section 17.90.050, such approval shall be subject to and conditioned upon an environmental determination being made for the project in the usual manner. The community development department shall outline for the council any probable, significant environmental effects which would result from the proposed incentive. (Ord. 1282 § 2, 1995; Ord. 1035 § I (part), 1985) 17.90.070 Agreements for affordable housing. Prior to the issuance of construction permits for any project incorporating a density bonus or other incentive as provided in this chapter, the city and the project owner(s) shall enter into an agreement in a form acceptable to the city attorney, to be recorded in the office of the county recorder. The agreement shall specify mechanisms or procedures to assure the continued affordability and availability of the specified number of dwelling units to very-low, lower, and moderate income households and/or Printed from Folio Views Page 4 Attachment 5 San Luis Obispo Municipal Code qualifying seniors. The agreement shall also set forth those items required by Section 17.90.030 (G) of this chapter or any alternative incentives granted pursuant to Section 17.90.050 of this chapter. The agreement shall run with the land and shall be binding upon all heirs, successors or assigns of the project or property owner, and shall ensure affordability for a period of not less than thirty years,or as otherwise required by State law. (Ord. 1282 § 2, 1995; Ord. 1035 § 1 (part), 1985) 17.90.080 Fees. A. No fee in addition to normal project application fees shall be charged for a request for a density bonus pursuant to the provisions of Sections 17.90.030 or 17.90.040, except for reasonable, necessary administrative costs incurred by the city pursuant to Section 17.90.040. B. A fee not to exceed the amount charge for "preapplication concept review" may be charged for proposals submitted pursuant to the provisions of Section 17.90.050. (Ord. 1282 § 2, 1995; Ord. 1035 § I (part), 1985) 17.90.090 Affordability standards. A. The community development department shall publish and revise as needed a schedule of rental rates and sales prices for dwellings which will be affordable to households with incomes as provided in this chapter. The schedule shall substantially conform with the affordability standards as established by state or federal law. B. The maximum rental rates and sales prices as revised, generally on an annual basis, shall remain in effect for projects receiving density bonuses or additional incentives under this chapter as provided in the affordable housing agreement, but in no case less than the minimum term required by state law. (Ord. 1282 § 2, 1995; Ord. 1035 § 1 (part), 1985) 17.90.100 Occupant screening. A. The affordable dwellings developed pursuant to this chapter shall be available to qualified occupants without regard to race, religion, national origin, sex, occupation or other affiliation. Occupants may be screened on the basis of age only to qualify those occupants seeking housing designed for the elderly. B. The city housing authority shall screen prospective occupants so that dwellings developed pursuant to this chapter shall be occupied by households with the appropriate qualifying incomes or ages. Owners of projects shall enter into agreements with the housing authority for such screening services. C. Preference in occupant screening shall be given to those employed within or residing within the city or the immediately surrounding area, to the extent that this provision does not conflict with state or federally funded housing assistance programs which may apply to a particular project,or other applicable law. This section is to insure that those households having the greatest difficulty obtaining housing at market rates within the city shall be able to occupy affordable housing made available pursuant to this chapter. (Ord. 1282 § 2, 1995;Ord. 1035 § 1 (part), 1985). Printed from Folio Views Page 5 ��3 Attachment 6 RESOLUTION NO. 8415 (1995 SERIES) _ A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO WAIVING DEVELOPMENT REVIEW AND METER INSTALLATION FEES FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECTS. WHEREAS, the City's General Plan policies encourage the production of housing which meets the needs of very-low, low, and moderate income households; and WHEREAS, Program 1.22.15 of the Housing Element provides that the City will amend its regulations to reduce development review and permit costs for certain affordable housing projects in order to increase their financial feasibility and reduce actual sales costs to affordable levels; and WHEREAS, the City has established development review fees for Planning, Building and Safety, and Engineering Services pursuant to State and local laws; and such fees add to the cost to develop housing, thereby reducing the economic feasibility of developing affordable housing; and WHEREAS, the Director of Community Development has determined that the proposed amendment is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under Section 15273 of the State CEQA Guidelines. as the purpose of the amendment is to modify charges which are for the purpose of meeting municipal expenses; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION. 1. Fee Exemptions. Residential development projects. which meet the City's affordability standards for very-low and low income households, and for which provisions have been made to ensure that they will continue to meet affordability standards for the life of the housing to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director, shall be exempt from all planning, building, engineering and any other similar development review fees as well as any water meter or sewer installation fees. Impact fees for funding capital facility improvements necessary to serve the project shall not be included in this blanket exemption. Whenever a project includes a combination of affordable and market rate housing units, fees shall be pro- rated appropriately as determined by the Community Development Director. SECTION 2. Administration. The Director of Community Development shall administer the affordable housing fee waiver program. SECTION 3. Notice and Publication. The City Clerk shall publish a summary of the resolution in a newspaper of local circulation. SECTION 4. Environmental Determination. The City Council has determined that the proposed fee waiver program is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act and the City's Environmental Guidelines. R-8415 n Attachment 6 Council Resolution No. 8415 (1995 Series) Page 2 On motion of Council Member Smith , seconded by Council Member Roalman following roll call vote: and on the AYES: Council Members Smith, Roalman and Mayor Settle NOES. Council Members Romero and Williams ABSENT: None the foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted this 2nd day of May, 1985. Mayor Allen Settle ATTEST: 4c Vin , D' &adwell, ity Cler ((� APPROVED: i tto e p� RESOLUTION N0. 9131 (2000 ies) i Attachment 7 A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO WAIVING CITY-WIDE DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS IN EXCESS OF INCLUSIONARY REQUIREMENTS WHEREAS, the City's General Plan requires that the costs of public facilities and services needed for new development shall be bome by new development unless the community chooses to help pay the costs of a certain development to obtain community-wide benefits; and WHEREAS, the City has implemented a number of programs to implement this policy, including the adoption of development impact fees; and WHEREAS, the City's General Plan encourages the production of affordable housing for very-low, low and moderate income households; and WHEREAS, the City has implemented a number of financial assistance programs to help achieve this goal, including the waiver of development review fees and meter installation fees and issuance of housing revenue bonds; and WHEREAS, the City has adopted "inclusionary" housing requirements for new development in order to help achieve the City's affordable housing goals; and WHEREAS, reducing the cost of the public facilities and infrastructure needed to serve new affordable housing units that exceed the City's inclusionary housing requirements may help encourage the production of even more affordable units. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo that City-wide development impact fees are hereby waived on residential units qualifying as affordable housing under the criteria set forth in Section 2 of the General Plan Housing Element that either: 1. Exceed the number required to meet the City's inclusionary housing requirements. 2. Are built, owned and managed by the San Luis Obispo Housing Authority, other governmental agencies or not-for-profit housing organizations. This exclusion only applies to City-wide impact fees; it does not apply to fees, assessments or special taxes for infrastructure improvements applicable to special benefit areas. R 9131 Resolution No. 913. .000 Series) Attachment T Page 2 I Upon motion of Council Member Ewan, seconded by Vice Mayor Schwartz, 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 adopted this 21S`day of November, 2000. Mayor Allen Settle- ATTEST: ettle ,ATTEST: i Lee Price, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: of G Jor `,*sef, City.Attorney Attachment 8 RESOLUTION NO. 9263 (2001 Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO ESTABLISHING AWARD CRITERIA AND A REVIEW PROCESS FOR ALLOCATING AFFORDABLE HOUSING FUNDS. WIEREAS, the City Council adopted Ordinance 1348 (1999 Series)establishing an Affordable Housing Fund for the collection and distribution of in-lieu housing fees to promote affordable housing in San Luis Obispo; and WHEREAS, as a result of the in-lieu fee payments to the City under the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance, the City has a balance of approximately $400,000 in the Affordable Housing Fund, and this fund is available to support affordable housing in San Luis Obispo at the sole discretion of the City Council; and WHEREAS,the City received requests by Judson Terrace Lodge and Sojourn Services, Inc. for the use of$215,000 and$25,000, respectively, of Affordable Housing Funds; and to evaluate these and future funding requests in a fair and timely manner, Council wishes to establish award criteria and a review process for the Affordable Housing Fund;and WHEREAS, the City Council held a meeting on December 4, 2001 to consider possible award criteria that balance the need to provide a fair, open and timely funding award process with the desire to maintain funding flexibility to address local housing needs and opportunities; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo that based on its deliberations, public comments, the staff report, and.on State law, the following: SECTION 1. Affordable Housing Fund Award Criteria. The City Council establishes the following criteria for evaluating requests for use of the Affordable.Housing . Fund: 1. Eligibility. Use of the Affordable Housing Fund(AHF) for the requested purpose will increase or improve the City's affordable housing inventory and promote General Plan policies regarding housing. 2. Need. There exists a substantial or overarching need for the type of housing to be assisted. 3. Suitability. The project to be assisted is appropriate for its location, both in terms of land use and design. 4. Timing. The project would be better serve the City's needs if it were built immediately as opposed to later. R 9263 Resolution No. 926?_ J 1 Series) Page 2 _ Attachment. e S. Financial Effectiveness. But for the requested assistance, the project would-not.. . ._... be economically feasible; or AHF funding"leverages"significant additional funding from other sources. 6. Readiness. The project has all necessary City approvals and is ready to proceed. SECTION 2. Use of Award Criteria. The Council will apply the above criteria when evaluating funding requests. Requests that most closely meet the criteria will be given the most favorable consideration in allocating Affordable Housing Funds. Under no circumstances is Council obligated to award Affordable Housing Funds. The decision whether to allocate funds and how much is at the sole discretion of the City Council whose decision is final. SECTION 3. Review Process. The Community Development Director shall be responsible for processing requests for use of Affordable Housing Funds. Such requests shall usually be considered concurrent with review of the City's Community Development Block Grant Program. The Director is authorized to bring urgent funding requests to the Council at any time, irrespective of the above review cycle. SECTION 4. Funding Agreements. Recipients of Affordable Housing Funds shall be required to execute an agreement with the City describing the purpose and terms of funding. The project or program to be funded shall meet the City's Affordable Housing Standards, including the requirement for an affordability term of at least thirty (30) years, and City equity participation in the project where feasible and appropriate. The City Administrative Officer is authorized to execute such agreements for the City. Upon motion of Council Member Schwartz, seconded by Vice Mayor Marx, and on the following roll call vote: AYES: Council Members Ewan, Mulholland, Schwartz, Vice Mayor Marx, and Mayor Settle NOES: None ABSENT: None The foregoing resolution was adopted this 4h day of December 2001 Mayor Allen Settle A T: Lee Price, City Clerk rS9 Attachment Illll III Cl of SM WIS OBISPO, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM For ER 155-02 1. Project Title: Rockview Close 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of San Luis Obispo 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, California 93401 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Michael Codron, Associate Planner (805) 781-7175 4. Project Location: 3301 Rockview Place, San Luis Obispo, California 5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: J.H Edwards Co. P.O. Box 6070 Los Osos, CA 93412 6. General Plan Designation: Medium Density Residential 7. Zoning: R-2 (Medium Density Residential) 8. Description of the Project: The project is a map to subdivide an existing 4.41 acre site into eleven lots with development to include 9 two-bedroom condominium units. Six of the units would be attached and three are detached. On-site parking is provided for 24 vehicles. The project is located on a steep hillside and foundations will include continuous and spread foundations, anchored in subsurface rock. Caisons may be used where the rock is too deep to use a conventional foundation design. Seven of the units would be accessed via a private driveway, which would have a slope of 15% or less. Two of the units would have garage access directly from Rockview Place. The project site includes 1.48 acres of land zoned for residential development and 2.94 acres of land zoned Conservation/Open Space. The Open Space land is proposed to be dedicated, in-fee, to the City to insure the protection of unique plant resources in this area. Planned Development zoning is requested, with two alternative development standards proposed. The PD would allow Lots 3 and 4 to be developed with a 16-foot street yard where normally a 20-foot street yard is required. The PD would also allow for the proposed density of development on the project site, which has an average cross-slope greater than 21% (see SLO Municipal Code Section 17.16.010,Table 1). CITY OF SAN Luis OBISPO INmAL STUDY EwtRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2002 /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. Attachment 9 9. Surrounding Land Uses and Settings: The project site is located at the southeastern edge of the South Street Hills, along the upslope side of Rockview Place. The project is bordered by open space to the west and south. A new apartment project is presently being developed across Rockview Place, to the east of the project site. A residential neighborhood with mixed single-family and multi-family development is located on Rockview Place to the north of the project site. The location is characterized by steep slopes and a sparsely vegetated hillside marked by serpentine rock formations and outcroppings. The site is close to the Rockview/Broad Street intersection, and to commercial services along Broad Street such as the Brickyard, Crossroads Center and Marigold Center. 10. Project Entitlements Requested: The applicant is requesting tentative tract map approval for an 11-lot subdivision, Architectural Review of proposed building designs, and Planned Development zoning. 11. Other public agencies whose approval is required: None CITY OF SAN Luis OHISPO 2 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2002 rU� • I Attachment 9 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. Aesthetics X Geology/Soils Public Services Agricultural Resources Hazards&Hazardous Recreation Materials X Air Quality X Hydrology/Water Quality Transportation&Traffic Biological Resources Land Use and Planning Utilities and Service Systems Cultural Resources Noise Mandatory Findings of Significance Energy and Mineral Population and Housing Resources FISH AND GAME FEES There is no evidence before the Department that the project will have any potential adverse effects on fish X 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. 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. This initial study has been circulated to the California Department of Fish and Game for review and comment. STATE CLEARINGHOUSE This environmental document must be submitted to the State Clearinghouse for review by one or more State agencies (e.g. Cal Trans, California Department of Fish and Game, Department of Housing and Community Development). The public review period shall not be less than 30 days (CEQA Guidelines 15073(a)). �a� CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPo 3 INITIAL STuOY ENVIRONMENTAL CNECKusT 2002 Attachment 9 DETERMINATION: On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a 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 revisions in the project have been made, or the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet(s) have been added and X agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant" impact(s) or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact(s) on the environment, but at least one effect (1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. 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, because all potentially significant effects (1) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (2) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR of NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. November 19,2002 a Date Ron Whisenand,Deputy Community Development Director Community Development Director Printed Name for �i CITY OF SANLuis OBISPO 4 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHE-CKUST 2002 t:a-0 Attachment 9 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: - I. 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. The explanation of each issue should identify the significance criteria or threshold, if any,used to evaluate each question. 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,or other CEQA process,an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063 (c) (3) (D) of the California Administrators Code. 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. 7. Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached,and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. In this case,a brief discussion should identify the following: a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review.. b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on earlier analysis. c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project. CITY OF SAN Luis 08Lspo 5 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2002 :� �� Attachment 9 Issues, Discussion and Support. information Sources Sources Potei Potentially Less Than No Signiti li Significant Significant Impact ER # 155-02 (3301 Rockview) Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated 1.AESTHETICS. Would the ro'ect: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? 1,2 X b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including,but not limited to,trees,rock outcroppings;open space,and historic buildings 1,2 X within a local or state scenichighway? c) Substantially degrade the existing"visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? 2 X d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would X adversely effect day of nighttime views in the:area? Evaluation a), b) The City's Scenic Roadways Map, Circulation Element- Figure 6, designates Broad Street(Highway 227)as a"road of high scenic value"in the area of the project site. The primary visual resources in this area include southbound views of the Edna Valley, views to the east of the Santa Lucia foothills, and views west of the South Street Hills. The plan set submitted with the applicant's development package includes-a digitally rendered model of the proposed development,superimposed on photographs of the building site. The renderings show how the development "sits" on the hillside and provides an accurate representation of the proposed building massing and the potential effect of the project on views from Broad Street. Staff has also provided photographs of the project site using a wider angle to provide more context The project plans show how the proposed building foundations conform to the hillside, as encouraged by General Plan policies regarding development on hillsides. The General Plan supports development of lower and less visible hillside-areas, particularly where development is coupled with permanent open space protection of the more sensitive areas on a given site. In this case, the higher and more environmentally sensitive areas on the project site are being dedicated to the City to insure their ongoing preservation. Although the project does propose to place development on a very steep slope bank, the area is low on the project site and is considered a narrowly visible hillside area because it can only be seen along a short-run portion of Broad Street and is not otherwise visible to the community. c) The existing views toward the site are now dominated by the adjacent development of a 15-unit apartment complex. Once construction is completed on the apartment project,that development will establish the visual character of the area,especially with respect to views from the scenic corridor. The existing development on the project site is located on a flat area above Rockview that is not particularly visible from Broad Street. With the proposed development of 9 condominium units, the views toward the site would be changed substantially, since the proposed design pushes most of the building masses towards Rockview in an area that is now an undeveloped slope bank. This slope bank is not vegetated and is supported by an existing retaining wall. Although the views will be changed,the visual character of the site will not be degraded because the proposed buildings are architecturally compatible with the hillside location and will not silhouette the skyline to any significant degree. From Broad Street,views to the South Street Hills ridgelines will be maintained. d) The project will not create a new source of substantial light and glare effecting nighttime views in the area because lighting associated with residential development is typically low level lighting used to illuminate walkways, drive aisles and yards. These lights typically shine downward and do not result in illumination of the night time sky. Conclusion The project site is located on a steep hillside and adjacent to a roadway of high scenic value. As such, the site is considered sensitive and architectural review by the Architectural Review Commission is required prior to the approval of any physical development of the site. The Architectural Review Commission routinely reviews projects in hillside locations,and projects adjacent to scenic resources. If necessary,the Commission has the authority to require modifications to the building designs to insure preservation of these scenic resources. Overall,the project appears to be architecturally compatible with the hillside location, as the proposed foundations conform to the hillside, driveways are minimized, continuous walls are minimized,the proposed colors materials blend with the natural landscape and proposed landscaping will provide a visual transition to the hillside above the project site. During public hearings on the project, the Architectural Review Commission, Planning Commission and City Council will consider the project with respect to the City's hillside development policies, in particular CITY OF SAN Luis OBISPO 6 INmAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2002 Issues, Discussion and Suppor. nformation Sources Sources Pot Potentially Less t flt 9 Signu,..am Significant Significant Impact Issues Unless Impact ER # 155-02 (3301 Rockview) Mitigation Inco rated Land Use Element Policy 6.2.2, which includes hillside development standards. Existing General Plan policies with respect to hillside development are implemented through the review process for the project and are sufficient to mitigate any potentially significant aesthetic impacts of the project. No further mitigation is required. 2.AGRICULTURE RESOURCES. Would theproject: a) Convert Prime Farmland,Unique Farland,or Farmland of Statewide Importance(Farmland),as shown on the maps X pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of 3 the California Resources Agency,to non-agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use,or a X Williamson Act contract? 4 c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which,due to their location or nature,could result in conversion of Farmland, X to non-agricultural use? Evaluation a) The Farland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency classifies the project site as Urban or Built-Up Land, which is defined as "land occupied by structures with a building density of at least I unit to 1.5 acres, or approximately 6 structures to a 10-acre parcel" b) The project site is zoned for residential use and is designated for residential development by the City's General Plan. No Williamson Act contract exists for the project site. c) The project will provide for the development of residentially zoned land with residential uses and will not result in the conversion of other Farmland to non-agricultural uses. Conclusion The project does not have the potential to impact agricultural resources. 3. AIR QUALITY. Would theproject: a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an 5 X existing or projected air quality violation? b) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air X quality plan? c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant X concentrations? d) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of X people? e) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria X pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed qualitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? Evaluation a,b,c,e) San Luis Obispo County is a non-attainment area for the State ozone and PMIo(fine particulate matter 10 microns or less in diameter)air quality standards. State law requires that emissions of non-attainment pollutants and their precursors be reduced by at least 5%per year until the standards are attained. The 1995 Clean Air Plan(CAP)for San Luis Obispo County was developed and adopted by the Air Pollution Control District(APCD)to meet that requirement. The CAP is a comprehensive planning document designed to reduce emissions from traditional industrial and commercial sources,as well as from motor vehicle use. Land Use Element Policy 1.18.2 states that the City will help the APCD implement the Clean Air Plan. CITY OF SAN Luis Oalspo 7 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2002 Ot 'LPW Issues, Discussion and Support. .nformation Sources Sources Pote Potentially less C nt 9 Signit.,,..at Significant Significant Impact ER # 155-02 (3301 Roekview) Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated According to the Air Pollution Control District's(APCD)"CEQA Air Quality Handbook,"land uses that cause the generation of 10 or more pounds per day(PPD) of reactive organic gases, oxides or nitrogen, sulfur dioxide, or fine particulate matter have the potential to affect air quality significantly. A 50-unit apartment complex generates over 10 pounds of these pollutants. Since the site is proposed to be developed with 9 condominium[nits,the project is of a size that is below APCD's air quality significance thresholds. Therefore,the project and resulting development will not generate a significant impact on long-term air quality impacts. During project construction,there will be increased levels of fugitive dust associated with construction and grading activities, as well as construction emissions associated with heavy-duty construction equipment,which are addressed through standard dust control measures provided by APCD that are required to be printed on project plans. These measures include items such as wetting the ground before and during grading activities, limiting vehicle speeds on the construction site, cleaning vehicles and tires before they leave the site,and cleaning the roadways adjacent to the project site after each day's work. Another air quality issue with respect to the proposed development is the presence of naturally occurring asbestos. Serpentine and ultramafic rocks are very common in the stateand may contain naturally occurring asbestos. As required by the State Air Resources Board Air Toxics Control Measure(ATCM)for Construction,Grading,Quarrying,and Surface Mining,a geologic evaluation is necessary to determine if naturally occurring asbestos is present on the site. If naturally occurring asbestos is present, the applicant must comply with all requirements outlined in the Asbestos ATCM. These requirements may include but are not limited to an Asbestos Dust Mitigation Plan which must be approved by the APCD before construction begins. An Asbestos Health and Safety Program is also be required by the APCD for some projects. d) The project is a residential subdivision and will not create objectionable odors. Mitigation Measure: 1. The applicant shall contact the Air Pollution Control District prior to submitting a building permit application for the project and shall comply with all requirements of the Asbestos ATCM, to the approval of APCD and the Community Development Director. Conclusion Compliance with the dust management practices contained in Municipal Code Section 15.04.020 V. (Sec. 3307.2) and with dust control measures provided by the APCD, recommended as a condition of approval of the project, will adequately mitigate any short-term impacts of the project. The project does not exceed the APCD thresholds for long-term air quality impacts. Compliance with existing, statewide Asbestos ATCM requirements will adequately address any potentially significant impacts from asbestos. 4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would theproject: a) Have a substantial.adverse effect,either directly,or indirectly or through habitat modifications,on any species identified as a candidate,sensitive,or special status species in local or regional 6 X plans,policies,or regulations,or by the California,Department of Fish and Game or U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect,on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional X plans,policies,or regulations,or by California Department 6 of Fish and Game or U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological:resources,such as a tree,preservation policy or X Ordinance(erg.Heritage Trees)?' d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident Cm OF SAN Luis OEmpo 8 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2002 aLe Issues, Discussion and Suppor, Information Sources Sources Poe nt Potentially Less o rIt 9 Signi.._.nt Significant Significant Impact ER # 155-02 (3301 Rockview) Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native X resident or migratory wildlife corridors,or impede the use of 4 wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted habitat Conservation Plan,Natural Community Conservation Plan,or other approved 7 X local,regional,or state habitat conservation plan? f) Have a substantial adverse effect on Federally protected wetlands as defined in Section 404 of the Clean Water Act X (including,but not limited to,marshes,vernal pools,etc.) through direct removal,filling,hydrological interruption,or other means. Evaluation a), b) The project has been evaluated by the City's Natural Resources Manager who has determined that there are no significant biological issues associated with the development of the site,although sensitive biological areas exist upslope from the developed portion of the site. The development area proposed has been previously developed and much of the existing soil is imported fill soil of varying quality. The project does not involve habitat modifications for any species of local or statewide concern. There are no creeks or riparian habitat areas located on the project site. c) The Natural Resources Manager has stated that some California Native Plant Society List 1B plants(rare and endangered in California and elsewhere) may be found on the cut slope above the driveway for the site. The Open Space element defines such listed species as unique resources, and says that they should be preserved and maintained in a natural state (OS Policy 6.2.3, GP Digest). At least one such species (Dudleya blochmaniae) has been found; and two others (Calochortus obispoensis and Chorizanthe brewery) are to be expected. In order to protect these rare plants and their habitat,the Natural Resources Manager suggests that the applicant's offer of dedication be accepted at such time as the adjacent property to the south is acquired by the City of San Luis Obispo, as part of the development of the Damon-Garcia Sports Fields. The applicant has included in the project description an offer of dedication for the upslope open space areas on the project site, specifically defined as Lot 11 on the tentative map. The offer of dedication is consistent with Open Space Element Policy 6.2.4(GP Digest),because it will insure the protection of the resource area as part of City-owned and managed open space. OS 6.2.4 Development Practices for Unique Resource Areas: Where unique resources are required or proposed to be protected, public and private development should be required to provide protection consistent with the Policy 6.2.2.13, as is reasonable considering unique resources may be sporadically located(GP Digest). As City owned open space, Lot 11 would be treated in a manner consistent with Open Space Element Policy 6.2.2.13 because it would be left in a natural state. Open Space Element Policy 15.2.13 (GP Digest)states that the City should generally obtain fee ownership of lands which contain delicate habitat requiring monitoring and enforcement. d), e), f) The project will not interfere with the movement of native, resident fish or wildlife because the site is presently developed and is bordered by other urban uses. The project does not conflict with any adopted habitat conservation plan for the area and there are no wetlands on the project site. Conclusion The project proposal includes an offer of dedication for the upslope open space land, specifically defined as Lot i l on the tentative map. The dedication will insure that a unique resource area is preserved in a natural state. The land will be contiguous with other City owned open space,and City ownership of the sensitive land is encouraged by Open Space Element Policy 15.2.13(GP Digest). Dedication of the open space lot to the City can be considered a mitigation measure that has been incorporated into the project design. No other biological issues have been identified on the project site because the property is presently developed with two dwellings and is bordered by other urban uses. No further mitigation is necessary. Cnv OF SAN LUIS OaISPo 9 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2002 ^ ' lpp Issues, Discussion and Suppon Information Sources sources pole potentially res a[ me t 9 Signi,..,.ni Significant Significant Impact Issues Unless Impact ER # 155-02 (3301 Rockview) Mitigation Inco rated 5.CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would theproject: a) Cause a substantial adverse changeln.thesignifica ice of a X historic resource?(See CEQA Guidelines 15064.5) 8 b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an X archeological resource?(See CE-QA Guidelines 15064.5) c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource X or site or unique geologic feature? 9 d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of ]0 X formal cemeteries? _ Evaluation a), b), c),d) The project site is developed with two residential buildings and is located in an area that has been graded in the past. A significant amount of undocumented fill dirt has been imported onto the site, and much of the native top soils were likely removed or scattered at the time of the original development of the property. The buildings on the site do not represent historical uses because their age and architectural character are not significant. One of the homes is a modular unit, developed in 1981. The other home was probably constructed in the late 1950's. Because of the previous earthwork that has occurred on the property, the chances of encountering archeological or paleontological resources during construction are minimal. The project is outside of any resource areas defined on the City's Burial Sensitivity Map. Conclusion The project does not have the potential to impact cultural resources. 6. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the miect: a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? 11 X b) Use non=renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient X manner? c) Result in-the loss of availability of a known mineral resource 12 that would be of value to the region and the residents of the X State? Evaluation a) The development will not conflict with adopted energy conservation plans or promote the use of non-renewable resources in an inefficient manner. b)Any development on the site must comply with the policies contained in the General Plan Energy Conservation Element. The Energy Conservation 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 protection 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. Future development of this site must meet those standards. Existing code requires the use of solar water heating, unless the Chief Building Official determines that equivalent energy savings can be achieved through exceeding Energy Code standards. These requirements are reviewed at the time building permits are submitted for the project. c)There are no known mineral resources on the project site that would be of value to the region or to the residents of the State. The soils engineering report for the project identifies an area where mine spoils were piled up,adjacent to a small pit. According to the soils engineer,it appears that the site was explored for mining,but that a mine was never actually developed. A review of the USGS maps for the area does not identify any mine closer than the Islay Hill mine. The substance being mined was lately chromite,which was mined in this area and stockpiled by the government up until 1957. �i CITY OF SAN Luis Oaispo 10 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2002 Issues, Discussion and Suppor. Information Sources Sources Put Potentially Less an t 9 Signi....ant Significant Significant Impact ER # 155-02 (3301 Rockview) Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated Conclusion The project will not have an impact on energy or mineral resources. There are no known mineral resources on the site and the project will is required to meet or exceed State requirements for energy conservation in residential construction. This requirement is monitored through architectural review and through the building permit plan-check process. 7. GEOLOGY AND SOILS Would theproject:. a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial-adverse effects, including risk of loss, injury or death involving: I. Rupture of a known earthquake fault,as delineated in the 12 most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning.Map X issued by the.State Geologist for the area,or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? . II. Strong seismic ground shaking? 12,13 X III. Seismic related ground-failure,including liquefaction? 12 X IV. Landslides ormudflows? 12 X b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? 12 X c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable,.or that 12 would become unstable as a result of the project,and potentially, result in on or off site landslides,lateral spreading,subsidance, X liquefaction,or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil,as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code(1994),creating,substantial risks to life X or property? Evaluation a) 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 California Building Code for Seismic Zone 4. To minimize this potential impact,the Uniform Building Codes and City Codes require new structures to be built to resist such shaking or to remain standing in an earthquake. According to a recently conducted geology study,the closest mapped active fault is the Los Osos Fault,which runs in a northwest direction and is about one mile from the City's westerly boundary. Because portions of this fault have displaced sediments within a geologically recent time(the last 10,000 years),portions of the Los Osos fault are considered"active". Other active faults in the region include:the San Andreas,located about 30 miles to the northeast,the Nacimiento, located approximately 12 miles to the northeast,and the San Simeon-Hosgri fault zone, located approximately 12 miles to the west. Although there are no fault lines on the project site,the site is located in an area of high seismic hazards due to the location of the San Andreas fault,which means that future buildings constructed on the site will most likely be subjected to excessive ground shaking in the event of an earthquake. The Soils Engineering and Engineering Geology Report prepared for this project determines that the site is suitable,from an engineering geology point of view,for the proposed development. The primary concerns indicated are the potential for differential settlement,the presence of undocumented fill,the expansive nature of the soil,the presence of boulders upslope, existing mine spoils,erosion control and site drainage. b) The erodible nature of the soils on the site is listed as a primary geo-technical concern in the soils report. The report recommends stabilization of surface soils,particularly those disturbed during construction,by vegetation or other means during and following work on the project site. Rum-off from improvements such as new driveways,flat-work and structures must be collected and conveyed to an approved point of disposal in a non-erosive manner,per existing City standards and practices. The report recommends that the subfloor areas below the townhomes be sloped to collect and discharge drainage Circ OF SAN Luis OBtsPo INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2002. ar /� Afta Issues, Discussion and Suppor. Information Sources Sources Pot t-T Potentially Less Than rImpact nt 9 Signi...,dnt Significant Significant Issues Unless Impact ER # 155-02 (3301 Rockview) Mitigation Incorporated and that particular attention is paid to ensuring adequate ventilation of subfloor areas. c) The soils report identifies areas where undocumented fill and mine spoils have been placed on the site. According to the report,this fill is not considered suitable for support of foundations and improvements and should be completely removed and recompacted for use on the site. The mine spoils are considered unstable with a high potential for seismic slope instability. The report recommends complete removal of the mine spoils and proper disposal of those materials,which will be monitored as part of a grading permit for the project. d) Expansive soils on the site have been identified and recommendations included in the soils report are sufficient to mitigate potential hazards from building in these areas. In general,the presence of expansive soils requires additional base for roadways and flat work and deeper footings for building foundations. Mitigation Measure: 2. All recommendations of the Soils Engineering and Engineering Geology Report(soils report),prepared by Earth Systems Pacific, September 11, 2002, shall be implemented as part of the development of the project improvements where applicable,to the approval of the Chief Building Official. In particular,the existing mine spoils found on the site shall be removed and disposed in a proper manner,to the approval of the Fire Marshall. Conclusion The project is proposed in an area of steep slopes and where undocumented fill has been discovered. Shallow landslides have occurred on the faces of cut slopes, although no landslides have been detected in areas with natural slopes. The soils report for the project is detailed and appears to thoroughly address current site conditions and potential development of the site. The soils report provides specific recommendations for foundations and other site development. Implementation of the recommendations contained in the soils report is sufficient to reduce potentially significant impacts to less than significant levels. 8. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the pr Ject: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment X though the routine use,transport or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment X through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely X hazardous materials,substances,or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Expose people or structures to existing sources of hazardous X emissions or hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances,or waste? e) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous X materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and,as a result,it would create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? f) For a project located within an airport land use plan,or within X two miles of a public airport,would the project result in a safety hazard for the people residing or working in the project area? g) Impair implementation of;or physically interfere with,the X adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? CITY OF SAN Luis OmsPO 12 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2002 ctrl) I Issues, Discussion and Suppor, Information Sources Sources Pote Potentially Less T► f1t 9 Sign.._-et Significant Significant Impact ER # 155-02 (3301 Rockview) Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of lose, injury, or death,involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are 14 X adjacent to urbanized areas or where residents are intermixed with wildlands? Evaluation a), b),c), d), e), f)The site does not contain any know hazardous substances and is not located in an area of high risk. As a residential subdivision the project will not emit any hazardous emissions or require handling of hazardous wastes. The site is not on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. The project is within Area 6 of the Airport Land Use Plan,and multi-family dwellings are considered a compatible land use. g) The project will not impair implementation of any adopted emergency response or evacuation plan. h) According to Figure 2 of the Safety Element,the project site has a low wildland fire hazard potential. Conclusion The project does not generate, or cause the exposure of, any known hazardous materials. The project site is developed with two residential buildings and there is no known contamination on the project site. The site has a low potential for wildland fire hazards. There are no potentially significant impacts with respect to hazards. 9. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would theproject: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge X requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level(eg.The production rate of preexisting X nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses for which permits have been granted)? c) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm-water drainage systems or X provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff. d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or 12 X siltation onsite or offsite? e) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area in a manner which would result in substantial flooding X onsite or offsite? f) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a Federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map 15 X or other flood hazard delineation map? g) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which 15 X would impede or redirect flood flows? h Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? X Evaluation a), b), c), h) The project will not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. All of the residences will be served by the City's sewer system. Water collected from roofs and other impervious surfaces is not considered a substantial new source of polluted runoff because of the nature of the residential use. The quantity of additional water run-off generated by the project is insignificant and can be accommodated by the City's storm drain system. The project will be served with water by the City's Utilities Department and will not use or otherwise deplete groundwater resources or Crnr OF SAN Luts Owspo 13 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2002 Issues, Discussion and Suppor, Information Sources Sources Pote PotentiallyLess Th ent 9 Signi,..«it Significant Significant Impact ER # 155-02 (3301 Rockview) Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated negatively effect water quality. d) Future development will increase the amount of impervious surface on the site and affect the absorption rate, drainage patterns and the rate of surface runoff,potentially contributing to significant erosion of the steep bank above Rockview Place. The soils report, discussed in Section 7, identifies erosion as a primary concern and makes recommendations to mitigate potentially significant impacts from erosion. Those recommendations are adequate to deal with erosion around the perimeter of buildings that may have an effect on the integrity of building foundations. The mitigation measures proposed below are intended to insure protection of the steep slopes at the slope above Rockview, which could be impacted by increased concentrations and flow rates of surface runoff. In addition, small-scale Best Management Practices for erosion control shall be employed wherever soil is disturbed during construction of the project. e), f),g) The project will not contribute to flooding offsite since drainage will be conveyed to an approved point of disposal, as required by existing City code. The project site is not within the boundaries of an area subject to inundation from flood waters in a 100-year storm and will not impede or re-direct any.such water flows. Mitigation Measures: 3. No new concentrated water flows are to be released down slope from the developed portions of the site. 4. The project shall employ small-scale Best Management Practices, such as listed in the handout attached to this initial study, wherever soil is disturbed. Soil disruption is,anticipated to occur during construction of the road, extension of utilities, and with removal and recompaction of undocumented fill on the site. Soil disruption will also occur during construction of foundations for proposed buildings. Conclusion Water quality and flooding will not be impacted by the proposed project. Impacts have been identified in the area of on-site erosion. A mitigation measure is recommended to insure that drainage improvements are installed to collect and properly dispose of concentrated runoff at the slope bank above Rockview. A second mitigation measure is recommended to insure that Best Management Practices, such as those listed on the attached Erosion Control Guidelines, are implemented. With these features incorporated into the project,potentially significant impacts will be reduced to insignificant levels. 10. LAND USE AND PLANNING- Would theproject: a) Conflict with applicable land'use plan 'policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project adopted for the X purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?. b) Physically divide all established community? 4 X C) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural X _ -community conservationplans? Evaluation a) The General Plan land use map designates the site Low Density Residential. Development of the property with five single- family homes,as proposed,would not conflict with any plan or policy adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. b) The project site has an area of 67,403 square feet, or approximately 1.55 acres. The project will be served by existing streets and will be bordered by similar residential development. The project will not physically divide an established community. c) The project will no conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plans or natural community conservation plans. CRY OF SAN Lens OwsP0 14 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2002 Issues, Discussion and Support, nformation Sources Sources Potei Potentially Less Than I t 9 Signih, it Significant Significant Impact Issues Unless Impact ER # 155-02 (3301 Rockview) Mitigation Inw rated Conclusion The project will be developed with the type of improvements anticipated by the General Plan and Zoning Regulations and will not create any impacts to land use and planning. No further mitigation is required. 11.NOISE. Would the project result in: a) Exposure of people t0 or generation of"unacceptable"noise levels as defined by the San Luis Obispo General Plan Noise 16,17 Element,,or general noise levels in excess of standards X established in the Noise Ordinance? b) A substantial temporary;periodic;or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels.existing X Without the project?. c) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessivegioundborne. X vibration,or groundborne noise levels? d) For a project located within an airport land use plan;or within two miles of a public airport or public use airport,would the X project expose people.residing or working in the project`area to excessive noise levels? Evaluation a) The project-site is completely outside of the measured noise contours for Broad Street. Figure 5a of the Noise Element shows the 60 dB noise contour, measured at build-out, approaching the property but stopping several feet short of the property line at Rockview. Since the project is subject to ambient noise levelsatbuild-out of less than 60 dB Ldn(24-hour day and night average),the potential impact of noise exposure for future residents is considered.less than significant. b) During construction, there will be a temporary increase in ambient noise levels. This type of noise is regulated by the City's Noise Ordinance, which regulates times of constriction and maximum noise levels that may be generated. If noise levels exceed the Noise Ordinance thresholds;the property owner would be subject to possible citations. c),d) The project will not expose people to the generation of excessive groundborne noise levels or vibration. The project is in Area 6 of the Airport Land Use Plan and is not directly in any flight path where occupants would be subject to noise from aircraft operations. Conclusion The location. of the project, perched above Highway 101, would subject future residents to noise levels considered "unacceptable" by the Noise Element without mitigation. The mitigation measures listed above are intended to insure that noise levels in outdoor use areas and building interiors will be reduced to less than significant levels. The proposed mitigation measures are consistent with Noise Element Policy 1.2.13 (Digest Numbering), which provides preferred ways to mitigate outdoor noise exposure. The mitigation measures are consistent because they first provide distance between the noise source and the recipient and then use site design so that proposed structures act as barriers, as opposed to relying on sound walls. Planted earthen berms may also be used where feasible,but may be difficult to develop in this hillside location. 12. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would theproject: _ a) induc -population o'p grulation owth in an area, either- directly (for example by proposing new hoines or businesses) or 18 X indirectly (for example, through, extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace: substantial numbers 'of existing housing or people necessitating _.the._ construction of. replacement housing X CITY OF SAN Luts OBISPO 15 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2002 C)PrX Issues, Discussion and Support Information Sources Sources Pot( Potentially Less Than ent C Sign,.-..at Significant Significant Impact ER # 155-02 (3301 Rockview) Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated elsewhere? Evaluation a),b)The population added by this project is within the General Plan's projection and will not induce substantial growth into the area or result in population exceeding local and regional growth projections. The project site is bordered by urban development and the development of the site represents an in-fill development opportunity. This type of development is encouraged because it can take advantage of existing facilities for water,sewer,storm drainage,transportation and parks. The project site is presently developed with two single-family homes and significant numbers of people will not be displaced by the project. Conclusion The population growth created by the project is considered to be less than significant since the development is on an existing, residentially zoned, parcel of land and development of the project site has been accounted for in the population estimates contained in the City's General Plan. 13.PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical.impacts associated with the provision,or need,of new or physically altered government facilities,the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts,in order to maintain acceptable service ratios,response times,or other performance objectives for any of the public services: a) Fire protection? 19 X b) Police protection? X c) .Schools? X d) Parks? X e) Roads and other transportation infrastructure? 19 X Other public facilities? X Evaluation a)b), d),e), f) No potential impacts have been identified to any public services because of the small scale of the project and its location within an existing residential neighborhood. c) The school districts in the state are separate governing bodies with authority to collect fees to finance school construction and parcel acquisition. Section 65955 of the Government Code prohibits the City from denying a subdivision or collecting any fees beyond those required by the school district itself,to mitigate effects of inadequate school facilities. Any effect that the additional children will have on school facilities will be mitigated in whole or in part by the districts per square foot fees, charged at the time of building permit issuance for each residence. Conclusion The project has been routed to City Departments for review and comments on the proposal. As part of each routing, the reviewing department is required to certify that serving the project will not result in a deficiency to any City facility or resource. All reviewing departments have indicated their ability to serve this project. 14.RECREATION. Would theproject: a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physicalX deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) `Include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities,which might have an adverse X physical effect.on the environment?. �M CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 16 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2002 a.-ql� y ent 9 Issues, Discussion and Su pporti. .nformation Sources Sources Poter j Potential) Less Than No Signihw at Significant Significant Impact ER # 155-02 (3301 Rockview) Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated Evaluation a) The project will add incrementally to the demand for parks and other recreational facilities. However,given the size of the project and the expected number of residents,no significant recreational impacts are expected to occur with development of this site. Park Land In-Lieu fees will be collected, with credit given for the existing lot,to insure adequate provision of park facilities for the new residents of the project,per existing City policy. b) The project does not include the construction of recreational facilities beyond small, private, open space areas. The construction of these facilities will not have an adverse physical effect on the environment because of their small scale. Conclusion Park and recreation facility demand will increase incrementally,and not significantly,with the development of the project. 15. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would theproject: a) Cause an increase in traffic which'is substantial'in relation to the 20 X existing traffic load and capacity of the street system? b) Exceed,either individually or cumulatively,a level of service 19 X standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads and`highways? c) Substantially increase hazards due to design features(e.g:sharp 19 curves or dangerous intersections)or incompatible uses(e:g. X farm equipment)? d) Result in inadequate emergency access? X e) Result in inadequate parking capacity onsite or offsite? X f) Conflict with adopted policies supporting alternative X transportation(e.g.,bus turnouts,bicycle racks)? g) Conflict'with'the with SanLuis Obispo County Airport Land Use Plan resulting in substantial safety risks from hazards,noise; X or a chane in air trafficpatterns?. Evaluation a), b), c), d) The project will incrementally contribute to an increase in traffic on Rockview Place and Broad Street. The City's Transportation Planner has indicated that these streets are operating at acceptable levels of service and that they can adequately accommodate the project's anticipated vehicle trips without changing the current level of service. The Transportation Planner has also determined that the driveway configuration proposed for the project is acceptable and will provide sufficient visibility from and toward vehicles entering and exiting the project site. The Fire Marshall has reviewed the private drive configuration proposed for the project and determined that the site can be adequately accessed by emergency vehicles. e) Each dwelling will require a minimum of two parking spaces. No parking will be permitted along the private driveway. On-street parking is fairly constrained due to the nature of Rock-view Place, which is steep and narrow. Guest parking is provided in excess of the code requirement,which will make it more convenient for guests visiting residents of the project. f) Each unit within the project will include garages that will be able to accommodate bicycle storage in addition to parked vehicles. Residents of the project will have access to transit stops on Broad Street. e) The project is in Area 6 County Airport Land Use Plan and the use is considered compatible in this area. No conflicts with the plan have been identified. CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 17 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2002 a r 1 T Issues, Discussion and Support. Information Sources Sources Pote Potentially Less Th ent 9 Signil�.aat Significant Significant Impact Issues Unless Impact ER # 155-02 (3301 Rockview) Mitigation Incorporated Conclusion The project will add incrementally to existing traffic conditions in the City, but the City's Transportation Planner has determined that development of the project as proposed will not have an effect on the level of service on adjacent streets. Parking proposed by the project meets or exceeds City Zoning Regulations requirements. No impacts have been identified with respect to transportation and traffic. 16. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would theproject: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable X Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction or expansion of new water 19 treatment,wasterwater treatment,or storm drainage facilities, X the construction of Which could cause significant environmental effects? c) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project 21 from existing entitlements and resources,or are.new and X expanded water resources needed? d) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it does Trot have X adequate capacityto serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitment? e) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to X accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? f) Comply with federal,state,and local statutes and regulations X related to solid waste? Evaluation a), b) This project has been reviewed by the City's Utilities Engineer. Comments note that the project is subject to water impact fees which were adopted to ensure that new development pays its fair share of the cost of constructing the water supply,treatment and distribution facilities that will be necessary to serve it. c) The City Water&Wastewater Management Element projects the City water needs at its ultimate build-out of 56,000 people.The project site is included in the anticipated build-out,because it was in the Urban Reserve at the time the element was adopted. Each unit in the project will have an annual water usage between.30 and.60 depending on the amount of irrigated land proposed. For the total project,the annual water usage is estimated at 4.05 acre feet per year'(.45•9 units). The 2002 Water Resources Report indicates that there is currently 304 acre feet of water available to allocate. 152 acre feet is reserved for in-fill development(development within the 1994 City Limits). d) The City wastewater treatment plant has adequate capacity to serve this development. The existing sewers in the vicinity have sufficient capacity to serve the development. The developer will be required to construct private sewer facilities to convey wastewater to the nearest public sewer. The on-site sewer facilities will be required to be constructed according to the standards in the Uniform Plumbing Code. Subdivision improvement plans and building plans will be checked for compliance with UPC standards. Impact fees are collected at the time building permits are issued to pay for capacity at the City's Water Reclamation Facility. The fees are set at a level intended to offset the potential impacts of each new residential unit in the project. e),f) 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. To help reduce the waste stream generated by this project,consistent with the City's Source Reduction and Recycling Element,recycling facilities must CITY OF SAN LUIS OalSvo 18 INmAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2002 J T1 Issues, Discussion and Support. Information Sourcessources Pou Potentially Less e t 9 Signit,..ent Significant Significant Impact ER # 155-02 (3301 Rockview) Issues Mitigation .Impact Incorporated be accommodated on the project site and a solid waste reduction plan for recycling discarded construction materials must be submitted with the building permit application.The project should include facilities for recycling to reduce the waste stream generated by the project consistent with the Source Reduction and Recycling Element. Conclusion No impacts have been identified relative to utilities or service systems. The City has recently adopted a solid waste recycling ordinance to insure recycling of construction debris.No further mitigation is required. 17.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,threaten to eliminate.a plant or-animal X 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 histo .or prehistory?- Without rehisto ?-Without mitigation,the project could have the potential to have adverse impacts on all of the issue areas checked in the Table on Pae 3. b) Does the project have impacts thatare individually limited;but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a prcject.are considerable when viewed in connection`with the effects of the past projects, X the effects of other current projects,and the effects of probable futureprojects) The impacts identified in this initial study arespecific to this project and would not be categorized as cumulatively significant. c) Does.the project have environmental effects which will cause X substantial adverse effects:on human beings,either'directly or indirectly? _ With the incorporation of mitigation measures,the project will not result insubstantial adverse impacts on humans. di CITY OF SAN Luis OBISPO 19 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2002 Attachment 9 I&EARLIER ANALYSES. Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program-E,IR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration. Section 15063 ® (3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the following items: ,a Earlier anal sfs used. Iden `.earlier anal ses.and.state whereifiey are available,for.review. The San Luis Obispo Land Use Plan Element update and Final EIR can be found at the City of San Luis Obispo Community Development Department at 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo,California. b) 'Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards,:and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis., Not applicable. c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are"Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures,which wereincorporated or refined-from the earlier document and the:extent to which they address site-specific _conditions of the ro'ect-. _ Not applicable. 19. SOURCE REFERENCES-On File in the Community Development Department or attached to this report 1. Circulation Element of the General Plan,Figure 6, Scenic Roadways Ma 2. Site visit and photographs attached 3. Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program map of SLO County,http://www.consrv.ca.goy/dlrp/FMMP/ 4. InfoSLO,City of San Luis Obispo,Public Geographic Information System 5. CEQA Air Quality Handbook,APCD, 1995 6. Project comments from City of SLO,Natural Resources Manager,Dr.Neil Havlik 7. Conservation Element,Open Space Element,City of San Luis Obispo General Plan 8. City of San Luis Obispo Historic Resources Inventory 9. Archeological Resource Preservation Guidelines,City of San Luis Obispo 10. City of San Luis Obispo,Burial Sensitivity Ma 11. Energy Conservation Element,City of SLO General Plan 12. Soils Engineering and Engineering Geology Report, Prepared by Earth Systems Pacific,dated 9-11-02 13. San Luis Obispo Quadrangle Map,prepared by the State Geologist in compliance with the Alquist-Priola Earthquake Fault Zoning Act,effective January 1, 1990,on file in the Community Development Department 14. Safety Element of the General Plan,Figure 2,Wildland Fire Hazard 15. Flood Insurance Rate Ma (Community Panel 0603100005 C dated July 7, 1981 16. Noise Element of the General Plan 17. Figure 5a,Noise Element and GIS project on file in the Community Development Department 18. Land Use Element of the General Plan 19. Staff comments provided during project routing. 20. Association of Transportation Engineers,Trip Generation Manual 21. 2002 City of San Luis Obispo,Water Resources Report Attachments: Attachment 1: Vicinity Map Attachment 2: Project Plans Attachment 3: Site Photographs Attachment 4: Erosion Control Guidelines �� CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2002 Attachment 9 REQUIRED 1V MGATION AND MONITORING PROGRAMS 1. Mitieation: The applicant shall contact the Air Pollution Control District prior to submitting a building permit application for the project and shall comply with all requirements of the Asbestos ATCM, to the approval of APCD and the Community Development Director. • Monitoring Program: City staff will contact staff at the Air Pollution Control District to ensure that the applicant has complied with this mitigation measure at the time of building permit application submittal. 2. Mitigation: All recommendations of the Soils Engineering and Engineering Geology Report (soils report), prepared by Earth Systems Pacific, September 11, 2002, shall be implemented as part of the development of the project improvements where applicable, to the approval of the Chief Building Official. • Monitoring Program: Plans submitted with the building permit application for the project will be reviewed with respect to the recommendations included in the report, and City staff shall require the applicant to implement the recommendations of the report through the plan check process. 3. Mitigation: No new concentrated water flows are to be released down slope from the developed portions of the site. o Monitoring Program: The City will evaluate plans submitted with the building permit application for the project to insure incorporation of drains and gutters, and to insure that no surface gutters or swales are designed to dispose over grade on any steep slopes on the site. 4. Mitigation: The project shall employ small-scale Best Management Practices, such as listed in the handout attached to this initial study, wherever soil is disturbed. Soil disruption is anticipated to occur during construction of the road, extension of utilities, and with removal and recompaction of undocumented fill on the site. Soil disruption will also occur during construction of foundations for proposed buildings. • Monitoring Program: This mitigation measure will be monitored through the review of plans submitted with the building permit application for the project, including the project landscape plans. If an early grading plan is issued, special care shall be taken to insure that disturbed areas that are not intended to be reworked within 30 days are hydro-seeded or stabilized in another approved manner to prevent erosion, in addition to other erosion control measures. CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 21 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2002 a� U Attachment 9 C-S-S M- D R-2-S R-2-S p�B C/OS-40 M -2-S in� a,•t. �; M- vicinity Map ER 155-02 T 30 0 30 60 Feet 3301 Rockview LM r�l N . a Attachment 06 +^ i4x V CL op i 1 i 1 1 I I D 1 I y I \ U I 1 1 II Y S i I 1 • 11'11 `\I �r — IR! —I ,r 15�' i=i li O • \ i I S�b Iii 1 LL 1 ' 1 = 1 1^• TIf� � �R ^�• � I I 1 � �� 1' I � 1 1 1� •�_ 1 1 1 ' I, •� u x E r 1 11 11y 1 1 R I U 1 � I (LL1 1 � �II 1 I ' Y '• �/ I I I i 1_ ' 1 111 I (IW1 O 1 I I r 1 1 i � 1 N Ir"1 �^ 1 ! I t ' 1 1 i 1 L S >✓ 6 CL to - e d 0 a • { d i � it I {) ; 1 � ' i' i Los 11 1 F{ I I 1 11 i LL m t F •2 d " 1 11 I I 1 ItCN ' xx CN �g-fg � spap �39Qz pAn Q8 g9a 3 YQSltA• S#YS6yfill)T I S(rL� {II e ° ¢s aGBp AAepA 'C If i ill 1ta� A3a ��6E3i44b�FiAAe 1fi1-l�� 8t6g1i ' N a.rga Y P +•� Sl A s � i 7 pp4� 1 ��lr xf�r'Sl v 1`� }i 5 .Y < 1)t �r:'x3• 1 '� nN��E' y¢'� � � 1 N • — r _ 1 _ • 21 1 A • i 1 w 1 Y• 1 a cq Attachment 9 aD rZ I Eli I ��x i r v V LL- u_ . H o a e �- PaE N . ' U }{34 OF \ N \ O O \ N N N Q Attachment (D tlr q-� e egi a6 a'e Ip I I I c I t #F e� I I I 6 � / t 0 2 \ I N_jJF � N — t t I O ' - - - - - - -' s - - - - - � U �U _ t x�I t I = Q) O r� sgem I ' U 1� � I I — — — — — — — — — J 1 � e I ' I t I I e I 1 0 I Q N L 1 � 1 —0 1 C N t Q N q N f LU i•;• E f .a �� 6: - ;-- tet i o Ia 66 I 6i ,t s 4jE �� Go = rit: 3e � 3! � _. s ° ' � _t're. CL tE If i f l � 8T�111 �Q � Ci El 0 ° ° , � N ° } 0 L t e ♦♦ CN a� e♦ ,• e 0 ♦\ 0 CL W N r� rw vti M7w.v , .� �-«- -. ..'.. ♦ry4r-- _Ti4�w�„ �a.. ,r. .---`� •''fav' f �tt ��.� +,.^! ��i fir' ',S •�^'ty j.��!'�,�r �,�y�. 3•�r(.�� A iw`.r;s,,.wa•, +J16{�j"'..K:fir,` `^:K 11 s r�Y " )YI � r r a .,A ,!`t!#t�' q"4 00 �xR' ts1° rjyGF+�ftr _ a"`1•^� �"• � �fWQ.� .. f + r( 4y1?YR' ")r C�'{lY:pL4fA r, `K"w �I • ' ,.J.•rr..f.� I 1: a \ �..u.....•rJl� I ,��Y�><"lI�..A,((Y� ( � �..r.r. rt.a...;,:( �. h r+ •t W _ +� ••�•�,.f M '->.r',✓fir"^�.IC. �„4�rY��-+ils,i •..t . ,�,�,y,`na" � • '� ,ry,,,to 'y: iz' � fir sj t '-'� K .i l•'�`- .1. ;•�> .r t�t.�hRRX1R ..." �74:ZA. 4��y'-.�Y • ':'N � r.. rYr 1 ./!�. � +�•Miri ?� rt<�(y��(•�'��yr j;;'r ti�ea'Asy 11 i �� „� �,� �;n; •y Lit,,OSION CONTROL GUIDELL_.:S Attachmiont g Erosion Control is required for all construction projects which involve grading or soil disturbance, between the months of October and May. The City may require drainage and erosion control measures to be in place for active permits between October 15 th and April 15th. These guidelines provide samples of some typical erosion protection methods. Erosion Control Methods for newly exposed soils Drought tolerant landscape —`� Diversion ditch at top of plants suitable for slopes and slope carries water away erosion control in '' % from bank to drivewav Shrubs Wild Lilac ; -M (Ceanothus) _i� Manzanita Use landscape (Arctostaphylos sp.) groundcover � ; Dwarf Coyote Bush plants whenever r, ' . 2 r� . (Baccharis pilularis) possible to i, Jute Netting.Hydroseed or cover with straw to Rockrose prevent soil loss ;, and erosion prevent erosion on bare slopes (Cistus sp.) Dwwf Plumbago ;r :.'....i...:._:_: + :•:: (Ceratostigma plumbaginoides) •�•••:•••t•••: •�•��/ �j j o Cotoneaster ............. / f ��' �_ (No botanical name) :...:...:...:...'..;... a• Lantana arz ir.idveiyaixv:•,r //� ' 1\` (No botanical name) California Buckwheat __ _ li i (Eriogonum fasiculatum) _- i -' Attachment 10 Resolution No. (2003 Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO APPROVING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON 3301 ROCKVIEW PLACE AND ALLOCATING AFFORDABLE HOUSING FUNDS TO THE PROJECT; TR/ER 155-02 (Tract 2502) WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing on January 21, 2003, in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California for the purpose of considering Tract 2502, a planned unit development (PUD)with 9 two-bedroom dwellings; and WHEREAS, notices of said public hearing were made at the time and in the manner required by law; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing on December 4, 2002, and recommended approval of the project; and WHEREAS, the Architectural Review Commission conducted a public hearing on December 16, 2002, and approved the proposed building designs for the project; and WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed and considered the Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impact and the mitigation monitoring program prepared for the project; and WHEREAS, the City Council has duly considered all evidence, including the testimony of the applicant, interested parties, and the evaluation and recommendations of the Planning Commission, Architectural Review Commission, and by staff presented at said hearing. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: Section 1. Subdivision Findings. Based upon all the evidence, the Council makes the following findings: 1. The proposed map is consistent with the General Plan because the subdivision will provide for medium density residential development in a manner consistent with the Hillside Development Standards of Land Use Element Policy 6.2.2. 2.. As conditioned,the design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is consistent with the General Plan because each dwelling has access to a compact, private open space area and the development will occur as part of the neighborhood pattern anticipated for the medium density residential zone. 3. The site is physically suited for the proposed type of development because the soils engineering report has concluded that the site can support the proposed improvements, provided the recommendations of the report are followed. Resolution No. (2002 Sc__es) Attachment 10 Page 2 4. As conditioned, the site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development because the site is within an existing City block and is essentially surrounded by development that is at least as intense as proposed. New development in the vicinity of the project is occurring with a density of 12 units per acre, and due to the steepness of the slopes on the project site,the proposed density of development is kept at 6 units per acre. 5. The design of the subdivision, or the type of improvements, is not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and unavoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat because the site does not have any creeks or other potentially significant habitat areas for fish or wildlife and the unique plant resources on the project site are going to be protected through a fee dedication of open space land to the City. 6. The design of the subdivision, or type of improvements, is not likely to cause serious public health problems because the type of improvements are residential and development will be designed to meet existing building and safety codes. 7. The design of the subdivision, or the type of improvements, will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, property within the proposed subdivision because no such easements exist. 8. The Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project adequately identifies and evaluates the potential impacts associated with this project and where impacts are potentially significant, mitigation measures are provided to reduce these impacts to less than significant levels. Section 2. Environmental Review. The City Council does hereby adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project, with the following mitigation measures and monitoring programs. 1. Mitigation: The applicant shall contact the Air Pollution Control District prior to submitting a building permit application for the project and shall comply with all requirements of the Asbestos ATCM, to the approval of APCD and the Community Development Director. • Monitoring Program: City staff will contact staff at the Air Pollution Control District to ensure that the applicant has complied with this mitigation measure at the time of building permit application submittal. 2. Miti atg ion: All recommendations of the Soils Engineering and Engineering Geology Report (soils report), prepared by Earth Systems Pacific, September 11, 2002, shall be implemented as part of the development of the project improvements where applicable, to the approval of the Chief Building Official. Attachment 10 Resolution No. (2002 Sr__.:s) Page 3 • Monitoring Program: Plans submitted with the building permit application for the project will be reviewed with respect to the recommendations included in the soils engineering report, prepared by Earth Systems Pacific, September 11, 2002, and City staff shall require the applicant to implement the recommendations of the report through the plan check process. 3. Mitigation: No new concentrated water flows are to be released down slope from the developed portions of the site. O Monitoring Program: The City will evaluate plans submitted with the building permit application for the project to insure incorporation of drains and gutters, and to insure that no surface gutters or swales are designed to dispose over grade on any steep slopes on the site. 4. Miti ag tion: The project shall employ small-scale Best Management Practices, such as listed in the handout attached to this initial study, wherever soil is disturbed. Soil disruption is anticipated to occur during construction of the road, extension of utilities, and with removal and recompaction of undocumented fill on the site. Soil disruption will also occur during construction of foundations for proposed buildings. • Monitoring Program: This mitigation measure will be monitored through the review of plans submitted with the building permit application for the project, including the project landscape plans and building and grading inspections of the work. If an early grading plan is issued, special care shall be taken to insure that disturbed areas that are not intended to be reworked within 30 days are hydro-seeded or stabilized in another approved manner to prevent erosion, in addition to other erosion control measures. Section 3. Action. The City Council does hereby approve application PD/TR/ER 155- 02, subject to the following conditions and code requirements. 1. The proposed Affordable Dwelling Units shall be sold under a contract of long-term affordability with the City of San Luis Obispo, and the buyers shall be eligible moderate income households, as verified by the San Luis Obispo Housing.Authority. 2. Curb parking shall be prohibited between the project's access driveway and the south end of the individual driveway serving Unit B. 3. The subdivider shall dedicate a 2m wide public utility easement across the Rockview Place frontage and the common driveway, to the satisfaction of the utility companies. 4. The subdivider shall dedicate a minimum 3m wide street tree easement across the Rockview Place frontage. Said easement shall be adjacent to and contiguous with the public right-of-way. The street tree easement width shall be adjusted as necessary to provide adequate street tree clearances from the top of the existing and/or proposed retaining walls. � -9a Attachment 10 Resolution No. (2002 St---4s) Page 4 5. Curb, gutter, sidewalk, and street improvements shall be completed per city standards as a condition of final map approval. Curb and gutter shall be placed to conform to the existing curb alignment. The sidewalk shall be constructed to the base of the existing retaining wall and shall not be less than 1.5m (5') in width, inclusive of the curb. Sidewalk extensions per ADA and City standards shall be provided at all driveway approaches. Pedestrian access dedications shall be provided for all sidewalks where extended beyond the public right-of-way. 6. The existing retaining wall drain outlet locations shall be identified on the improvement plans and shall terminate at an approved location, to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director. New retaining walls shall include drainage provisions accordingly. 7. The proposed new retaining wall along the street frontage shall terminate within the subject property, unless an offsite easement is acquired to transition the grading and/or retaining wall beyond the tract boundary. Grading and/or slope bank stabilization beyond . the end of sidewalk shall be approved to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director and as recommended by the soils engineer. Since the adjoining property lies within unincorporated land, approval by the County Building Department must be submitted. 8. The public sewer main in Rockview Place shall be extended further to serve Lots 1 through 9, to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director and Utilities Director. Individual laterals for Lots 1 through 5 shall be provided. A common private main/lateral to serve Lots 6 through 9 shall be constructed (probably .between Lots 6 & 7) and maintained by the Homeowner's Association (HOA), within an easement. The private sewer laterals shall include analysis of soil stability and incorporate recommendations from the soils engineer. 9. Rockview Sewer lift station charges may be required to be paid prior to building permit issuance for the new dwellings. 10. All utilities serving the existing dwellings shall be abandoned to the satisfaction of the city. 11. The demolition of the existing buildings triggers the Utilities Department Sewer Lateral Abandonment Policy. This policy states that the sewer lateral must be abandoned at the main prior to demolition unless the lateral is intended for reuse and it passes a video inspection. If the sewer lateral is intended for reuse, the owner shall submit a VHS videotape documenting the internal condition of the pipe to the Utilities Department for approval. 12. The subdivider shall place underground, all existing overhead utilities along the public street frontage to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director and utility companies. The existing terminal (Pac Bell) utility pole with street light#908 shall be replaced with a city standard street light. Power to the new street light shall be served by an underground service, per City standards. The street light location shall be placed with consideration for available sidewalk width and disabled access requirements. The existing phone and cable services shall be placed underground from the next service pole to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director and serving utility companies. Attachment 10 Resolution No. (2002 Se..$) Page 5 13. Separate utilities, including water, sewer, gas, electricity, telephone, and cable TV shall be served to each parcel to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director and serving utility companies. Utilities to new residences shall be underground. 14. The final map shall include any required public or private easements as required for the proposed development of the tract. Easements may include, but are not limited to, grading, drainage, water, sewer, storm drainage, access, vehicle turn-around, and utilities. Any maintenance or common driveway agreements shall be completed and recorded concurrent with final map approval,presumably in the tract CC&Rs. 15. All lots shall be graded to preclude cross-lot drainage, or, appropriate easements and drainage facilities shall be provided, to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director. 16. Improved or diverted upslope drainage shall be directed in a non-erosive manner to an approved point of disposal. Any needed off-site easements shall be secured prior to map recordation. Otherwise, the final drainage system design shall direct runoff to the public street. If it is discovered that the existing terrace drainage has a historic outlet to the easterly offsite property, level spreaders may be considered for approval by the Public Works Director and project soils engineer to re-establish sheet flow beyond the building pads. 17. Improvement and building plans shall include a complete grading and drainage plan and appropriate calculations. The grading plan shall include existing and proposed contours to clearly depict the proposed grading and drainage for this development. 18. Final alignment and design of the rock barrier fence and drainage swale shall be approved to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director. 19. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66474.9(b)(1), the subdivider shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the city or its agents, officers and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding against the city or it agents, officers or employees to attack, set aside, void or annul an approval of the city, advisory agency, appeal board or legislative body concerning this subdivision. The city shall promptly notify the subdivider of any claim, action or proceeding and shall cooperate fully in the defense. 20. The C.C.&R's for the project shall include a restriction to prohibit residents from accessing the open space area above the project site (Lot 11), except by way of an approved City trailhead. Code Requirements: 21. A water allocation is required, due to the additional demand on the City's water supplies. The City currently has water to allocate, and does so on a"first-come, first-served" basis. Water is allocated at the time building permits are issued and the Water Impact Fee is paid. Both the Water and the Wastewater Impact Fees are based on a per residential unit basis. Attachment 10 Resolution No. (2002 Se..es) Page 6 22. By ordinance, the applicant is required to prepare a recycling plan for approval by the City to address the recycling of construction waste for projects valued at over $50,000 or demolition of structures over 1000 square feet. The recycling plan shall be submitted to the Building Department with the building.plans. The City's Solid Waste Coordinator can provide some guidance in the preparation of an appropriate recycling plan. 23. The tentative map indicates a single meter will be replaced with two water meters. This may or may not be possible, depending on the size of the water service and the sizes of the proposed water meters. Generally, the water meters will need to be a minimum of 1" in order to provide sufficient flow to fire sprinklers. The water service must be 2" in order to serve two 1" water meters. 24. The tentative map shows a new 6" water service serving 7 water meters. This is not allowed. Up to four 1" water meters can be served by a single 2" water service. The tentative map shall be revised to show two separate 2" services, with up to four 1" water meters on each manifold. Mapping and Misc. Requirements 25. Complete public improvement plans including a street improvement and curb grade plan, prepared by a registered civil engineer, shall be submitted to the Public Works Director for review and approval. All grades, layout, staking and cut-sheets necessary for the construction of street paving and frontage improvements shall be the responsibility of the developer. 26. The subdivider shall submit a final map to the city for review, approval, and recordation. The map shall be prepared by; or under the supervision of a registered civil engineer or licensed land surveyor. The final map shall be prepared in accordance with the Subdivision Map Act and the Subdivision Regulations. 27. The map shall be tied to at least two points of the City's horizontal control network, California State Plane Coordinate System, Zone 5 (1991.35 epoch adjustment of the North American Datum of 1983 also referred to as "NAD 83" - meters) for direct import into the Geographic Information System (GIS) database. Submit this data either via email, CD or a 3-1/2" floppy disc containing the appropriate data for use with AutoCAD, version 2000 or earlier (model space in real world coordinates, NAD 83 - m). If you have any questions regarding format,please call prior to submitting electronic data. 28. The final map, public improvement plans and specifications shall use the International System of Units (metric system). The English System of Units may be used on the final map where necessary (e.g. - all record data shall be entered on the map in the record units,metric translations should be in parenthesis), to the approval of the City Engineer. 29. Electronic files and stamped and signed drawings shall be submitted for all public improvement plans prior to map recordation or commencing with improvements, whichever occurs first. Submittal documents shall include the electronic drawing files (.dwg) and any associated plot files along with one original, stamped and signed, ink on mylar set of plans. Attachment 10 Resolution No. (2002 Se...,$) Page 7 30. Prior to acceptance by the City of public improvements, the developer's engineer shall submit a digital version of all public improvement plans and record drawings, compatible with Autocad (Digital Interchange Format, DXF) for Geographic Information System (GIS)purposes,to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director. Section 4. Financial Incentives. The City Council does hereby approve allocation of Affordable Housing Funds in an amount not to exceed$41,957, based on the following findings. 1. The project is eligible to receive financial incentives from the City because 22% of the units will be affordable to moderate income households, as guaranteed by a long-term affordability agreement with the City. 2. Eligibility. Use of the Affordable Housing Fund (AHF) for the requested purpose will increase or improve the City's affordable housing inventory because it will provide for two new affordable dwellings and will promote General Plan policies regarding housing because the project includes both market-rate and affordable housing units. 3. Need. There exists a substantial or overarching need for the type of housing be assisted because these units will be the first for-sale units to be developed under the City's Inclusionary Housing Requirement and affordable housing is significantly constrained by land values in the San Luis Obispo area. 4. Timing. The project would better serve the City's needs if it were built immediately as opposed to later because the City presently has resources, including water and sewer capacity to allocate and the proposed housing is in demand at this time. 5. Financial Effectiveness. AHF funding leverages significant additional funding from the project sponsor, who will be developing a 9-unit housing project at an estimated cost of $3,477,000, with the hard costs (not including land) of the additional affordable dwelling unit estimated at$279,875. 6. Readiness. With the approval of this resolution, the project has all necessary City entitlements and is ready to proceed. On motion of , seconded by and on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 21St day of January , 2003. r (4 Resolution No. (2002 St.-.s _ Attachment 10 Page 8 Mayor David F. Romero ATTEST: Lee Price, City Clerk APP VEDOOF Gil Trujillo, Acti ity Attorney I - Aftchment 11 Ordinance No. (2003 Series) . AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO AMENDING THE ZONING MAP FROM MEDIUM-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL WITH SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS TO(R-2-S) TO MEDIUM-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL WITH A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY ZONE (R-2-PD) FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3301 ROCKVIEW PLACE (PD 155-02). WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing on January 21, 2003, in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California for the purpose of considering PD rezoning for Tract 2502, a planned unit development (PUD) with 9 two-bedroom dwellings; and WHEREAS, notices of said public hearing were made at the time and in the manner required by law; and WHEREAS,the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing on December 4, 2002, and recommended approval of the project to the City Council; and WHEREAS, the Architectural Review Commission conducted a public hearing on December 16, 2002, and approved the proposed building designs for the project; and WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed and considered the Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impact and the mitigation monitoring program prepared for the project; and WHEREAS, the City Council has duly considered all evidence, including the testimony of the applicant, interested parties, and the evaluation and recommendations of the Planning Commission, Architectural Review Commission, and by staff presented at said hearing. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: Section 1. Planned Development Findings. Based upon all the evidence, the Council makes the following findings in support of Planned Development zoning for the project site: 1. The project design transfers allowable development, within a site, from areas of greater environmental sensitivity or hazard to areas of less sensitivity or hazard because the proposed buildings are moved closer to the street, as required by Land Use Element Policy 6.2.21, thereby avoiding putting people and development closer to Lot 11 and the hillside areas at the back of the project site where unique plant resources have been identified. 2. The project provides more affordable housing than would be possible with conventional development because the applicant is providing two affordable dwelling units, where the City's Inclusionary Housing Requirement only requires the development of one such unit. Attachment 11 Ordinance No. (2003 Series) PD 155-02 (3301 Rockview) 3. The project provides exceptional public benefits because a large area of environmentally sensitive open space (Lot 11) will be dedicated to the City, insuring the preservation of unique plant resources that have been identified upslope from the development area. The proposed fee dedication is consistent with Open Space Element.Policy 15.2.13 (GP Digest) because it will allow the City to monitor and enforce restrictions in this habitat area. Section 2. Approval. The City Council does hereby approve application PD 155-02, as depicted in Exhibit A, subject to the following conditions. 1. Skylights shall be incorporated into the proposed building designs to insure maximum use of natural day-lighting in indoor areas. 2. A pedestrian pathway shall be delineated within the proposed 20-foot wide driveway so that vehicles are more aware of people walking along the driveway. The pathway may be delineated with stamped, colored concrete, or other method to the approval of the Community Development Director. 3. The project Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions shall include a requirement that garages be kept available for parking of vehicles at all times, and shall not be used for general storage. 4. All mitigation measures are hereby made conditions of approval of the project. 5. The applicant shall detail the disposal location for excess dirt removed during grading operations in the required construction materials recycling plan, which is reviewed and approved by the City's Solid Waste Coordinator. 6. The applicant shall use an earthen swale instead of a concrete swale above the driveway for drainage, unless the hydrology analysis for the project shows that an earthen swale is not feasible. 7. The final map for the project shall reflect an Irrevocable Offer of Dedication for Lot 11, or an Easement Offer of Dedication, per the applicant's project description, to the approval of the Public Works Director and the Natural Resources Manager. 8. The private driveway will be clearly marked and identified as a fire lane. Parking on Rockview Place will be limited do to the required 20' width required for fire apparatus access. 9. An avigation easement and real estate disclosure document shall be completed to the approval of the Community Development Director and Airport Land Use Commission . Staff prior to recording of the Final Map for the proposed subdivision. a �� l Attachment 11 Ordinance No. (2003 Series) PD 155-02 (3301 Rockview) INTRODUCED on the 21st day of January , 2003, AND FINALLY ADOPTED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo on the day of , 2003, on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Mayor David F. Romero ATTEST: Lee Price, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Gil Trujillo, g City Attorney C � achm 0 76 R�c��FW R-2-S C/OS Existing �o 9Q W R-2-PD C/OS (No Change) Rezone Rezoning Exhibit A 60 0 60 120 Feet PD 155-02 (3301 Rockview) '%WIMMI-mm— a . poi Attachment 12 Draft Resolution to deny the proposed project RESOLUTION NO. (2003 Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO DENYING A TENTATIVE TRACT MAP AND PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ZONING FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON 3301 ROCKVIEW; TR/ER 155-02 (Tract 2502) WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing on, January 21, 2003, and has considered testimony of the applicant, interested parties, and the evaluation and recommendation of staff, and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing on December 4, 2002 for the purpose of making a recommendation to the City Council on the project; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the project is not consistent with the State Subdivision Map Act, City Zoning Ordinance, Building Code and other applicable City ordinances. BE IT RESOLVED,by the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. Findines. That this Council, after consideration of the proposed project (PD, TR, ER 155-02), the applicant's statement, the Planning Commission recommendation, staff recommendations and reports thereof, makes the following findings: [Council to choose one or more of the following findings from the California Subdivision Map Act or list other findings as appropriate.] 1. The proposed map is not consistent with the General Plan. 2. The design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is not consistent with the General Plan. 3. The site is not physically suited for the proposed type of development. 4. The site is not physically suitable for the proposed density of development. 5. The design of the subdivision, or the type of improvements, are likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and unavoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. 6. The design of the subdivision, or type of improvements, is likely to cause serious public health problems. 7. The design of the subdivision, or the type of improvements, will conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, property within the proposed subdivision. ��oa Attachment 12 Resolution No. (2003Series) Page 2 SECTION 2. Denial. That the project, PD/TR/ER 155-02, 3301 Rockview, 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 2003. Mayor David F. Romero ATTEST: Lee Price, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Actingi Attorney Gil Trujillo a"Io2 SwWwall - �7` G - . - 1 � ITMEON 96 di A WANO , �� r ,I ►�� s l � e ee� .1d IVA A. 003 �►� � � , iP UNQIL Barbara Ehrbar-To Council:Rockview PI-em Project W Page 1 From: Jan Marx <janmarx@fix.net> To: behrbar@ci.san-luis-obispo.ca.us> RECEIVED Date: 1/21/03 12:19PM Subject: To Council: Rockview Place Project JAN 2 1 2001 To the City Council: SLO CITY CLERK It is good that the project is providing two new affordable units under the inclusionary housing ordinance. But, is it also removing affordable units on the property at present? If so, the developer must also provide affordable replacement housing (Housing Element 1.22.19) Only NEW affordable housing would merit a subsidy from our affordable housing fund. Replacement housing is the developer's sole responsibility. Please make sure that residents are not subsidizing replacement housing for this project. Thank you for conserving our stock of affordable housing Jan Howell Marx 265 Albert Dr. San Luis Obispo RED FILE MEETING AGENDA DA3 rrEM #= r DDDIR IN DIRIRE CHIEFW DIROLICECHFEG DIR UTIL DIRHR DIR