Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/02/2003, PH3 - A 4-LOT MINOR SUBDIVISION, A TEXT AMENDMENT TO THE SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS, A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DE council MdigD' j acEnaa ucpoRt CITY OF SAN LUIS 0 B I S P 0 FROM: John Mandeville, Community Development Dire o Prepared By: Michael Codron,Associate Planner SUBJECT: A 4-LOT MINOR SUBDIVISION, A TEXT AMENDMENT TO THE SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS, A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION, AND EXCEPTIONS REQUESTED AS AFFORDABLE HOUSING INCENTIVES FOR A PROPOSED 16-UNIT APARTMENT PROJECT; 225 NORTH CHORRO (MS,TA,ER 76-03). CAO RECOMMENDATION As recommended by the Planning Commission: 1) Introduce an ordinance approving an amendment to the Subdivision Regulations to allow lots in Common Interest Developments to have any size or shape, except in the R-1 zone. 2) Adopt a resolution approving a 4-lot minor subdivision, a mitigated negative declaration and affordable housing incentives for a proposed 16-unit apartment project. DISCUSSION Situation/Previous Review On November 5, 2003, the Planning Commission voted 7-0 to forward a recommendation to the City Council to approve the proposed amendment to the Subdivision Regulations and project. The project includes a request for affordable housing incentives, which the applicant is allowed to ask for because affordability will be guaranteed for 4 of the 16 units. The requested incentives include allowing a 5-foot setback along the southern property line, where a 9-foot setback is normally required, and allowing one tandem parking space. On October 6, 2003, the ARC reviewed the project and provided the applicant with direction on minor changes to the building design that have since been incorporated into the plan. On September 22, 2003, the CHC reviewed the proposed building demolitions and determined that the Historical Resource Assessment for the project draws accurate conclusions and that the project will not have an impact on historical resources. Data Summary Address: 225 North Chorro Applicant/Property Owner: D.A. Fetyko Inc. Representative: Oasis Associates, Pults Associates, EDA, Inc. Zoning/General Plan: R-4, High Density Residential Environmental status: A Mitigated Negative Declaration is recommended. Council Agenda Report _ MS, TA, ER 76-03 (225 North Chorro) Page 2 Site Description The project site is substantially surrounded by high density residential development, with a portion of the property bordering the parking lot for Cork and Bottle Liquor and Deli (see Attachment 1, Vicinity Map). The site is relatively flat, although the slope trends away from North Chorro Street. Existing development on the site includes three residential buildings located at the southeasterly portion of the site. More than 50% of the property is undeveloped. The site is within walking distance of retail and service uses along the Foothill Boulevard corridor and is within biking distance of Cal Poly State University. Pro*ect Description The project is the re-development of a .50 acre residential parcel to include four new 4-plexes for a total of 16 units (See Attachment 2, Project Plans). Each four-plex has two 2-bedroom units and two I-bedroom units. A minor subdivision is proposed so that each 4-plex would be situated on its own lot, with easements to provide for access to each unit from a central driveway. In order to accommodate the new development, three residential buildings, a detached laundry room and a shed will be demolished. Twenty tree removals are proposed, including four oak trees that measure 4", 10", 14", and 18" in trunk diameter. An affordable housing incentive request has been made to reduce the required yard along the southern property line from 9 feet to 5 feet, as provided for by Chapter 17.90 of the Municipal Code, Sections 17.90.030.B and 17.90.050.7. The applicant has also requested approval of one tandem parking space. The project includes a request to amend the City of San Luis Obispo's Subdivision Regulations. The amendment would allow lots within Common Interest Developments to have any size or shape. Evaluation The subdivision is designed to allow for separate ownership of each of the four apartment buildings. The project would be developed by the applicant, who would then have the option of selling or retaining one or more of the four lots. Individual apartments within each of the buildings could not be sold. Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions (CC&R's) and a Homeowner's Association are required to insure on-going maintenance of the common features in the project, which include utilities, the driveway, uncovered parking spaces and open space areas. General Plan Conformity In order to approve the project, the City must determine that the proposal is consistent with the General Plan. In addition, the Zoning Regulations (Section 17.02.050) state that the City's regulations and standards will be interpreted and applied in a manner consistent with the General Plan. The Planning Commission has made specific findings of General Plan conformity as a basis for their recommendation to the City Council. Those findings are included in Draft Resolution "A" (Attachment 11). The Planning Commission Agenda Report of August 27, 2003 includes a detailed analysis of General Plan policies (Council Reading File). The policies evaluated in that report include Land Use Element (LUE) Goal 31 (Compact Urban Form), LUE Policy 2.2.12 (Residential Project Objectives), and Housing Element Policy 7.2.2 (Location of In-Fill Housing). Council Agenda Report MS, TA,ER 76-03 (225 North Chorro) Page 3 Density and Affordable Housing PROJECT DENSITY Lot Size Slope % Affordable Allowable Proposed Units Development Development .5 acres < 15% 4/16=25% ..5 acres x 24 8 two-bedroom units+ (entitles 25% units/acre= 8 one-bedroom units = density bonus) 12 density units + 13.28 density units 25%bonus-- 15 onus=15 density units As accounted for in the table above, the applicant is entitled to a density bonus of 25% because more than 20% of the units in the project will be affordable. The applicant is proposing to build four affordable units as part of the project, including three moderate units and one low-income unit (Attachment 3). The City's Affordable Housing Incentives (Municipal Code Chapter 17.90, Attachment 4) gives the applicant the ability to ask for additional incentives. The Planning Commission has recommended approval of the proposed setback exception and tandem parking space as an additional incentive for affordable housing (Attachment 5). Subdivision Regulations Amendment The proposed subdivision is a type of Common Interest Development called a planned development. The four types of common interest developments are defined in the Civil Code and include planned developments, condominium projects, stock cooperatives and community apartment projects (Attachment 6). With a planned development, ownership typically includes the building and'some land under or surrounding the building, as defined by real property lines. This is in contrast to a condominium project, where ownership is defined by air-space as described in a condominium plan. The unifying characteristic of Common Interest Developments is that maintenance and access to shared facilities is insured through a Homeowner's Association or other method. The planned development subdivision should not be confused with the City's Planned Development (PD) overlay zone, which is a zoning designation and not a method of subdivision. PD zoning can only be applied to residential lots with an area of at least one acre, and PD zoning allows for variable property development standards and density transfers between open space lots and developable lots. Although Common Interest Developments are a common form of subdivision, the City's standards for lot dimensions and street frontage do not specifically address lot sizes or configuration within these types of projects. As a result, the applicant is proposing a text amendment to Section 16.36.160, Lot Dimensions, of the Subdivision Regulations. The proposed text change follows in legislative draft format. Attachment 6 includes the complete text of Section 16.36.160 for reference. 3 - 3 Council Agenda Report MS, TA, ER 76-03 (225 North Chorro) Page 4 16.36.160; Lot Dimensions. Lots within eendefftWum all common interest subdivisions, as defined by the Davis-Stirling Common Interest Development Act, may have any size or shape, except in the R-1 zone where Common Interest Developments must meet the lot size and shape standards described in the table above. Lots which are approved in conjunction with a developmef glee Planned Development (PD) zoning, as provided in the zoning regulations, may have any size or shape consistent with the structures and improvements shown in the development plan. Based on input from Residents for Quality Neighborhoods (RQN), staff is recommending that the R-1 zone be excluded from the change. RQN is concerned because in the R-1 zone, the number of bedrooms in a house does not factor into the City's density calculation. Allowing planned developments in the R-1 zone could result in very large homes on relatively small lots, which would not be compatible with many of the City's existing single-family neighborhoods. In other zones,the number of bedrooms in a unit is limited directly by the size of the lot, insuring an appropriate proportion between lot size and unit size. Attachment 8 discusses minimum lot sizes in planned development subdivisions in more detail. The proposed text amendment is consistent with the General Plan because it will help the City realize the Housing Element goal of mixed housing variety and tenure: Housing Element Goal 1.25: Provide variety in the location, type, size, tenure, cost, style and age of dwellings to accommodate the wide range of households desiring to live within the City. Environmental Review The Community Development Director has recommended a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project. The environmental document is attached to this staff report and includes a discussion on aesthetics and air quality, the two areas where mitigation measures are recommended (Attachment 9). The aesthetics section discusses impacts related to tree removals. Four native oak trees would be removed as part of the project. The Tree Committee has reviewed the proposal but will not issue permits for the tree removals until development is imminent. At that time, the Tree Committee will determine appropriate replacement planting for the tree removals. The developer has agreed to plant replacement trees as required by the Tree Committee. FISCAL IMPACTS 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. e I �^ 1 Council Agenda Report MS, TA,ER 76-03 (225 North Chorro) Page 5 CONCURRENCES The Public Works Department, Utilities Department and Building Division have reviewed the project and provided comments that have been incorporated into the recommended resolution as conditions of approval or code requirements. The Fire Department has no concerns with the project because the new units will have fire sprinklers and will be located within 300 feet of the street. The Utilities Department noted that water allocations are still currently available on a first-come, first-served basis. ALTERNATIVES 1. The Council may deny the proposed subdivision if the required findings cannot be made. Staff and the Planning Commission are recommending approval of the subdivision because the project is consistent with the General Plan and will provide needed market-rate and affordable housing in the City. 2. The Council may deny the proposed Affordable Housing Incentives. This alternative is not recommended because the proposed setback and parking exceptions are needed for the current design to be feasible. 3. The Council may deny the proposed Subdivision Regulations amendment. This alternative is not recommended because the amendment addresses a legitimate method of subdividing land that is not currently addressed by the code. If the amendment is denied, the subdivision can still be approved if the Council grants lot size and dimension exceptions. 4. The Council may continue discussion if additional information is needed. Direction should be given to staff and the applicant. Attachments: Attachment 1: Vicinity map Attachment 2: Project Plans Attachment 3: Affordable Housing Proposal Attachment 4: Municipal Code Chapter 1.7.90,Affordable Housing Incentives Attachment 5: PC Action Letter, Draft Minutes, and Resolution-November 5, 2003 Attachment 6: Excerpts from the Davis-Stirling Common Interest Development Act Attachment 7: Subdivision Regulations Section 16.36.160 Attachment 8: Minimum Lot Sizes in a Planned Development Subdivision Attachment 9: Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration, ER 76-03 Attachment 10: Draft Ordinance"A,"approving the text amendment Attachment 11: Draft Resolution "A,"approving the project Attachment 12: Draft Resolution`B,"denying the project, and/or the text amendment Council Reading File: Planning Commission Agenda Reports with Attachments (8-27-03 and 11-5-03) L:\COUNCIL\Old Morro(76-03).doc �Illr� I ::■ 111-111 � ��■' � all ' Lim C • • • ■ ■ 111111111■ ICIII �■■��1 ��IIJ.I ■ -! �■��■■■,�,� �_� t :__� ■11111111111 sa�npossy 9`'�'rV`std•Q uana�g p�...,.,,6� Cox $ ' '� Atta h. ent { {et A 0. Q Y pp 0 .. . . .. . . .. .. . Z Oa 9 Q WO0 CL :�3 0 = O €5 IJ-get=a N �� 3a� � s �` 8'ga3 jje5 6Eg 2 Y3 sS1 4 g �9 gscg Lyi �gi Z J N Q o e a# ld Fcii N N 0 8° 'o a � � ' Fee 7 S 3�I sampossy.9'-v-rv'SlPd'G UMNS-1 4 z v C— If ;2 :- an, (70105i't% 4ttac nt-, 0 11.1 tl; 020, o CHORRO STREET Ki'Gool v 0 Tn 1 6 V z 0 V;e kz 41 0 2i xxv" 1 rye'1 rw z 0 Ilk ir z z a. NMI Sx/ 0 3 '31( x YY X�x z 0 I Xe, "X X X, E)lM.00.6c.ce N mmm mmmm� 11 sa=ssy 9 I'V'I V`siM'0 uaaals o:,[' �� fta o . .. a- E a 2m €¢ gg RA o-ca b YC: I ZWZ C] � _yI�I _ I 1 W J`�nq � --- - p I W J•� > rala• �.._ a JLL,�� - 7w "JLLg,''• J ' a o lx Wx oya r �— __LA.1._ ' -- _ "--- -� I ' I I _ I lu b _ W Zn4 { •W I a dd �� l:Dj. Y n1uJ.3S: 71 .. 1 W as SS Z MA IL @ IL m w �I(� W IL 37 jb $9d i5 IO ® mb,y ml d- I� I I- r-I t I . I 4^ po Q n 1i Ir--»-- I l li W<ya i r b €'k eo �1 s�o [ � Z o=.e r� y�tpp�wwmo�ScY 3 -9 Pt Attach m- N p Him doet" I , .. - lit g#iii D-OG 1� r. 1 .i�" �3n� _ p W C:,39 i Z� _: •y�dr.e:� v o ,I- f t moo; g - : mooEE t ; IL I� I ><szd 1 e^ W Zoe I of at OwoCD 0 -^ _ O nJw.. .r-.Lm .a-.GL N e - rL __ _ W d t �L4 4 r ys r is ' OWL �- LJ .36 W �S X _ W W�y$] W xq W3� j r w9 ^I mdo22A I G CO. po J 1'__ _f __ 199 W Z n,`. $ x - Z 1 J - L O II ww to 81 o51 4 wLL yy - l0 L>t ^++ salnpossy3`'Y'fYpr `s� d puana7S Att���s ��� �_ C f1en i Of `i'ts�i¢a i i D-sc i P♦■ a S 33 ' S § A3 4g§ i i� ! 5 i L EI it?� � � � n • n o i F o00 ti.. 1, ❑❑❑ = m ❑❑❑ 9 i 3= 0 © 0 © 00 I w 28 a A ao L 1`1 gg gg 000 . Kn 3 �4 Sy 5� 3a 35 Q N 00011J0� � S <" o i3 mo Z i I i I I � ii �Ia�i Ilia' � i= Illlill 1/111111 -.-= ';;;;;;'.II 111111111;11 IIIIIOI 11111111 = liiiiin uiriiil �lii�lu I III�I�I'I is �rw� real IIIIIt11Il IIII�IIIIIIIII�II11 iii:i�lri J% � 9 �=al�FV 4\� raa. 1I —Irlr�4qM- �` mua�m Ali a•C \rr -71 - earl. wrn 11111 IIIIIIII 11111111 1'11'11'1 III'III 111 11111111 11111111 1//11111 I Illtllll 11111/11 I'.IIif III II'�lil.' 1/111111 11111111 11111111 I11111111.1 11111111 Illllill 11111111 Illllill 000 0 0 0 0 Innen noon C Bir I x lila Z► 1 Innen uunn B t r e 1 I r - Ilnllll Ilnllll r �� .BVm� 4i•b. Ilnllll menu B111_111111�111111.1 annul' nnmll�ll'1111.1111�11 I aan ml�w s:u�i�laa� nnnu ,IN nnnu �\` I\I �1immi 111 �I'-- _ �lo�el .aa �aWwooats.xni 6g&'(, '� teu��l . .n:l. "Bn3iiwof lowtnewa uvw eac wns i vl� {�� r OEM fi;lii w -- l mwna� ♦8�.\R`�'V ala\pi I` \n Vw ala il�'� j4 lair Ana naa jJ�"1 IC\BVIf ��►\pl\'� `R Ivwaaa�Wvwi-� Illnlll Illllln 111111_1II�I11.1'I � IY11111 11111111 m:::::1� ;;mIl1I.�pIIIII11J1111 � �� Imlllt ..•1i..iiii O Q Q Q 0 Innen iiii nnllll mull Illllill IIIIIIIII unllll nngp 4 III' li' Im - e131,'1�71iII,il �1® 1111111111- � a � 0000 �nrxwt�vs_wa7vro:'eva..vi¢>:ut 1 Ii1 ml\SI': II a D! 2 II til, Mal, Tow n", I 1 El liiiuii lal ul 'awi r'x�, '' Innen Inl`nl �►` ,j'\e�a� Ell--�effs�'i�' anon anon it lia wxz. =�.w'tel ��m nmol Y I I I I I I EII41!III!1 n: Ilnllll ' IIIIIIII � -- � 9 �I.t``'�l\ — _-• t ` I 1 I \ ♦v`�� I ut i}I mf l��oi1°iirl Y � iiliiii MI ul Y .�u4)i I� —nunl _ } ♦SII tl I -1 lltl• I I I_ Il ry L'i' 7 Q;;' In u '-I G.t 5 4._ Y4t�'lllnf II SY � I MIlllln MUM RI I I I11 inllllllllll'I M l lll�lll'IL/II I II �����; IIIIIIII I Illnlll IIIIIIII 11111111II Inlllllil— Illlllll Illnlll omen nlq}11 . i 1 ' Not ! |- � - - . . ( , � ) � ) ] ) � ] | \ � � | ) � LU _ IL ! zz ` Lk ........... IN ----------- --- ........... NO LEM NUN ---------- ME% ——----------��Il .......... • ....... "'PAR jA� 04 --- ------ -- I I .......... .......... fav ,qw, 1 •�lv mz WPO Jug .uaF•7aMliltl•� �\°�� � 'rl. L� A �r 111111E"I, !'��.`� erwi '111111 ❑111 v �`.■►lu rr'r��' PTA I . '.i IIIA � I�r L4` -1 7 Attachment 3 E! 1 ti I ;, LANnSCAI' [ ARC HITLC 1 LIRL AND PLANNING; 29 October 2003 I- i I Mr. Michael Codron, Associate Planner Community Development Department City of San Luis Obispo -- --- 990Palm Street C� dli:iU�:iiY a% '_-�''• San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 RE: Old Morro Gard¢nz, 225 N. Chorro Street, ARC 76-03 Dear Michael, As you are aware, the proposed project is a re-development of a .50 acre R-4 zoned parcel to include four new 4-plexes for a total of sixteen (16) units. The project description also includes an affordable housing component including the following: QTY./UMT TYPE AFFORDABILITY STANDARD" (1) 2-bedroom unit Moderate (2) 1-bedroom units Moderate (1) 1-bedroom unit Low 1) As prepared by the Community Development Department and updated periodically to show income limits for the County of San Luis Obispo as published by the State Department of Housing and Community Development. The project density is illustrated in the table below. Lot Size %Affordable Allowable Proposed Units Development Development .5 acres 4/16=25% .5 acres x 24 8 two-bedroom units+ (w/entitlement) DU/AC= 8 one-bedroom units= 12 DU+25%= 13.28 density units 15 density units While the project is entitled to a maximum density bonus of 25%,because 20%of the units(4 out of 16) will be affordable to low and moderate income households, the applicant, D.A. Fetyko, Inc., is requesting a 10.66% density bonus. The applicant fully anticipates entering into an 805.541.4509 FAX 805.546.0525 3427 MIGUELITO CT SAN LUIS OBISPO CALIFORNIA 93401 Attachment 3 OASIS ASSOCIATES, li,,: 29 October 2003 Old Morro Gardens-Affordable Housing Component Page 2 of 2 affordable housing agreement with the City of San Luis Obispo to ensure compliance with the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code § 17.90.070. In addition to the applicant's request for a density bonus, the project requires approval of an exception to the zoning property development standards for setbacks. The applicant understands that these exceptions are granted to the extent that such exceptions are authorized by relevant provision of the code. We look forward to a favorable response to our request. Thank you for your consideration. Should you have any questions regarding specific project details or require any additional information,please contact this office. s d7I ubmitted, SI SO IATES, INC. 1 �l C. e,AICP Agent D.A. FETYKO, INC. c: D.A.F. 03-0016 0:1225 North ChorrolCorrespondencelafjhousdenbonreq.doc �- 19 Attachment 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 Pagel 3. 20 Attachment 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 a zoning regulations or persons or families of lower or moderate income,the director shall ant t e developer, upon the eve oiler'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. 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 density bonus 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 Paget 9 Attachment 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 ranting 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) 11.90.050 Alternative or additional incentives. g 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; IL 6. Direct subsidy of construction costs or construction financing costs; 7. Approval of exceptions to subdivision or zoning property development standards, but only to OT— 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 fin_ancial 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 Page3 3 - Attachment 4pq 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 § 1 (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 § 1 (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 Page4 3 -a3 Attachment 4 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.§ 1 (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 Page5 U Attachment 5 �Il��l�ll�lll�hl������ �Ipllllllll� �l�lllll IIII 1ASOBISPO� cr�:y o san 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 November 18, 2003 D.A. Fetyko, Inc. P.O. Box 1999 Atascadero, CA 93423 SUBJECT: TA/MS/ER 76-03 (SLO 03-0193): 225 North Chorro Street. Request to amend the Subdivision Regulations to provide for lot size exceptions for common interest subdivisions, request to subdivide one existing lot into four lots and request for reduced side yard setbacks, including Environmental Review of project with 16 new apartments. Dear Mr. Fetyko: The Planning Commission, at its meeting of November 5, 2003, recommended that the City Council approve your project, based on the information noted in the attached resolution. The action of the Planning Commission is a recommendation to the City Council and, therefore, is not final. This matter has been tentatively scheduled for public hearing before the City Council on December 2, 2003. This date, however, should be verified with the City Clerk's office (805) 781- 7102. If you have any questions, please contact Michael Codron at (805) 781-7175. Sincerely, on Whisenan Deputy Director of Community Development Development Review Attachment: Resolution No. 5377-03 cc: County of SLO Assessor's Office Oasis Associates, Inc. Attn: Carol Florence 3427 Miguelito Court San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Evelyn S. DelMartini TRE 2210 Santa Ynez Ave. San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 OThe City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled.in all of its services,programs and activities. Telecommunications Device for the Deaf(805)781-7410. Attachment 5 RESOLUTION NO. 5377-03 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A FOUR-LOT MINOR SUBDIVISION WITH SETBACK EXCEPTIONS, A TEXT AMENDMENT TO THE SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS, AFFORDABLE HOUSING INCENTIVES AND ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW MS/TA/ER 76-03 (225 N. Chorro) 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 November 5, 2003, for the purpose of considering Application MS/TA/ER 76-03, a four-lot minor subdivision with exceptions, a text amendment to the Subdivision Regulations, affordable housing incentives and environmental review; and 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 August 27, 2003, and provided direction to the staff and applicant to provide additional information to the Commission and make changes to the project design; and WHEREAS, said public hearings were 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 hearings were made at the time and in the manner required by law; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has considered the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project and has determined that the environmental document adequately addresses the potential environmental impacts of 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. Recommendation. The Planning Commission hereby recommends approval of the proposed project, based on findings and subject to mitigation measures, conditions of approval and code requirements as detailed in Sections 2 through 6. Section 2. Subdivision Findings.. The following findings are hereby made in support of the recommendation on the project. Attachment 5 Planning Commission Resolution No. 5377-03 Page 2 225 North Chorro, MS/TA/ER#76-03 1. The proposed map is consistent with the General Plan because the subdivision will provide for high-density residential development, consistent with the requirements and limitations of the R-4 zone. 2. The design 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 high density residential zone. 3. The site is physically suited for the proposed type of development because it is an under- developed site adjacent to an existing street right-of-way with complete City services. 4. As conditioned, the site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development because the site is within an existing City block, services are available to serve the development, and utilities have been designed to serve the site per City standards. 5. The design of the subdivision 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. 6. The design of the subdivision 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 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. Section 3. Affordable Housing Incentives. The following findings are hereby made in support of the proposed affordable housing incentives. 1. The project is eligible for affordable housing incentives because over 20% of the units in the project will be affordable to households of low and moderate income. 2. The project is entitled to a density bonus of at least 25%, but because of parking limitations a density bonus of 10.66% is requested. 3. The Municipal Code of the City of San Luis Obispo provides for exceptions to property development standards as one of several potential affordable housing incentives. 4. The proposed setback exceptions will not harm the general health, safety, or welfare of people living or working on the site or in the vicinity because the project has been redesigned to reduce solar impacts on adjacent properties. 5. Buildings on adjacent properties will be separated by a minimum distance of 10 feet, because the proposed improvements on the project site will maintain a 57foot setback, and existing buildings on the adjacent properties have at least a 5-foot setback. Attachment 5 Planning Commission Resolution No. 5377-03 Page 3 225 North Chorro, MS/TA/ER#76-03 6. Adjacent properties will not be deprived of reasonable solar exposure because the proposed project is consistent with the City's setback requirements along the northern property line. Section 4. Text Amendment Findings. The following findings are hereby made in support of the proposed Subdivision Regulations Text Amendment, Exhibit A. 1. The proposed text amendment is necessary to bring the Subdivision Regulations up to date, because the current code does not contain any specific standard or direction for Common Interest Developments, which is a method of subdivision that is authorized by the California Civil Code and the Subdivision Map Act. Section 5. Environmental Review. The proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project adequately identifies all of the potential impacts of the project and the following mitigation measures are necessary to reduce potentially significant impacts to less than significant levels. 1. Mitigation. New oak trees shall be planted at a replacement rate to be approved by the City of San Luis Obispo Tree Committee. In addition to replacement trees, at least one of the required street trees planted for the project shall be a Coast Live Oak. • Monitoring Program: The proposed mitigation measure will be monitored through the Building Permit Plan Check process, whereby the landscape plan for the project can be checked to insure compliance with the requirement. Any off-site planting required by the Tree Committee must be implemented and inspected by the project planner prior to occupancy of any units in the project. A performance bond to insure the health and longevity of the trees will also be required as a condition of building permit approval. 2. Miti ag tion Areas of one (1.0) acre or less: No person shall engage in any construction or grading operation on property where the area to be disturbed is one (1.0) acre or less unless all of the following dust mitigation measures are initiated at the start and maintained throughout the duration of the construction or grading activity: a. Construction vehicle speed at the work site must be limited to fifteen (15) miles per hour or less; b. Prior to any ground disturbance, sufficient water must be applied to the area to be disturbed to prevent visible emissions from crossing the property line; 3 � Attachment 5 Planning Commission Resolution No. 5377-03 Page 4 225 North Chorro, MS/TA/ER#76-03 c. Areas to be graded or excavated must be kept adequately wetted to prevent visible emissions from crossing the property line; d. Storage piles must be kept adequately wetted, treated with a chemical dust suppressant, or covered when material is not being added to or removed from the pile; e.• Equipment must be washed down before moving from the property onto a paved public road; and f. Visible track-out on the paved public road must be cleaned using wet sweeping or a NEPA filter equipped vacuum device within twenty-four (24) hours. • Monitoring Program.: The Air Pollution Control District monitors State requirements for air quality on a complaint basis. City Building Inspectors and Public Works Inspectors also monitor the above requirements because they are printed on all sets of improvement plans and building plans for which a City permit is issued. Section 6. Conditions and Code Requirements. The project is subject to the following conditions of approval and code requirements. 1. Architectural Review is required for the proposed building designs, which may result in changes to the proposed building height and massing, as necessary to implement the City of San Luis Obispo's Community Design Guidelines. 2. The improvement plans if required, shall be approved prior to building permit issuance. 3. All easements including but not limited to provisions for all public and private utilities, access, drainage, common driveways, and maintenance of the same shall be shown on the final map or recorded.separately prior to building permit issuance. 4. Any required off-site easements shall be recorded prior to building permit issuance. Off- site improvements located on private property and necessary for this development as proposed shall have the additional scope of work shown on the building plans or on a separate plan and associated permit application to the satisfaction of the Building Official. Any off-site permits for work on private property shall be issued before or concurrent with permits for this development. 5. All new frontage improvements shall comply with city standards. Existing frontage improvements shall be upgraded, repaired, or replaced to conform to current city standards to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director. 6. The proposed on-site sewer main, storm drainage/retention systems, water services, and fire services shall be privately owned and maintained by the Homeowner's Association. Auacnment o Planning Commission Resolution No. 5377-03 Page 5 225 North Chorro, MS/TA/ER#76-03 7. Final grades and alignmentsof all water, fire services, sewer, and storm drains (including service laterals and meters) shall be subject to change to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director and Utilities Engineer. 8. 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. 9. The subdivider shall place underground all existing overhead telecommunication utilities along the Chorro Street frontage to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director and serving utility companies. 10. The existing septic system and leach field shall be abandoned in accordance with the UPC and recommendations by the project soils engineer whichever is more restrictive: 11. A soils report is required for this development. The soils report shall be submitted at the time of building permit application and public improvement plan submittal if applicable. The building, grading, and drainage plans shall be reviewed by the soils engineer for consistency with the report recommendations. 12. A detailed hydrology study indicating the effects of the proposed development on adjacent and downstream properties will be required. The scope of the study should include analysis of the existing historic drainage. The analysis shall include the watershed from adjoining properties if necessary. The historic drainage outlet from this property shall be clarified and incorporated into the final drainage plan and detailed safe overflow. The existing drainage as shown on the tentative map to outlet entirely to the Cork n Bottle property shall be confirmed. 13. Detention facilities may be required. All proposed detention basin and drainage improvements shall be privately owned and maintained by the property owner and/or homeowners' association. Runoff from the post-developed site shall not exceed that of predevelopment for the 2, 10, and 100-year, 24-hour storm. Analysis and design of stormwater facilities shall be consistent with the City's Draft Watershed Management Plan. 14. Off-site easements shall be secured for the proposed safe overflow for the drainage system. The proposed overflow shall provide a non-erosive outlet to an approved point of disposal. The existing off-site drainage system(s) shall be justified for capacity and condition to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director. Permits for any upgrade to off-site drainage improvements shall be permitted before or concurrent with permits for new development on the project site. 15. Improved surface drainage structures and/or subsurface drainage systems shall be provided along the rear yards of Parcels 3 and 4 in lieu of an earthen Swale where private. 3,3V Attachment 5- Planning Commission Resolution No. 5377-03 Page 6 225 North Chorro, MS/TA/ER#76-03 patios are proposed. 16. 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 in accordance with the Professional Land Surveyors Act, the Subdivision Map Act and the Subdivision City's Regulations. 17. The map shall be tied to at least two points of the City's horizontal control network, California State Plane Coordinate System, Zone 5 (199135 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. 18. The final map 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. 19. Electronic files along with 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 AutoCAD compatible drawing files and any associated plot files along with one original, stamped and signed, ink on mylar set of plans. 20. 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, with appropriate credit given for prior accounts on the property. 21. Each parcel shall have its own separate wastewater service lateral. 22. Each lot requires a separate connection to the public water main for automatic fire sprinklers. Each fire service lateral shall include a USC approved backflow preventer appropriate for the proposed use. The backflow preventer shall be located as close to the public right-of-way as possible, in direct alignment with the connection to the public water main. The backflow preventer can be located no further than 25 feet from the right- of-way line without prior written approval of the Utilities Engineer. If the fire service supports one or more fire hydrants, the USC approved backflow preventer shall also include detector capabilities (double detector check assembly). The FDC may be located behind the backflow prevention assembly, in accordance with manufacturer's 3 ,�� Attachment 5 Planning Commission Resolution No. 5377-03 Page 7 225 North Chorro, MS/TA/ER#76-03 recommendations. The location and orientation of the FDC shall be approved by the Fire Department. 23. 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. 24. The redevelopment of the site triggers the Utilities Department Sewer Lateral Abandonment Policy. This policy states that the sewer lateral must be abandoned at the main prior to any 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. 25. Prior to ARC review, project plans shall be revised to show the dimensional location, orientation, type, spacing and clearance from vertical and horizontal site features of all short- and long-term bicycle parking facilities, consistent with guidance provided by the Community Design Guidelines and the Bicycle Transportation Plan (May 2002). Bicycle racks shall be of the inverted "U" design consistent with Engineering Standard 7930. Project plans shall also clearly show how bicycle parking will be provided, consistent with Table 6.5 of the Zoning Regulations. Bicycle parking within garages shall be shown to not be in conflict with any required vehicle parking spaces. 26. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66474.9(b), the subdivider 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 this subdivision, and all actions relating thereto, including but not limited to environmental review. 27. The proposed parcel map shall be revised so that equal area is given to each of the proposed lots, consistent with the City's density requirements. On motion by Commr. Loh, seconded by Commr. Aiken, and on the following roll call vote to wit: AYES: Commissioners Aiken, Cooper, Caruso, Loh, Boswell, Christianson and Chairperson Osborne NOES: None REFRAIN: None ABSENT: None 3-� Attachment 5 Planning Commission Resolution No. 5377-03 Page 8 225 North Chorro, MS/TA/ER#76-03 The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 5t' day of November, 2003. tom' onald )�hisenand, Secretary Planning Commission 3- 33 Attachment 5 Draft Planning Commission minutes November 5,2003 Page 10 man turing uses and potential noise traffic dust vibration and other emissIns ex osur . The motion maker and seconder accepted the amendments. Commr. Boswe aid he could support the motion with the amendmen owever he did not feel this w the ideal location for this kind of development sect. He noted that there will probabl ver be an ideal project or location for infi r contiguous urban development, but won d if the City can deal with t particular constraints associated with this project. a felt intrusion into the floo ne has been adequately addressed, and felt the City nee project like this one. Commr. Aiken noted a major concer ith inse i g a residential zone between two manufacturing zones, and sandwiching ei so close to the existing and potential manufacturing uses, and therefore could port the project. He suggested that if the Commission supports the project, ion E the Resolution relating to Work-Live Unit Findings should be deleted. Iso suggest kchanging Mitigation Measure 47 under Transportation from a qu on to a definite co ' ion by removing the second sentence. AYES: Commrs swell, Caruso, Cooper, Loh. Christianso nd Osborne NOES: Com : Aiken ABSENT: N ABSTAIN: one The ion carried on a 6:1 vote. Chairperson clarified to the audience that th is a r mmendation to the City Council, who will take the final action on the project. 2. 225 North Chorro Street. TA, MS and ER 76-03 (SLO 03-0193): Request to amend the Subdivision Regulations to provide for lot size exceptions for common interest subdivisions, request to subdivide one existing lot into four lots and request for reduced side yard setbacks, including Environmental Review of project with 16 new apartments; R-4 zone; D.A. Fetyko, applicant. (Continued from August 27, 2003.) (Michael Codron) Associate Planner Michael Codron presented the staff report recommending the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council approve the proposed subdivision, text amendment, Mitigated Negative Declaration, setback exceptions and affordable housing incentives, based on findings and subject to conditions and code requirements. He explained the request is create four lots from one lot, and physical development of the property would include 16 apartments in four separate buildings. Four of the 16 apartments will be affordable to low- and moderate-income households, and the project also includes an amendment to the Subdivision Regulations to allow common interest developments to have lots of any size or shape. Carol Florence, project planner, noted this revised project has benefited greatly from a two-month collaborative effort.with the CHC, ARC and previous hearing by the Planning Commission, and asked the Commission to recommend approval of the project, as recommended by staff. 3 -3t4 Attachment 5 Draft Planning Commission Minutes November 5, 2003 Page 11 In response to a question from Commr. Loh, Kim Hatch explained that they have removed the gable roof portion that faced north to south, so one gable running east to west remains. Commr. Aiken felt the revised design minimizes the amount of shadowing that occurs across the property line. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Steve Delmartini, 562 Mill Street, spoke in support of this infill project and felt this project is an ideal opportunity to get some much needed rental housing that includes some affordable units. MaryBeth Schroeder, 2085 Wilding Lane, had no problem with this project provided it was not more student housing. There were no further comments made from the public. COMMISSION COMMENTS: Commr: Loh supported the project since all the issues that were discussed at the previous meeting have been addressed such as the loft space being reduced, the height has been reduced, along with the shadow casting and setback issues. Comr. Loh moved the staff recommendation, as noted in the staff report. Seconded by Commr..Aiken. Commr: Aiken noted that he had concems with the lofts, but since this project meets the ordinance limitations regarding lofts, he could support the project. Commr. Caruso shared the concerns of Commr. Aiken, but felt he could support the request given the reduced loft size. AYES: Commrs. Boswell, Caruso, Aiken, Cooper, Loh. Christianson, and Osborne NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None The motion carried on a 7:0 vote. '9%w4M1 Laurel Lane. GPA/R/ER 121-03: Request to change the an designate ' one property from Neighborhood is (C-N) to High Density Residential ( - Envir eview; C-N zone; Paul Nagy, applicant. (Tyler Corey)(To be ate uncertain.) This item w ed to a date uncertain, without discussion "��� 3 - 35 Attachment 6 CALIFORNIA CODES CIVIL CODE SECTION 1350-1376 1350. This title shall be known and may be cited as the Davis-Stirling Common Interest Development Act. 1351. As used in this title, the following terms have the following meanings: (a) "Association" means a nonprofit corporation or unincorporated association created for the purpose of managing a common interest development. (b) "Common area" means the entire common interest development except the separate interests therein. The estate in the common area may be a fee, a life estate, an estate for years, or any combination of the foregoing. However, the common area for a planned development specified in paragraph(2) of subdivision (k) may consist of mutual or reciprocal easement rights appurtenant to the separate interests. (c) "Common interest development" means any of the following: (1) A community apartment project. (2) A condominium project. (3) A planned development. (4) A stock cooperative. (f)A "condominium project" means a development consisting of condominiums. A condominium consists of an undivided interest in common in a portion of real property coupled with a separate interest in space called a unit,the boundaries of which are described on a recorded final map,parcel map, or condominium plan in sufficient detail to locate all boundaries thereof. The area within these boundaries may be filled with air, earth, or water, or any combination thereof, and need not be physically attached to land except by easements for access and, if necessary, support. The description of the unit may refer to (1) boundaries described in the recorded final map, parcel map, or condominium plan, (2)physical boundaries, either in existence, or to be constructed, such as walls, floors, and ceilings of a structure or any portion thereof, (3)an entire structure containing one or more units, or(4) any combination thereof. The portion or portions of the real property held in undivided interest may be all of the real property, except for the separate interests, or may include a particular three-dimensional portion thereof,the boundaries of which are described on a recorded 3-3to Attachment 6 final map, parcel map, or condominium plan. The area within these boundaries may be filled with air, earth, or water, or any combination thereof, and need not be physically attached to land except by easements for access and, if necessary, support. An individual condominium within a condominium project may include, in addition, a separate interest in other portions of the real property. (k) "Planned development" means a development (other than a community apartment project, a condominium project, or a stock cooperative) having either or both of the following features: (1)The common area is owned either by an association or in common by the owners of the separate interests who possess appurtenant rights to the beneficial use and enjoyment of the common area. (2) A power exists in the association to enforce an obligation of an owner of a separate interest with respect to the beneficial use and enjoyment of the common area by means of an assessment which may become a lien upon the separate interests in accordance with Section 1367 or 1367.1. (1) "Separate interest" has the following meanings: (1) In a community apartment project, "separate interest" means the exclusive right to occupy an apartment, as specified in subdivision(d). (2) In a condominium project, "separate interest" means an individual unit, as specified in subdivision (f). (3) In a planned development, "separate interest" means a separately owned lot,parcel, area, or space. (4) In a stock cooperative, "separate interest" means the exclusive right to occupy a portion of the real property, as specified in subdivision (m). 3- aI Attachment 7 San Luis Obispo Municipal Code 16.36.160 Lot dimensions. Each lot shall have the minimum area and dimensions indicated in the table below for the zone in which it is located. Each lot shall front on a street. MINIMUM LOT AREA AND DIMENSIONS Min. Lot Min. Min. Min. Areal Width2 Depth Frontage Zone (sq. ft.) (feet) (feet) (feet) C/OS 5 acres 200 200 50 or more as required by zone R-1 6,000 50 90 20 R-2 6,000 60 90 30 R-3 6,000 60 90 40 R-4 6,000 60 90 40 O 6,000 60 90 40 PF 6,000 60 90 40 C-N 6,000 60 90 40 C-R 9,000 60 100 40 C-T 9,000 60 100 40 C-C 3,000 25 50 15 C-S 9,000 60 100 40 M 9,000 60 100 40 Exceptions: Lots within condominium subdivisions may have any size or shape. Lots which are approved in conjunction with a development plan as provided in the zoning regulations may have any size or shape consistent with the structures and improvements shown in the development plan. Notes: 1. In residential subdivision, corner lots shall have a minimum area fifteen percent larger than otherwise required. 2. In residential subdivisions,corner lots shall be ten feet wider than otherwise required. (Ord. 934 § 1 (part), 1982: prior code § 9107.3(B)) Printed from Folio Views Pagel 3-3 Attachment 8 Attachment 8—Analysis of Proposed Text Amendment The proposed change would allow all Common Interest Developments to have lots of any size or shape. Currently the exemption applies only to condominium projects. Planned development subdivisions are also Common Interest Developments. They include real property lines within their boundaries, so the proposed amendment will be helpful for addressing the size and shape of these lots. The proposed amendment allows lots in Common Interest Developments to have any size or shape, except in the R4 zone. The proposed amendment provides flexibility in lot size and shape because lot sizes are controlled by more specific factors such as parking requirements, density requirements, setbacks, and lot coverage. Effect of the Amendment The proposed amendment would essentially establish alternative minimum lot sizes for development in the multi-family zones. Such lot sizes could only be established within a Common Interest Development, which requires the establishment of a Homeowner's Association, or other method to insure on-going maintenance and access to common facilities. As part of a Common Interest Development, a two-bedroom home could be built on the following sized lots: 3,630 square foot lot in the R-2 Zone; 2,420 square foot lot in the R-3 Zone; 1,815 square foot lot in the R-4 Zone. As the units get bigger, so do the lot size requirements. A three-bedroom home could be built on the following sized lots: 5,445 square foot lot in the R-2 Zone; 3,630 square foot lot in the R-3 Zone; 2,723 square foot lot in the R-4 Zone. In Practice The Old Morro Gardens is a good example of how the proposed text amendment would work in practice. Each of the four lots are large enough to allow for the type of development proposed. No density transfer has occurred. Setbacks, lot coverage, and density requirements are met. The lots do not meet the normal size and shape requirements for standard subdivisions. Two of the lots are interior to the site and have no street frontage. This is acceptable because a Homeowner's Association will exist for the purpose of maintaining and insuring access to the driveway utilities, landscaping and common areas. 3 '� Attachment 9 ' Illllllll�lll)� II of sAn loll' S OB1c,�ys[)0 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM For ER#76-03 1. Project Title: Old Morro Gardens 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of San Luis Obispo 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Michael Codron, (805) 781-7175 4. Project Location: 225 N. Chorro Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: D.A. Fetyko, Inc. PO Box 1999 Atascadero, CA 93423 6. General Plan Designation: High Density Residential 7. Zoning: High Density Residential (R-4) 8. Description of the Project: The project is the re-development of a .50 acre residential parcel to include four new 4-plexes for a total of 16 units. Each four-plex has two 2-bedroom apartments and two 1-bedroom apartments. The applicant is entitled to a density bonus of 25% because over 20% of the units in the project (4-out of the 16) will be affordable to low or moderate-income households. The actual density bonus proposed is only 10.66% because of parking limitations. Parking is provided for each unit in compliance with the City's Zoning Regulations, except the applicant is requesting approval of two tandem parking spaces. A minor subdivision is proposed so that each 4-plex would be situated on its own lot, with easements to provide for access to each unit from a central driveway. The buildings are each similar in design, and have a maximum height of 35', including two full stories with lofts above ground level parking.. Outdoor space is provided for residents with a combination of small decks and ground level yards. A common barbecue area is also incorporated into the plan. In order to accommodate the new development, three residential buildings, a detached laundry room and a shed will be demolished. Twenty tree removals are proposed, including four oak trees that measure 4", 10", 14", and 18" in trunk diameter. Setback exceptions are proposed to reduce the required yards from 10 feet to 5 feet, and from 8 feet to 5 ® The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services,programs and activitie& Telecommunications Device for the Deaf(805)781-7410. Attachment 9 feet, for the buildings on Lot 1 and Lot 2. Exceptions are also proposed to reduce the required yard from 8 feet to 5 feet for the buildings on Lot 3 and Lot 4. The project includes a request to amend the City of San Luis Obispo's Subdivision Regulations. The amendment would allow lots within all common interest subdivisions to have any size or shape. Presently, the Subdivision Regulations include such an exception for condominium subdivisions, which is one type of common interest subdivision. The other three types include planned developments, community apartment projects, and stock cooperatives. The proposed project is a planned development, as described by California Civil Code Sections 1350-1376 (commonly referred to as the Davis-Stirling Common Interest Development Act). The planned development type of subdivision should not be confused with the City's PD overlay zone, which can only be applied to lots 1 acre or greater in size and provide for density transfers, exceptions to property development standards and other benefits. The difference between a condominium subdivision and a planned development subdivision is limited to how ownership is described, and does not have an effect on the physical appearance of a project. 9. Surrounding Land Uses and Settings: The project site is substantially surrounded by high density residential development, with a small portion of the property bordering the parking lot for Cork and Bottle Liquor and Deli. The site is relatively flat, although the slope trends away from North Chorro Street and a stormwater lift station is needed to bring runoff up to the street. Existing development on the site is located at the southeasterly portion of the site and more than 50% of the property is undeveloped. The undeveloped portions of the site are not maintained for outdoor use or activities and are frequently overgrown with weeds. The site is within walking distance of retail and service uses along the Foothill Boulevard corridor and is within biking distance of Cal Poly State University. 10. Project Entitlements Requested: Vesting Tentative Parcel Map, Architectural Review, Environmental Review,Municipal Code Text Amendment,Tree Removal Permit. 11. Other public agencies whose approval is required: None ami CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 2 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2003 3 -41 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. X Aesthetics Geology/Soils Public Services Agricultural Resources Hazards&Hazardous Recreation Materials X Air Quality 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)). CITY OF SAN Luis OBISPO 3 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMEWAL.CHEOKusT 2003 3 - a Attachment 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. August 13,2003 >Katuye Date �&L,d �k �cti...0 �ro�'1' 2��� For: John Mandeville, Printed Name Community Development Director VCM of SAN Luis OBISPO 4 INmaL STunv ENwRoNMENTAL CNECKu3T 2003 3-�}3 Attachment EVALUATION OF ENVIItONMENTAL IMPACTS: 1. A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the analysis in each section. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved(e.g. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A"No Impact"answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g. the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants,based on a project-specific screening analysis). 2. All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site,cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct;and construction as well as operational impacts. 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 Code of Regulations. 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 wereaddressed 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 OBISPO 5 INMAL STUDY EWRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2003 3-L4 Aftnrhment Issues, Discussion and Suppo,... ,'Information Sources Sources N. } PotentiallyLess'Iliah " No Significant Significant Significant Impact Unless ER # 76-03 (Old Morro Gardens) sues Mitigation Impact Incorporated 1.AESTHETICS. Would theproject: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? 1 X b) Substantially damage scenic resairces,including,.but not limited to,trees,rock outcroppings,open space,and historic buildings 2 X within a local or state scenic:highway? c) .Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of X thesite and its surroundings?. 2 d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would X adversely effect day or nighttime.views in the area? Evaluation a) The project site is not in the viewshed of a scenic vista identified in Figure 6 of the Circulation Element, Scenic Roadways Map. b) The project site will not damage or alter any scenic resources that are visible from a local or state scenic highway. c)The project involves the removal of approximately 20 trees that are in various stages of growth. The only significant native trees that add to the visual character of the site are four oak trees, measuring 4", 10", 14", and 18" in trunk diameter. The trees are visible from adjacent properties, but are obscured by buildings and other vegetation from the public street and sidewalk. The applicant has proposed to mitigate the loss of the oak trees through onsite and off-site replacement planting. The loss of the oak trees is considered a significant impact,but can be mitigated through replacement planting at a rate to be approved by the City's Tree Committee. d) The project will not create a new source of substantial light because parking is provided primarily in garages and exterior lighting is limited to small focused lights mounted on buildings. Mitigation Measure: 1. New oak trees shall be planted at a replacement rate to be approved by the City of San Luis Obispo Tree Committee. In addition to replacement trees, at least one of the required street trees planted for the project shall be a coast live oak. Conclusion The project proposes to remove four oak trees, which is considered a potentially significant impact because the oaks help to define the character and quality of the project site and its surroundings. Replacement planting at a rate to be approved by the Tree Committee is recommended as a mitigation measure to reduce the impact to less than significant levels. No other impacts in the area of aesthetics have been identified. 2.AGRICULTURE RESOURCES. Would theproject: a) Convert Prime Farmland,Unique Farmland,or Farmland of Statewide Importance(Farmland),as shown onthe maps 3 X pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of 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 hon-agricultural use? CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 6 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2003 3, SIS Issues, Discussion and Suppo,_. Information Sources Sources P, �} Potentially Cess Tann No t 9 Significant Significant Significant ImpactUnless . ER # 76-03 (Old Morro Gardens) Issues Mitigation Impact Inco rated Evaluation a) The project site is was originally developed in the 1940's and is considered Urban Land by the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program. b) No Williamson Act contract exists for the project site or for adjacent properties. c) The project site is urban land and redevelopment of the site will not contribute to conversion of farmland. 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 existing or projected air quality violation? 5 X. b) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air X quality plan? 5 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 pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an 5 X applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions Which exceed qualitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? Evaluation a), b),c) 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 1998 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. Motor vehicles account for about 40%of the precursor emissions responsible for ozone formation, and are also a significant source of PMIo. Thus, a major requirement in the CAP is the implementation of transportation control measures designed to reduce motor vehicle trips and miles traveled by local residents. The project meets many of the goals stated in the CAP because it is a high density project that is located close to commercial services, transit routes and Cal Poly,reducing the need for occupants of the project to rely on vehicles for all of their transportation needs. The size of the project is below the threshold for operational emissions listed in the CAP. During its operation the project will produce less than 10 pounds per day of reactive organic gases(ROG), oxides of nitrogen(NOx), sulfure dioxide(SOA or particulate matter (PMIo). The amount of earthwork proposed during grading operations is also below the thresholds for construction related air quality impacts. Naturally Occurring Asbestos has been identified by the state Air Resources Board as a toxic air contaminant. Serpentine and ultramafic rocks are very common in the City of San Luis Obispo and may contain naturally occurring asbestos. Under the State Air Resources Board Air Toxics Control Measure (ATCM) for Construction, Grading, Quarrying, and Surface Mining Operations, prior to any construction or grading activities at the site the applicant must comply with all applicable requirements outlined in the Asbestos ATCM. CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 7 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2003 Attachment 9 Issues, Discussion and Suppo,__ 'Information Sources Sources po, potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Issues Unless Impact ER N 76-03 (Old Morro Gardens) Mitigation Incorporated d) As a residential project,objectionable odors are not anticipated. e) The project will not involve a cumulatively considerable net increase in any criteria pollutant for which the region is non- attainment because an increase in PMta emissions will only occur during the construction phase of the project. Project occupancy is consistent with the population projections contained in the CAP. Mitigation Measures: 2. Areas of one (1.0) acre or less: No person shall engage in any construction or grading operation on property where the area to be disturbed is one(1.0) acre or less unless all of the following dust mitigation measures are initiated at the start and maintained throughout the duration of the construction or grading activity: a. Construction vehicle speed at the work site must be limited to fifteen(15)miles per hour or less; b. Prior to any ground disturbance, sufficient water must be applied to the area to be disturbed to prevent visible emissions from crossing the property line; c. Areas to be graded or excavated must be kept adequately wetted to prevent visible emissions from crossing the property line; d. Storage piles must be kept adequately wetted, treated with a chemical dust suppressant, or covered when material is not being added to or removed from the pile; e. Equipment must be washed down before moving from the property onto a paved public road;and f. Visible track-out on the paved public road must be cleaned using wet sweeping or a HEPA filter equipped vacuum device within twenty-four(24)hours. Conclusion: The project will have a less than significant impact to air quality. A mitigation measure is recommended to insure compliance with State requirements for asbestos dust control. The APCD monitors State air quality requirements and will be routed plans that are submitted for building permits for the project to insure compliance with all standards and requirements. APCD also responds in the field during construction on a complaint basis: No further mitigation is required. 4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would theproject: a) Have.a substantial adverse effect,.either directly or indirectly or 6 X through habitat modifications,on any species identified as a candidate,sensitive,or speciw.status species in local or regional 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 6 other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional X plans;policies,or regulations,or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service? C) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting 6 biological resources,such as a.tree preservation policy or X ordinance(e.g.Heritage Trees)? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident 6 or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native X resident or migratory wildlife corridors,or impede the use of wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted habitat Conservation 6 �� CITY OF SAN LUIS Osispo 8 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHEcKusT 2003 Attachment 9 Issues, Discussion and SUPPOILr. ,'Information Sources Sources PL ) Potentially Less Than rto Significant Significant Significant Impact ER # 76-03 (Old Morro Gardens) Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated Plan,Natural Community Conservation Plan,or other approved X local;regional,or state habitat conservation;plan? f) Have asubstantial adverse effect on Federally protected 2 wetlands as defined in Section 404 of the Clean Water Act X (including,but not limited to,marshes,vernal pools,etc.) through direct removal,filing,hydrological interruption,or other means? . Evaluation a) The project site does not include habitat for candidate, sensitive, or special status species and does not include sensitive habitat or unique resources as defined by the City's Open Space Element. b) There are no riparian areas located on the project site. c) The project involves tree removals, and the applicant is following the appropriate process for permitting the proposed removals,as specified in the City's Tree Ordinance. No conflicts are apparent and no heritage trees are located on the project site. d) The project site is urban land that has been developed with residential uses for over fifty years and is surrounded by other residential and commercial development. No wildlife corridor,native resident or migratory fish or wildlife are present on the project site. e) The project does not conflict with any HCP established in the City of San Luis Obispo. f) No wetlands are present on the project site. Conclusion The project site is developed urban land that is surrounded by other urban uses and the project will have no impact on biological resources. 5.CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would theproject: a) Cause a substantial.adverse change in the significance of 7 X historic resource?(See CEQA Guidelines 13064.5) b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an 7,8 X archaeological resource?(See CEQA Guidelines 15064.5) c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource 8 X or site or unique,geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains,including those interredoutside of 8 X formal cemeteries? Evaluation a) A Historic Resource Assessment was prepared for the project by Chattel Architecture, Planning and Preservation, Inc. The report is attached to this initial study for reference. The buildings on the project site that are proposed for demolition are over 50 years old, and therefore must be evaluated for the potential that they represent historical resources. The report describes the existing buildings on the property,which include the Main House,Building A and Building B. The Main House was built between 1927 and 1930 and includes three bedrooms. It is the most interesting architecturally. Certain features such as the color, clay tile roof, wood door, divided windows and mature landscaping give the building some street appeal. However, from the perspective of evaluating historic resources, the historic report concludes that the building does not represent a potentially significant resource because it doesn't meet any of the criteria for significance established by the State CITY OF SAN Luis OBISPO 9 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2003 3 -fig Attacnment a Issues, Discussion and Supporta...information Sources Sources Po, potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact ER # 76-03 (Old Morro Gardens) Issues Mit gazson Impact Incorporated Historic Resources Commission. These criteria include: 1) Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California's history and cultural heritage. 2) Is associated with the lives of persons important in our past. 3) Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual or possesses high artistic values. 4) Has yielded,or may be likely to yield,information important in prehistory or history. Building A and Building B are both duplexes that include two 1-bedroom apartments. These apartments were built in 1940 and 1948, respectively, and do not have any architectural appeal or distinctive characteristics that would suggest they might have some historic value. According to the historic report, the property does not meet the criteria for inclusion in the City's Inventory of Historic Resources. The report discusses the history of development and ownership of the property and concludes that no person who is significant in the growth and development of the City can be associated with the property. The property is located outside of the City's historic districts and development on the site doesnot possess a quality of construction or represent a distinct style of architecture that would justify its inclusion on the City's Master List of Historic Resources. b), c), d) The project site is outside of any known archeological resource area. The City's maintains a burial sensitivity map and maps the locations of all known archeological sites and the project is outside of the boundaries shown on the City's map. The project is therefore unlikely to disturb any human remains. The project site does not include any unique geological features that could have some paleontological significance. Conclusion The project does not have the potential to impact historical resources because the buildings on the project site that are proposed for demolition do not meet the criteria established for inclusion on the City's Inventory of Historic Resources and do not meet the criteria for significance established by the State Historic Resources Commission. This conclusion is based on the historical resource evaluation prepared by Chattel,which is attached to this report. 6. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would theproject: a),, Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? 9 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 that would be of value to the region and the residents of the X State? Evaluation a) The project will not conflict with any adopted energy conservation plan established by the City. The orientation of the lot allows for adequate solar exposure for the proposed units and the building designs take advantage of natural day-lighting opportunities. 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 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 10 INM LL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKUST 2003 3 - 49 — . ,AttarhmPnt Issues, Discussion and Support. ,'Information Sources sources Po j Poto iaity IsssThan No Sigmticant Significant Significant Impact Unless ER # 76-03 (Old Morro Gardens) Issues Mitigation Impact Incorporated 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. Skylights will also be required as a condition of project approval. 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. 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 10 X effects,including risk of loss,injury or death involving: I. Rupture of a known earthquake fault,as delineated in the X most.recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area,or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? H. Strong seismic ground shaking? X III. Seismic-related ground failure;including liquefaction? X IV. Landslides or mudflows? X b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? X c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable,or that X would become unstable as a result of the project,and potentially result in on or off site landslides, lateral spreading,subsidence, liquefaction,or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil,as defined in Table 18-1-B of the X Uniform Building Code(1994),creating substantial risks to life 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 tuns 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. b) The project site is basically flat and development will not result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil. CITY OF SAN Luis OBISPO I 1 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2003 3- SD Attachme 9 Issues, Discussion and Supponc „ Information Sources Sources Pc potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Issues Unless Impact ER # 76-03 (Old Morro Gardens) Mitigation Incorporated c) The Safety Element of the General Plan indicates that the site is in an area that is subject to the potential for liquefaction, _ and buildings on the site will be required to be built in accordance with the recommendations of the Soils Engineering Report. d) Expansive soils on the site are common in San Luis Obispo 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. Conclusion The project site is suitable for the proposed development and is not located along any known earthquake faults or units of unstable soil. The recommendations contained in the soils engineering report for the project will be sufficient to mitigate any potential geology and soils impacts. No mitigation is required. 8. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the pro'ect: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment X through 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) Fora project located within an airport land use plan,or within I I X two miles of a public airport,would the project result in asafety 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? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of lose,injury, 10 X or death, involving wildland fires,including where wildlands are 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 outside of the Airport Land Use Plan area. 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. �e CITY OF SAN Luis Osispo 12 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2003 - Attachment 9 Issues, Discussion and Support.. ,'Information Sources Sources Pc Potent tesS an No Signuicant Significant Significant Impact Unless ER # 76-03 (Old Morro Gardens) Issues Mitigation Impact incorporated 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 the roject: 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 X groundwater table level(e:g.The production rate of pre-existing 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 provide additional sources of runoff into surface waters X (including,but not limited to,wetlands,riparian areas,ponds, springs,creeks,streams,rivers,lakes,estuaries,tidal areas,bays, ocean,etc.)? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or 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 X or other flood hazard delineation map? g) Place within a 100-year flood:bazard area.structures which X would impede or redirect flood flows? h) Will the project introduce typical storm water pollutants into X ground or surface waters? i) Will the project alter ground water or surface water quality, X temperature,dissolved oxygen,or turbidity?- Evaluation a), b), c),d) 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. 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 negatively effect water quality. Runoff from the site will be disposed of over impervious surfaces and drains into the City's stormdrain system and will not result in erosion of topsoil or siltation on or off site. e) Because the slope on the project site trends away from the street,the applicant is proposing a stornwater lift station at the rear of the property that will pump rainwater to an approved point of disposal,North Chorro Street. Project plans also show an overland route for water flows in the event of a pump failure. It is necessary to provide such an overland route for water incase a major storm occurs concurrently with a power failure. Although the project plans show an appropriate route for overland water flows, the applicant has not secured a drainage easement from the neighboring roe owner and the CRY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 13 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2003 3 -sa _ Attachment 9 Issues, Discussion and Suppor._ Information Sources sources Po, , Potentially Less Than No Sign„cant Significant Significant Impact Issues Unless Impact ER # 76-03 (Old Morro Gardens) Mitigation Inco rated proposed route cannot be accepted by the City until evidence is provided that such an easement exists. Staff will recommend that the Planning Commission not foreword the project to the City Council until all required easements for the project are obtained. f), g), h), i) 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. The project will introduce typical pollutants to the creek system by carrying water from impervious surfaces,such as driveways,through the stormdrain system and into the creeks of the local watershed. The amount of new impervious surfaces is not considered significant, in that runoff from new impervious surfaces on the site will not alter ground water or surface water quality. Conclusion The project will not have significant impacts with respect to water quality and hydrology. The applicant has shown an appropriate overland storm water route in the event of a pump failure,but has not secured the appropriate drainage easements for the proposal and the City cannot take a final action on the project until the easements are obtained, or another overland route for which there are easements is provided. No mitigation is required. 10. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project: a)' Conflict with applicable land use plan, policy,or regulation of X an agency with jurisdiction over the project adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? b). Physically divide an established community.? 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 High Density Residential. Development of the property with 16 apartment units,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.5 acres. The project will be served by existing streets and will be bordered by similar residential development. The proposed development project will not physically divide an established community. The proposed text amendment would allow lots within all common interest developments,as defined by Section 1350 through Section 1376 of the California Civil Code,to have any size or shape. The Subdivision Regulations currently says that lots in condominium subdivisions may have any size or shape, and the applicant is proposing to expand this built-in exception to the three other types of common interest developments. These other types of common interest developments include planned developments, community apartment projects, and stock cooperatives. Planned developments should not be confused with the City's PD overlay zone, which provides for many other benefits, including density transfers and exceptions to property development standards. PD zoning can only be applied to lots of 1-acre in size or greater. The difference between a condominium and a planned development subdivision is a matter of how ownership is legally described and the nature of the Homeowner's Association. In a planned development, property lines are established between buildings on adjacent lots and access is provided with appurtenant easements. In a condominium project there are no property lines between dwellings and ownership is described in a condominium plan. All common areas are owned in fee by the Homeowner's Association. The difference has an effect on how every trade in the project, from the architect to the subcontractors building the project, are insured. Many smaller businesses, developers and trades people do not work on condominium projects because of the cost of insurance. These problems are alleviated in planned developments because the role of the Homeowner's Association is diminished, and the value to the property is increased because each lot includes exclusive ownership of land between real property lines. There is absolutely no physical difference in the design or appearance of condominium projects and planned developments. For all intents and purposes other than how ownership is defined,they are the same. CITY OF SAN Luis OBISPo 14 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2003 Attachment 9 Issues, Discussion and Suppor.. .'Information Sources Sources Pt Potentially Less Than No Signulcant Significant Significant Impact ER # 76-03 (Old Morro Gardens) Issues MUafligImpact ation Incorporated c) The project will not conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plans or natural community conservation plans. 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. 11.NOISE. Would the project result in: a) Exposure of people to or-generation of"unacceptable"noise X levels as defined by the San Luis Obispo General Plan Noise 12. Element,or general noise levels in excess of standards established in the Noise Ordinance? b) A substantial temporary,periodic,or permanent increase in X ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? c) Exposure ofpersons-to or generation of excessive groundbome 13 X vibration or groundborne noise levels? d) For a project located within an airport landmse plan;or within X two miles of a public airport or public use airport,would the 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 Foothill Boulevard, the closest noise source of any significance. Since the project is subject to ambient noise levels at build-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 construction 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 groundbome noise levels or vibration. The project is outside of the Airport Land Use Plan area and is not directly in a flight path where occupants would be subject to noise from aircraft operations. Conclusion The location of the project is outside of the areas defined by the Noise Element as subject to excessive noise levels. During construction there will be a temporary increase in ambient noise levels, as controlled by the City Noise Ordinance. No impacts with respect to noise have been identified. �/ CFTY OF SAN LUIS OslsPo 15 INMAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2003 Attachment 9 Issues, Discussion and Suppo. .,'Information Sources sources Pt , ; Potentially Less Than No Sigmucant Significant Significant Impact ER # 76-03 (Old Morro Gardens) Issues unless Impact Mitigation incorporated 12. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would theproject: a) Induce substantial population growth in tan area, either directly- (for example by proposing new homes or businesses) or 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 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 a 3-bedroom home and four 1-bedroom apartments that are rented on a short term basis. As a result,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? 14 X :b) Police.protection? X c) Schools? X d) Parks? X e) Roads and other transportation.infiastructure? 14 X Other public facilities? 14 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. CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 16 INMAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 211113 3 -!�< Attachment 9 Issues, Discussion and Support: ,, Information Sources Sources Po'; Potentially Less Than No Signittcant Significant Significant Impact ER # 76-03 (Old Morro Gardens) Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated 14.RECREATION. Would theproject: . a) Increase the use of t zistin9 neigliborhood or regional parks or 15 X other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the_facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Include recreational facilities or require the construction or X expansion of recreational facilities,which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?. 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 16 X existing traffic load and capacity of the street system? b) Exceed,either individually or cumulatively,a level of service 1 X standard established bythe county congestion management agency for designated roads and highways?. c) Substantially increase hazards due to design features(e.g.sharp 14 X curves or dangerous intersections)or incompatible uses(e.g. farm equipment)? d) Result in inadequate emergency access? 14 X e) Result in inadequate parking capacity onsite or offsite? X f) Conflict with adopted policies supporting alteir native X transportation(e.g.bus turnouts,bicyclexacks)? g) Conflict with the with San Luis Obispo County Airport Land I I X Use Plan resulting in substantial safety risks from hazards,noise, or a chane in air traffic "patterns? Evaluation a), b), c), d) The project will incrementally contribute to an increase in traffic on North Chorro and surrounding streets. The City's Transportation Division 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 City 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 one to two parking spaces. No parking will be permitted along the private driveway. On-street parking is fairly constrained due to the location of many multi-family projects in the vicinity of the project site. Guest parking is provided to meet the City's code requirement, which will make it more convenient for guests visiting residents of the project. CITY OF SAN 1-tns OBIsPO 17 INmAL STUDY ENvrRONMENTAL CHECKUST2003 3 �W Aftachme 9 Issues, Discussion and Suppo,_. information Sources Sources Pc Potentially Less Than No Signuicant Significant Significant Impact ER # 76-03 (Old Morro Gardens) )slues Impact MitUigatirge;on Incorporated 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 Foothill Bouldevard and Highland Avenue. e) The project is outside of the Airport Land Use Plan area. Conclusion The project will add incrementally to existing traffic conditions in the City, but the City's Transportation Division 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 Zoning Rggulations 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 14 X Regional Water Quality Control Board?` b) Require or result in the construction or expansion of new water 14 X treatment;waste water treatment,water quality control,or storm drainage facilities,the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project 14 X from existing entitlements and resources,or are new and expanded water resources needed? d) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider 14 X which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitment? e) Be served by a landfill with sufficientpermitted capacity to 14 X accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs?_ f) . Comply with federal,state,and local statutes and regulationsF 14 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 Elementprojectsthe 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 7.2 acre feet per year(.45*16 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. CITY OF SAN Luis CBISPO 18 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2003 3 -S�l Attachment 9 Issues, Discussion and Suppor - Information Sources Sources Pa 'y Potentially Less Than No Sign... ..ant Significant Significant Impact ER # 76-03 (Old Morro Gardens) Issues urges Impact Mitigation Incorporated 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 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 is required by ordinance to 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 thehabitat 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 rehisto ? Without mitigation,the project could have the potential to have adverse impacts on all of the issue areas checked in the Table onPage 3. b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited,but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project 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 substantial adverse effects on human beings either directly or X indirectly? With the incorporation of mitigation measures,the projectwill not result in substantial adverse impacts on humans. 18.EARLIER ANALYSES. Earlier analysis may be used where; pursuant to the tiering,program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration. Section 15063 (c) (3) (D). In this case a discussion should identify the following items: a Earlier analysis used. Identify earlier anal ses and state where they 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. CRY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 19 INITIAL.STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2003 3 -sg Attachment 9 Issues, Discussion and Suppor --_l Information Sources Sources Poi y Potentially Less Than No Sigmilcant Significant Significant Impact ER # 76-03 (Old Morro Gardens) Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant.with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document.and the extent to,which they address site-specific conditionsofthe project. Not applicable. 19. SOURCEREFERENCES. 1. City of SLO Circulation Element,Figure 6,Scenic Roadways Ma 2. Observations made during site visits to property and neighborhood 3. GIS Data downloaded from the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program website: http://www.consrv.ca.gov/DLRP/fmmp/ 4. Property Title Report on file in the Community Development Department 5. Air Pollution Control District,Clean Air Plan,April 2003 6. City of SLO Open Space Element,Table I and Table 2,Creek Map,and Figure 6,Open Space Ma 7. Historic Resource Assessment,prepared by Chattel Architecture,Planning and Preservation,Inc.,May 2003. S. City of SLO Informational Map Atlas,Burial Sensitivity Map and Archeological Resource Ma 9. City of SLO Energy Conservation Element 10. City of SLO Safety Element 11. San Luis Obispo Airport,Airport Land Use Plan 12. City of SLO Noise Element,Figures 4b and 5b 13. City of SLO Land Use Inventory,Georgraphic Information System 14. Development Review Team Project Comments,on file in the Community Development Department 15. Cityof SLO Parks and Recreation Element 16. Institute of Traffic Engineers,Trip Generation Manual,6th Edition Attachments: Attachment 1: Vicinity Map Attachment 2: Project Plans Attachment 3: Historic Resource Assessment,prepared by Chattel, May 2003. REQUIRED MITIGATION AND MONITORING PROGRAMS 1. Mitigation New oak trees shall be planted at a replacement rate to be approved by the City of San Luis Obispo Tree Committee. In addition to replacement trees, at least one of the required street trees planted for the project shall be a Coast Live Oak. • Monitoring Program: The proposed mitigation measure will be monitored through the Building Permit Plan Check process, whereby the landscape plan for the project can be checked to insure compliance with the requirement. Any off-site planting required by the Tree Committee must be implemented and inspected by the project �iaM CITY OF SAN LUIS Owspo 20 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CNEcKLtST'2003 3.Sq Issues, Discussion and Suppoi Information Sources Sources Pot ) Potentially Less than 9 SigniLwant Significant Significant Impact ER # 76-03 (Old Morro Gardens) Issues M unless impact gation Incorporated planner prior to occupancy of any units in the project. A performance bond to insure the health and longevity of the trees will also be required as a condition of building permit approval. 2. Mitiaation Areas of one (1.0) acre or less: No person shall engage in any construction or grading operation on property where the area to be disturbed is one (1.0) acre or less unless all of the following dust mitigation measures are initiated at the start and maintained throughout the duration of the construction or grading activity: a. Construction vehicle speed at the work site must be limited to fifteen(15) miles per hour or less; b. Prior to any ground disturbance, sufficient water must be applied to the area to be disturbed to prevent visible emissions from crossing the property line; c. Areas to be graded or excavated must be kept adequately wetted to prevent visible emissions from crossing the property line; d. Storage piles must be kept adequately wetted, treated with a chemical dust suppressant, or covered when material is not being added to or removed from the pile; e. Equipment.must be washed down before moving from the property onto a paved public road; and f. Visible track-out on the paved public road must be cleaned using wet sweeping or a HEPA filter equipped vacuum device within twenty-four(24) hours. • Monitoring Program: The Air Pollution Control District monitors State requirements for air quality on a complaint basis. City Building Inspectors and Public Works Inspectors also monitor the above requirements because they are printed on all sets of improvement plans and building plans for which a City permit is issued. CITY OF SAN Luis OBISPO 21 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL.CHECKLIST 2003 3-LPO Attachment 9 chattel Architecture, Planning& Preservation, Inc. VIA U.S. MAIL& E-MAIL May 20, 2003 Ms. Carol Florence Oasis Associates, Inc. 3427 Miguelito Court San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Re: Historic Resource Assessment 225 North Chorro Street, San Luis Obispo Dear Ms. Florence: We have been asked to evaluate the buildings and structures at 225 North Chorro Street(subject property) in the City of San Luis Obispo, for historic significance, as the property is proposed for demolition. The subject property is located on the west side of North Chorro Street,between Foothill Boulevard and Boysen Avenue. The neighborhood, characterized by garden apartments, is primarily multi-family residential buildings, ranging in height from one to three stories. The subject property is located on a relatively level, rectangular parcel,with a gentle slope toward the rear(western end)of the property. There are five buildings on the subject property: a single story Main House,two, two-story duplexes (hereinafter, Building A and Building B), a single story laundry building(Laundry) and a single story shed(Shed) at the rear of the property. The subject property isnot included in the California Office of Historic Preservation-maintained "Historic Property Data File for San Luis Obispo County"(updated to January 15, 2002).. Because the subject property is not included in the"Historic Property Data File for San.Luis Obispo County,"it can be presumed that it has not previously been evaluated for historic significance. The subject property is not in the area surveyed for the"Completion Report: Historic Resources Survey,"Volumes 1-3, prepared for the City of San Luis Obispo, (July 1983),nor is it identified in"contributing properties within.Historical Preservation Districts."' It is not located in close proximity to any designated historic district. No previously identified "Heritage Trees" are located on the property, according to Heritage Trees of San Luis Obispo. The following analysis was prepared to evaluate the subject property for historic significance under applicable statues and regulations of the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA), 1 City of San Luis Obispo,Community Development Department,"The Historical Preservation Program Guidelines,"effective February 1987,amended August 21, 1990,appendix. .2 Heritage Trees of San Luis Obispo,<http://maps.slocity.org/websiteltreestviewer.h=>. 13322'b Valleyheart Drive South Sherman Oaks,CA 914233287 818.788.7954 818.788.9795 fax www.chattelarch.com -3 U Attachment g Ms. Carol Florence 225 North Chorro Street May 20, 2003 CM page 2 California Register of Historical Resources (California Register), and the City of San Luis Obispo's criteria for landmark designation. The proposed project involves demolition of all buildings and structures on the subject property. According to CEQA, an historical resource is a resource listed in, or determined eligible for listing in, the California Register of Historical Resources. Historical resources included in a local register of historical resources..., or deemed significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (g) of Section 5024.1, are presumed to be historically or culturally significant for purposes of this section, unless the preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that the resource is not historically or culturally significant (California Public Resources Code, PRC §21084.1). California Register of Historical Resources The California Register was established to serve as an authoritative guide to the state's significant historical and archaeological resources (PRC §5024.1). State law provides that in order fora property to be considered eligible for listing in the California Register, it must be found by the State Historical Resources Commission to be significant under any of the following four criteria: 1) Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California's history and cultural heritage. 2) Is associated with the lives of persons important in our past. 3) Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type,period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual or possesses high artistic values. 4) Has yielded,or may be likely to yield,information important in prehistory or history. In addition to meeting one of the four above criteria, California Register eligible properties must also retain sufficient integrity to convey historic significance. California Register regulations contained in Title 14, Chapter 11.5 provide in §4852 (c) that"it is possible that historical resources may not retain sufficient integrity to meet the criteria for listing in the National Register,but they may still be eligible for listing in the California Register." The California Office of Historic Preservation(OHP) has consistently interpreted this to mean that a California Register-eligible property must retain"substantial" integrity. The California Register also includes properties which: have been formally determined eligible for listing in, or are listed in the National Register; are registered State Historical Landmark Number 770 (and all consecutively numbered landmarks above Number 770); points of historical interest, which have been reviewed and recommended to the State Historical Resources Commission for listing; and city and.county-designated landmarks or districts (if criteria for designation are determined by OHP to be consistent with California Register criteria). 3,Ua- Ms. Carol Florence 225 North Chorro Street CHATTEL May 20, 2003 page 3 PRC §5024.1 states: (g) A resource identified as significant in an historical resource survey may be listed in the California Register if the survey meets all of the following criteria: (1) The survey has been or will be included in the State Historical Resources Inventory. (2) The survey and the survey documentation were prepared in accordance with [OHP]... procedures and requirements. (3) The resource is evaluated and determined by the office to have a significance rating of category 1-5 on DPR [Department of Parks and Recreation] form 523. (4) If the survey is five or more years old at the time of its nomination for inclusion in the California Register, the survey is updated to identify historical resources which have become eligible or ineligible due to changed circumstances or further documentation and those which have been demolished or altered in a manner that substantially diminishes the significance of the resource. Substantial Adverse Change If the proposed project were found to result in a finding of substantial adverse change in an historical resource, environmental clearance for the project would require mitigation measures to reduce impacts. "Substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource means the physical demolition, destruction,relocation, or alteration of the resource or its immediate surroundings such that the significance of an historical resource would be materially impared" (PRC§15064.5 (b)(1)). PRC §15064.5 (b)(2) describes material impairment taking place when a project: (A) Demolishes or materially alters in an adverse manner those physical characteristics of an historical resource that convey its historical significance and that justify its inclusion in, or eligibility for, inclusion in the California Register... ; or (B) Demolishes or materially alters in an adverse manner those physical characteristics that account for its inclusion in a local register... or its identification in an historical resources survey... unless the public agency reviewing the effects of the project establishes by a preponderance of evidence that the resource is not historically or culturally significant; or (C) Demolishes or materially alters those physical characteristics of an historical resource that convey its historical significance and that justify its inclusion in, or eligibility for, inclusion in the California Register... as determined by a lead agency for the purposes of CEQA. 3 -w3 Attachment Ms. Carol Florence 225 North Chorro Street May 20, 2003 page 4 City of San Luis Obispo's Historical Preservation Program In 1981, the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo established a permanent Cultural Heritage Committee(CHC),replacing a temporary committee established in 1981, stating, "it is in the public interest to protect and preserve historical, architectural, and cultural resources including monuments, sites, objects, structures, buildings and other resources" (Resolution No. 6157). One function of the CHC is to "review the Inventory of Historical Resources and recommend to the City Council any amendments." A property may be found eligible for inclusion in the City's Inventory of Historical Resources under one of the following eight criteria: (1) Style, (2) Design, (3) Age, (4)Architect, (5) Environmental design continuity, (6) History—Person, (7) History—Event, and(8) History—Context.3 Required procedures prior to demolition of any building in the city are outlined the City of San Luis Obispo's"Demolition and Building Relocation Code,"effective October 4, 1996. Demolition of properties listed on the Inventory of Historical Resources requires review by the CHC. "If the CHC determines that the structure to be demolished has no historical, architectural, or aesthetic significance to the community, it shall refer the matter back to the building official with direction to issue the demolition permit."4 Demolition of a property not included in the Inventory of Historical Resources and of buildings 50 years or older entails: 1. Evidence that, for a period of not less than 90 days from date of permit application, the building was advertised in a local newspaper on at least three separate occasions not less than 15 days apart, as available to any interested person to be moved and 2. Photographic documentation of the structure in accordance with criteria established by the community development director and the CHCS Summary of Findings The results of this evaluation are that the subject property does not appear to qualify as an historical resource under CEQA. The subject property does not appear to be eligible for listing in the California Register under any of the applicable criteria. Furthermore,the subject property does not appear eligible for inclusion in the local Inventory of Historical Resources. Demolition of the subject property would not result in the"physical demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration"of any historical resources. Therefore, substantial adverse change to historical resources would not be caused by the project. Building Descriptions Located on a rectangular parcel, the subject property is composed of three residential buildings, a Main House, Building A and Building B, as well as two outbuildings, a Laundry and Shed (Figures 1-3). The three residential buildings are set in an irregular row,which curves slightly 3 City of San Luis Obispo,Community Development Department,"The Historical Preservation Program Guidelines,"effective February 1987,amended August 21, 1990,appendix C. City of San Luis Obispo,Demolition and Building Relocation Code,effective October 4, 1996,2. s Demolition and Building Relocation Code, 3. 3-��r Attachment 9 Ms. Carol Florence 225 North Chorro Street ' May 20, 2003 page 5 to the southwest. The area within the curve serves as a driveway court. The land gently slopes southwesterly with open space at the north and west of the property. The character of the subject property is significantly different from the surrounding garden apartments. Main House: The Main House of Spanish Eclectic design is the largest building on the property and faces North Chorro Street. The split-level design has a partial subterranean"tuck-under" garage, and is roughly square in plan, topped by a two-part, red, clay-tile, hipped roof(Figure 4). Wood rafter tails are visible below the eaves. Walls are finished in stucco while window frames, sash, and front door are wood. The square plan is divided into two, approximately equal sections. The southeastern section, stepping out toward the street, contains a large, "tuck under"garage below a single, multi-light, fixed window. The northwestern half of the building is set back from the street and is one story in height. The front entry, several steps above ground level on the northwestern half, is placed close to the projecting wall of the southeastern section, at the center of the elevation (Figure 5). A large,multi-light window is located adjacent to the front door,mostly obscured from the street by overgrown shrubbery (Figure 6). At the southeastern elevation, an overhanging wood balcony runs the length of the building, terminating in a wooden enclosure at the street end(Figure 7). Both northwestern and southwestern elevations are utilitarian(Figure 8). A water heater and electrical panel are located on the southwestern elevation. A back door at the southwestern elevation is located on axis with the front door. Several drainage and exhaust pipes run along the northwestern elevation. A chimney and a third door are also located at northwestern elevation. Windows on the northwestern and southwestem elevations appears to have been salvaged. For example, a large, two-over-two, double-hung window with vertical muntins is placed on the southwestem elevation close to the back door. Small, irregularly shaped windows are located between differing roof levels (Figure 9). On the interior,the building is divided onto levels, one in the one-story northwestern portion, and one above the garage in the southeastern half. Notable features of the northwestern level include a small fireplace with a file surround and niche set into the chimney(Figure 10). In the southeaster portion, a partial subterranean,tandem garage runs the length of the building and includes a pit for auto repair at the center, as well as a concrete double sink along the southeastern wall (Figure 11). The second floor of the southeastern portion contains bedrooms and bathrooms. Along the southeastern elevation is a raised balcony supported on posts. Building A: This building, set between the Main House and Building B, faces southeast toward the driveway court and is the smallest residential building on the lot(Figure 12). It is a two- story duplex, clad in stucco, with a wood balcony on the second level. Appearing to have been originally cantilevered from the second floor as evidenced by scabbed beams, the balcony has been extended and is now supported from below by slim posts. The gable roof is finished in. corrugated metal with exposed wood rafter tails and red clay tiles used as ridge caps. Both .- balcony and roof are painted red, as are the door and window frames. The units' entrances are. asymmetrically located on the ground floor of the southeast fagade. At the second floor, two doors at either side open onto the balcony and windows are located at each end. The building features multi-light, double-hung windows and glass block panels of various sizes. Unlike the other two residential buildings,Building A has no garage. 3-[ns Attachment 9 Ms. Carol Florence 225 North Chorro Street May 20, 2003 page 6 Building B: Like Building A,this building faces the driveway court(Figure 13). It is a two- story building with two apartments located above three open and one enclosed ground floor garages. The building has a smooth, stucco finish at the ground floor, wood siding at the second floor, and is topped by a corrugated metal roof with a red clay-tile, ridge caps. Window frames are also painted red. The east fagade is symmetrically composed. Three-over-three, fixed windows are set at the rear center of each garage. The apartments are reached through a slightly projected central stair,topped by a red, clay-tile, hipped covering. On the second floor, a pair of double-hung windows flanks the entry stair, with additional, single double-hung windows located at either side. All fenestration is centered above the four garages. On the west elevation,there is a central, cantilevered bay (Figure 14). As on the east fagade, fenestration on the second floor is symmetrically arranged, with four, large, double-hung windows, evenly spaced. Additional fenestration on the second floor includes two, centrally-located rows of four,rectangular, glass blocks set at the base of the larger windows, as well as identical rows set close to the top of the larger windows at each end wall. Laundry: Located between Buildings A and B, the small Laundry is a simple rectangular structure of hollow clay rile construction,partially clad in stucco,with an obliquely angled roof that extends to the adjacent buildings (Figure 15). Two windows allow ventilation at the rear (northwest). On the interior, a toilet and shower are separated from the laundry facilities. Shed: This square building, located at the southwest corner of the property, is a collection of irregular forms. A fully enclosed space is clad in unfinished wood siding(Figure 16). Large doors,with series of windows along the top, swing out. A corrugated metal roof covers the space and extends to form a simple, covered area in front(northwest). A separate covering of corrugated metal supported by wood posts encloses portions of the shed and porch. Subject Property History In 1850, Chorro Street was"only a trail"when the town was"a small adobe pueblo:'6 In Spanish,the word chorro means"rapids,or small waterfall,"and Chorro Street was named for "being the road to Chorro valley,"7 located approximately five miles away. Chorro Street has also been called"Old Morro Road,"as it was the road from San Luis Obispo to Morro Bay. In the plat map showing Breed's Addition from 1889, North Chorro Street is shown as "Country Road to Cayucos." Cayucos, a small town north of Morro Bay was established February 1883.8 The same map shows Foothill Boulevard under the name of"Country Road to Los Osos Valley,"the community located south of Morro Bay. The land roughly bounded by Foothill Boulevard,North Chorro Street, Highland Boulevard, and Cuesta Drive was originally incorporated into the City of San Luis Obispo as part of Breed's Addition in 1889. Earliest available property records show the subject property was owned by John C. Fenini (1875-1965), who lived on Edna Road, in San Luis Obispo. It is 6 City of San Luis Obispo,"Completion Report: Historic Resources Survey",Vol. 1,July 1983, 16. 7 Mark P.Hall-Patton,Memories of the Land;Placenames of San Luis Obispo County,(San Luis Obispo: EZ Nature Books, 1994),40, 118. e Hall-Patton,.37. 3 • i-o� Attachment Ms. Carol Florence 225 North Chorro Street May 20, 2003 page 7 likely this land was part of Alfred and Hilda Ferrini's dairy farm that they developed into a subdivision.9 John Ferrini transferred the property to Angelina Ferrini on July 9, 192 1.10 Although locally prominent,no member of the Ferrini family ever lived on the subject property. Angelina Ferrini (1868-1950) sold the property to James Stairs and his wife, Georgia Stairs in 1927.11 James William Stairs owned the property until his death in 1972,his wife having died the previous year.12 James Stairs was born in 1887 in Nebraska and likely came with his family to San Luis Obispo during the 1870s or 1880s, when the city experienced rapid growth with an influx of farmers from Iowa and Nebraska.13 In 1916, the San Luis Obispo County telephone directory lists James and Georgia Stairs at 297 Santa Rosa Street. By 1931-1932 their address is listed on Old Morro Road(Chorro Street).14 Thus,the Main House was likely constructed between 1927, when the Stairs' took ownership, and 1930, the year prior to their occupancy. As there are no original building permits,no architect associated is known to be associated with this building.ls James Stairs was a mechanic, working for both California Gas and on his own.16 It can be inferred from the prominence and size of the garage, as well as its auto repair pit and concrete basin that the Main House was likely built for James Stairs, accommodating his specific requirements as a mechanic. While the Stairs owned the subject property for 45 years, neither can be demonstrated to have made a significant contribution to San Luis Obispo's past. Original building permits for the two rear buildings do not exist. However, the County Assessor's files date Building A to an estimated 1940 and Building B to a factual 1948. Like the Main House,no architect is associated with construction of either building. Construction of these two buildings is associated with the expansion of Camp San Luis Obispo,which is located a short distance away. By 1946,when Camp San Luis Obispo closed, an additional 100,000 troops had moved to the area,.many with families. This influx in population prompted increased building activity around San Luis Obispo, including construction at the subject property- Originally ropertyOriginally known as Camp Merriam and founded in 1850, the camp was used as a training facility for the local militia,which later became the National Guard. In 1928, it was renamed Camp San Luis Obispo as it began to enlarge. An article from the San Luis Obispo Daily Telegram dated January 4, 1928,reported, `work on building and road construction would start February 1, at the new Fortieth Division National Guard Camp."17 Camp San Luis Obispo grew 9 Hall-Patton, 118. 10 County of San Luis Obispo Deeds Book,Book 150,recorded 9 July, 1921, 135. 11 County of San Luis Obispo,Deeds Book,Book 25,recorded 7 January, 1927,460. 12 California Death Records,<http://vitals.rootsweb.com/ca/death/search.cgi>. 13 City of San Luis Obispo,"Completion Report:Historic Resources Survey",Vol. 1,July 1983,p.18. 14 San Luis Obispo City and County Directory,(San Luis Obispo:A to Z Directory Publishers, 1931-32), 81. 15 County Assessor's files date the Main House to an estimated 1937,however the information provided allows for an earlier estimated date of construction. 16 San Luis Obispo City and County Directory,(San Luis Obispo:A to Z Directory Publishers, 1931-32), 81. ""Camp Work to Start;Army Men to Study New Site,"San Luis Obispo Daily Telegram,4 January 1928. Attachment 9 Ms. Carol Florence - 225 North Chorro Street May 20, 2003 page 8 significantly at the advent of World War Il. After the attack on Pearl Harbor,when other bases in California were operating at capacity,troops were transferred to Camp San Luis Obispo until Camp Joseph H. Pendleton (north of San Diego) was completed.18 The most direct route to the camp from Camp San Luis (as it was known) from San Luis Obispo was by way of North Chorro Street until construction of new Highway 56, a Works Progress Administration(WPA) project, in 1941.19 In 1957, the Stairs received certification from neighboring California State Polytechnic College (as it was then known)to house"four single students in accordance with the college's prescribed housing standards.,20 In 1965, the city directory listed-the property as the"Stairs Apartments,"under the ownership of James and Georgia Stairs with Seth Stairs, a student and possibly son of James and Georgia Stairs, occupying apartment one. Several alterations to the property were made during this time, including construction of a barn in 1959. A fire in 1961 destroyed a pigeon loft and damaged the adjoining carport, according to a Fire Department report.21 That same year, the damaged carport was repaired and the property was improved with construction of two concrete driveways, as well as concrete curb and gutter. Other alterations during this period likely include expansion of the Building A balcony and infilling the southern- most garage of Building B. The subject property was sold to Charles and Evelyn Delmartini upon James Stairs' death in 1972 for just over$71,000. The Delmartinis purchased the subject property as an investment and owned it until Charles Delmartini's death in 2002. Significantalterations during this time include bathroom remodel in the Main House in 1987.22 This alteration infilled a portion of the balcony on the easternmost corner. The subject property was cited in 1991 and 1993 for several violations, such as converted dwelling rooms, as well as furniture and debris within view from the street.23 The Demartini family owned the property for 30 years, however the family was not significant in local history. California Register Evaluation As described above,the subject property has not been demonstrated to be associated with events that have made a significant contribution in our past (criterion 1), nor has any previous owner or tenant been shown to be significant(criterion 2). As the buildings are very common and much altered, the subject property does not embody distinctive characteristics of a type,period, region, or method of construction, nor does it represent the work of an important creative individual or possesses high artistic values (criterion 3). Finally, the subject property cannot be reasonably expected to yield information important in prehistory or history(criterion 4). In addition,because of the described alterations, the buildings do not appear to retain the requisite integrity for listing in the California Register. Because this property does not appear to meet the 18 California State Military Museum,<http://www.niilitarymuseum.org/CSLO%2OHistory.htrnl>. 19 E-mail correspondence with Paula Juelke Carr,Caltrans Architectural Historian, San Luis Obispo,30 April 2003. 20 Certificate from California State Polytechnic College, 1957-1958. 21 City of San Luis Obispo Fire Department,"Report of Fire,"August 7 1961. 22 City of San Luis Obispo,"Permit History," 1 November 2002. z3 City of San Luis Obispo,"Case Infotmation." Attachment 9 Ms. Carol Florence 225 North Chorro Street May 20, 2003 page 9 described criteria for significance, it does not appear to be eligible for listing in the California Register. City of San Luis Obispo's Historical Preservation Program Evaluation As described under the California Register evaluation, the subject property has not been demonstrated to be significant for its architectural merit (criteria 1- 3); for its design by a master or known architect(criterion 4); for its contribution to the "continuity, special relationship, or visual character of...[the) street, neighborhood, or area"24 (criterion 5); nor for its association with significant historic person (criterion 6),historic event(criterion 7), or historic context (criterion 8). The subject property does not appear eligible for inclusion in the local Inventory of Historical Resources. Conclusion Because subject property does not appear to qualify for listing in the California Register, it is not considered an historical resource under CEQA. Thus its proposed demolition would not result in a finding of substantial adverse change. The proposed project,demolition of the buildings at 225 North Chorro Street would not result in"physical demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration"of any historical resources. Demolition of the subject property may require adherence to procedures outlined in the City of San Luis Obispo's "Demolition and Building Relocation Code." Please call me at(8 18) 788-7954, if you have any questions. Very truly yours, CHATTEL ARCHITECTURE, PLANNING&PRESERVATION, INC. By: 4"Aion Franc sca Smi Senior Architectural Historian attachments 24 City of San Luis Obispo,Community Development Department,"The Historical Preservation Program Guidelines,"effective February 1987,amended August 21, 1990,appendix C. 3 -1o4 Attachment 'Ile Figure 1: Site Plan(Oasis Associates,Inc.,2002) -r)D 13'vl" Gt`�P err: Y T •, :F f �..' Y~�+ 'may. • N Tw' j^ i • � Y: t � M Figure 2: Aerial photograph of • •• .• Luis Obispo, 111 ji 3 f n.'^.�. y.� tea., ~� l- '.f y• }� r, fn ��/•° n��w'�r •MY._ � w :_YA u�aW I t Yte A . r. ✓ls♦ i s i e.,,, I. u I t.5 ✓" v} �^� yzi. r. 1 1. i Ilk r. if.+" .• _ ^.d-;Y ,.y,ti Y ..wyy,f'�A Y.a"•ri,.>r '1', i:. -'-I � ! _ 'n Kf�si � :�7°tt"�: ; i ,aµ•e y-y. �`,e, �,!. G'f�alSti 4 � ��a-py�, �rfi+.ls r"t�� �j!'+�(i,�rt.,f �`L T;•�1C..J a ` Q. y., ♦ i �� Fk � 3 v. j- V,,.T a n:�{♦ _ .. - -. — v.`~ + `Y:. I � '"+".: f z .f •�J;.G is 'h � ., tl ry -. y� a :.. ' � -� ,� �. .XIS"..' 9 ::...�• .�.' i.., z.l-.:?'".. t _ :n 1. "'{�-' c:. y .�,., r • • r • r� 1 1 • r• i • 1 1 Attachment ro�is r R p b a 5 8 W S Figure 10: Main House,interior(CA,2003) ° < r° n_ 6 p a�ppp o e w� o•� �o B Figure 11: Main House,garage,view west(CA,2003) 3 -rlL c' F.Qa a ROM w T•' A �_ l?'. 'legzv, t•., f tiJrS.ry ! I x OF {P�A •yt,k r y�].h`..1� t � i I. 1 �,,C ka_'��r ir�.�l r}+ � tr.��: t ♦ � L iyFr:.;�1 r J�,�y�'n �rJ � r�..r� J _^� .'t • s:it• �t e i ' t E at y� ` • A,,�,�`a t �1� ti i ,< :w 1' si;1f it Eris sIgo �zl• h A l 4 o. r. 'f4•A �Y��1.'.-Hf sl. ' P Y v ! *. ]..,..Xr t4°�w-1.1 ga iy ST' w. '3 � •K .0 g'w .. �a,.,.�� '".$� .�'�.�"�e.J-` a' •rte $e.° ik`�!- .e;.. � �.s�r'f' . F 1 f � `Ny� s �dc "-"`f' � iAt Ate f, r^^•� � '�.,.. � � ^+n NYS 1•�i4. b s � 1 ., f � r_ a $ 1 d Sia ��ti.ar^ Lw .r-d� 'V 1 • ]y :.- p�j '> � f �✓b'�,.F �#�F�.�'. i�r y�f� �rt�A��'�° rt�.��1112 �.�'+ lb .t,r' �1 �� 4{t.✓e a�,f. 4��14s.'r� k}' '�Lr� tR'c�r tt�yM1.(��ytYi ♦ 34 T a*� _>7.'.:y .i._t..�.. ..�v�..:zu�4��r'. '7.4j.�:::�., t.+2.ar�.,t<"_5•,`L ,�s._.Y'..•a� RI, 1 L k ........... .e ,'' "' .gyp r°j,,•, '^"�. h F 5234 itiwsfi rwx pw liA, / j(ryYh L •r4 'rt, d J • 1 ••1 • 11 d 1. i fi' `Kyµ� N i4s' 7 ( 3 i•� T v`A t IZ jx Y. j3 . �•_ rd�r{, �k .k�n'.ii, r 7 r `s ° t . � 1�c�r aGi t5 ayi�f d� t- - ■ '��..r°� +-_ -ter' ''x ,r.-'�.:.v "� 'r-a.Tr't�s� t�+2.✓ �r^ '" 1`��r s r.•C� r 1 "•` .. .e.h'"fv.. 'S£` .^"x'"�i�w.� `.."m" 'i'x.�( Attachment 10 Draft Ordinance"A" ORDINANCE NO. (2003 Series) AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS ALLOWING COMMON INTEREST DEVELOPMENTS TO HAVE LOTS OF ANY SIZE OR SHAPE TA/ER 76-03 (Citywide) WHEREAS, the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on December 2, 2003, for the purpose of considering Application TA/ER 16-03, a request to amend the Subdivision Regulations to allow Common Interest Developments to have lots of any size or shape; and 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 August 27, 2003, and November 5, 2003, and recommended approval of the amendment to the City Council; and WHEREAS, notices of said public hearings were made at the time and in the manner required by law; and WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project and has determined that the environmental document adequately addresses the potential environmental impacts of 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 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. Text Amendment. The proposed Subdivision Regulations Text Amendment, as shown in Exhibit A. is hereby approved based on the following finding. 1. The proposed text amendment is necessary to bring the Subdivision Regulations up to date, because the current code does not contain any specific standard or direction for Common Interest Developments, which is a method of subdivision that is authorized by the California Civil Code and the Subdivision Map Act. INTRODUCED on the day of , 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: 3 -go I I Attachment 10 Ordinance No. (2003 Series) TA/ER 76-03 (Citywide) AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Mayor David F. Romero ATTEST: Lee Price, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Jona Lowell, City Attorney 3-q I Attachment 1( Exhibit A: Legislative Draft: 16.36.160; Lot Dimensions. Lots within eendeminium all common interest subdivisions, as defined by the Davis- Stirlina Common Interest Development Act, may have any size or shape, except in the R-1 zone where Common Interest Developments must meet the lot size and shape standards described in the table above. Lots which are approved in conjunction with a deve',.....,eRt ^lam Planned Development (PD) zoning, as provided in the zoning regulations,may have any size or shape consistent with the structures and improvements shown in the development plan. As proposed: 1636.160; Lot Dimensions. Lots within all common interest subdivisions, as defined by the Davis-Stirling Common Interest Development Act, may have any size or shape, except in the R-1 zone where Common Interest Developments must meet the lot size and shape standards described in the table above. Lots which are approved in conjunction with Planned Development (PD) zoning, as provided in the zoning regulations, may have any size or shape consistent with the structures and improvements shown in the development plan. 3 ., a Attachment 11 Draft Resolution "A" RESOLUTION NO. (2003 Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO APPROVING A FOUR-LOT MINOR SUBDIVISION,AFFORDABLE HOUSING INCENTIVES AND A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION MS/ER 76-03 (225 N. Chorro) WHEREAS, the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on December 2, 2003, for the purpose of considering Application MS//ER 76-03, a four-lot minor subdivision with exceptions, affordable housing incentives and environmental review; and 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 August 27, 2003, and November 5, 2003, and recommended approval of the project to the City Council; and WHEREAS, notices of said public hearings were made at the time and in the manner required by law; and WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project and has determined that the environmental document adequately addresses the potential environmental impacts of 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 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 Findinas. The following findings are hereby made in support of the proposed minor subdivision. 1. The proposed map is consistent with the General Plan because the subdivision will provide for high-density residential development, consistent with the requirements and limitations of the R-4 zone. 2. The design 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 high density residential zone. 3. The site is physically suited for the proposed type of development because it is an under- developed site adjacent to an existing street right-of-way with complete City services. 4. As conditioned, the site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development because the site is within an existing City block, services are available to serve the development, and utilities have been designed to serve the site per City standards. 3 �g3 Attachment 11 Resolution No. (2003 Series) Page 2 225 North Chorro,MS/ER 76-03 5. The design of the subdivision 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. 6. The design of the subdivision 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 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. Section 2. Affordable Housing Incentives. The following findings are hereby made in support.of the proposed affordable housing incentives. 1. The project is eligible for affordable housing incentives because over 20% of the units in the project will be affordable to households of low and moderate income. 2. The project is entitled to a density bonus of at least 25%, but because of parking limitations a density bonus of 10.66%is requested. 3. The Municipal Code of the City of San Luis Obispo provides for exceptions to property development standards as one of several potential affordable housing incentives. 4. The proposed setback exceptions will not harm the general health, safety, or welfare of people living or working on the site or in the vicinity because the project has been redesigned to reduce solar impacts on adjacent properties. 5. Buildings on adjacent properties will be separated by a minimum distance of 10 feet, because the proposed improvements on the project site will maintain a 5-foot setback, and existing buildings on the adjacent properties have at least a 5-foot setback. 6. Adjacent properties will not be deprived of reasonable solar exposure because the proposed project is consistent with the City's setback requirements along the northern property line. Section 3. Environmental Review. The proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project adequately identifies all of the potential impacts of the project and the following mitigation measures are necessary to reduce potentially significant impacts to less than significant levels. 1. Mitigation New oak trees shall be planted at a replacement rate to be approved by the City of San Luis Obispo Tree Committee. In addition to replacement trees, at least one of the required street trees planted for the project shall be a Coast Live Oak. Attachment 11 Resolution No. (2003 Series) Page 3 225 North Chon o, MS/ER 76-03 • Monitoring Program: The proposed mitigation measure will be monitored through the Building Permit Plan Check process, whereby the landscape plan for the project can be checked to insure compliance with the requirement. Any off-site planting required by the Tree Committee must be implemented and inspected by the project planner prior to occupancy of any units in the project. A performance bond to insure the health and longevity of the trees will also be required as a condition of building permit approval. 2. Mitigation Areas of one (1.0).acre or less: No person shall engage in any construction or grading operation on property where the area to be disturbed is one (1.0) acre or less unless all of the following dust mitigation measures are initiated at the start and maintained throughout the duration of the construction or grading activity: a. Construction vehicle speed at the work site must be limited to fifteen (15) miles per hour or less; b. Prior to any ground disturbance, sufficient water must be applied to the area to be disturbed to prevent visible emissions from crossing the property line; c. Areas to be graded or excavated must be kept adequately wetted to prevent visible emissions from crossing the property line; d. Storage piles must be kept adequately wetted, treated with a chemical dust suppressant, or covered when material is not being added to or removed from the pile; e. Equipment must be washed down before moving from the property onto a paved public road; and f. Visible track-out on the paved public road must be cleaned using wet sweeping or a NEPA filter equipped vacuum device within twenty-four(24)hours. • Monitoring Program: The Air Pollution Control District monitors State requirements for air quality on a complaint basis. City Building Inspectors and Public Works Inspectors also monitor the above requirements because they are printed on all sets of improvement plans and building plans for which a City permit is issued. Section 4. Action. The project is hereby approved, including a setback exception to reduce the required yard along the southern property line from 9 feet to 5 feet, and one tandem parking space, subject to the following conditions of approval and code requirements. 3 -�S I Attachment 11 Resolution No. (2003 Series) Page 4 225 North Chorro, MS/ER 76-03 1. Architectural Review is required for the proposed building designs, which may result in changes to the proposed building height and massing, as necessary to implement the City of San Luis Obispo's Community Design Guidelines. 2. The improvement plans if required, shall be approved prior to building permit issuance. 3. All easements including but not limited to provisions for all public and private utilities, access, drainage, common driveways, and maintenance of the same shall be shown on the final map or recorded separately prior to building permit issuance. 4. Any required off-site easements shall be recorded prior to building permit issuance. Off- site improvements located on private property and necessary for this development as proposed shall have the additional scope of work shown on the building plans or on a separate plan and associated permit application to the satisfaction of the Building Official. Any off-site permits for work on private property shall be issued before or concurrent with permits for this development. 5. All new frontage improvements shall comply with city standards. Existing frontage improvements shall be upgraded, repaired, or replaced to conform to current city standards to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director. 6. The proposed on-site sewer main, storm drainage/retention systems, water services, and fire services shall be privately owned and maintained by the Homeowner's Association. 7. Final grades and alignments of all water, fire services, sewer, and storm drains (including service laterals and meters) shall be subject to change to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director and Utilities Engineer. 8. 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. 9. The subdivider shall place underground all existing overhead telecommunication utilities along the Chorro Street frontage to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director and serving utility companies. 10. The existing septic system and leach field shall be abandoned in accordance with the UPC and recommendations by the project soils engineer whichever is more restrictive. 11. A soils report is required for this development. The soils report shall be submitted at the time of building permit application and public improvement plan submittal if applicable. The building, grading, and drainage plans shall be reviewed by the soils engineer for consistency with the report recommendations. 3R�p I Attachment 11 Resolution No. (2003 Series) Page 5 225 North Chorro, MS/ER 76-03 12. A detailed hydrology study indicating the effects of the proposed development on adjacent and downstream properties will be required. The scope of the study should include analysis of the existing historic drainage. The analysis shall include the watershed from adjoining properties if necessary. The historic drainage outlet from this property shall be clarified and incorporated into the final drainage plan and detailed safe overflow. The existing drainage as shown on the tentative map to outlet entirely to the Cork n Bottle property shall be confirmed. 13. Detention facilities may be required. All proposed detention basin and drainage- improvements rainageimprovements shall be privately owned and maintained by the property owner and/or homeowners' association. Runoff from the post-developed site shall not exceed that of predevelopment for the 2, 10, and 100-year, 24-hour storm. Analysis and design of stormwater facilities shall be consistent with the. City's Draft Watershed Management Plan. 14. Off=site easements shall be secured for the proposed safe overflow for the drainage system. The proposed overflow shall provide a non-erosive outlet to an approved point of disposal. The existing off-site drainage system(s) shall be justified for capacity and condition to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director. Permits for any upgrade to off-site drainage improvements shall be permitted before or concurrent with permits for new development on the project site. 15. Improved surface drainage structures and/or subsurface drainage systems shall be provided along the rear yards of Parcels 3 and 4 in lieu of an earthen swale where private patios are proposed. 16. 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 in accordance with the Professional Land Surveyors Act, the Subdivision Map Act and the Subdivision City's Regulations. 17. 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. 18. The final map 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. 3 -� - Attachment 11 Resolution No. (2003 Series) Page 6 225 North Chorro, MS/ER 76-03 19. Electronic files along with 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 AutoCAD compatible drawing files and any associated plot files along with one original, stamped and signed, ink on mylar set of plans. 20. 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, with appropriate credit given for prior accounts on the property. 21. Each parcel shall have its own separate wastewater service lateral. 22. Each lot requires a separate connection to the public water main for automatic fire sprinklers. Each fire service lateral shall include a USC approved backflow preventer appropriate for the proposed use. The backflow preventer shall be located as close to the public right-of-way as possible, in direct alignment with the connection to the public water main. The backflow preventer can be located no further than 25 feet from the right- of=way line without prior written approval of the Utilities Engineer. If the fire service supports one or more fire hydrants, the USC approved backflow preventer shall also include detector capabilities (double detector check assembly). The FDC may be located behind the backflow prevention assembly, in accordance with manufacturer's recommendations. The location and orientation of the FDC shall be approved by the Fire Department. 23. 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. 24. The redevelopment of the site triggers the Utilities Department Sewer Lateral Abandonment Policy. This policy states that the sewer lateral must be abandoned at the main prior to any 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. 25. Prior to ARC review, project plans shall be revised to show the dimensional location, orientation, type, spacing and clearance from vertical and horizontal site features of all short- and long-term bicycle parking facilities, consistent with guidance provided by the Community Design Guidelines and the Bicycle Transportation Plan (May 2002). Bicycle racks shall be of the inverted "U" design consistent with Engineering Standard 7930. Project plans shall also clearly show how bicycle parking will be provided, consistent 3 .?� Attachment 11 Resolution No. (2003 Series) Page 7 225 North Chorro, MS/ER 76-03 with Table 6.5 of the Zoning Regulations. Bicycle parking within garages shall be shown to not be in conflict with any required vehicle parking spaces. 26'. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66474.9(b), the subdivider 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 this subdivision, and all actions relating thereto, including but not limited to environmental review. 27. The proposed parcel map shall be revised so that equal area is given to each of the proposed lots, consistent with the City's density requirements. 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: J a owell, City Attorney �j '0!� Attachment 12 Draft Resolution "B" RESOLUTION NO. (2003 Series) A DRAFT RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO DENYING AN AMENDMENT TO THE SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS,AND/OR A FOUR-LOT MINOR SUBDIVISION,AND/OR AFFORDABLE HOUSING INCENTIVES. MS/ER 76-03 (225 N. Chorro) WHEREAS, the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on December 2, 2003, for the purpose of considering.Application MS/ER 76-03, a four-lot minor subdivision with exceptions, an amendment to the Subdivision Regulations, affordable housing incentives and environmental review; and 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 August 27, 2003, and November 5, 2003, and recommended approval of the project to the City Council; and WHEREAS, notices of said public hearings were made at the time and in the manner required by law; and WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project and has determined that the environmental document adequately addresses the potential environmental impacts of 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 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. Denial. The project (or specific project component) is hereby denied, based on the following findings. 1. The design of the proposed subdivision is not consistent with the General Plan because the project does not meet one or more of the Residential Project Objectives contained in the Land Use Element, Policy 2.2.12. 2. The proposed Affordable Housing Incentives are denied because... (Council to provide justification as necessary). 3. The proposed Subdivision Regulations amendment is denied until a comprehensive update of the Regulations is performed. 3 "90 r Attachment 12 Resolution No. (2003 Series) Page 2 225 North Chorro, MS/ER 76-03 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: Jonathan Lowell, City Attorney 3 -9 - Page 1 of 1 ,I RECEIVED Julie O'Connor - 12/02/03 Agenda — Item 3, 225 Chorro DEC J 1 2003 SLO CITY CLERK From: <ANCARTER@aol.com> To: <asettle@slocity.org>, <cmulholland@slocity.org>, <kschwartz@slocity.org>, <jewan@slocity.org>, <dromero@slocity.org> Date: 12/1/03 1:45 PM Subject: 12/02/03 Agenda -- Item 3, 225 Chorro CC: <lprice@slocity.org>, <khampian@slocity.org> Dear Council Members: I'm afraid I cannot make tomorrow night's meeting as l have a long-standing volunteer commitment. I do want to comment on Public Hearing Items 3,4, &5. For your convenience, I'll send three separate e-mails. Item 3—225 Chorro In principle, I support the applicant's request and the PC recommendation. But I do propose that you tighten the affordability requirements. (It would require you to begin setting a stricter standard than you have in the past.) One of the many issues raised by the Housing Task Force has to do with the City's definition of affordable housing as it applies to rental properties. As things currently stand, almost all rental housing in the city is "affordable"for moderate incomes. Here's the City's 2003 Affordable Housing Rental Grid: Max. Monthly Rent Studio 1-Bdrm. 2-Bdrm. 3-Bdrm. 4-Bdrm. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ --- Very Low $505 $577 $649 $750 $837 Low $606 $692 $779 $900 $1004 Moderate $1296 $1480 $1667 $1925 $2148 1 won't bother to print the Affordable Housing Purchase Grid, but in contrast, no purchase housing in the City is affordable to moderate-income families. With the 225 Chorro project, the applicant is agreeing to set aside one 2-bdrm. apartment(rent=$1667/month) and two 1-bdrm. apartments (rent=$1480/month)for moderate-income affordability plus one 1-bdrm. apartment for low-income affordability (rent=$692/month). So the only financial sacrifice the applicant is making applies to the one 1-bdrm. low-income apartment, and that"sacrifice"totals perhaps$100/month at current market rates. In return for$100/month, the incentives to be received will be a 5 ft. setback(vs. 9 ft.), 1 tandem parking space, and amendment of the subdivision regulations. Can't we do better than this? I would suggest that all four affordable units should be affordable to low-income occupants. Beyond this project, we need to either fix the affordability grid by lowering the moderate-income rents on it or not consider incentives for moderate-income apartments. A Andrew Carter �OU�— JIR -CAO -FIN DIR y�'ACAO FIRE CHIEF RED FILE 2'ATrORNEv JGPW DIR MEETING AGENDA 1TCLERKIORIG 21 POLICE CHF DA ITEM #!- b J�7❑ DEPT �iE4DS EC DIR '� UTIL DIR /HP. DIR file://C:\WINDOWS\TEMP\GW IOOOOI.HTM 12/1/03