Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/21/2006, PH 3 - PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY'S SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS AND CONDOMINIUM CONVERSION AND DEVELOPMEN ADcouncil a)a1oU acenaa uepoRt ?H 3 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO FROM: John Mandeville, Community Development Direct Prepared By: Phil Dunmore, Associate Planner SUBJECT: PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY'S SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS AND CONDOMINIUM CONVERSION AND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS (TA/ER 153-04) PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION As recommended by the Planning Commission at a public hearing on January 11, 2006, introduce an ordinance to adopt the proposed amendments to the Subdivision Regulations, thereby repealing and replacing Chapter 16 and Chapter 17.82 of the Municipal Code, including a recommendation to reduce the minimum lot size in the R-1 zone from 6,000 square feet down to 5,000 square feet. CAO RECOMMENDATION As recommended by the Planning Commission at a public hearing on January 11, 2006, introduce an ordinance to adopt the proposed amendments to the Subdivision Regulations, thereby repealing and replacing Chapter 16 and Chapter 17.82 of the Municipal Code, without amendments to the minimum lot size standards for the R-1 district, and consistent with current General Plan policies related to density and character of the district. REPORT-IN-BRIEF Adoption of a comprehensive amendment to the City's Subdivision Regulations involves repealing Chapter 16 and Chapter 17.82 of the Municipal Code and then incorporating the new text into a revised Chapter 16, the City's Subdivision Regulations. The emphasis of the amendments is to update the current subdivision regulations for consistency with the Subdivision Map Act, the City's General Plan, and the Davis Sterling Act (the Davis Sterling Act defines condominium and common interest subdivisions). A comprehensive amendment to the regulations has not occurred since 1982 and the existing regulations are procedurally out of date. The Planning Commission reviewed the draft regulations on September 14, 2005 and January 11, 2006, and recommended the draft document, with amendments, to the City Council. Planning Commission discussion focused on the Common Interest/Condominium regulations as well as the minimum lot size standards for residential districts. The Commission voted separately on individual components of the regulations and ultimately recommended approval of the document to Council with modifications. The Commission's recommended modifications included reductions in the minimum dimensions and lot area requirements for all residential zones. Other changes were minor in nature and are discussed on pages 2 and 3. 1 Council Agenda Report—TA/ER 153-04 Citywide amendments to the.Subdivision Regulations Page 2 Reductions to the minimum lot size standards in the R-1 district may conflict with the adopted General Plan density standards. This change would require an amendment to the General Plan. In addition, the Council expressed a preference that densities in the R-1 zone not be changed during the Housing Element update hearings in 2004. Therefore, staff is recommending introduction of the proposed amendments to the Subdivision Regulations without amendments to the R-1 standards. If the Council wishes to reduce the lot standards for R-1, then staff would recommend that this particular issue be directed back to staff to evaluate, including General Plan amendments and environmental analysis. The bulk of the subdivision regulations updates could be acted on at this time. DISCUSSION Situation A comprehensive update to the City's Subdivision Regulations has not been performed since its adoption in 1982. Since that time, numerous updates to the Subdivision Map Act as well as changes in City procedures have occurred. The existing regulations are therefore out of date and are in need of a comprehensive update. Additionally, the City's Condominium Development and Conversion standards are currently placed in a separate part of the City's Municipal Code and would be more appropriately combined with the City's Subdivision Regulations. The scope of the proposed text amendments includes the complete repeal and replacement of the current subdivision regulations and the repeal and replacement of the Condominium regulations, combining these items into a new, single code chapter. Planning Commission Action The draft regulations were introduced to the Planning Commission on September 14, 2005 (see Attachments 1 and 2). The Commission commented on the document and asked staff to provide extended community notification regarding the amendments. The Commission also asked staff to perform additional analysis on the minimum lot size standards for residential districts while emphasizing that minimum lot sizes should be reduced to encourage additional housing opportunities. Commissioners also commented on the overall style and font of the documents. Following additional notification, which included neighborhood groups and members of the local consultant and development professionals community, staff returned to the Planning Commission on January 11, 2006. (see Attachments 3, 4 and 5). Revisions to the document included changes to the font and style of the document as well as minor editorial changes in response to feedback from the Public Works and Utilities Departments. In general, the Commission had relatively few comments on the document. The discussion focused primarily on the Condominium regulations and the minimum lot size standards for residential districts. The Commissioner's discussion resulted in seven separate motions,.recommending that the City Council approve the document. The Commission's action can be summarized as follows: � -z Council Agenda Report—TA/ER 153-04 Citywide amendments to the Subdivision Regulations Page 3 1. Chapter 16.17.040- Add language to require condominium conversions to be reviewed for previous water inundation or mold issues. The Commission voted to approve this amendment on a 5-0 vote. 2. Chapter 16.17.080- Change the annual limit for condo conversions to be based on a 3- year average of rental housing produced in the City. This amendment failed on a 3-2 vote. 3. Chapter 16.17.080-Modify the project ranking criteria to include the amount of time that units have been occupied as rental apartments to allow older rental units to have a higher priority for conversion. This amendment passed on a 5-0 vote. 4. Chapter 16.17.040- Add language to the property condition report requirements to require a reserve study specialist to analyze the condominiums fee structure. This amendment failed on a 3-2 vote. 5. Table 3- minimum lot size standards- Reduce the minimum lot size in all residential districts to 5,000 square feet. This amendment passed on a 4-1 vote. 6. Table 3- minimum lot size standards- Reduce the minimum dimensions in the R-2 through R-4 zones to 50 x 80 square feet. This amendment passed on a 3-2 vote. 7. Table 3- minimum lot size standards- Reduce the minimum dimensions in the R-1 zone to 50 x 80 square feet. This amendment failed on a 3-2 vote. The Commission also asked staff to analyze the lot size standards for similar surrounding communities in the report to Council. Other Commissioner comments include a discussion of the Parkland Dedication requirements. These items are discussed in additional detail in the evaluation section below. Please note that the amendments recommended by the Planning Commission above have not yet been incorporated into the draft document and the copies of the draft regulations distributed to the Council are not changed from the January 1 I`h Planning Commission hearing. Attachment 6 is a summary of the specific document changes that were recommended by the Commission. Evaluation The attached Planning Commission staff report, Attachment 5, provides additional discussion on the key components of the new regulations. It is important to understand that a legislative draft is not available since the new regulations are an entirely new document. In summary, the key components of this comprehensive amendment include the following: 1. Text and graphic reformatting. 2. Legal changes for conformance with 2004-2005 Subdivision Map Act. Council Agenda Report—TA/ER 153-04 Citywide amendments to the Subdivision Regulations Page 4 3. Changes to Administrative Responsibility to streamline processing: a. Planning Commission to be responsible for minor subdivisions with exceptions, instead of Council (see discussion in evaluation section below). 4. Elimination of street (engineering) standards. Street standards will become part of the City's Engineering Standards to be maintained by Public Works Division. 5. New chapter: Common Interest Subdivisions: this section includes the City's Condominium Regulations now found in a separate section of the Municipal code (Chapter 17.82). The existing Municipal Code section would be repealed and the new Subdivision Regulations would include the condominium regulations. 6. Significant changes and additions to the general subdivision design standards including updates to the flag lot standards. 7. Incorporation and implementation of General Plan policies associated with subdivision and street design. 8. Expanded and updated definitions section. 9. Updates to the minimum lot size standards. Minimum Lot.Size Standards The Planning Commission's discussion on the proposed subdivision regulations focused on amending the residential lot size standards. Originally, changing the lot size standards was not intended to be a key component of the amendments. Staff's original proposal to the Planning Commission recommended a reduction (of 500 square feet) in the minimum lot size for the R-2, R-3, and R-4 districts. The purpose of the recommendation was to recognize the existing lot pattern in multi-family districts around the downtown and to allow the lot size to logically comply with the existing General Plan density standards. Many of the R-2 through R-4 lots surrounding the downtown are considered non-conforming because they are less than the required lot size minimum of 6,000 square feet. Reducing the minimum lot size for these districts would help more lots to reach a conforming status while still remaining consistent with the current General Plan density standards. The Planning Commission voted to reduce the minimum lot size to 5,000 square feet which would still allow reasonable density on each lot without conflicting with the anticipated density for multi family zoned lots. For example, a 5,000 square foot lot in R-2 would allow for two one-bedroom units.. Reducing the lot size on a multi-family lot simply reduces the density allowed on that lot, it does not increase the overall density of the neighborhood. Reducing the minimum lot size to 5,000 square feet would have little if no impact on multi-family zoned neighborhoods. Rather than impacting density, it would only modify the ownership boundaries of such properties. 3 -y i Council Agenda Report—TA/ER 153-04 Citywide amendments to the Subdivision Regulations Page 5 However, reducing the lot size in the R-1 district could result in more significant changes to the character of existing neighborhoods. Smaller lot size minimums in the R-1 zone would result in increases to the average density of existing lots, potentially altering the character of existing low density neighborhoods. This is partly because the regulations do not require bedrooms to be included in the density determination for R-1 properties unlike R-2 through R-4. Therefore a 5,000 square foot lot in the R-1 would allow a larger residence (more bedrooms) compared to a 5,000 square foot lot in the R-2, R-3 or R-4 zone. General Plan Density Reducing the lot size in the R-1 would require the City to amend the General Plan density standards for the Low-Density Residential land use district. Current density standards allow 7 units per acre in the R-1 district. One acre divided by seven equals roughly 6,200 square feet. Therefore, current lot size standards for R-1 are designed to allow six to seven lots per acre, given road improvements and other dedications. However, when the lot size is reduced to 5,000 square feet, the end result is likely to exceed the. General Plan density standards since approximately 8 lots (and units) per acre would be allowed. The General Plan also assumes that R-1 property will accommodate no more than 20 persons per acre. If a 1 acre property were to be developed with eight 4-bedroom homes (which could potentially house more than 30 people per acre) the anticipated General Plan population for the Low-Density Residential districts would be exceeded. In an infill situation, allowing 5,000 square foot lots is likely to encourage deep lot subdivision of existing R-1 properties. There are many lots along the Foothill Boulevard and Johnson Avenue corridors, as well as other locations in the City, that contain single family residences on deep lots greater than 10,000 square feet. In fact, GIS analysis has shown that approximately 20% of all R- 1 lots are greater than 10,000 square feet. A map that identifies where these lots are will be presented at the Council hearing. At this point, it is difficult to ascertain the number of identified lots that would be eligible for subdivision since there are many other parameters to consider such as lot dimensions and existing improvements. However, if a single lot has the area to become two lots, requests can be expected, including exceptions to the lot width standards. During the recent Housing Element update, Housing Element policies were created to encourage additional housing opportunities. These policies focus on creating flexible parking regulations, allowing (and requiring) additional residential density in the downtown, and rezoning existing commercial areas for residential use. What the Housing Element policies do not direct is adding additional density to existing low density residential neighborhoods. In fact, Housing Element policy 3.2.6 discourages changes to established neighborhoods: "Preserve the fabric, yards (i.e. setbacks), and overall character and quality of life of existing neighborhoods." A new lot area standard for the Low-Density Residential (R-1) areas that could encourage up to 20% of the R-1 lots to increase in density may not be consistent with this policy. In summary, the Planning Commission felt that reducing the lot size in all residential districts would comply with Housing Element goals to encourage additional housing opportunities. The Council Agenda Report—TA/ER 153-04 Citywide amendments to the Subdivision Regulations Page 6 Housing Element update did not identify the City's minimum lot sizes as an obstacle to achieving our quantified housing objectives. The Housing Element does support the use of density bonuses as an incentive to stimulate housing production, however. The recent Housing Element update process confirmed the Council's desire to retain current R-1 standards. It is also important to note that neighborhood groups are opposed to lot size changes in the R-1 district. Finally, a higher density R-1 zone may result in environmental impacts that would need to be addressed through the CEQA process. These impacts, including traffic, utility capacity and other City service impacts have not been evaluated at this time; therefore if the Council wishes to pursue reductions to the minimum lot size in the R-1 district, then this subject will need to be continued to a later date. Staff would return with an updated environmental analysis and other pertinent analysis as outlined by Council. Analysis of lot sizes in other communities As requested by the Planning Commission, staff analyzed other communities to compare minimum lot size standards and residential densities. A complete summary of the analysis has been included as Attachment 7. Although some communities allow lot sizes as small as 5,000 square feet in the R-1 district (Santa Cruz, Monterey, and Pismo Beach) these communities rely upon sub-zones to designate where smaller lots would be appropriate. In other words, these communities do not allow lots sizes as low as 5,000 square feet citywide. Instead there are only certain sub-districts within the R-1 district (such as historic districts) that would allow smaller lot sizes. Most communities have larger minimum lot sizes that range from 6,000 to 8,000 square feet in the R-1 district. In general, staff found the other communities have a similar range of lot sizes compared to San Luis Obispo, however in general it was found that San Luis Obispo allows for a greater density than most communities. Common Interest/Condominium Regulations A significant portion of the revised chapter 16 includes a new section that regulates common interest subdivisions. 'Both airspace condominiums and small lot planned developments with detached units are considered common interest subdivisions. Although the City has allowed both types of subdivisions, consistent with the Davis Sterling Act, the City does not currently have specific development standards that guide this popular type of subdivision. The new regulations establish open space standards, recreation amenities and design parameters for these small lot subdivisions. In summary, the common interest regulations allow lots of any size or shape within the R-2 through R-4 zones as long as each lot and the accompanying development plan complies with the Zoning Regulation's property development standards, including development density and open space for each unit. In the R-1 district a common interest subdivision would require adoption of Planned Development (PD) zoning to be approved by City Council. The Council should recognize that adoption of these standards (although the City already allows this type of development) encourages flexibility in the types of subdivisions that may occur while ensuring a consistent level of quality and open space for each development. As an alternative to/ i Council Agenda Report—TA/ER 153-04 Citywide amendments to the Subdivision Regulations Page 7 . reducing the standard minimum lot sizes for all residential districts, the Council should look to the common interest subdivision standards as a method of increasing subdivision flexibility and potentially increasing housing opportunities, consistent with the City's Housing Element. Parkland Dedications At the Planning Commission hearing, commissioners asked why the parkland fees had been increased to 10 acres per 1,000 residents in the proposed draft regulations. Staff has since performed additional research on the matter and discussed the appropriate dedication levels with the City Finance Director, Consistent with the Subdivision Map Act, the City may ask a subdivider to dedicate parkland or pay an in-lieu fee for parkland as part of a residential subdivision. The maximum amount that the City may exact as a condition of approval under the Map Act is 5 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents expected to reside in the proposed subdivision. However, the City's General Plan Parks and Recreation Element policies establish a goal of 10 acres of parkland per 1,000 people. The current subdivision regulations contain a,provision that requires 5 acres per 1,000 people as a condition of subdivision. The final language of the update will be amended to require 5 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents consistent with the Map Act. However, additional language will be added to clarify that additional parkland may be required (up to 10 acres per 1,000 residents) as a discretionary requirement in circumstances where a clear nexus and procedural opportunity are identified (i.e. annexations, General Plan amendments/rezoning, and planned developments). Minor Subdivisions with exceptions The new regulations give the Planning Commission the responsibility for reviewing minor subdivisions (subdivisions of four or fewer lots) when exceptions to the lot width, depth or area are requested. The existing regulations are not exactly clear on the review body that is responsible for reviewing exceptions. However, in the past, the City Council has been responsible for these actions. Typically between one and three subdivision requests per year include a request for an exception to the regulations. In some cases, the exception requests are minor in nature and are typically non-controversial. However, some exception requests can be controversial and can create significant public testimony. Staff believes that all minor subdivisions with exceptions should be accommodated by the Planning Commission, saving staff and the Council valuable time that should be reserved for more significant issues. In the case of a controversial exception request, the Commission has the ability to forward the issue to the Council or the issue would be appealed to the Council anyway. The Subdivision Map Act is silent on the issue and gives local jurisdictions full liberty on the approval process that is utilized. General Plan Consistency As proposed by staff, the update is designed to be consistent with current General Plan Policy and implement a variety of policies from the City's Land Use, Open Space, Circulation, Parks and Recreation and Housing Elements. The General Subdivision Design Standards (section 16.18) guides the design of subdivisions and associated public improvements and implements the Council Agenda.Report—TA/ER 153-04 Citywide amendments to the Subdivision Regulations Page 8 majority of applicable General Plan policies. For example, the General Subdivision Design Standards, Chapter 16.18.020 of the draft regulations are designed to implement Land Use Element Policies LU 2.2.6 "Neighborhood Pattern", LU 2.1.5 "Neighborhood Open Links" and LU 2.1.4 "Neighborhood Connections". Chapter 16.18.130 implements Land Use Element policies that are designed to guide hillside development such as LU 6.2.0 "Hillsides" and LU 6.2.2 "Development Standards". Chapter 16.18.130 Chapter 16.18.150 and 16.18.155 also implements Open Space element policies that are designed to protect natural resources and creek areas such as OS 1.1.2 "Protect Resources", OS 3.2.1 "Development Practices for Creek Preservation" and OS 10.2.12 "Development practices for Agricultural Preservation". Sample street standards have also been supplied as a method of implementing key Circulation Element Policies such as Policy 5.2 which describes the desired traffic speeds and travel lanes for each street type. Most of the revisions recommended by the Planning Commission are consistent with the.General Plan. However, as noted above, modifying the standard minimum lot sizes in the R-1 district would require an amendment to the General Plan density standards both in terms of anticipated persons per acre and dwelling units per acre. If the Council decides to look at amending the Land Use Element to modify the lot size for low density neighborhoods, then Housing Element policies 3.2.6 "Neighborhood Preservation" and 7.2.1 "Character, Size, Density and Quality" shall be carefully considered. Environmental Review Amendments of the Municipal Code pertaining to the Subdivision Regulations are not exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act and therefore are subject to an environmental determination. Staff has prepared a draft initial study for the proposed amendments (Attachment 8). No significant environmental impacts are likely to occur with the adoption of the amended regulations. However, as noted above, the proposed reduction of lot sizes in the R-1 district has not been addressed in the draft environmental document. Conclusion The update to the Subdivision Regulations is not intended to significantly alter the development pattern in the City, but instead is intended to update the current standards to comply.with the Map Act and the City's General Plan. These regulations are dominated by legal procedures rather than development standards. However, if the City Council believes that the minimum lot size standards should be reduced, as recommended by the Planning Commission, then the Council should adopt the draft ordinance as recommended by staff, and refer the R-1 lot size issue back to staff for further review and analysis, including possible amendments to Land Use and Housing Element policies and environmental review. CONCURRENCES The draft regulations have been reviewed by other City departments including Public Works, d 'Or r. Council Agenda Report—TA/ER 153-04 Citywide amendments to the Subdivision Regulations Page 9 Utilities, Building and Fire. Comments from each of the departments have been included in the regulations and amendments were incorporated from each department prior to proceeding to Planning Commission. FISCAL IMPACT When the General Plan was prepared, it was accompanied by a fiscal impact analysis, which found that overall the General Plan was fiscally balanced. As proposed by staff, the draft regulations do not significantly impact City revenues and subdivision maps will continue to provide public improvements. However, modifications to the City's density standards would potentially produce impacts to City services and could result in adverse fiscal impacts. ALTERNATIVES 1. Adopt the regulations without altering the minimum lot size in the R-1 district and ask staff to return to Council at a later date with a comprehensive analysis of the City's lot size and density standards and proposed General Plan Policy changes. 2. Adopt the regulations as recommended by the Planning Commission reducing the lot size for all residential districts, including the R-1 zone, down to 5,000 square feet. 3. Continue the entire ordinance to a date uncertain with direction to staff to evaluate the environmental impacts associated with adjusting the minimum lot size standards for the R-1 district and accompanying General Plan amendments. 4. Continue the item for additional research or discussion with specific direction to staff for items to return to Council. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Planning Commission meeting minutes September 14, 2005 2. Planning Commission staff report, September 14, 2005 3. Planning Commission resolution, January 11, 2006 4. Planning Commission meeting minutes, January 11, 2006 5. Planning Commission staff report, January 11, 2006 6. Planning Commission recommended changes in draft format 7. Analysis of similar communities. 8. Initial Study of Environmental Impact 9. Draft Ordinance as recommended by CAO 10. Draft Ordinance as recommended by the Planning Commission A copy of the existing Subdivision Regulations is available in the City Council reading file, in the City Clerk's office, and in the Community Development Department. G:\Pdunsmore\Text Amendments\Subdivision Ordinance\City Council\TA 153-04 Council rpt(02-21-06).doc ,� 9 Attachment 1 Planning Commission Minutes September 14, 2005 Page 2 2. City Wide. TA and ER X53=04: Proposed comprehensive amendment to the City's Subdivision Regulations, and environmental review; City of San Luis Obispo, applicant(Phii Dunmore) Associate Planner Phil Dunsmore presented the staff report, introducing a proposed comprehensive update to the City's Subdivision Regulations, Chamber 16 of the Municipal Code. He asked the Commission to review the proposed amendments and offer feedback to staff. PUBLIC COMMENTS: There were no comments from the public. COMMISSION COMMENTS: Commr. Osborne expressed a desire to hold an additional hearing on this item. He questioned the size of R-1 lots and asked if the minimum lot size of 6000 square feet is the standard size recognized by the City. Commr. Carter asked for clarification of lot sizes in the R-1, R-2, and R-3 zones. He suggested that the City provide some justification on how the lots sizes are measured; rent levels be considered moderate to low; reconsider the condominium conversion ranking criteria, reduce the acreage required for parkland dedications, and change the font style in the document to enhance readability. Commr. Aiken noted that some lot areas are less than 4000 square feet, and suggested the City conduct an inventory of lots of this substandard size. Commr. Osborne stated that flag lot subdivisions may be problematic, and suggested different types of paving materials be considered by the City. Commr. Carter asked to what extent this document would impact the community and asked what type of notice, if any, would be sent to the development community and public in the future. On motion by Commr. Loh to continue this item for further discussion to a date uncertain. Seconded by Commr. Aiken. AYES: Commrs. Miller, Osborne, Loh, Carter, Osborne and Aiken NOES: None ABSENT: Commrs. Boswell and Christianson ABSTAIN: None The motion passed on a 5:0 vote. Attachment 2 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT ITEM#t BY: Philip Dunsmore, Associate Planner(781-7522) MEETING DATE: September 14, 2005 FROM: Ron Whisenand, Deputy Director-Development Revie10 FILE NUMBER: TA 153-04 PROJECT ADDRESS: City Wide SUBJECT: Introduction of a proposed comprehensive update to the City's Subdivision Regulations, Chapter 16 of the Municipal Code. SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION Review proposed amendments to the Subdivision Regulations and offer feedback to staff. BACKGROUND Situation A comprehensive update to the City's Subdivision Regulations has not been performed since its adoption in 1982. Since that time, numerous updates to the Subdivision Map Act as well as changes in City procedures have occurred. The existing regulations have become both legally and procedurally out of date and are in need of a comprehensive update. At this time, staff would like to introduce a draft of the proposed new document, seeking feedback to refine the document and return to the Commission at a later date. EVALUATION Instead of page by page revisions to the existing Subdivision Regulations (Chapter 16 of the Municipal Code), staff is introducing an entirely new document with a proposal to repeal and replace the regulations. Although there are numerous text and application requirement changes, the following list highlights the key areas that have been significantly modified in the proposed new draft: 1. Text and graphic reformatting a. New font and layout style b. New introductory chapter and organizational charts c. New graphics for site plans, streets, and.subdivisions Attachment 2 TA 153-04 (Citywide) Page 2 2. Conformance with 2004-2005 Subdivision Map Act a. Changes in processing for lot line adjustments. Starting in 2001, the map act requires lot line adjustments involving 5 or more lots to be processed as a tract map. b. Updates to map format requirements. New requirements that include tentative map application submittal requirements have been incorporated. c. Addition of legal disclaimers and applicable notes as recommended by the City Attorney. 3. Changes to Administrative Responsibility a. Planning Commission to be responsible for minor subdivisions with exceptions, instead of Council. b. Clarification of other responsibilities in a simplified chart. 4. Elimination of street (engineering) standards. Street standards will become part of the City's Engineering Standards to be maintained by Public Works Division. New street standards will include altemative street standards. In-lieu of street engineering standards, the new subdivision regulations include graphic examples of preferred street types, however specific dimensions and engineering standards are not included. 5. New chapter: Common Interest Subdivisions. This section includes the City's Condominium Regulations now found in a separate section of the Municipal code. The existing Municipal Code section would be repealed and the new Subdivision Regulations would include the condominium regulations. The new chapter will also incorporate a set of revised regulations that will govern various types of common interest subdivisions including airspace condominiums and planned unit developments with postage stamp lots. The goal of- this chapter is to respond to recent trends towards small lot residential subdivisions and other forms of ownership housing. Commercial subdivisions are not regulated by this section. 6. Significant changes and additions to the general subdivision design standards including updates to the flag lot standards. The flag lot standards have been revised to reflect trends in requiring additional visitor parking and adequate buffering between flag lot driveway and adjacent residential properties. Additionally, updates have been added to reflect recent fire department standards. Specific design guidelines have been incorporated to reflect General Plan policy in relation to hillside subdivisions, natural resources, energy conservation, grading, and basic subdivision design. 7. Expanded and updated definitions section. This section includes revised and updated definitions consistent with the Subdivision Map Act and the Davis Sterling Act regarding common interest subdivisions. 8. Updates to the minimum lot size standards. The minimum lot sizes for all residential and office districts (with the exception of R-1) have been reduced from 6,000 square feet to 5,500 r Attachment 2 TA 153-04 (Citywide) Page 3 square feet to more closely resemble existing lot patterns and for consistency with density standards. Example: In the R-2 district, the current minimum lot size is 6,000 square feet and the density is 12 units per acre. Therefore, a 6,000 square foot lot allows for 1.65 density units which is an odd number in terms of unit allocations since a two bedroom requires 1 density unit and a 1 bedroom requires at least .66 density units. With the lot size reduced to 5,500, the resulting density is 1.5 which allows for two bedroom unit and a studio apartment. This same scenario is similar for R-2 through R-4 districts. Additionally, the 5,500 square foot size is more indicative of the existing lot sizes currently found throughout the older neighborhoods surrounding the downtown where the predominant lot size is less than 6,000 square feet. Staff believes that the 500 square foot change would not result in significant changes to future subdivision proposals; however it results in a logical lot area. Environmental Review Amendments of the Municipal Code pertaining to the subdivision regulations are not exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act and therefore are subject to an environmental determination. Staff will prepare a draft initial study for the proposed amendments when the item returns to the Commission. Conclusion The purpose of the public hearing is to consider testimony of the commission and public on the first introduction of the draft subdivision regulations. The Commission should indicate the preferred review format of the document and estimated hearing schedule. For example, the commission may wish to review one or more chapters at each hearing, rather than consider the entire document at one or more hearings. The commission's final result would be in the form of a recommendation to the City Council, where the document would be incorporated into the Municipal Code as a text amendment. RECOMMENDATION 1. Consider public testimony and determine a review/hearing schedule for the draft subdivision regulations. 2. Offer feedback to staff as appropriate. Attachments: A copy of the existing and proposed subdivision regulations has been included in your packet. GAPdunsmore\Special Projects\Subdivision Ordinance\TA 153-04 PC rpt(9-14-05).DOC ' Attachment 3 RESOLUTION NO. 5440-06 A RESOLUTION OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 16 AND CHAPTER 17.82 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE- SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS AND CONDOMINIUM DEVELOPMENT AND CONVERSION STANDARDS TA 153-04 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission 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 January 11, 2006 to consider necessary amendments resulting in the repeal and replacement of Chapter 16 of the Municipal Code pertaining to Subdivisions and the repeal of Chapter 17.82 of the Municipal Code pertaining to Condominium Development and Conversions; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo has considered public testimony, interested parties, and evaluation and recommendations by staff; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed and considered the Negative Declaration of environmental impact prepared for the project;and BE IT RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. Findines. 1. The proposed amendments are necessary to meet the amendments imposed within the State of California Subdivision Map Act over the past 10 years. 2. The proposed amendments will allow the City's Subdivision Regulations to be consistent with the description of subdivisions as recognized by the Department of Real Estate and as adopted by the Davis Sterling Act. 3. The proposed amendments will recognize current development trends and allow for the incorporation of necessary subdivision amenities and appropriate subdivision design standards as recognized by contemporary the City's recently adopted Community Design Guidelines. 4. The proposed amendments are consistent with General Plan Policies since the regulations implement General Plan policies associated with preservation of neighborhood character, establishment of Open Space, and the preservation of established General Plan density standards. 5. The proposed amendments will not significantly alter the character of the neighborhoods or cause significant health, safety or welfare concerns, since the regulations do not alter the density, character, or allowed uses within the City. Instead, the regulations define the logical interpretation of ownership boundaries and the municipal procedures surrounding the establishment of such ownership boundaries. - Attachment 3 Resolution No. 5440-06 J Page 2 - 6. The proposed amendments will not result in significant impacts to the environment,therefore the draft Negative Declaration is appropriate for the scope of the text amendment. SECTION 2. Action. 1. The Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council approval of Municipal Code amendments which includes the repeal, in entirety, and replacement of Chapter 16 of the Municipal Code pertaining to Subdivisions and the repeal, in entirety, of Chapter 17.82 of the Municipal Code pertaining to Condominium Development and Conversions, incorporating the Condominium Development and Conversion standards into Chapter 16 of the Municipal Code. The following amendments to the draft document are recommended by the Planning Commission: Chapter 16.017.040- Add language to require condominium conversions to be reviewed for previous water inundation or mold issues. Chapter 16.17.080- Modify the project ranking criteria to include the amount of time that units have been occupied as rental apartments to allow older rental units to have a higher priority for conversion. Table 3- minimum lot size standards- Reduce the minimum lot size in all residential districts to 5,000 square feet. Table 3- minimum lot size standards- Reduce the minimum dimensions in the R-2 through R4 zones to 50 x 80 square feet. On motion by Commissioner Christianson, seconded by Commissioner Loh, and on the following roll call vote: AYES: Commrs. McCoy, Osborne, Loh, Carter and Christianson NOES: None REFRAIN: None ABSENT: Commrs. Boswell and Miller - The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 11th day of January,2006. V Ronald Wiisen=4 Secretary Planning Commission 3 —/� Resolution No. 5440-06 Attachment 3 Page 2 6. The proposed amendments will not result in significant impacts to the environment,therefore the draft Negative Declaration is appropriate for the scope of the text amendment. SECTION 2. Action. 1. The Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the. City Council approval of Municipal Code amendments which includes the repeal, in entirety, and replacement of Chapter 16 of the Municipal Code pertaining to Subdivisions and the repeal, in entirety, of Chapter 17.82 of the Municipal Code pertaining to Condominium Development and Conversions, incorporating the Condominium Development and Conversion standards into Chapter 16 of the Municipal Code. The following amendments to the draft document are recommended by the Planning Commission: Chapter 16.017.040- Add language to require condominium conversions to be reviewed for previous water inundation or mold issues. Chapter 16.17.080- Modify the project ranking criteria to include the amount of time that units have been occupied as rental apartments to allow older rental units to have a higher priority for conversion. Table 3- minimum lot size standards- Reduce the minimum lot size in all residential districts to 5,000 square feet. Table 3- minimum_ lot size standards- Reduce the minimum dimensions in the R-2 through R-4 zones to 50 x 80 square feet. On motion by Commissioner Christianson, seconded by Commissioner Loh, and on the following roll call vote: AYES: Commrs. McCoy, Osborne, Loh, Carter and Christianson NOES: None REFRAIN: None ABSENT: Commrs. Boswell and Miller The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this l lth day of January, 2006. Ronald Whisenan , Secretary Planning Commission - Attachment 4 Planning Commission Mlnua..a January 11,2006 Page 2 Terry Mohan, 24 Santa Clara, O, felt the area is inappropriate for residential uses and expressed concern with insu icient parking. There were no further comments ade from the public. COMMISSION COMMENTS: Commr. Christianson inquired ab ut available parking spaces. Commr. Loh inquired about the to ation of the nearest bus stop, expressing that a new bus stop may be necessary. Commr. McCoy voiced concern h the number of parking spaces needed for business uses that will be taken by local re dents. Commr. Carter questioned whet r UPS is in compliance with City regulations since they do not appear to have emp yee parking and they are using the street for trailer parking. He supported the proj with the residential element because of the need for affordable housing in the city. On motion by Commr. Loh to aD rove the mixed-use prowect includin a 20% arkin reduction and a master use permit o refine the land uses; amend the resolution to allow light manufacturing-in buildin B h an administrative use permit and modified the use list to allow mopeds or motorc es to be sold-in addition to bicycles; and delete language from condition 7 to re ire modifications to li htin instead referring the matter to the ARC. Seconded b mmr. Carter. AYES: Commrs. McCoy,-Os me, Loh, Carter,- and Christianson-- NOES: hristianson NOES: None ABSENT: Commrs. Miller and swell ABSTAIN: None The motion carried on a 5:0 vote. 2. 1017 Southwood Drive. T 217-05; Consideration of a tentative tract map converting 168 apartment unit (Parkwood Village Apartments) into condominiums; R-3-PD zone; Hamish Marshal applicant. (Phil Dunsmore) The item was continued to, Feb 8 006, without discussion.. 3. Citywide. TA and ER 153-04; Comprehensive update to the City's Subdivision Regulations, and environmental review; City of San Luis Obispo, applicant. (Continued from December 14, 2005) (Phil Dunsmore) Associate Planner Phil Dunsmore presented the staff report recommending approval of the revised document to the City Council. Attachment 4 Planning Commission MinUL....i - January 11,2006 Page 3 PUBLIC-COMMENTS: Steve Delmartini, SLO, expressed concerns with subdivision of lots, condominium conversions, R-1 zoning regulations, and other issues regarding homeowners associations. There were no further comments made from the public. COMMISSION COMMENTS: Commission discussion focused on the Common Interest Subdivision Regulations and the minimum lot size standards, which ultimately resulted in separate votes on the following issues: Chapter 16.017.040 Add language to require condominium conversions to be reviewed for previous water inundation or mold issues. This amendment was approved on a 5-0 vote. Chapter 16.17.080- Change the annual limit for condo conversions to be based on a 3- year average of rental housing produced in the City. This amendment failed on a 3-2 vote. Chapter 16.17.080- Modify the project ranking criteria to include the amount of time that units have been occupied as rental apartments to allow older rental units to have a higher priority for conversion. This amendment passed on a 5-0 vote. Chapter 16.017.040- Add language to the property condition report requirements to — require-a- reserve- study specialist-to-analyze- the -condominiums -fee structure.--This- amendment tructure.-This-amendment failed on a 3-2 vote. Table 3- minimum lot size standards- Reduce the minimum lot size in all residential districts to 5,000 square feet. This amendment passed on a 4-1 vote. Table 3- minimum lot size standards- Reduce the minimum dimensions in the R-2 through R-4 zones to 50 x 80 square feet. This amendment passed on a 3-2 vote. Table 3- minimum lot size standards- Reduce the minimum dimensions in the R-1 zone to 50 x 80 square feet. This amendment failed on a 3-2 vote. Additionally, Commissioner Car ertuestioned the parkland dedication ratio and noted that existing regulations require 5 acres per 1,000 people and new regulations will require 10 acres per 1,000 people. Staff mentioned that this issue will be resolved for General Plan consistency prior to proceeding to City Council. The Commission also asked staff to analyze the lot size standards for similar surrounding communities in the report to Council. Attachment 4 Planning Commission Minus January 11, 2006 Page 4 On motion by Commr. Christianson to recommend the draft Regulations and the environmental document to the City Council for final approval with the above changes.. Seconded by Commr. Loh. AYES: Commrs. McCoy, Osborne, Loh, Carter and Christianson NOES: None ABSENT: Commrs. Miller and Boswell ABSTAIN: None The motion carried on a 5 : 0 vote. 4. 1320 Roundhouse Avenue. O 174-05; Determination of General Plan Consistency for possible City acquisition of Union Pacific Railroad property as part of the Railroad District Plan implementation; C-S-S-H zone; City of San Luis Obispo, applicant. (Jeff Hook) The item was continued to a date uncertain, without discussion. 5. Staff A. Agenda Forecast An agenda forecast was provided on upcoming items and projects. 6. Commission - ADJOURMENT- - --- With no further business before the Commission, the meeting adjourned at 9:50 p.m. to the Special Meeting of the Planning Commission scheduled for Wednesday, January 189 2006, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street. Respectfully submitted by Jill Francis Recording Secretary .3 /9 Attachment 5 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT ITEM# 3 BY: Philip Dunsmore, Associate Planner(781-7522) MEETING DATE: January 11, 2006 FROM: Ron Whisenand, Deputy Director-Development Revieve) FILE NUMBER: TA/ER 153-04 PROJECT ADDRESS: Citywide SUBJECT: Continued review of the proposed comprehensive update to the City's Subdivision Regulations. SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION Adopt a resolution recommending approval of the revised document to the City Council. BACKGROUND Situation Staff introduced a comprehensive update to the City's Subdivision Regulations to the. Planning Commission on September 14, 2005, seeking feedback and review direction on the draft document. Commissioners agreed that one additional hearing would be necessary to review the new document. In response to Commissioner testimony, and comments received from other City departments and members of the private development community, staff has prepared a revised draft that is ready for Planning Commission review and a recommendation to the City Council. EVALUATION Previous Review At the Planning Commission hearing on September 14, 2005, the commission offered the following direction (see Attachment 1, Planning Commission Meeting Minutes). Each item is followed by a staff response. 1. Commissioners asked about the clarification of lots sizes in residential zoning districts in order to determine whether lot sizes should be reduced. Commissioner Osborne asked if the minimum lot size in the R-1 district could be lowered to 4,000 square feet. Staff response: Staff has performed analysis on the existing lot patterns in the City within the residential zoning districts in addition to seeking feedback from neighborhood groups such as RQN. - Attachment 5 TA 153-04 (Citywide) Page 2 Staff has found that 1,586 out of the City's 2,676 R-2 lots (approximately 59%) are below the minimum allowed standard of 6,000 square feet. Similar percentages were found within other multi-family zones. The majority of the lots below 6,000 square feet are within the 5,000 square foot range (50 x 100) and are located within the Old Town Historic district. As introduced at the hearing on September 14, 2005, staff is proposing to lower the lot size in R-2 through R-4 multi- family zoning districts from 6,000 to 5,500 square feet. In discussion with neighborhood groups, concerns were raised that lowering the lot size would introduce residential density. However, it is important to note that changing the minimum lot size in multi-family zoning districts does not affect density. Density is determined by the number of bedrooms per acre. A 5,500 square foot lot in the R-2 district would allow for 1.5 density units and would be consistent with current General Plan density standards since 12 units per acre are currently allowed in the R-2 district. Similar scenarios could be formulated for each of the multi- family zoning districts. Reducing the allowable lot size within multi family zoning districts does not increase the'allowable density, it only determines where ownership boundaries may be drawn. Density is regulated by the General Plan for each district as follows: R-1 = 7 units per acre R-2= 12 units per acre R-3 = 18 units per acre R-4= 24 units per acre In the R-1 zone, however, reducing the minimum lot size has the potential to increase density beyond what the General Plan allows. In the R-1 zone, each dwelling unit counts as one density unit regardless of number of bedrooms. However in multi family zones each bedroom counts towards density(a two-bedroom unit is equal to one density unit for example). If the lot size were reduced to 4,000 square feet in the R-1 zone, a 1 acre lot could be potentially be subdivided into 10 lots each containing a 5-bedroom house. The General Plan designation for low-density residential allows for only 7-units per acre. Reducing the lot size below 6,000 square feet in the R-1 district would not be consistent with the General Plan density standards.. Furthermore, neighborhood groups are strongly opposed to modifying the lot sizes for the R-1 district. Staff believes a lot size of 5,500 square feet in the R-2 through R-4 zones closely resembles the existing lot sizes currently found throughout the older neighborhoods within multi family zoning districts surrounding the downtown. Staff believes that the 500 square foot reduction would not result in significant changes to future subdivision proposals; however it results in a logical lot area and a logical relationship to the General Plan density standards. Staff strongly discourages lot site reductions in the R-1 district since it would not be consistent with General Plan density standards. Furthermore, staff does not recommend further reductions of lot sizes in multi-family districts since additional lot size flexibility should be preserved for common interest subdivisions A*tachment 5 TA 153-04 (Citywide) Page 3 or planned development overlay zones where the requirements stipulate specific amenities such as private and common open space or recreation amenities. 2. Commissioners asked staff to simplify the font used throughout the document. Staff response: Staff has modified the document font to Arial for ease of reading. 3. Commissioners asked staff to gather input regarding the proposed Subdivision Regulations from the private development community. Staff response: In addition to posting the draft regulations on the City website, staff sent letters and provided copies of the draft regulations to known members of the development community. Very few responses were received; however staff received a detailed e-mail from Steve Delmartini (Attachment 2). The common theme with Mr. Delmartini's comments, and comments received via telephone discussions with others in the development community, are concerning the Common Interest Subdivisions section,of the proposed new regulations. In general, developers would like to see more flexibility in the development standards that apply to planned development subdivisions. However, staff believes that the current draft regulations provide for adequate flexibility while still retaining the amenities that create quality projects. For example, within a multi family parcel, developers have the option of either developing rental apartments, airspace condominiums or a planned development subdivision. It is only the planned development subdivision that contains an additional layer of property development standards for each lot. If . the required property development standards are relaxed for planned developments, the purpose (and required amenities) of Planned Development overlay zoning would be eliminated. The issues related to Common Interest Subdivisions are discussed in further detail below. In addition to the Commission's request, staff presented and discussed the proposed amendments with neighborhood groups, including RQN, in order to evaluate feedback from both a private development perspective and a neighborhood compatibility perspective. As mentioned above, the concerns presented by neighborhood groups focused on the preservation of R-1 neighborhoods and the preservation of the density standards for all zoning districts. Summary of Amendments As previously introduced to the Planning Commission, the proposed new Subdivision Regulations is an entirely new document with a proposal to repeal and replace the existing regulations, Chapter 16 of the Municipal Code. Additionally, the new document would repeal and replace Chapter 17.82 of the Municipal Code, the City's Residential Condominium Development and Conversion standards. The following items highlight the significant changes that were incorporated into the new document prior to the previous Planning Commission 3 -4;2� Attachment 5 TA 153-04 (Citywide) Page 4 Hearing, since the previous hearing, relatively few changes other than editorial corrections, font changes and graphic updates have been included into the revised draft: 1. Text and graphic reformatting a..New font and layout style b.New introductory chapter and organizational charts c. New graphics for site plans, streets, and subdivisions 2. Conformance with 20042005 Subdivision Map Act including: a. Changes in processing for lot line adjustments. Starting in 2001, the map act requires lot line adjustments involving 5 or more lots to be processed as a tract map. b. Updates to map format requirements. New requirements that include tentative map application submittal requirements have been incorporated. c. Addition of legal disclaimers and applicable notes as recommended by the City Attorney. 3. Changes to Administrative Responsibility a. Planning Commission to be responsible for minor subdivisions with exceptions, instead of Council new organization chart (page 15) clarifies the level of review for each type of project. 4. Elimination of street (engineering) standards. Street standards will become part of the City's Engineering Standards to be maintained by Public Works Division. New street standards will include alternative street standards. In-lieu of street engineering standards, the new subdivision regulations include graphic examples of preferred street types, however specific dimensions and engineering standards are not included. 5. New chapter: Common Interest Subdivisions (Chapter 16.17, page 54). This section includes the City's Condominium Regulations now found in a separate section of the Municipal code (Chapter 17.82). The existing Municipal Code section would be repealed and the new Subdivision Regulations would include the condominium regulations. This section will also cover condominium conversions. The new chapter will describe various types of common interest subdivisions including airspace condominiums where the land is owned by an association and planned developments where each unit has land ownership. The goal of this chapter is to respond to recent trends towards small lot residential subdivisions and other forms of ownership housing. Perhaps the most important item to understand is the difference between land ownership and airspace ownership subdivisions and how the Zoning Regulations Property Development V � Attachment 5 TA 153-04 (Citywide) Page 5 Standards applies. For example, airspace condominiums, stock cooperatives and community apartment projects are types of common interest subdivisions that allow for private ownership of each unit, however each owner does not independently own the land. All of the land is owned in common, typically by a homeowner's association. With these types of subdivisions, the new regulations allow for density, setbacks, coverage and all other property development standards to be configured from the outside boundaries (lot lines) of the subdivision. This allows for units to be attached, or setbacks between units to be vaned, and density can be averaged over the entire project site. This is no different than how the current Subdivision Regulations have applied to these types of projects. With planned developments however, the new regulations require each lot in the subdivision to be reviewed for applicable property development standards including density, setbacks and coverage unless processed with Planned Development (PD) zoning regulated by sections 17.50 and 17.62 of the Zoning Regulations. As defined by the Department of Real Estate (DRE), planned development subdivisions(not to be confused with PD zoning) are a form of a common interest subdivision where the ownership boundaries include individual land ownership. The City's PD Zoning, however, is the exception to this rule. PD overlay zoning allows for flexibility in lot sizes and property development standards for all types of subdivisions within any zoning district. It is important.to understand that the City's definition of PD Zoning is not synonymous to the DRE's definition of a planned development subdivision. The new subdivision regulations describe the differences between common interest subdivisions as follows: Property Development Standards: Within condominiums, stock cooperatives and community apartment projects, property development standards (SLOMC 17.16), including (but not limited to) density, yards, and coverage, shall apply with respect to the exterior boundary lines (property lines) of the proposed subdivision and not to individual dwelling units within the project. Within planned development subdivisions, property development standards shall apply to each lot within the project that contains one or more dwelling units, unless different standards are approved through the Planned Development zoning process (SLOMC 17.50 and 17.62). Additionally, the definitions section of the new regulations defines each type of common interest subdivision noted above. 6. Significant changes and additions to the general subdivision design standards including updates to the flag lot standards. The flag lot standards have been revised to reflect trends in requiring additional visitor parking and adequate buffering between flag lot driveway and adjacent residential properties. Additionally, updates have been added to reflect recent fire 3-a y Attachment 5 TA 153-04 (Citywide) Page 6 department standards. Instead of having specific driveway widths written into the regulations, the new code allows driveway widths to be reviewed on a case by case basis, determined by the City's Parking and Driveway standards and at the discretion of the Fire Marshal and Community Development Director. 7. Expanded and updated definitions section. This section includes revised and updated definitions consistent with the Subdivision Map Act and the Davis Sterling Act regarding common interest subdivisions. 8. Updates to the minimum lot size standards. The minimum lot sizes for all residential and office districts (with the exception of R-1) have been reduced from 6,000 square feet to 5,500 square feet to more closely resemble existing lot patterns and for consistency with density standards. Environmental Review Amendments of the Municipal Code pertaining to the subdivision regulations are not exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act and therefore are subject to an environmental determination. Staff has prepared a draft initial study for the proposed amendments. No significant environmental impacts are likely to occur with the adoption of the amended regulations. RECOMMENDATION Adopt a resolution recommending approval of the revised document and proposed environmental document to the City Council. Attachments: 1. Planning Commission meeting minutes, September 14, 2005 2. E-mailed comments from Steve Delmartini. 3. Draft Environmental Initial Study 4. Draft resolution recommending approval of the document to the City Council. A copy of the existing and proposed subdivision regulations has been included in your packet. GAPdunsmorelSpecial ProjectASubdivision Ordinance\Final PC draftiTA 153-04 PC rpt(1-11-06).DOC Attachment 6 Draft Subdivision Regulations Planning Commission Recommended Amendments 1. Chapter 16.017.040.A.4. Property Condition Report-Add the following: 4. A report detailing existing or potential mold infestation, moisture damage, or existing or former water inundation shall be required. 2. Chapter 16.17.080.C.1.—Add the following: i. Age of existing apartments. 1 point for each year an apartment project has been occupied as rental apartments. 3. Table 3- minimum lot size standards- Modify table 3, minimum lot size in R-1 through R-4 districts to 5,000 square feet. 4. Table 3- minimum lot size standards- Modify table 3, the minimum dimensions in the R-2 through R-4 zones to 50 x 80 square feet. 5. Chapter 16.22.050 A. ...each new subdivision shall dedicate land equivalent to&ex flve 5 acres for each one thousand I( 000) residents expected to reside within the subdivision except as provided in Sections 1622060, 16.22.070 and 16.22.100. In some subdivisions additional parkland dedication may be required as a discretionary action if a nexus between the subdivision and the need for additional parkland is iustified. In no case shall the requirement exceed 10 acres per 1,000 residents Attachment 7 Subdivision Regulations Update Lot Size Analysis . Davis, Population: 64,000 R-1: Ranges from 6,000 s.f. to 15,000 based on sub-zone, width vanes 55 to 80' R-2: 6,000, 55' foot width,no depth minimum R-3: 7,500, 75 feet width,no depth minimum R-4: 7,500, 70 feet width,no depth minimum Monterey, Population 30,000 R-1: Ranges from 5,000 to 40,000 based on sub-zone, width 50 to 125', depth 100 to 125' R-2: 5,000 to 20,000, width varies based on sub-zone 50 to 90 feet, depth is 100 R-3: 5,000 to 20,000, width varies based on sub-zone 50 to 90 feet, depth is 100 R-4: N/A Walnut Creek, Population 65,000 R-1: 8,000, 75 widh, 95 depth R-2: 6,000, 60 width, 60 depth R-3: 5,000 to 15,000 based on sub-zone, 50 to 90 depth, 50 to 90 width. R-4: N/A Santa Cruz, Population 53,600 R-1: Ranges from 5,000 s.f. to 10,000 based on sub-zone s.f width varies 50 to 70 ft. R-2: 5,000 s.f, width 50' (no depth requirement) R-3: 4,500 to 5,500,based on sub-zone width 50 to 65' (no depth requirement) R4: 4,000 to 5,000 based on sub-zone width 50(no depth requirement) - --Arroyo Grande- - ------ ---...-——------ - - ------ R-1: 7,200 width 70, depth 100 R-2: 6,750 width 50, depth 100 R-3: 10,000, width 80, depth 100 R4: 10,000, width 80, depth 100 Grover Beach R-1: 6,000 (However, density does not allow more than 4 units/acre). R-2: 6,000 width 60, depth 90 R-3: 6,000 width 60, depth 100 R-4: N/A Pismo Beach R-1: 5,000 Density for Pismo R-2: 5,000 R-1: one dwelling per legal lot 17.102.100.2 R-3: 5,000 R-2: one dwelling per 2,000 s.f. of lot 17.102.100.3 R-4: N/A area R-3: one dwelling per each 1450 sf of lot 17.102.100.4 area �3 7 Attachment 8 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM For ER# 153-04 1. Project Title: Subdivision Regulations Update TA 153-04 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: Philip Dunsmore, Associate Planner (805) 781-7522 4. Project Location: Citywide, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: City of San Luis Obispo Community Development Department 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo CA 93401 6. General Plan Designation: N/A, (Citywide Municipal Code amendment) 7. Zoning: N/A, (Citywide Municipal Code amendment) 8. Description of the Project: The project involves the repeal and replacement of the City of San Luis Obispo Municipal Code Chapter 16, the City's Subdivision Regulations and the repeal of Chapter 17.82 of the Municipal Code, Condominium Development and Conversion, for incorporation into the new Chapter 16. The new regulations is primarily guided by updates to the City's Subdivision Regulations for consistency with the 2005 Subdivision Map Act and for consistency with Department of Real Estate terminology. Updates to procedural handling of subdivisions have also been updated to reflect current processing demands. Updates to the code include modifications to the City's review procedures, updates to the application and map requirements, and the addition of regulations regarding condominiums and common interest subdivisions. Minor adjustments to the City's minimum lot sizes and codes governing flag lots will also be incorporated. The City' street standards will be removed and incorporated into a separate document known as the City's engineering standards. The new document will promote contemporary street and lot standards and interpretive definitions and graphics for ease of understanding. 9. Surrounding Land Uses and Settings: N/A (Citywide Municipal Code amendment) 3 ' Attachment a 10. Project Entitlements Requested: Approval of significant revisions and updates to the City's Subdivisions Regulations and repeal of the Municipal Code Chapter 16 regarding Subdivisions and 17.82 regarding residential condominium development and conversion. 11. Other public agencies whose approval is required: None. CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 2 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2005 �3-& g Attachment g ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project,involving at least one impact that is a"Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. Aesthetics Geology/Soils Public Services Agricultural Resources Hazards&Hazardous Recreation Materials 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 X There is no evidence before the Department that the project will have any potential adverse effects on fish and wildlife resources or the habitat upon which the wildlife depends. As such, the project qualifies for a de minimis waiver with regards to the filing of Fish and Game Fees. 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)). CM OF SAN Luis OetsPo 3 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKusT ZOOS 3-3c)c) Attachment 8 DETERMINATION: On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and g 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 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 RAPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed I frtd 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. Signature Date Ronald Whisenand Deputy Community Development Director ForAohn Mandeville, Printed Name Community Development Director CITY OF SAN Luis OBISPO 4 INITIAL STUDY ENYIFIONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2005 Attachment 8 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: 1. A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the analysis in each section. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g.the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A"No Impact"answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g. the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants,based on a project-specific screening analysis). 2. All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct,and construction as well as operational impacts. 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 were addressed by mitigation measures based on earlier analysis. C) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project. CITY OF SAN Luis OBISPO 5 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2005 3a Attachment 8 Issues, Discussion and Supportity uiformation Sources Sources Potew�.y Potentially Less Than No Subdivision Regulations TA 153-04 Significant Significant Significant impact ER# 153-04 Issues Unless impact Mitigation Incorporated 1.AESTHETICS. Would theproject: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? _X_ b) Substantially damage scenic resources,including,but not limited _X_ to,trees,rock outcroppings,open space,and historic buildings within a local or state scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of _X_ the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would —X- adversely effect day or nighttime views in the area? Evaluation The project involves an update to the City's Subdivision Regulations to ensure that the City's procedures are consistent with the Subdivision Map Act and Department of Real Estate terminology. Other changes to the regulations are incorporated to ensure the implementation of existing General Plan Policies and Community Design Guidelines which enhance the protection of aesthetics. The new regulations implement policies that will further the protection of hillsides, vistas and open space. No significant changes to the location,character,or quality of development are anticipated with the revisions to the regulations. The City's adopted plans and policies help to maintain the City's beauty and environmental quality by articulating principles to guide existing and new development. Most new multi-family residential, commercial and industrial projects in the community require some form of architectural review. Through the City's established architectural review process,all aspects of a project's site and building design are scrutinized to assure that new development is high quality and aesthetically pleasing. The City's Architectural Review Commission (ARC) is an appointed advisory body whose job it is to review new project designs, as well as remodels and civic projects. The new subdivision regulations further the City's interests in requiring architectural review for certain development projects. Conclusion Impacts to aesthetics associated with the new regulations are anticipated to be less than significant. 2.AGRICULTURE RESOURCES. Would theproject: a) Convert Prime Farmland,Unique Farmland,or Farmland of Statewide Importance Importance(Farmland),as shown on the maps 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? c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which,due to _X_ their location or nature,could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use? Evaluation The proposed amendments do not include modifications to the development rights associated with agricultural resources within the City. However, the proposed amendments strengthen the regulations that require urban development to recognize the importance of buffering and separation from existing agricultural uses. The proposed regulations require mapping and identification of agricultural resources with each subdivision project. Conclusion: Less than significant impacts to agricultural resources are anticipated to occur with the proposed amendments. 3. AIR QUALITY. Would theproject: a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an _X_ existing or projected air quality violation? b) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air __X_ quality plan? CITY OF SAN Luis OBIsPO 6 INmAL S mDY ENvIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2005 3 --L3 Issues, Discussion and Supporting .,iformation Sources Sources PotPa%_ .y Potentially Less Than No Subdivision Regulations TA 153-04 Significant Significant Significant Impact ER # 153-04 Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant —X_ concentrations? d) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of —X-- people? e) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria —X_ pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed qualitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? Evaluation The revised regulations will not result in additional residential or commercial density and therefore are not anticipated to create additional associated impacts to air quality. In fact, the new regulations contain provisions to allow for compact urban growth and subdivision design that reduces fossil fuel energy dependence,therefore reducing potential impacts to air quality. As currently require through the City Subdivision process, a soils report is required for all subdivision projects. 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, the applicant must comply with all applicable requirements outlined in the Asbestos ATCM, prior to any construction or grading activities at the site. The required soils report for each subdivision project will outline soil conditions and specify project conditions. Conclusion: No impacts to air quality are anticipated with the propose amendments to the Subdivision Regulations. 4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would theproject: a) Have a substantial adverse effect,either directly or indirectly or _X_ through habitat modifications,on any species identified as a candidate,sensitive,or special 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 _X__ other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional 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 biological resources,such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance(e.g.Heritage Trees)? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors,or impede the use of wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted habitat Conservation _X_ Plan,Natural Community Conservation Plan,or other approved local,regional, or state habitat conservation plan? f) Have a substantial adverse effect on Federally protected _X__ wetlands as defined in Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including,but not limited to,marshes, vernal pools,etc.) through direct removal,filling,hydrological interruption,or other means? Evaluation The Citywide amendments to the Subdivision regulations is not anticipated to impact biological resources since no chane to CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 7 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2005 S -3 �/ Attachment 8 Issues, Discussion and Supporting „Iformation Sources Sources Potent. J Potentially txss Than No Subdivision Regulations TA 153-04 Significant Significant significant Impact ER# 153-04 Issues Unless impact Mitigation Incorpomted the development capacity of properties is incorporated into the subdivision regulations. Furthermore, the regulations are intended to implement General Plan Policies which are designed to protect biological resources in the City. The City's existing creek setback regulations in addition to the City's Open Space and Conservation Elements of the General Plan are designed to recognize and protect biological resources. Amendments to the subdivision regulations will not modify how subdivisions are to be processed consistent with these superior documents. The mapping and documentation of potentially affected biological resources for each new subdivision in the City are proposed requirements to be added to the new subdivision regulations. The new provisions will further the ability of the City to monitor and protect biological resources within public and private development projects. Conclusion No impacts to biological resources are anticipated with the proposed amendments to the subdivision regulations. 5.CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would theproject: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a --X_ historic resource?(See CEQA Guidelines 150645) b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource?resource?(See CEQA Guidelines 15064.5) c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource orsitesite or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains,including those interred outside of -X— formal cemeteries? Evaluation The Citywide amendments to the Subdivision regulations is not anticipated to impact cultural resources since no change to the development capacity of properties is incorporated into the subdivision regulations. Furthermore,the regulations are intended to implement General Plan Policies which are designed to protect cultural resources in the City. The City's existing creek setback regulations in addition to the City's Open Space and Conservation Elements of the General Plan are designed to recognize and protect cultural resources. Amendments to the subdivision regulations will not modify how subdivisions are to be processed consistent with these superior documents. The mapping and documentation of potentially affected cultural resources for each new subdivision in the City are proposed requirements to be added to the new subdivision regulations. The new provisions will further the ability of the City to monitor and protect cultural resources within public and private development projects. Conclusion No impacts to cultural resources are anticipated with the proposed amendments to the subdivision regulations. 6. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would theproject: a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? _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 State? Evaluation The Citywide amendments to the Subdivision regulations is not anticipated to impact energy and mineral resources since no change to the development capacity of properties is incorporated into the subdivision regulations. Furthermore, the regulations are intended to implement General Plan Policies which are designed to protect energy and mineral resources in the City. Amendments to the subdivision regulations will not modify how subdivisions are to be processed consistent with the City's Conservation Element. The mapping and documentation of potentially affected energy and mineral resources for each new subdivision in the City are proposed requirements to be added to the new subdivision regulations. The new provisions will further the ability of the City to monitor and protect energy and mineral resources within public and private development projects. ""Al CnY OF SAN LUIS Osispo 8 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKuST 2005 3 - Attachment 8 Issues, Discussion and Supponn ig ...formation Sources Sources Potent J Potentially Less Than No Subdivision Regulations TA 153-04 Significant significant Significant Impact ER# 153-04 Issues Unless impact Mitigation Inco rated Conclusion No impacts to energy and mineral resources are anticipated. 7. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would theproject: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse -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? II. Strong seismic ground shaking? III. Seismic-related ground failure,including liquefaction? —$ 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 Consistent with the existing subdivision regulations, the amendments will continue to require a soils report and in some cases a geotechnical report for every subdivision request. The proposed amendments to the regulations will not modify the City's review process associated with the geology and soils conditions for properties. In fact, the proposed amendments clarify and substantiate the details that will be required to be submitted with each subdivision application. Therefore, the proposed amendments will reduce the likelihood of impacts to Geology and Soils. Conclusion No impacts to Geology and Soils are anticipated. 8. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the r( '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 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 emissions or hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances,or waste? e) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous _X__ materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and,as a result,it would create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? f) For a project located within an airport land use plan,or within _X._ two miles of a public airport,would the project result in a safety CfTY OF SAN LUIS OBISpo 9 INmAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2005 3 -3 Issues, Discussion and Suppor.,,tg „formation Sources Son= Potent Potentially ► o Subdivision Regulations TA 153-04 Significant Significant Significant ]rnpact ER# 153-04 Issues unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated 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, 4 —X— or death,involving wildland fires,including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residents are intermixed with wildlands? Evaluation The proposed amendments to the regulations include updates to the standards associated with wildland fire risk and airport land use compatibility. No amendments to the regulations are anticipated to create or increase potential impacts associated with hazards or hazardous materials. Instead the amendments to the regulations will help to insure that new subdivisions are protected from such concerns. Conclusion No impacts associated with hazards or hazardous materials are anticipated. 9. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would theproject: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge _1{_ requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere __X__ substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local 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 —X— capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide additional sources of runoff into surface waters (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 siltation onsite or offsite? e) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or —X— area in a manner which would result in substantial flooding onsite or offsite? f) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on —X_ a Federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? g) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which _X_ would impede or redirect flood flows? h) Will the project introduce typical storm water pollutants into ground or surface waters? i) Will the project alter ground water or surface water quality, temperature,dissolved oxygen,or turbidity? Evaluation The City's new regulations are designed to accommodate the City's adopted Waterways Management Plan,thereby increasing awareness of City drainage regulations. The new requirements are substantially strengthened to include enhanced protection of structures and property from flood damage or erosion. The new regulations do not allow for additional density or development entitlement in flood prone areas, or areas subject to erosion. As recommended by the Regional Water Quality CITY OF SAN LUIS Osispo 10 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2005 3 -37 Attachment 8 Issues, Discussion and Suppo..,ig...tformation Sources source Pow .1 Potentially Less Than No Subdivision Regulations TA 153-04 significant significant significant trapact ER # 153-04 Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Inco rated Control Board the new regulations stipulate Best Management Practices in handling site drainage and runoff for each subdivision. Conclusion Less than significant impacts are anticipated to occur with the proposed amendments to the regulations. 10. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would theproject: a) Conflict with applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? b) Physically divide an established community? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation planor natural —X community conservationplans? Evaluation Adoption of the guidelines will complement and implement the City's zoning regulations and General Plan, therefore no conflicts with land use and planning policies are anticipated. Conclusion No impacts to Land Use and Planning are anticipated. 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 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 of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne _X__ vibration or groundbome noise levels? d) For a project located within an airport land use 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 There is no direct relationship between the guidelines and physical changes to sites that could potentially create noise issues. The City's Noise Element and Noise Guidebook implement noise policies that will continue to be reviewed in the amended subdivision regulations. Conclusion No impacts to noise are anticipated with the proposed amendments to the subdivision regulations. 12. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would theproject: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example example by proposing new homes or businesses) or 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 elsewhere? `/ CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 1 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2005 Attachment 8 Issues, Discussion and Supporting .,iformation Sources sources Potent. j Potentially Less Than No Subdivision Regulations TA 153-04 Significant Significant Significant Impact ER # 153 04 Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated Evaluation The proposed amendments to the regulations are consistent with the 2004 General Plan Housing Element and further the City's interest in ensuring a variety of housing types. Since the regulations do not allow for an increase in development density, less than significant impacts to population growth are anticipated. Conclusion Less than significant impacts are anticipated to occur to Population and Housing with the proposed amendments. 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? _X_ b) Police protection? —X-- c) Schools? _X_ d) Parks? _X__ e) X- e) Roads and other transportation infrastructure? —X= f) Other public facilities? --X-- Evaluation Since the proposed amendments do not increase development density potential,the project is not likely to result in substantial adverse impacts to public services. In fact, the new regulations will require enhanced public improvements associated with each new subdivision,therefore potentially reducing the current impacts that result from subdivision projects. Conclusion No impacts are anticipated to Public Services. 14.RECREATION. Would theproject: a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood or regional parks or _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 The new subdivision regulations will require development applications to supply parkland or pay in-lieu fees (QUIMBY act fees) similar to the existing regulations. No changes are anticipated to the regulations that would deteriorate or place larger demands on existing facilities.. Conclusion No significant impacts to recreation facilities are anticipated. 15. TRANSPORTATIONfrRAFFIC. Would theproject: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the --X-- existing traffic load and capacity of the street system? b) Exceed,either individually or cumulatively,a level of service __X__ standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads and highways? c) Substantially increase hazards due to design features(e.g.sharp _X_ curves or dangerous intersections)or incompatible uses(e.g. , farm equipment)? CITY OF SAN Luis OBISPO 12 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKuST 2005 3 -3 / ' Attachment 8 Issues, Discussion and Supportlny .formation Sources Sources Poten. y Potentially Less Than No Subdivision Regulations TA 153-04 Significant Significant Significant Impact ER# 153-04 Issues Unless Impact Mitigation incorporated d) Result in inadequate emergency access? —X e) Result in inadequate parking capacity onsite or offsite? —X— f) Conflict with adopted policies supporting alternative —X transportation(e.g.bus turnouts,bicycle racks)? g) Conflict with the with San Luis Obispo County Airport Land —X- Use Plan resulting in substantial safety risks from hazards,noise, or a change in air trafficpatterns? Evaluation Amendments to the regulations are consistent with existing regulations and City policies which will require public improvements, including road and public access requirements, with each subdivision. No decrease in required improvements is proposed. Instead, the new guidelines elaborate the information and details regarding street improvements for each subdivision. This will assist the City in determining the appropriate level of improvements required for each subdivision project. Conclusion No impacts to Transportation or Traffic is anticipated with the proposed amendments. 16.UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the ro'ect: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable -X— Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction or expansion of new water —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 —X— from existing entitlements and resources,or are new and expanded water resources needed? d) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider -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 sufficient permitted capacity to —X— accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? f) Comply with federal,state,and local statutes and regulations —X-- related to solid waste? Evaluation Since the proposed amendments to the regulations do not increase density or modify the utility standards established by the City,no changes to the City's utilities and service systems are anticipated.The language in the regulations has been modified, however, to comply with current City regulations regarding such utility systems and the preferred design and placement of such systems. Conclusion In Summary the Utilities Department has commented on the amendments and has concluded that the project is anticipated to create no impacts to utilities and service systems. 17.MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the —X— environment,substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species,cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal 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 Califomia history or prehistory? 1� CITY OF SAN LOIS OBISPO 13 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2005 43 —11/V Attachment 8 Issues, Discussion and Support„.y dormation Sources Sources Pmtem.__Y Potentially Lesslban No Subdivision Regulations TA 153-04 Significant Significant significant impact ER#153-04 Issues unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated N/A b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited,but —X— 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, the effects of other current projects,and the effects of probable future roiects) N/A c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause —X— substantial adverse effects on human beings,either directly or indirectly? N/A CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 14 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2005 3 -1-11 Attachment 8 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 analyses and state where they are available for review. N/A 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. N/A 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 conditions of the project. N/A 19. SOURCE REFERENCES. 1. City of SLO General Plan Land Use Element,2004 2. City of SLO General Plan Circulation Element,November 1994 3. City of SLO General Plan Noise Element,May 1996 4. City of SLO General Plan Safety Element,July 2000 5. City of SLO General Plan Open Space Element,January 1994 6. City of SLO General Plan Energy Conservation Element,April 1981 7. City of SLO Water and Wastewater Element,July 1996 8. City of SLO General Plan EIR 1994 for Update to the Land Use and Circulation Elements 9. City of San Luis Obispo Municipal Code 10. City of San Luis Obispo,Land Use inventory Database 11. Site Visit 12. USDA,Natural Resources Conservation Service,Soil Survey of San Luis Obispo County 13. Website of the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency: http://www. onsrv.ca. ov/d /FMMP/ 14. Clean Air Plan for San Luis Obispo County,Air Pollution Control District, 1995 15. City of San Luis Obispo Noise Guidebook,May 1996 16. 2001 City of San Luis Obispo Water Resources Report 17. City of San Luis Obispo,Historic Resource Preservation Guidelines,on file in the Community Development Department 18. The City Waterways Management Plan and Drainage Design Manual 19. City of San Luis Obispo,Archeological Resource Guidelines 20. City of San Luis Obispo Burial Sensitivity Ma 21. City of SLO Source Reduction and Recycling Element,on file in the Utilities Department 22. San Luis Obispo Quadrangle Map,prepared by the State Geologist in compliance with the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act,effective January 1, 1990 23. Flood Insurance Rate Ma (Community Panel 0603100005 C)dated July 7, 1981 24. San Luis Obispo County Airport Land Use Plan 25. San Luis Obispo Community Design Guidelines 26. 1997 Uniform Building Code All documents listed above are available for review at the City of San Luis Obispo Community Development Department,990 Palm Street,San Luis Obispo,California(805)781-7522. Available in the project file: Proposed new draft of the City's Subdivision Regulations. 7� Attachment 9 ORDINANCE NO. (2006 Series) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SAN LUIS OBISPO REPEALING CHAPTER 17.82 AND AMENDING CHAPTER 16 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE THE CITY'S SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS (TA/ER 153-04) WHEREAS, the Planning Commission 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 January 11, 2006 and recommended approval of amendments to the Citywide subdivision regulations including the repeal of Chapter 17.82, incorporating the condominium regulations into a revised Chapter 16; and WHEREAS, the City 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 February 21, 2006, for the purpose of considering Application TA/ER 153-04; and WHEREAS, notices of said public hearings were made at the time and in the manner required by law; and WHEREAS, the Council has reviewed and considered the Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impact for the project; and WHEREAS, the Council has duly considered all evidence, including the recommendation of the Planning Commission, testimony of interested parties, and the evaluation and recommendations by staff,presented at said hearing. WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the proposed text amendment is consistent with the General Plan, the purposes of the Subdivision Map Act, and other applicable City ordinances; and BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. Environmental Determination. The City Council finds and determines that the project's Negative Declaration adequately addresses the potential environmental impacts of the proposed text amendment to the Subdivision Regulations, and reflects the independent judgment of the City Council. The Council hereby adopts said Negative Declaration. SECTION 2. Findings. The City Council makes the following findings: 1. The proposed amendments are necessary to meet the amendments imposed within the State of California Subdivision Map Act over the past 10 years. 2. The proposed amendments will allow the City's Subdivision Regulations to be consistent with the description of subdivisions as recognized by the Department of Real Estate and as adopted by the Davis Sterling Act. 3 -y3 Attachment 9 Ordinance No.(2006Series) TA/ER 153-04 Subdivision Regulations Page 2 3. The proposed amendments will recognize current development trends and allow for the incorporation of necessary subdivision amenities and appropriate subdivision design standards as recognized by contemporary the City's recently adopted Community Design Guidelines. 4. The proposed amendments are consistent with General Plan Policies since the regulations implement General Plan policies associated with preservation of neighborhood character, establishment of Open Space, and the preservation of established General Plan density standards. 5. The proposed amendments will not significantly alter the character of the neighborhoods or cause significant health, safety or welfare concerns, since the regulations do not alter the density, character, or allowed uses within the City. Instead, the regulations define the logical interpretation of ownership boundaries and the municipal procedures surrounding the establishment of such ownership boundaries. 6. The proposed amendments will not result in significant impacts to the environment, therefore the draft Negative Declaration is appropriate for the scope of the text amendment. SECTION 3. Action. Title 16 (Subdivisions) and Chapter 17.82 (Residential Condominium Development and Conversion) of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code are hereby repealed in their entirety. New Title 16 (Subdivisions), as set forth in Exhibit A, a copy of which is on file in the Office of the City Clerk, is hereby adopted,with the following revisions: 1. Section 16.17.040.A.4. Property Condition Report-Add the following: 4. A report detailing existing or potential mold infestation, moisture damage, or existing or former water inundation shall be required. 2. Section 16.17.080.C.1. —Add the following: i. Age of existing apartments. 1 point for each year an apartment project has been occupied as rental apartments. 3. Table 3- minimum lot size standards- Modify table 3, minimum lot size in R-2 through R-4 districts to 5,000 square feet. 4. Table 3-minimum lot size standards- Modify table 3, the minimum dimensions in the R-2 through R-4 zones to 50 x 80 square feet. Ordinance No.(2006Series) Attachment 9 TA/ER 153-04 Subdivision Regulations Page 3 5. Section 16.22.050 A. ...each new subdivision shall dedicate land equivalent to tem flye S acres for each one thousandI( 000) residents expected to reside within the subdivision except as provided in Sections 16.22060, 16.22.070 and 16.22.100. In some subdivisions additional parkland dedication may be required as a discretionary action if a nexus between the subdivision and the need for additional parkland is iustified. In no case shall the requirement exceed 10 acres Der 1 000 residents SECTION 4. A summary of this ordinance, together with the names of Council members voting for and against, shall be published at least five (5) days prior to its final passage, in the Telegram-Tribune, a newspaper published and circulated in this City. This ordinance shall go into effect at the expiration of thirty(30) days after its final passage. INTRODUCED on the 21 st day of February, 2006, AND FINALLY ADOPTED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo on the _ day of , 2006, on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Mayor David F. Romero ATTEST: City Clerk Audrey Hooper APPROVED AS TO FORM: i Omey Jonathan Lowell GAPdunsmcre\Text Amendments\Subdivision Ordinance\City CoundhDraft ordinance.doc Attachment 10 DRAFT ORDINANCE NO. (2006 Series) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SAN LUIS OBISPO REPEALING CHAPTER 17.82 AND AMENDING CHAPTER 16 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE THE CITY'S SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS (TA/ER 153-04) WHEREAS, the Planning Commission 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 January 11, 2006 and recommended approval of amendments to the Citywide subdivision regulations including the repeal of Chapter 17.82, incorporating the condominium regulations into a revised Chapter 16; and WHEREAS, the City 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 February 21, 2006, for the purpose of considering Application TA/ER 153-04; and WHEREAS, notices of said public hearings were made at the time and in the manner required by law; and WHEREAS, the Council has reviewed and considered the Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impact for the project; and WHEREAS, the Council has duly considered all evidence, including the recommendation of the Planning Commission, testimony of interested parties, and the evaluation and recommendations by staff, presented at said hearing. WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the proposed text amendment is consistent with the General Plan, the purposes of the Subdivision Map Act, and other applicable City ordinances; and BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. Environmental Determination. The City Council finds and determines that the project's Negative Declaration adequately addresses the potential environmental impacts of the proposed text amendment to the Subdivision Regulations, and reflects the independent judgment of the City Council. The Council hereby adopts said Negative Declaration. SECTION 2. Findings. The City Council makes the following findings: 1. The proposed amendments are necessary to meet the amendments imposed within the State of California Subdivision Map Act over the past 10 years. 2. The proposed amendments will allow the City's Subdivision Regulations to be consistent with the description of subdivisions as recognized by the Department of Real Estate and as adopted by the Davis Sterling Act. -7am Attachment 10 Ordinance No.(2006Series) TA/ER 153-04 Subdivision Regulations Page 2 3. The proposed amendments will recognize current development trends and allow for the incorporation of necessary subdivision amenities and appropriate subdivision design standards as recognized by contemporary the City's recently adopted Community Design Guidelines. 4. The proposed amendments are consistent with General P1anTolicies since the regulations implement General Plan policies associated with preservation of neighborhood character, establishment of Open Space, and the preservation of established General Plan density standards. 5. The proposed amendments will not significantly alter the character of the neighborhoods or cause significant health, safety or welfare concerns, since the regulations do not alter the density, character, or allowed uses within the City. Instead, the regulations define the logical interpretation of ownership boundaries and the municipal procedures surrounding the establishment of such ownership boundaries. 6. The proposed amendments will not result in significant impacts to the environment, therefore the draft Negative Declaration is appropriate for the scope of the text amendment. SECTION 3. Action. Title 16 (Subdivisions) and Chapter 17.82 (Residential Condominium Development and Conversion) of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code are hereby repealed in their entirety. New Title 16 (Subdivisions), as set forth in Exhibit A, a copy of which is on file in the Office of the City Clerk,is hereby adopted, with the following revisions: 1. Section 16.17.040.A.4. Property Condition Report- Add the following: 4. A report detailing existing or potential mold infestation, moisture damage, or existing or former water inundation shall be required. 2. Section 16.17.080.C.1. —Add the following: i. Age of existing apartments. 1 point for each year an apartment project has been occupied as rental apartments. 3. Table 3- minimum lot size standards- Modify table 3, minimum lot size in R-1 through R-4 districts to 5,000 square feet. 4. Table 3-minimum lot size standards- Modify table 3, the minimum dimensions in the R-2 through R-4 zones to 50 x 80 square feet. Attachment 10 Ordinance No. (2006Series) TA/ER 153-04 Subdivision Regulations Page 3 5. Section 16.22.050 A. ...each new subdivision shall dedicate land equivalent to #ert flve S acres for each one thousand (1000) residents expected to reside within the subdivision except as provided in Sections 16.22060, 16.22.070 and 16.22.100. In some subdivisions additional parkland dedication may b�quired as a discretionary action if a nexus between the subdivision and the need for additional parkland is justified. In no case shall the requirement exceed 10 acres per 1,000 residents. SECTION 4. A summary of this ordinance, together with the names of Council members voting for and against, shall be published at least five (5) days prior to its final passage, in the Telegram-Tribune, a newspaper published and circulated in this City. This ordinance shall go into effect at the expiration of thirty (30) days after its final passage. INTRODUCED on the 21st day of February, 2006, AND FINALLY ADOPTED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo on the _ day of , 2006, on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Mayor David F. Romero ATTEST: City Clerk Audrey Hooper APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Attorney Jonathan Lowell GAPdunsmore\Text Amendments\Subdivision Ordinance\City Council\Draft ordinance.doc 02/14/2006 10:47 8057820387 HFHSLOCO PAGE 01 i Workforce Housing Coalition _San Luis Obispo County p.0. Box 293_ ,San Luis ObWpo..CA 93406 (805)5462850 ECEIVED February 14, 2006 -= RED FILE FEB 141005 Mayor Dave Romero — MEETING AGENDA SLO CITY CLERK City Council Members DAT a)-aAwTEM #281. Steerimg Com; City Hall Morrieffitc 990 Palm Street League of omen Voters San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 of San Lots Obtspo County lorry Bonin Hom&ButlderrA:sa&arton Dear Mayor Dave Romero and City Council members: ofthe Canal coast xo»o carr The Mortgage House,Lm. The Workforce Housing Coalition recently reviewed the recommendation by the City D.Grca City& CallPolPlanning Commission to reduce the minimum lot size for R-1,R-2, R-3, R-4, and O My ry Regta"al PlamUng lots in the city from 6,000 to 5,000 sq. ft. We unanimously agreed to endorse the stmt Hasnaob,�,c planning Commission's recommendation as a small, first step toward creating more oumy Ltd/dersE=hattge housing units affordable to the workforce in San Luis Obispo. We believe that smaller AmMe Moowya Peopecrles'Sslj--Help Housinglot sizes will encourage smaller houses that are affordable by design and that use land Patricia MacCasland . more efficiently. We recognize that this small change in minimum lot sizes will not Obtrpo Economica ff LAutr c°'pO1 a"O1 ofSatr.Gsolve the housing problem in the city,where housing affordability is at an all-time low Jerry Riwx of 7%, but it is a step in the right direction. San Lids Obispo county Hotting That Fund vallerie seem The coalition would like to compliment the city on its recent support for projects like HabnorSa tLmsObispo Tumblin W which use affordabilityby designand offer a varier of housing Patricia Wilmor,e types and sizes. We also support your encouragement of mixed-use projects and San Lues Obispo Chamber ofComneom eree innovative designs to increase the housing supply. Am Marie Wood First Sank of SanLatsObtspo The Workforce Housing Coalition.of San Luis Obispo County uses research, public education, and advocacy to encourage the creation and retention of more housing units George Moylan in Memoriam the for households earningless than 160%of the county median income to buy or rent. Ct SanLusObispo We support residential projects that build communities and use land effectively. If we can be of any further assistance, please feel free to contact us. eL Sincerely yours, COUNCIL %;;OC ciR CAO F CIR �,,,,` - ✓ ACAO FIRE CHIEF ATTORNEY PLN DIR Vallerie Steensons CLERK/ORIGPOLICE CHF Secretary D HEADS DREG CIA Workforce Housina Coalition `[ UML DIA s ® IAw YHR .IR Support for the Wodcforw Housing Coalition does not imply support for the pv.>ations or ppuvMCa of member organizations. www.slowk.2m 02/14/2006 10:47 8057820387 HFHSLOCO PAGE 02 C3 Workforce Housing Coalition of San Luis Obispo County 1lhiiUM statement The Worldorce Housing Coalition will use research,public education,and advocacy to encourage the creation and retusoion of more housing m3its in San Luis Obispo County for households eaztung Iess than 160 percent of the cowrty median income to buy or rent We will support residential projects that build communities and use lead cffectively. Join our e-mail list to be alerted about local council meetings regarding housing aAd other activities related to the Worldorce Housing Coalition. Contact us at info(crAOM-h"- Criteria for Encouragem at&Support The Workforce Housing Coalition will encourage and support public pohcm and developments that meet our criteria for affordability and all or some of the other follows criteria 1.Affordability: Meet the ownership housing needs of households earning less that 16o%of the pian income for the county. provide rental units where the total projected rem for a year does not exceed 30%'of the county's median income factored for the size of the hardly. 2 Public Policy: Demonstrate the political will to support higher density. Zone more land for housing,particularly smaller units at higher density. Streamline the planning and permitting process for housing. Make density mote livable by,e.g.,abating noise.reducing traffic congestion,providing privacy; and enforcing minae. 3.Community Building: • Include a variety of housing types and sizes to serve a range of family and economic situations.. • Includc or are near community services,hftstructure and activities(work,shopping,rmseatron„ schools)- • promote public transit and alternative transportation choices. • Are designed to be pedestrian friendly Encourage the involvement of stakeholders early in the planning process. 4.Effective Use of Land: • propose increasing density when appropriate. • Are constructed in or adjacent to existing developed areas. • Munn=space devoted to sudace parking. t 02/14/2006 10:47 8057820387 HFHSLOCO PAGE 03 Mix laud uses. S_Design: Build hottw%that adds to the appeal of neighborhoods and that residents enjoy living in and are proud to call home. Wbo We Are Steering Committee Marguerite Bader Jetty Bunin Roxanne Carr D Gregg Doyle Leglie Halls Annette Montoya Patricia h4wCasland Jerry Rioux Valleie Steenson Patricia Wile Ann Marie Wood Gearge Moylan—in Memoriam Organizations that support our Mission Statement • Atascadero Association of Realtors • Avila Valley Advisory Council • Coast National Bank • Economic Vitality Corporation of San Luis Obispo • Fust Bank of San Luis Obispo • Heritage Oaks Bank • Habitat for Humanity for San Lutes Obispo CmM • Home Baildets A,m}ciation of the Central Coast • Housine Authority of the Cine of San Luis Obispo • League of Womea Voters of San Lois Obism Courcy • Living In America • Mid State Bank&Trust • Paso Robles Association of Realtors • Peoples' Self-Heitz Hing Corporation • Pismo Coast Association of Realtors • San Luis Obispo Association of Realtors • San LWs-;Obispo Chamber of Commerce • San Luis Obispo County Builders Exchange • San Luis Obispo County Farm Bureau • San Luis County Housing Trust Fund • The Mortgage House.Inc. • Wells Fargo Bank • Women's Community Center of Sam Luis Obispo County • Workforce lawstme nt Board RECEIVED FEB 16 2006 ISSan Luis Obispo Chamber of Commerce SLO CITY CLERK 1039 Chorro Street• San Luis Obispo, California 93401-3278 (805) 781-2777• FAX (805) 543-1255•TDD (805) 541-8416 February 16, 2006 David E. Garth, President/CEO RED FILE . MEETING AGENDA DATE a a ITEM #2 a,�_ Mayor Dave Romero and Members of the City Council City of San Luis Obispo, 990 Palm St. San Luis Obispo,CA 93401, Re: Item PH 3,Council Meeting of Feb.21,Amendments to Subdivision Regulations Dear Mayor Romero and Council Members, Our Chamber's Housing Task Force and Board of Directors has reviewed the City Planning Commission's recommendation to reduce minimum lot sizes in all residential zones from 6,000 square feet to 5,000 square feet. We support their recommendation, including reducing lot sizes in the R-1 zone. We request that you direct staff to consider this step as a means to increase densities in all residential zoning categories.The Planning Commission proposal aligns with our Chamber's commitment to compact urban form which means increased development within our city boundaries. Reduced lot sizes in all residential zones gives the city one more tool to increase housing opportunity while also respecting our greenbelt. This change may not create a large number of additional buildable lots,but it does encourage more efficient use of land within the city limits. This, in turn, allows for affordability by design,a principle of compact urban form and infill development. As the city prepared its certified Housing Element, one of the goals of the Housing Element Revision Task Force was to reduce minimum lot sizes so that additional housing opportunities could be created. There are several examples now in the city of planned developments where lot sizes as small as 2,500-3,000 sq. ft. work out well. One of these is the Stoneridge development off Broad. With good design and in accordance with all the other city requirements, smaller lots of 5,000 sq. ft. in the R-1 zone will not have significant impacts on existing neighborhoods. We encourage you take a step forward in providing housing opportunities and promoting compact urban from by adopting the Planning Commission's recommendation. Sincerely, Eft COUNCIL CF COD DIR 4, hairpe �� CAO Gy FIN DIF �C� C/!/`� CACAO FIRE CHiE®ATTORNEY I�PW DIR Ve di ip CLERK/ORIG C?POLICE CF'❑ DEPT HEADS 5-REC DIR on of the Board >$ 'D k B *UTIL DIR 91 IM-L&W&P Ei?HRDIR I email: slochamber@slochamber.org • websites: www.slochamber.org www.visitslo.com �- COP E—M0,; t 12-COUNCIL E--CDD DIR RECEIVED Q CAO �FIN DIR MEETING AGENDA RACAO C—FIRE CHIEF FEB 21 2006 DATE oiaza wlepsa ITEM # PA4 3 R`ATTORNEY C,PW DIR ErCLERK/ORIG a POLICE CHF 0 CSN CLERK ❑ DEPT HEADS p-REC DIR p :Tjt urj� 2LITILDIR Ll I �'t G'HR DIR De:r C:uuncil: I am a member of your Planning Commission and voted with the majority in recommending the minimum lot size in all Residential zones be reduced from 6000 sq. ft. to 5000 sq.ft. I am writing,however,as a private citizen. I urge you to adopt the Planning Commissiona€ms complete recommendation with respect to minimum lot size and direct staff to come back to Council with the necessary changes to the General Plan and zoning regulations so that the R-I change can take effect. I am not concerned about the potential environmental impact of the change recommended because even with this change we will continue to remain below the 1%housing growth currently allowed by the General Plan and well below the population growth our General Plan envisioned. Why does the Planning Commission recommend a reduction in minimum lot size in all residential zones? Quite simply to encourage the building of more housing in San Luis Obispo within the existing city limits and to fulfill the General Plan!ET'"ts call fora a€cecompact urban form.a€G We cana€TMt expect all the housing we need to be built in the expansion areas. Reducing minimum lot size is one of the many tools needed to help make sure more housing is built. In your packet,staff writes that ACmThe Housing Element update did not identify the CityfiETms minimum lot size as an obstacle to achieving our quantified housing objectives.a€C I can tell you the current Planning Commission does recognize minimum lot size as an obstacle to achieving our housing goals. The previous Planning Commission recognized it as an obstacle. The Housing Element Update Task Force recognized it as an obstacle as well. The Planning Commission picked 5000 sq. ft.as a minimum because much of the Old Town is already developed at this standard,so 5000 sq.ft.is not something unheard of,unusual,or unreasonable in this community. Many of the new neighborhoods in the expansion areas have lots of 5000 sq.ft.or less. We have a housing crisis in this county. Ita€Tms easy to forget about this if one already owns a home. Ita€Tms impossible to ignore if one doesniEmt. Even though the median price of a home in this county dropped in December,the affordability index was still 10%. That means 90%of county households cannot afford the carrying costs of a median priced home. And that doesna€mt take into account how few can actually afford the down payment. We like to pretend that our housing prices are being completely driven by excess demand,as empty nesters and retirees move to this county from elsewhere. But lack of supply also takes its toll. According to statistics compiled by UCSB,only 25 residential building permits were issued in the City of San Luis Obispo in the first eleven months of 2005. This was a drop from 49 in the first eleven months of 2004,.and 175 in the first eleven months of 2003. Our General Plan allows housing growth of up to 1%per year. Our ten-year average is less than half that. In recommending a reduction to 50Uv ft. in R-1 zones,the Planning Commission ,as well aware this represents a potential conflict with the density standards of the General Plan and our zoning regulations. Wea€T"d like to see those density standards increased. Either that or change the way city staff calculates density. Seven 6,000 sq. ft. lots do equal one acre,but that ignores the streets. When one counts the streets,the density is actually six. We can either increase the allowable R-1 density to eight and continue to ignore the streets,or leave it at seven and start counting them. (In many municipalities,streets are counted.) Will moving to 5000 sq. ft. a€cedestroya€G our R-1 neighborhoods? Absolutely not! Ia€TMve already pointed out that many parts of this city are currently developed to a 5000 sq.ft.standard, including the historic Old Town. I should also mention that no other changes to our zoning regulations are being recommended. It is these regulations,things like on-site parking and setback limits,which have much more to do with neighborhood quality than minimum lot size. More importantly,moving from 6000 sq.ft. to 5000 sq.ft will have only a modest impact on neighborhood density and that impact will take place over time. In neighborhoods whereall lots are 6000 sq.ft.,someone would have to accumulate five 6000 sq. ft.for there to be any impact at all(5 x 6000=6 x 5000). Even where there is an oversize lot which could be divided into two or joined with a neighboring lot in order to make three,the increase in density is minimal. In principle,just one lot per acre. Staff reports that 20%of R-1 lots are 10,000 sq.ft.or greater and could therefore be divided. This figure without further information is misleading and meaningless. There is no indication as to what portion of that 20% is over 12,000 sq.ft. and could,theoretically,be divided now. Thereli TMs also no indication what portion of those lots have slopes of 16%or more and would be subject to a minimum lot size of 10,000 sq. ft.or more instead of 5000. (The zoning regulations allow only half the normal density for slopes of 16%to 20%,one third the normal density for slopes of 21%to 25%,and one sixth the normal density for slopes of 26%or more.) Staff also focuses on the General Plan a€aassumptiona€G that R-1 property will accommodate no more than 20 persons per acre. In five years of attending city meetings,this is the first time IACTmve heard of this a€cerule.a€❑ In fact,the rule is unenforceable because we cannot regulate who lives in a house. It also doesna€TMtcorrelate with the current.reality in any 6000 sq. ft. neighborhood where there are children present or college students. I recognize that a move from 6000 sq. ft.to 5000 sq. ft. in R-1 zones will be opposed by RQN and others. I truly believe the fears they will express arena€TMt in keeping with the reality of the possible impact. I urge you to support your Planning Commission. Sincerely, l Andrew Carter 1283 Woodside Drive San Luis Obispo,CA 93401 ancarter@aol.com 805-235-0015 02/20/06 19:41 FAX 805#3554 WINDERMERE OARS 1101 League of Women Voters Of San Luis Obispo County Posta Address:Pon Office 4210,San Luis Obispo,California 93403 Office Location:4111 Broad Street,San Luis Obispo,CA Phone(805)543- an lim,mgs arg-C-m ' lo.ca.lwvnet.org a COUNCIL 2iCDD DIR �. OFFICEIts Q CAC :?FIN DIF RECEIVED f;'ACAO [!FIRE CHIEF President ZATTORNEY Ie-PW DIR TrudyJarratt 0CLEMORIG D POLICE CHF FEB 21 2006 February 15, 2006 ❑ DEPT HEADS ii REC DIR !sr I✓ce-Preridenr p'QIIiu✓le. 2—UTIL DIR SLO CITY CLERK Ana Carfinkel P 1 r' Com, HR DIR Mayor Dave Romero hA,�eapy Q, a:19 . 2nd(rice-President City Council Members RED FILE Sara Horne City Hall 990 Palm Street MEETING AGENDA SC1 erary Lee Chivent San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 DATE a l o ITEM #P N Treasurer Dear Mayor'Dave Romero and City Council members: Christine Volbrecht The League of Women Voters of San Luis Obispo County DIRECTORS (LWVSLOCO) supports policies and long-range planning which Action and xeahhlrsuer increases the supply of safe, decent, adequate and affordable DonnaSulllvan workforce housing, both rentals and home ownership. Communications While we applaud reducing lot sizes with the intended goal to increase Julle the supply of workforce housing units in your city, we are concerned TRZADO-Schumann that without accompanying planning and/or zoning requirements for Aevelopmrnr these smaller lots this well intended goal will not be achieved. .vert McDougie Education Therefore, the League encourages the Council to approve the reduced Alice Yamada lot sizes and to accompany this change with planning modifications that encourage development of affordable housing units on these Member Services smaller lots. Colleen Ebreuberg Natural Resources Marilee Hyman Respectfully, Smarrvorer Vera Wallen C%Z4 Voter Editor Trudy Jcj6itt, Oresident Elinor Kogan Vow Services Sara Horne council mEmoRanOum tO COUNCIL _:,r;; DIR ED DATE: February 21, 2006 VAICACORNEY `r DIR ".RE CHIEF FEB 21 2006 4'-PW DIR TO: City Council I-RCLERK/CRiG T6 POLICE CHF SLO CITY CLERK 11 DEPT HEADS t? REC DIR VIA: Ken Ham ian, CAO ��E3 Firs -ii DIR DI R RED FILE FROM: John Mandeville, Community Development Director MEETING AGENDA BY: Philip Dunsmore, Associate Planner DATE2 �ITEM #2JL SUBJECT: Subdivision Regulations Update, Public.Hearing Item 3 (TA/ER 153-04) During a final review of the proposed document and staff report with the Mayor, staff has noted the following clarifications should be incorporated into the draft regulations and proposed ordinance. Proposed new text has been underlined: Draft Document Amendments: Page 21: Section 16.10.010 E. Topography. Existing and proposed topographic information with shall be provided and shall be tied to the City's datum. Page 21: Section 16.10.010 H. Public easements. The locations, widths and purposes of all existing and proposed easements for utilities, drainage and other public purposes, shown by dashed lines, within and adjacent to the subdivision (including proposed building setback lines, if known).;Sewer-lines, leeatiews Af Manholes, fife hydfaffts' stFeet tfees and stFeet Dpr-epes d utilitieIs insluding size ef water-lines and the size and gFade a . Page 22: Section 16.10.010 I. Utilities. All existing and proposed utilities including, but not limited to, size of water lines and the size and grade of sewer lines, locations of manholes, fire hydrants, street trees and street liehts. Note: existing sections L through S. would be re-numbered to accommodate the new section L above. Page 69: Section 16.18.080 F. 5. Where Cul-de-sacs and other dead-end streets hinder connectivity andt, hey should be avoided whefever- pessi . Short loops and cul-de-sacs are acceptable as long as higher-order streets (arterials, collectors) offer many interconnections and direct routing. Page 70: Section 16.18.090 Mede1 Sample Street Layouts for Alternative Consideration The following graphics are intended to serve as alternative scenarios medelss for street layouts. These standards do not represent adopted street standards and Tthe City Engineering Standards Red file memo 2-21-06 describe specific dimension requirements; however the following alternatives are encouraged and may be utilized upon approval by the Public Works Director on a case by case basis. Residential alley The alley is intended to serve as access to accessory dwellings, garages and parking areas, and rear yard access. An alley has inverted crowns with centerline drainage. " 'tee The width allows vehicles to pass each other but only moving very slowly. Any new alleys within the City shall be privately owned and maintained. uesiaential lane This street is somewhat like a wide alley, but with residential structures fronting on it. It is very narrow and does not contain on-street parking. There may or may not be street trees. It is intended for limited application within common interest subdivisions with small lots. This street may also be configured in a loop or "u" form where it returns to the principal through street.. There are two drive lanes, and a€rve deet sidewalk with a landscape planter on each side. Resibential paukinc Meet This street allows parking on one or both sides and allows for passage of emergency vehicles but does not permit the free flow of cars and trucks in both directions without slowing to negotiate.. The intent is to create an environment in which pedestrian movement is emphasized and vehicles are moving relatively slowly. Large street trees, green planting strips and sidewalks provide the character. A drive lane is provided in addition to two parking lanes. " six feet wide The sidewalk is separated from the street by a landscape planter. Page 86: Section 16..22.010 General Requirements. The Subdivider, as a condition of approval of a tentative map, and-pFier=Ee in conjunction with approval of a parcel or final map, shall grant whatever land or easements the City determines are necessary to fulfill the purposes of these regulations, in accordance with the Subdivision Map Act, the General Plan and adopted standards. Staff Report Amendments: Page 3: 6. Table 3- minimum lot size-staadaF& dimensions- Reduce the minimum dimensions in the R-2 through R-4 zones as follows: Minimum Width: 50-feet, Minimum Depth: 80 feet to 59 ii 80,squafe feet. This amendment passed on a 3-2 vote. 7. Table 3- minimum lot sizes dimensions- Reduce the minimum dimensions in the R-1 zone as follows: Minimum Width: 50-feet, Minimum Depth: 80 feet to.50*-80 squaFe feeE. This amendment failed on a 3-2 vote. Ordinance Amendments: Section 3 Action: 4. Table 3- minimum lot size stmdaFds dimensions. Modify table 3, the minimum dimensions in the R-2 through R-4 zones as follows_: Minimum Width: 50-feet, Minimum Depth: 80-feet to-SA 80 squa'e geek FEB-21-2006 12:06 From:CYDNEY HOLCOMB 805 594 0365 Tn,:8057817109 P.1/2 r. . _ if IMIN W Residents for (duality Neighborhoods P.O. Box 12604 •San Luls Obispo, CA 93406 RECEIVED RED FILE FtB 21 -2006 MEETING AGENDA SLO CITY CLERK DATE��ITEM #Pff3 DATE: February 21, 2006 TO: San Luis Obispo City Council VIA: Fax to: 781-7109 SUBJECT: MEETING DATE: 2.21-06, ITEM # PH-3: PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY'S SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS AND CONDOMINIUM CONVERSION AND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS (TA/ER 153-04) RE: REDUCTION OF THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE IN THE R-1 ZONE Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council, We certainly appreciate and thank staff for their very thorough and factual analysis of this critical neighborhood issue. While RQN is generally supportive of smaller lot sizes in new annexations and mixed use areas, we oppose any change to the minimum lot size In our existing single-family, low density (R-1) districts. The agenda report Is very clear in regards to the associated negative impacts of any such change and has raised some specific points which we believe strongly substantiate our position: • Reducing the minimum lot size within multi-family zones (R-2. R-3 and R-4) does not increase the overall density of the neighborhood because the number of bedrooms is calculated as a density factor. - Reducing the minimum lot size within the single-family zone (R-1) would result in increases to the average density of existing lots because the number of bedrooms is nt calculated as a density factor. (The unintended consequence of this, Is that currently a R-1 lot has a higher population density potential than a R-2 lot. Any reduction of the minimum lot size in the R-1 zone would exacerbate this problem.) ■ The increase in density that would occur as the result of a reduction in the R-1 lot size would be Inconsistent with the General Plan density standards and the anticipated General Plan population. • The Housing Element update did not identify the City's minimum lot sizes as an obstacle to achieving our quantified housing objectives, and it did not direct "adding addltlonal density to existing low-density,residential neighborhoods." dco ® COL :" _ CDD DIR &l CAG jyFIN DIR n faATTO,�I�EY I� FIRE CHIEF PW DIR CLEP�u^Plu ff POLICE CHF ❑ DEPT PT DS Zr REC DIR CFUTIL DIR — Bu�E C�H8 018 FEB-21-2006 12:06 From:CYDNEY HOLCOMB 805 594 0365 To:8057817109 P.2/2 i ,S February 21, 2006 RQN - Minimum Lot Size Page 2 San Luis Obispo is the temporary home to 30,000 college and university students. 60% of the city's housing units are rentals. R-1, single family homes have Increasingly become high density student rentals because "workforce families" cannot compete economically with groups of students to either rent or buy single-family homes. The assumption that smaller lots In existing R-1 neighborhoods will somehow result In smaller, more affordable houses, is a fallacy. The McCollum Street project, is a perfect example with it's 5 bedroom 2,500 square foot houses on 4000 square foot lots, all for the asking price of $700,000 In 2001. There is also no clear nexus between Increasing the density in existing R-1 neighborhoods and preventing sprawl. Does increasing the density in established neighborhoods lessen the speculative drive of other property owners to rezone, request annexations or to develop outside the city limits in land controlled by the county? Finally, at RQN's"City Council Candidates Forum" In October, 2004 we asked the following question: Many of the City's existing single-family neighborhoods have lots that are larger than the current 6,000 sq ft minimum. These larger lot neighborhoods are valued by residents for the privacy and open space they provide. This current minimum lot size applies to every nes/dendal lot in the City regardless of zoning. if further reductions in the minimum lot size were contemplated would you vote to exempt existing R- 1 neighborhoods from that reduction? Yds: Booker, Mulholland_ Brown" Romero. Mackey, Kramer, Hannifin, Osborne. Nom. Carter. Staffs analysis has shown that approximately 20% of all R-1 lots in the city are greater than 10,000 square feet and could be affected by this proposal. There is no question In our minds that a reduction of the minimum lot size would have the potential to permanently alter the character of our existing low density neighborhoods. Accordingly, we ask you to vote against reducing the minimum lot size In existing R-1 zones. Respectfully submitted, Cy ney Holcomb Chairperson, RQN