HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/06/2006, PH4 - REVIEW OF A PROPOSED TRACT MAP TO ALLOW A NEW 9-UNIT CONDOMINIUM SUBDIVISION ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF E council n
acenaa aepoizt
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
FROM: John Mandeville, Community Development Dire r
Prepared By: Philip Dunsmore, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: REVIEW OF A PROPOSED TRACT MAP TO ALLOW A NEW 9-UNIT
CONDOMINIUM SUBDIVISION ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF ELLA STREET AT THE BASE
OF TERRACE HILL. (TR/ER-129-05).
CAO RECOMMENDATION
As recommended by the Planning Commission, adopt a resolution approving a 9-unit
condominium development and associated Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental
impact.
DISCUSSION
Situation/Previous Review
The City has received an application to construct a new condominium project at 1063 Ella Street
adjacent to Terrace Hill. The applicant intends to demolish the existing structures on the site in
order to construct the new 9-unit residential condominium project and site improvements.
Condominium projects with 5 or more units require approval of a tract map, which requires
review by both the Planning Commission and City Council for compliance with the Subdivision
Regulations and the City's Condominium Regulations. The Architectural Review Commission
granted final approval to the project on February 6, 2006 (Attachment 3). On April 26, 2006, the
Planning Commission reviewed the proposed project and unanimously recommended approval
of the subdivision map and environmental document to the City Council (Attachments 4, 5, and
6).
Data Summary
Address: 1063 Ella Street
Applicant/Property Owner: Brian and Chenda Rolph
Zoning: R-2
General Plan: Medium-Density Residential
Environmental Status:
Environmental Status: An initial study of environmental review has been prepared for the
project and the Planning Commission determined that the project will result in less than
significant impacts when developed in accordance with the recommended Mitigated Negative
Declaration (Attachment 7).
Site Description
The attached Planning Commission (PC) staff report (Attachment 6) contains a complete project
description.
Council Agenda Report
TR 129-05 (1063 Ella)
Page 2
Project Description
The project includes nine dwelling units that will be available for individual sale. The applicant
is requesting a density bonus in exchange for providing two affordable units. This will allow the
applicant to develop one additional unit than would otherwise be allowed in the R-2 district on
this property. The style of the proposed architecture is California/Mission style with white
exterior plaster, wrought iron railings, exposed rafter tails, copper gutters and clay tile roofing.
The Planning Commission staff report provides additional details regarding the project
description.
Evaluation
The Planning Commission has considered each of the project's issue areas prior to making a
recommendation of approval on the subdivision and Mitigated Negative Declaration to the City
Council. The Planning Commission found the subdivision to be consistent with General Plan
Policy and in compliance with the Subdivision Regulations, and therefore recommended
approval of the project as proposed. A more thorough review of the issue areas summarized
below is in the Planning Commission report (Attachment 6).
1. General Plan
The site's Medium-Density Residential land use designation allows for a variety of single-family
and small multi-family developments in the surrounding neighborhood. Consistent with General
Plan Land Use and Housing Element policies, this project proposes to utilize an infill site to
maximize the property's density and provide a variety of housing units. As discussed in the
Planning Commission staff report, the project was also found to be consistent with Land Use
Element Policy 2.2.10 and Housing Element Policy 7.2.1. These policies relate to neighborhood
compatibility.
2. Compliance with R-2 Zone Development Standards
As proposed, the project complies with R-2 property development standards including parking,
height, lot coverage, and other yard setbacks. As approved by the ARC, the project design
includes a 15-foot street yard where 20 feet is typically the minimum requirement, utilizing the
Zoning Regulations Section 17.16.020 E.l.c, "Street Yard Averaging". Thus the 15-foot street
yard is consistent with the standards. Other proposed yards would comply with the R-2 standards
when the height is measured from existing natural grade.
As mentioned earlier, the applicant is requesting a density bonus in exchange for providing two
affordable housing units. Two affordable units will qualify the project for a 25% density bonus.
With a proposed density bonus of 25%, the property will allow a total density of 9.6 dwelling
units. In order to qualify for the density bonus, two of the one-bedroom units would be deed-
restricted as affordable units for 30 years. The density bonus allows for the project to be
developed as proposed.
3.Subdivision Regulations
Council Agenda Report ~`
TR 129-05 (1063 Ella)
Page 3
The Subdivision Regulations regulate condominium developments and require specific standards
for common, private and total open space. The analysis provided in the Planning Commission
report (Attachment 6) describes how the project complies with the regulations.
Environmental Review
The Planning Commission has recommended a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project.
The initial study is included as Attachment 6. .Staff identified mitigation measures that should be
required of the project in the area of Air Quality. Air Quality mitigation is a standard mitigation
for virtually any new development project. This mitigation ensures that construction emissions,
dust and debris generated during construction, is minimized to the greatest extent possible. No
long term air quality impacts are associated with the project.
CONCURRENCES
The Public Works and.Fire Department have reviewed the project and found the proposed project
and driveway access to be acceptable. The grading and drainage plan has been conceptually
approved by the Public Works department. The Utilities Department also finds the proposed
project acceptable and provided specific comments on the location of the trash enclosure.
FISCAL IMPACT
When the General Plan was prepared, it was accompanied by a fiscal impact analysis, which
found that overall the General Plan was fiscally balanced. Accordingly, since the proposed
project is consistent with the General Plan, it has a neutral fiscal impact.
ALTERNATIVES
1. Continue review of the proposed subdivision with specific direction to the applicant and
staff.
2. Approve a resolution recommending that the City Council deny the proposed subdivision,
based on findings of inconsistency with the Subdivision Regulations and/or General Plan
Policies as specified by the City Council.
Attachments:
Attachment 1: Vicinity Map
Attachment 2: Reduced Size Development Plans
Attachment 3: ARC meeting minutes
Attachment 4` Planning Commission Resolution
Attachment 5: Planning Commission meeting minutes
Attachment 6: Planning Commission staff report
Attachment 7: Initial Study of Environmental Impact
Attachment 8: Draft City Council Resolution approving subdivision map with findings and
conditions as recommended by staff.
G:\Pdunsmore\Subdivisions\TR 129-05 (1063 Ella)\TR and ER 129-05 Council Report.doc �^
r rr
rr
• rrr . e • •
`` iii . ♦ �'
1� '
� � I
i
WE
r
�j
/.//
Mm
z�Li
Attachmn mnt 2
J _
lamus - - -- -- -- -- - - -- -- --- --- - - - - -
�W L - \
amrn
a
x
r -
D
z �
ua s n
a �
—Mom
m
N N
m m
Q e 0
Z e Z
m
m I � D
D
I �
01131EIIIIL.Q
� s
111140111u<.®
ca s 4 s re
low
I; tp
Wl El la Strut AIE
vn Lu . Ob l.pe. G p ^
Q
Q
J� I;
I41!�WE
A
� a
� _ i113i
IN
JJ ?.
�IIIII�
R
PSN
,s
WO1�' max' ; \�\�I !_ .`\� `tr
AudUlt"Wnt 'L
J _
ISMS
I
u�
m �
m ed
T
r
D
Z
e
J
IWMI,IIIf.OIf
, y
rc,RN sue,
K
I'
:
� W SI7E SECTlom -g
.� 1083 Ella 5 rat >BLLF. A
Sml Lui•Ob�ryo, G p
p
p
Affachrient 2
ee??� r
z � m
e o
r � R
e
1931USMM __________________________________________ ____
i
r �
9
. 7!
m
r
z
2
i
00
E fit
e
i pip.
C+7 +
.r
r ..
y
YZ` a t
O vp
4t
r
s -
z
r C r .;r r r. LMDSMwE KM
1063 s :®
Sm�i t
LUIi�OSG f.poG aoe VS Q r_
O
r-----
x it
JIZ 12 �N 2 L
➢#� ��
YL
g n �
_ 2 N
ax 0
z Sa O m
�. ---
m~ M o m£ z 0
IOA
Lill
j
F- !) 5 I
♦ 1 I
J
b
{r
2
Z
t 4
1
j
n^t mRe z
y
Im
ED
1
gE�
8
D
m I
wz• I � i�
MULTI-FAMILY TIERIIK'•VUITs 10.2 �
BRIAN ROLPH RESIDEAtTIA{
LEVA S
1045 Et IA R PLANE W
t� 5AN tll6 o�PO.U Fr cVATroHS '
I.
---Atta-ch-m-e-fit'72
i
2 � I
I r-
f I
I I
LyQ
I S$
JZ. i
I o
�
i I A I
�j 9
LT
j
-F
*rte
1L
I
Ip �
o Q g
� f
L C
I
z
P i
i
i
D BRIAN ROLPH MOLn-FAMILY TIF1[ ,ud(Ts 3-5 ^I
Q RESIDENTIAL FLOOR PLANS 4 1
^!/ lass tsu srsarr
yw, aetiPo � � ELr=Yvx,�ouH
z � I
� gg
I
o I
Ll ax I r
eD .. _
2 1 .
i I
�1 I
i - �
I
I I
p N I
�
p y� z 1
I m 1
2 I
M.
F y V K
r i
oil
1
i
I
I
i
I'
Iton
b,
i! Z1.1'd.OG.M I
1
I
BRIANROLPH MULTI-rAMiLY Tipp . urdlrs 6,y2
ost E"STRM fiE51PENT1A1� FLOOR PLA145 4 r1
'. ■ EI ATJOMS
.: . Attachment-2
0 1,
•c I y I jN � _ �
rJ 3
I. I
I
i I
E LI I
I
P P I i K Y I
I 6
3 �
\J o.o L� d p �4
I v i
i
I I
I
I �
$L ZC
I
O I
333 ~ LWy
PilI L
ry�
v
Tte.M
9 v.Y i
pi 2 r I
i '
cL i ID � .
I I I
CDT )
attachment 3
SAN LUIS OBISPO
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES
February 6, 2006
ROLL CALL:
Present: Commrs. Allen Root, Jim Lopes, David Smith, Charles Stevenson, Vice-
Chair Michael Boudreau, and Chairman Zeljka Howard
Absent: Commr. Wilhelm
Staff: Senior Planner Pam Ricci, Associate Planner Phil Dunsmore and
Recording Secretary Jill Francis
ACEP NCE OF THE AGENDA:
The ag nda was accepted as presented.
PUBLI COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS:
There ere no comments made from the public.
PUBLI HEARINGS:
1. 10 5 Court Street ARC MI 201-05; Revie of a facade remodel to the Thai
P ace Restaurant; C-D-H zone; Teerapan T arkul, applicant. (continued from
D tuber 19, 2005 - To be continued to Feb ry 21, 2006) (Pam Ricci)
This ' em was continued without discussion beca se of an error in the notification
pro d to update the description of this porti a project.
2. 1063 Ella Street ARC 74-05; Review of the demolition or relocation of a house,
and construction of residential condominiums; R-2 zone; (Continued from
December, 2005) Brian Rolph, applicant. (Phil Dunsmore)
Associate Planner Phil Dunsmore presented the staff report, recommending final
approval to the project design, based on findings and subject to conditions which he
outlined.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Brian Rolph, applicant, spoke in support of his request, and discussed the retaining
walls, trash enclosure, and grading relating to the retaining walls. The layout including
pedestrian access was discussed.
An e-mail from adjacent neighbor Barry Williams was read into the record regarding his
support for the latest set of project plans.
• ARC Minutes - Attachment 3
February 6, 2006
Page 2
There were no further comments made from the public.
COMMISSION COMMENTS
Commission discussion focused on grading and drainage and the design and location of
the trash enclosure. The Commission added some language to the condition regarding
the trash enclosure design calling for ornamental doors and asked staff to provide a
clear finding as to why the trash enclosure was allowed in the street yard here because
of the unique site circumstances including the steep topography and overhead power
lines. Overall the Commission was pleased with the changes made by the applicant to
respond to direction and complimented the applicant on how far the project had
progressed since it was initially submitted
Commr. Lopes asked about pedestrian accessibility and provisions for common open
space areas.
Commr. Root had concerns with the landscape plan, the size of the trash enclosures,
and suggested the language regarding the roll-up doors be deleted from the trash
enclosure condition.
Commr. Stevenson questioned site drainage, and expressed concern with the location
of trash enclosure.
Commr. Smith asked for specifics relating to the retaining walls.
Commr. Boudreau clarified the width of the rafters as four by.
4n motion by Commr. Smith to grant final appro1al to the project design deleting the
lan4uage regarding the roll-up door and approving the trash enclosure location
Seconded by Commr. Boudreau.
AYES: Commrs. Root, Boudreau, Howard, Stevenson, Lopes and Smith
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commr. Wilhelm
ABSTAIN: None
The motion passed on a 6:0 vote.
3. 116 Street ARC 1-04; Re i of a new 4-unit senior housing project; R-3
zone; a La Rosa Properties, LLC, a plicant (Jaime Hill)
Associate lanner Phil Dunsmore presen d the staff report, recommending the item be
continued o a date uncertain with direct n regarding changes to the overall design of
the proje to be consistent with City poli and standards.
There wa discussion relating to proble with parking location and building access.
Attachment 4 .
RESOLUTION NO. 5449-06
A RESOLUTION OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION
RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A CONDOMINIUM TRACT MAP FOR 9
RESIDENTIAL UNITS TO THE CITY COUNCIL
FOR PROPERTY AT 1063 ELLA STREET
TR/ER 129-05
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
April 26, 2006 pursuant to an application filed by Brian Rolph, applicant; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo has considered
testimony of the applicant, interested parties, and evaluation and recommendations by staff; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has considered the draft Mitigated Negative
Declaration of environmental impact as prepared by staff;
BE IT RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo as
follows:
SECTION 1. Findings.
1. The design of the tentative tract map is consistent with the General Plan because the
proposed subdivision respects existing site constraints, will incrementally add to the City's
residential housing inventory, result in condominium units that meet subdivision standards,
and will be consistent with the development potential anticipated within the Medium Density
Residential District.
2. The site is physically suited for the proposed type of development allowed in the R-2 zone
since the site is sloped less than 16%, surrounded by existing high density residential
development and close to parks, transit services and trail linkages to the downtown.
3. The design of the subdivision will not conflict with easements for access through (or use of
property within)the proposed subdivision.
5. A Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared by the Community Development Department
on April 14, 2006. The Planning Commission finds and determines that the project's
Mitigated Negative Declaration adequately addresses the potential significant environmental
impacts of the proposed project.
SECTION 2. Action.
The Commission hereby recommends approval of the Tentative Tract Map for 9 residential units
and adoption of said Mitigated Negative Declaration (TR/ER 129-05), with incorporation of the
following project mitigation measures and conditions:
4- 1(p
Attachment 4
Resolution No 5449-06
1063 ELLA ST. 129-05
Page 2
Mitigation Measures:
1.The project shall be conditioned to comply with all applicable District regulations pertaining to
the control of fugitive dust(PM-10)as contained in section 6.4 of the Air Quality Handbook. All
site grading and demolition plans notes shall list the following regulations:
a. All material excavated or graded shall be sufficiently watered to prevent excessive
amounts of dust. Watering shall occur at least twice daily with complete coverage,
preferably in the late morning and after work is finished for the day.
b. All clearing, grading,earth moving, or excavation activities shall cease during periods of
high winds (i.e. greater than 20 mph averaged over one hour)so as to prevent excessive
amounts of dust.
c. All material transported off-site shall be either sufficiently watered or securely covered to
prevent excessive amounts of dust.
d. The area disturbed by clearing, grading, earth moving, or excavation operations_shall_be
minimized so as to prevent excessive amounts of dust.
e. Permanent dust control measured identified in the approved project revegetation and
landscape plans shall be implemented as soon as possible following completion of any soil
disturbing activities.
f. Exposed ground areas that are planned to be reworked at dates greater than one month
after initial grading shall be sown with fast-germinating native grass seed and watered until
vegetation becomes established.
g. All disturbed areas not subject to revegetation shall be stabilized using,jute netting, or
other methods approved in advance by the APCD.
h. All roadways, driveways, sidewalks, etc. to be paved shall be completed as soon as
possible. In addition, structural foundations shall be completed as soon as possible
following building pad construction.
L On-site vehicle speed shall be limited to 5 mph for any unpaved surface.
j. All unpaved areas with vehicle traffic shall be watered at least twice per day, using non-
potable water.
k. Streets adjacent to the project site shall be swept daily to remove silt, which may have
accumulated from construction activities so as to prevent excessive amounts of dust from
leaving the site.
Monitoring Program:
Plans submitted for construction shall include a cover page with clear notes illustrating the
mitigation measures. The notes shall also be included on any separate grading plans. All
contractors and sub-contractors shall be informed of the requirements by the general
contractor. The City will monitor construction activities on an ongoing basis,as well as
respond to complaints from the neighborhood. If dust, or other air pollution factors exceed
the anticipated limitations, construction work will be stopped by the City until the situation
can be corrected.
s
Resolution No.####-05 Attachment 4
1063 ELLA ST. 129-05
Page 3
Conditions:
1. All project conditions associated with the architectural approval of the project as
approved by the Architectural Review Commission on February 6, 2006 shall be
incorporated herein as conditions of approval.
2. An affordable housing agreement consistent with. the draft affordable housing proposal,
shall be submitted for review and approval of the Community Development Director
prior to proceeding to the City Council.
3. The final map shall indicate common and private open space yards and the CC&R's shall
describe maintenance of all common areas.
4. Storage facilities, independent of kitchen cabinets and household closets, shall be
supplied for each unit, to the approval of the Community Development Director.
5. The applicant shall pay Park In-Lieu Fees prior to recordation of the Final Map,
consistent with SLO Municipal Code Section 16.40.080.
6. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66474.9(b),.the subdivider shall defend, indemnify
and hold harmless the City and/or its agents, officers and employees from any claim,
action or proceeding against the City and/or its agents, officers or employees to attack, set
aside, void or annul, the approval by the City of this subdivision, and all actions relating
thereto, including but not limited to environmental review.
Code Requirements:
The following code requirements are included for information purposes only. They serve to give
the applicant a general idea of other City requirements that will apply to the project. This is not.
intended to be an exhaustive list as other requirements may be identified during the plan check
process.
Public Right-of-way
1. The subdivider shall dedicate.a 2m wide public utility easement and a 3m wide street tree
easement across the frontage of the property. Said easement shall be adjacent to and
contiguous with all public right-of-way lines bordering the property.
2. The internal driveway and turnaround area curbs shall be panted red and properly signed
and stenciled as a'Fire Lane"per the Fire Department's "Developer's Guide"in order to
prohibit parking in unauthorized areas and preventing access in case of emergencies.
Grading &Drainage
3. Provide a proposed storm water plan and hydrology calculations for site drainage
including proposed culverts and bridge crossing at street entry. The rate of runoff from
the site post development shall not significantly exceed (5-percent) that of
predevelopment for the 2, 10, 100 year 24hour storm. Analysis and design of stormwater
facilities shall be consistent with the City's Waterways Management Plan - Drainage, t�
Design Manual. L� , 1
Attachment 1+
Resolution No 5449-06
1063 ELLA ST. 129-05
Page 4
4. In order to mitigate for a decrease in water quality, the stormwater runoff from all
improved areas of the development site,except rooftops, shall be treated in accordance
with the Best Management Practices published in the California Stormwater Quality
Association's Best Management Practice Handbook, January 2003. For the purposes of
water quality design, all water quality BMPs shall be designed to treat runoff from a 25
mm/24-Hour storm event.
5, In order to mitigate for a decrease in water quality, the stormwater runoff from all
improved areas of the development site,except rooftops, shall be treated in accordance
with the Best Management Practices published in the California Stormwater Quality
Association's Best Management Practice Handbook,January 2003. For the purposes of
water quality design, all water quality BMPs shall be designed to treat runoff from a 25
mm/24-Hour storm event.
6. Prior to the approval of public improvement plans, the subdivider shall submit an updated
report based on the final design in accordance with the City's Waterways Management
Plan Drainage Design Manual
Water, Sewer & Utilities
7. The subdivider shall place underground, all existing overhead utilities along the public
street frontage(s), to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director and utility companies.
8. The existing sewer laterals stubbed to the property shall be properly abandoned at the public
main: The sewer lines in the public right-of-way shall be parallel or perpendicular to the
street centerline. The minimum slope for any public sewer is 0.005. The water service
configuration appears adequate,however it is suggested that the ten meters be configured in
manifolds of 4, 3,and 3 meters each, with the landscape meter being the fourth meter on
one of the manifolds.
On motion by Commissioner Christianson, seconded by Commissioner Carter, and on the
following roll call vote:
AYES: Commrs. Stevenson, Ashbaugh, Brown, Carter, McCoy, Christianson, and
Miller
NOES: None
REFRAIN: None
ABSENT: None
The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 28th day of April, 2006.
lcz�
Pam Ricci, Skretary
Planning Commission
GAPduns=re\Subdivisions\TR 129-05(1063 EUa)\PC Reso TR-ER 129-05.doc ^ 19
g juauapuav
SAN LUIS OBISPO
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
April 26, 2006
Oath of Office'-
Deputy
ffice:Deputy City Clerk Christine Dietrick administered the oath of office to newly appointed
Commissioner John Ashbaugh.
ROLL CALL.
Present: Commissioners Charles Stevenson, John Ashbaugh, Peter Brown,
Andrew Carter, Jason McCoy, Vice-Chair Carlyn Christianson and
Chairperson Andrea Miller
Absent: None
Staff: Community Development Director John Mandeville, Associate Planner
Phil Dunsmore, Assistant City Attorney Christine Dietrick, and Recording
Secretary Jill Francis
ACCEPTANCE OF AGENDA: Commissioners or staff may modify the order of items.
The agenda was accepted as written.
MINUTES: Minutes of April 12, 2006.
The minutes of April 12, 2006 were approved as submitted.
PUBLIC COMMENT:
There were no comments made from the public.
PUBLIC_HEARINGS:
1. 1063 Ella Street. TR and ER 129-05`.- Request for approval of a vesting tentative
tract map creating 9 condominium units, and environmental review; R-2 zone;
Chenda and Brian Rolph, applicant. (Phil Dunsmore)
Associate Planner Phil Dunsmore presented the staff report, recommending approval of
the vesting tentative condominium tract. map and Mitigated Negative Declaration to the
City Council.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
Brian Rolph, applicant, presented staff and the Commission with a density analysis and
explained the usage and need for the density bonus and the affordable unit added..
Steve Delmartini, SLO, spoke in support of the project.
Planning Commission Minute._ Attachment 5
April 26, 2006
Page 2
There were no further comments made from the public.
COMMISSION COMMENTS:
Commr. Stevenson questioned the final location of the trash enclosure.
Commr. Carter discussed the surrounding density and the location of the trash enclosure
and questioned site drainage. He was informed that the location of the trash enclosure
was decided by power lines and the grade of Ella Street.
Commr. Brown asked the applicant about the density bonus as it relates to the affordable
units available.
On motion by Commr. Christianson to recommend the City Council approve the vesting
tentative_ condominium tract map and Mitigated Negative Declaration. Seconded by
Commr. Carter.
AYES: Commrs. Ashbaugh, Brown, Christianson; Miller, McCoy, Carter & Stevenson
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
The motion carried on a 7:0 vote.
2. Staff
A. Agenda Forecast
Community Development Director John Mandeville presented an agenda forecast of
upcoming projects.
B. Community Development Director's presentation on the Department's work
program..
3. Commission
ADJOURMENT:
With no further business before the Commission, the meeting adjoumed at 8:05 p.m. to
the regular meeting of the Planning Commission scheduled for Wednesday May 10, 2006
at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street.
Respectfully submitted by Approved by Planning Commission
Jill Francis
Recording Secretary Diane R. Stuart, CM
Management Assistant n ,
�'G'I
Attachment 6
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO ---- - -
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT ITEM[#1
BY: Philip Dunsmore,Associate Planner(781-7522) MEETING DATE: April 26, 2006
PfZ
FROM: Pamela Ricci, Interim Deputy Director-Development Review
FILE NUMBER: TR/ER 129-05
PROJECT ADDRESS: 1063 Ella Street
SUBJECT: Review of a proposed tract map to allow a new 9-unit condominium subdivision on
the south side of Ella Street at the base of Terrace Hill.
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a resolution recommending approval of the condominium tract map and Mitigated
Negative Declaration to the City Council.
BACKGROUND
Situation.
The applicant would like to demolish the existing structures on the site and construct a new 9-
unit residential condominium project and site improvements. Condominium projects with 5 or
more units require approval of a tract map, which requires review by both the Planning
Commission and City Council for compliance with the Subdivision Regulations and the City's
Condominium Regulations. The Architectural Review Commission initially reviewed this
project on September 9, 2005 and December 5, 2005 and granted final approval to the project on
February 6, 2006 (Attachment 3). Following architectural approval, the applicant submitted a
tract map application to allow the approved design to be constructed as condominiums.
Data Summary
Address: 1063 Ella Street
Applicant/Property Owner: Brian and Chenda Rolph
Zoning: R-2
General Plan: Medium-Density Residential
Environmental Status:
Environmental Status: As an apartment project this project was categorically exempt under Class
32, In-Fill Development Projects, Section 15332 of the CEQA Guidelines. Tract maps involving
5 or more lots or 5 or more condominium units, however, are not exempt. An initial study of
environmental review has been prepared for the project and staff has determined that the project
will result in less than significant impacts when developed in accordance with the recommended
Mitigated Negative Declaration (Attachment 5).
Attachment 6
TR/ER 129-05 (1063 Ella) `
Page 2
Site Description
1063 Ella Street is on the uphill side (south side of Ella) at the base of Terrace Hill. It slopes
moderately up from Ella street at approximately 14 to 15%. A large retaining wall approximately
4 to 6 feet in height fronts the property at back of sidewalk. Extensive tree cover and landscape
shrubs obscure the large residence located near the center of the site. An asphalt driveway
provides access to the rear of the site from Ella Street along the east side of the property. The
existing two-story residence (formerly occupied as an adult care facility) was constructed prior to
1914.
Project Description
The project includes complete site demolition, including removal of the existing residence and
associated improvements, retaining walls and trees. The demolition of the existing residence was
reviewed by the Cultural Heritage Committee (CHC) on July 25h, 2005 and it was determined
that the structure is not considered a historic resource. Following demolition of the existing
structures, the applicant is proposing to construct nine condominium units. A new driveway
would be constructed in relatively the same place as the existing driveway. An extensive grading
plan (proposed cut is approximately 3,000 cubic yards) would step the property to allow
construction of condominium buildings and enclosed parking areas. Two 2-bedroom detached
units would be constructed near Ella Street and a series of 1-, 2-, and 3- bedroom attached units
would be constructed at the rear of the site for a total of 9 units on this .64 acre site. The style of
the proposed architecture is California/Mission style with white exterior plaster, wrought iron
railings, exposed rafter tails, copper gutters and clay tile roofing.
The applicant is proposing affordable housing units in order to maximize the project's allowed
density. Since two of the nine units are proposed to be deed-restricted to low or moderate
affordability levels, the project will be entitled to a 25% density bonus. This will allow the
applicant to develop one additional unit than would otherwise be allowed in the R-2 district on
this property. Density is further discussed in the Evaluation section below.
EVALUATION
1. General Plan
The site's Medium Density Residential land use designation allows for a variety of single-family
and small multi-family developments in the surrounding neighborhood. Consistent with several
General Plan Land Use and Housing Element policies, this plan proposes to utilize an infill site to
maximize the property's density and provide a variety of housing units. However, a more
significant factor in analyzing General Plan consistency is determining whether the proposed
development is compatible with the neighborhood. General Plan LU policy 2.2.10 and Housing
Element Policies 7.2.1 through 7.2.4 discuss the importance of neighborhood compatibility and
relate specifically to infill development. Two of these policies are noted below, followed by staff's
response:
4-a3
Attachment 6
TR/ER 129-05 (1063 Ella)
Page 3
LU 2.2.10 Compatible Development
Housing built within an existing neighborhood should be in scale and in character with
that neighborhood. All multifamily development and large group-living facilities should
be compatible with any nearby, lower density development.
Staff Response: The ARC reviewed the project for consistency with this policy and determined that
the project, through the siting of buildings, grading, and landscaping, is designed to be compatible
with surrounding properties. To the west, an existing multi-family apartment project (Vista De La
Ciudad apartments), similar in density to the proposed project, was constructed in 1969. To the east
and north, the neighborhood is single-family in nature, with one to two units per property. The
proposed project, in terms of density and development style, can be viewed as providing for a
transition between these more and less intensively developed residential lots. From a compatibility
perspective, the tentative map, by allowing for individual ownership of units, could enhance long-
term property maintenance.
H 7.2.1 Character, Size, Density and Qualify
Within established neighborhoods, new residential development shall be of a character,
size, density and quality that preserves the neighborhood character and maintains the
quality of life for existing and future residents.
Staff Response: Although this project appears to have a higher density than other residential
properties to the east, the quality of the design and the proposed improvements are likely to enhance
neighborhood character. The tentative map, as a tool to provide individual ownership of the units,
creates a new development that is more likely to achieve the goal of maintaining long-term
compatibility with lower-density properties within the neighborhood.
2. Compliance with R-2 Zone Development Standards
As proposed, the project complies with the property development standards including parking,
height, lot coverage, and other yard setbacks. As approved by the ARC, the project design
includes a 15-foot street yard where 20 feet is typically the minimum requirement, utilizing the
Zoning Regulations Section 17.16.020 E.1.6, "Street Yard Averaging". In developed areas,
where at least half the lots in the block have buildings constructed on them, the applicant may
request the average street yard as their required standard as long as a minimum of 10 feet is
maintained. In this case, the applicant's analysis of the neighborhood resulted in an average of 9
feet. The proposed street yard of 15 feet exceeds the average, and the Architectural Review
Commission concurred that it allows for an improved street orientation and helps accommodate
concealed parking at the rear of the site. Other proposed yards would comply with the R-2
standards when the height is measured from existing natural grade..
The allowed density in the R-2 district is 12 units per acre. This property is .64 acres, which
allows for 7.68 density units. With a proposed density bonus of 25%, the property will allow a
total density of 9.6 dwelling units. In order to achieve the density bonus, two of the one-bedroom
Attachment 6
TR/ER 129-05 (1063 Ella)
Page 4
units would be deed- restricted as affordable units. The density bonus allows for the project to be
developed as proposed with a density of 8.82 units.
3. Subdivision Regulations
The Tentative Tract Map will be subject to processing under the City's recently approved
Subdivision Regulations, which became effective on April 6, 2006. The Subdivision Regulations
contain standards for common and private open space, recreation amenities and storage. Unlike a
rental apartment project, which are open to discretion on the size and placement of open space
areas, the condominium standards have specific guidelines that must be incorporated into
ownership condominium projects. The applicable standards for common and private open space
and recreation amenities have been included as Attachment 4. In general, the regulations require
400 square feet of private and common open space per unit while each unit must have a
minimum of at least 100 square feet of private open space. The regulations also require that the
project contain an indoor or outdoor common recreation facility of at least 40 square feet per
unit. Storage must also be included for each unit and shall include at least two hundred cubic feet
of enclosed, weatherproof and lockable private storage space, exclusive of cabinets and closets
within the unit. The analysis below describes these requirements and the proposed project:
Private Open Space (250 &L per unit): In total, including upper level decks, the project
includes 3,617 square feet of private open space. Therefore, the proposed project provides ample
private open space yards for all units that exceed the minimum requirements(2,250 square feet).
Common Open Space (150 s.f: per unit): The proposed project includes approximately 3,545
square feet of common open space that exceed the minimum requirements (1,350 square feet)..
Combined "Total' open space (400 s.f. per unit): The project includes a total of 7,162 square
feet of private and common open space, which exceeds the total minimum requirement (9 X 400
= 3,600 square feet). Although common recreational facilities are not a requirement in the R-2
zone, the project proposes benches and a barbeque area with landscape treatment within an area
that is approximately 900 square feet. The recreation space provides an added project amenity.
Storage: Each unit contains storage rooms or storage areas at the rear of the garages that
generally comply with the minimum storage requirements of 200 cubic feet..
4. Landscaping and other site details
The grading and development plan approved by the ARC indicates removal of existing trees and
vegetation along with demolition of existing improvements. Two of the existing palm trees
would be saved and relocated on site as part of the project. Existing eucalyptus trees at the rear
of the site would remain. The landscape plan proposes a logical arrangement of trees, shrubs and
groundcover plants for the common areas and streetyard. Given the size and configuration of the
site and required improvements, the landscape plan is appropriate and the ARC has conditionally
approved the landscape plan as proposed.
Attachment 6
TR/ER 129-05 (1063 Ella)
Page 5
Summary
The Architectural Review Commission has reviewed the design details of the development site
and the architecture of the proposed units and found that the project is appropriate and consistent
with the Community Design Guidelines. The responsibility of the Planning Commission and City
Council is to review the subdivision map requirements and the applicable General Plan Policies
and open space standards.
ALTERNATIVES
1. Continue the item. An action to continue the item should include a detailed list of additional
information or project modifications required.
2. Recommend denial of the project to the City Council. Action denying the application should
include the basis for denial. If the condominium map is denied, then the applicant can still
develop the site with an apartment project.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment 1: Vicinity map
Attachment 2: Reduced scale project plans
Attachment 3: ARC meeting minutes,February 6, 2006.
Attachment 4: Condominium standards from new Subdivision Regulations
Attachment 5: Initial Study of Environmental Review ER 129-05
Attachment 6: Resolution recommending approval of the tract map to City Council
Enclosed: Full-size project plans
GAPdunsmore\Subdivisions\TR 129-05(1063 Ella)\TR 129-05 PC rpt(4-26-06).DOC
Attachment 7
�1�HI�I�III�NIIIII @IIIIIIIIII ' �� - -
II��IIIII� II
II
city osAn luiS OBISPO
990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249
INITIAL STUDY
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
ER 129-05
1. Project Title: Condominium Tract Map 2771 (TR/ER 129-05)
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 (805) 781-7522
4. Project Location: 1063 Ella Street (as shown on attachment 1, vicinity map)
5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Brian Rolph 1063 Ella Street_, San Luis Obispo,
CA 93401.
6. General Plan Designation: Medium-Density Residential
7. Zoning: R-2
8. Description of the Project:
The project includes the demolition of existing structures including a large single-family
residence, and construction of a new 9-unit condominium project. Since the project is
proposed to be separate ownership condominiums, the development is not exempt from
environmental review. An apartment project of this scale and design at this location
would otherwise be exempt from this review as a small scale residential project on an
infill site with appropriate zoning.
Each unit is designed with a small private rear yard and private, upper-level decks.
Common open space areas are provided near the front and at the rear of the site. A single
16-foot wide driveway provides access on the east side of the site. A large enclosure at
the front of the site with a separate curb ramp is designed to accommodate common trash
and recycling bins. Parking for units is provided by enclosed garages and several
unenclosed spaces throughout the site. The design of the project is indicative of a
Mission/Spanish theme, with concrete, clay-colored, tile roofs with exposed rafter tails
and a smooth off-white plaster finish. The project includes removal of several eucalyptus
trees adjacent to the east property line and several pepper trees adjacent to the west
property line.
OThe City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services, programs and activities.
�� Telecommunications Device for the Deaf(805)781-7410.
Attachment 7
Project Entitlements Requested: Tract Map to allow a condominium development in
the R-2 district (TR-129-05).
10. Surrounding Land Uses and Settings:
1063 Ella Street is on the uphill side(south side of Ella) at the base of Terrace Hill a City
recognized open space. The subject site slopes moderately up from Ella street at
approximately 14 to 15%. A large retaining wall approximately 4 to 6 feet in height
fronts the property at back of sidewalk. Extensive tree cover and landscape shrubs
obscure the large residence located near the center of the site. An asphalt driveway
provides access to the rear of the site from Ella Street along the east side of the property.
The existing two-story residence (formerly occupied as an adult care facility) was
constructed prior to 1914. Adjacent properties to the east contain single-family
residences, while adjacent properties to the west contain high-density multi-family
apartments.
11. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g. permits, financing approval, or
participation agreement): None.
CRBIS
Y OF SAN LUIS Om2 INMAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2006
4-d 0
Attachment 7
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' or a "Potentially Significant Impact Unless
Mitigation is Incorporated" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
Aesthetics Geolo /Soils Public Services
Agricultural Resources Hazards&Hazardous Recreation
Materials
X Air Quality Hydrology/Water Quality Transportation&Traffic
Biological Resources Land Use and Planning Utilities and Service
Systems
Cultural Resources Noise Mandatory Findings of
Significance
Energy and MineralPopulation and Housing
Resources — E
FISH AND GAME FEES
There is no evidence before the Department that the project will have any potential adverse effects on fish
X and wildlife resources or the habitat upon which the wildlife depends. As such, the project qualifies for a
de minimis waiver with regards to the filing of Fish and Game Fees.
The project has potential to impact fish and wildlife resources and shall be subject to the payment of Fish
and Game fees pursuant to Section 711.4 of the California Fish and Game Code. This initial study has been
circulated to the California Department of Fish and Game for review and comment.
STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
This environmental document must be submitted to the State Clearinghouse for review by one or more
State agencies (e.g. Cal Trans, California Department of Fish and Game, Department of Housing and
Community Development). The public review period shall not be less than 30 days (CEQA Guidelines
15073(a)).
1 ��
Attachment 7
Issues, Discussion and Supporting ...,ormation Sources Sources Potenuaf Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER# 129-05 Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
1063 Ella Street
Incorporated
DETERMINATION:
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and
a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, X
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 IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the
effects that remain to be addressed
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
because all potentially significant effects (1) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR
or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (2) have been avoided
or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR of NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions
or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project,nothing further is required.
t C G April 12,2006
Signature Date
Pamela Ricci Interim Deputy Director of Cotnmunity Development For: John Mandeville,Community Development Director
Printed Name
CITY or Sam Luis OstSPo 4 INmaL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2006
4
. Attachment 7
Issues, Discussion and Supportinl,__,iorrr ation Sources Sources Poten._ 7 Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER# 129-05 Issues unless Impact
Mitigation
1063 Ella Street
Incorporated
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
Administrators Code. Earlier analyses are discussed in Section 17 at the end of the checklist.
6. Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential
impacts (e.g. general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should,
where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated.
7. Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached,and other sources used or individuals contacted
should be cited in the discussion. In this case,a brief discussion should identify the following:
a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review.
b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and
adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such
effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on earlier analysis.
C) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated,"
describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent
to which they address site-specific conditions for the project.
Cil'of SAN Luis OBIsPo 5 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHEcKusT 20/05
_. 1
Attachment 7
Issues, Discussion and Supportiriy._,rormation Sources Sources potet.._y Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER# 129-05 Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
1063 Ella Street
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 of state scenic highway?
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of I 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?
The subject property is currently surrounded by urban uses and is not within a location that is considered a
scenic vista. A dedicated open space area known as Terrace Hill is at the rear of the site; however the project
site is outside of the open space area. The project proposes multi-story units within close proximity to the rear
yards of existing residential units, therefore potentially modifying the views and solar access of adjacent
properties. With its review of the project, the Architectural Review Commission determined that the proposed
height, scale,mass and density match the General Plan and Zoning expectations for this property.
New construction combined with new landscape at the property is likely to produce negligible aesthetic
impacts, and instead is likely to enhance the overall aesthetic appearance of the property as viewed from the
public way and adjacent properties. The proposed construction has been reviewed and endorsed by the City's
Architectural Review Commission to ensure aesthetic compatibility of the project to the site and its
surroundings.
CONCLUSION: Less than significant
2.AGRICULTURE RESOURCES. Would theproject:
a) Convert Prime Farmland,Unique Farmland,or Farmland of 2 X
Statewide 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?
The project is located on a site that is not considered prime farmland, or farmland of unique or statewide
importance as indicated on City maintained maps created pursuant to the to the Farmland Mapping and
Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency. The site is too small to be considered important
farmland and furthermore is surrounded by developed urbanized uses. Furthermore this property is currently
developed and substantially covered with existing improvements. No properties within the immediate vicinity
are zoned or used for commercial agricultural use.
CONCLUSION: No Impact
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
Wali lan?
CITY OF SAN Luis OBISPO 6 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CttEcKusT 2006
Attachment 7
Issues, Discussion and Supporting ..-ormation Sources Sources Toren.`. Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER# 129-05 Issues unless Impact
Mitigation
1063 Ella Street
Incorporated
c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant 3 X
concentrations?
d) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of X
people?
e) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria 3 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)?
The project involves the demolition of existing improvements to allow for the construction of a new nine-unit
condominium project. The San Luis Obispo County Air Quality Handbook uses the threshold of the production
of 10 pounds a day of emissions as potentially having a significant effect on long-term air quality. The
construction of 35 homes approximates the production of 10 pounds of emissions per day.The proposed project
will ultimately allow the construction of 9 additional homes, therefore, it is anticipated that less than significant
long-term air quality impacts will result from construction of the nine new residences and an access driveway.
Minor increases in air pollution may occur during project construction phases and demolition of existing
structures, however following construction and demolition, air quality impacts will be less than significant.
Mitigation measures, however should be included to ensure appropriate construction practices for working
within close proximity to existing apartments.
CONCLUSION: Less than significant with proposed mitigation measures for construction and demolition..
MITIGATION MEASURES Air Quality
1.The project shall be conditioned to comply with all applicable District regulations pertaining to the control of
fugitive dust(PM-10)as contained in section 6.4 of the Air Quality Handbook. All site grading and demolition
plans notes shall list the following regulations:
a. All material excavated or graded shall be sufficiently watered to prevent excessive amounts of dust.
Watering shall occur at least twice daily with complete coverage,preferably in the late morning and after
work is finished for the day.
b. All clearing,grading,earth moving, or excavation activities shall cease during periods of high winds(i.e.
greater than 20 mph averaged over one hour) so as to prevent excessive amounts of dust.
c. All material transported off-site shall be either sufficiently watered or securely covered to prevent
excessive amounts of dust.
d. The area disturbed by clearing,grading,earth moving, or excavation operations shall be minimized so as
to prevent excessive amounts of dust.
e. Permanent dust control measured identified in the approved project revegetation and landscape plans
shall be implemented as soon as possible following completion of any soil disturbing activities.
f. Exposed ground areas that are planned to be reworked at dates greater than one month after initial
grading shall be sown with fast-germinating native grass seed and watered until vegetation becomes
established.
g. All disturbed areas not subject to revegetation shall be stabilized using,jute netting, or other methods
approved in advance by the APCD.
h. All roadways,driveways, sidewalks,etc.to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible. In addition,
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBisPo 7 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2006
4- 35
Attachment 7
Issues, Discussion and Supporting ....ormation Sources sources Potena_ Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER# 129-05 Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
1063 Ella Street
Incorporated
structural foundations shall be completed as soon as possible following building pad construction.
i. On-site vehicle speed shall be limited to 5 mph for any unpaved surface.
j. All unpaved areas with vehicle traffic shall be watered at least twice per day, using non-potable water.
k. Streets adjacent to the project site shall be swept daily to remove silt, which may have accumulated from
construction activities so as to prevent excessive amounts of dust from leaving the site.
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
pians,policies,or regulations,or by the California Department
of Fish and Gauze or U.S.Fish and Wildlife'Service?
•:b) Have a substantial adverse effect;on any riparian habitat or 4,5 X
other sensitive natural community identified.irt local:orregional
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 X
biological resources,such as a tree'pres_ervation.policy or
orditt ce,(e.g._HeritageTrees)?
nd) •'Interfere.substantially_with the movement;of any native resident ' X
or migratory fish or wildlife spe2ies or with established native
-Tesidentormigratory wildlife corridors;or impede the use of
wildlife'ritrsery sites?
e);; _Conflict-with the provisions of an adopted habitat Conservation'.: X
Plan;Natural Community Conservation,Plan,:or.�pther approved
iocal,.regional,or state habitat conservation"plan.
f) Have a substantial adverse effect on Federally protected'•.-. "' . X
wetlands as defined in Section 404 of the Clea Vit6r Act
(including,.but not limited to,marshes,verridl pools,etc.):.
`through direct removal;filling,hydrological interruption,of
'_ 'other-means? . >•.. ..• A,.� �, �
City creek maps, a site visit and review of project plans have not identified a creek, wetland area or other area
of significant habitat value on or adjacent to the proposed construction site. The site is an existing developed
lot between two other developed lots within the Medium-Density Residential district. No significant native
vegetation or heritage trees exist on the site. The site lacks value as a significant habitat area due to the small
size of the site and continuous use of the property by existing residential tenants. Subdivision and
redevelopment of the property is not likely to create impacts to biological resources on the subject property or
within the project vicinity.
CONCLUSION: Less than significant.
5.CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would theproject:
ay• Cause a substantial adverse change in thesignificance of a > 6 X
-.historic resource?(See CEQA Guidelines 1506.45) ,
b Cause a substantial adverse change in thesignificance of an .;. 7,8 X
archeological resource?(See CEQA Guidelines 15064$)
c ' Di lq� or indirectly,destrov a tmique paleontological resource ` X
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO g INRWL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CNEcrcusT 2006
4 -34
Attach ent
Issues, Discussion and Supporti. Wormation Sources Sources pot, ally Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER# 129-05 Issues Unless Impact
1063 Ella Street Mitigation
Incorporated
or site or unique geologic feature?
d) Disturb any human remains,including those interred outside of 9 X
formal cemeteries?
The existing property does not contain any historic or prehistoric archeological resources as identified on City
maintained resource maps. No known archeological resources exist within the project site. According to the
City's map of archeological sensitive areas, which is based on information from the Central Coast Historical
Resource Information Center at the University of California at Santa Barbara and previous archaeological
studies, the site is not within an archeological sensitive area. Given that the site is less than one acre in size and
is not within a sensitive area, it is not considered "archaeologically sensitive" and additional study to determine
the presence of archaeological of historical resources is not required.
Based on an assessment of available historic records and in accordance with the California Register of Historic
Resources and associated criteria governing identification and protection of historic resources, it has been
determined that there are no historic properties that would be affected by the proposed project.
Since the existing residence proposed for demolition on the property was constructed prior to 1914, a historic
evaluation of the property was prepared by a consultant (Andrew Merriam) for the City. The review report
focused on the following state adopted criteria for determining the significance of a potential historic resource:
A) Is it associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad pattern of local or
regional history, or the cultural heritage of California, or the United States, or
B)Is it associated with the lives of persons important to local, state or national history;or
C) Does it embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or
.represents the work of a master, or possesses a high artistic value;or
D) Has it yielded, or does it have the potential to yield information important to the prehistory or history of the
local area, the state, or the nation?
The research performed by Mr. Merriam did not reveal information that qualified the property for any of the
above criteria. A copy of the report has been attached (Attachment 2). The City's Cultural Heritage Committee
(CHC) reviewed the property and historic background report and determined that the structure did not meet the
criteria for listing as a historic resource. The condition of the structure, the fact that significant modifications
had occurred to the structure, and the fact that the residence did not meet the architectural or historical
significance criteria were the reasons the CHC determined the property was not a historic resource. The
property has been photo-documented and included in the City's resource library.No mitigation is necessary.
CONCLUSION: Less than si ni
ficant.
6. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the prmoiect:
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? 10 X
b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient X
mariner?
c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource X
that would be of value to the region and the residents of the
State?
The project is consistent with the City's Energy Element that encourages concentrations of residences close to
concentrations of employment. The housing will be an infill project surrounded by existing urban development,
thereby reducing energy impacts that could be created by placing additional housing further from existing
development. The project is close to schools,parks City services and the downtown area of the city.No known
CITY OF SAN Luis OBISPO 9 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2006
�3J
Attachment 7
Issues, Discussion and Supporting R„ormation Sources Sources Potentie� Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER#129-05 Issues Unless Impact
1063 Ella Street Mitigation
Incorporated
mineral resources exist within the project vicinity.
CONCLUSION: Less than significant.
7. GEOLOGY AND SOH.S Would theproject:
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse
effects,including risk of loss,injury or death involving:
I. Rupture of a known earthquake fault,as delineated in the I 1 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? 12 X
IIT. Seismic related ground-failure,including liquefaction? X
W. 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,subsidance,
liquefaction,or collapse?
d) Be located on expansive soil,as defined in Table 18-1=B of the X
Uniform wilding Code(1994),creating substantial risks to life
or property?
The proposed project includes demolition of all structures on site and significant grading (greater than 3,000
cubic yards) in order to create building pads for the proposed new condominiums. Since the site is sloped
approximately 14%, retaining walls will be utilized to create level parking and private patio areas. The units
will be recessed into the site to avoid additional significant grading. The preliminary grading plan includes a
soils report and accommodations for drainage in accordance with City standards. The soils report and
geotechnical investigation prepared for the project concludes that the site is suitable for the proposed
development without specific mitigations. However, the report does contain specific project construction
requirements that will need to be incorporated into the construction plans.
There are no known fault lines on site or in the immediate vicinity. However, the City of San Luis Obispo is in
Seismic Zone 4, a seismically active region of California and strong ground shaking should be expected during
the life of proposed structures. Structures must be designed in compliance with seismic design criteria
established in the Uniform Building Code.
Moderately expansive soils are common in the project vicinity. All new construction will require a City
building permit, and therefore require construction that will meet or exceed building code standards for these
soils. The geotechnical report contains recommendations for building within the specific soil type.
CONCLUSION:Less than significant
& HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the prx 'ect:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment X
though the routine use,transport or disposal of hazardous
materials?
b . Create a si nificant hazard to the public or the environment X
CITY OF SAN Luis OBispo 10 INMAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKusT 2006
1 �34-
7
Issues, Discussion and Supportint, oformation Sources Sources Poien,....ty Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER# 129-05 Issues unless Impact
Mitigation
1063 Ella Street Incorporated
through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions
involving the release of hazardous materials into the
environment?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely X
hazardous materials,substances,or waste within one-quarter
mile of an existing or proposed school?
d) Expose people or structures to existing sources of hazardous X
emissions or hazardous or acutely hazardous materials,
substances,or waste?
e) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous X
materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section
65962.5 and,as a result,it would create a significant hazard to
the public or the environment?
f) For a project located within an airport land use plan,or within 13 X
two miles of a public airport,would the project result in a safety
hazard for the people residing or working in the project area?
g) impair implementation of,or physically interfere with, the X
adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation
plan?
h) -Expose people or structures to a significant risk of lose,injury, X
or death,involving wildland fires,including where wildlands are
adjacent to.urbanized'areas or where residents are intermixed
witklwildiands?
The project proposal does not involve the use of hazardous materials nor will it involve hazardous conditions. In
order to accommodate new condominium units on the property an existing residential structure will be
demolished. A demolition permit will be required prior to any demolition work on the property. The demolition
permit will require a handling and disposal plan for the building materials to be removed from the site and
properly disposed of. With appropriate removal and disposal of materials during demolition, the project will
result in less than significant impacts. At this time the existing structure to be demolished has not been identified
to contain asbestos or any other hazardous materials.
Construction of the housing project does not involve the introduction of any known hazardous materials. The
project is not located within the boundary of the airport planning area.
The project will not result in impacts to an emergency response plan,nor will the project place residences outside
of available emergency response resources.
CONCLUSION: Less than significant.
9. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the projece
a) _ Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge X
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(eg.The production rate of preexisting
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 that would exceed the capacity, X
of existing or planned storm-water drain4ge§ystems or rovide
am CITY of SAN Luis OBisPo 11 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2006
Issues, Discussion and Supporting .. formation Sources Sources por nw.,y Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER# 129-05 Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
1063 Ella Street Incorporated
------___-._____.
substantial additional sources of polluted runoff.
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or X
area in a manner that wound 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 15 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 Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? X
The existing project site slopes at approximately 14% towards Ella Street. The existing slope conveniently
allows the property to drain to the public street. Development of the property and associated grading, paving and
other improvements will be designed to carry drainage into the public roadways where it can be handled by
existing storm drains.
The project site is within a"C"flood zone as indicated on FEMA flood zone traps. Zone C indicates that the site
is not within flood zone of either 100 or 500-year storm events. A visit to the site reveals that existing slope and
drainage would not likely result in the property being subject to flooding, nor is it likely to contribute to flooding
following development.
The project will ultimately result in the construction of nine new residences, parking areas and a driveway. Since
the existing site is already developed with structures and driveways, the existing drainage pattern of the site will
not be significantly modified from the introduction of new impervious surfaces and new structures. A drainage
and grading plan has been submitted to the City for the project and has been found to comply with City
requirements. Construction features such as pervious pavers and turf block in the parking lot areas should be
incorporated in order to reduce the potential for excessive site runoff. These items will be included as project
conditions and are not necessary as mitigation measures.
CONCLUSION:Less than significant. The project construction will be required to meet current building code
standards and require review and approval of a grading and drainage plan that is consistent with the City's
Waterways Management Plan, Drainage Design Manual and Grading Ordinance. On-site drainage impacts are
anticipated to be less than significant.
10. LAND USE AND PLANNING- Would theproject:
a) Conflict with applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of 16 X
an agency with jurisdiction over the project adopted for the
purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
b) Physically divide an established community? X
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural X
community conservationplans?
The project proposal complies with the provisions of the General Plan Land Use Element and Zoning
Regulations as it applies to new projects in the R-2 zone. The proposed subdivision would create 9 airspace
ownership units on one lot. The proposed project complies with density and property development standards for
the R-2 district since it incorporates affordable housing units and is allowed a density bonus. Adjacent sites
CRY of SAN LUIS Osispo 12 INMAL STUDY ENVIRONMEMAL CNEcKLw 2006
4-39
-- Attachment 7
Issues, Discussion and Supportir,,, —formation Sources Sources Pote.. -�y Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER # 129-05 Issues Unless Impact
1063 Ella Street Mitigation
Incorporated
are already developed with a mixture of apartments and single family residential dwellings on small lots.
CONCLUSION: Less than significant.No exceptions are associated with this subdivision proposal.
11.NOISE. Would the project result in:
'a) Exposure of people to or generation of"unacceptable"noise 17 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?
The proposed project is not located within an area that is subject to excessive noise sources as noted on the City's
noise exposure maps. No railroads, major arterial roadways or other known sources of excessive noise are within
close proximity to the property boundary. However,construction of the project will temporarily increase ambient
noise levels for existing residents on adjacent properties due to demolition and construction activity.
Construction activities are already regulated to daytime work hours by the City's Noise Regulations.
CONCLUSION: Less than significant. Existing City ordinances do not allow construction to occur outside of
regular daytime hours.
12. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would theproject:
Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly X
;._(for example•, by proposing new homes of businesses) or
- indirectly (for-example; through extension of Toads or'other
z infrastructure)
b).2 Displace, substantial numbers of existing housing or people; X
necessitating the construction -of replacement `housing
elsewhere?
A total of 9 residential units will occupy the property in place of existing residential dwellings and accessory
structures.
The project places needed additional housing in a location near and parks, access trails, transit service and the
downtown. The project is proposed to be built to the maximum density as allowed within the R-2 district given
required improvements and a density bonus for affordable housing. This is consistent with Land Use and
Housing Element policies encouraging a variety of housing types, efficient infill development, and compact
urban form.
CONCLUSION: Less than significant.
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:
CiTv OF SAN Luis 0Bi8P0 13 INmAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2006
-_1 Affacbment 7
Issues, Discussion and Supportit.,, _..(ocmation Sources Sources pote. , a potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant impact
ER# 129-05 Issues Unless impact
Mitigation
1063 Ella Street Incorporated
a) Fire protection? X
b) Police protection? X
C) Schools? X
d) Parks? X
e) Roads and other transportation infrastructure? X
Other pitblic facilities? X
Nine additional residences on this property are not likely to create significant impacts to public services. The
design of the units and the proposed access has been approved by the City Fire Department and will not impact
available public services to the site or adjacent residents.
CONCLUSION: Less than significant.
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?
Nine additional residences on this property are not likely to create significant impacts to recreation services in the
City. The project includes individual yards, decks and common open spaces with scenic views and amenities to
be shared by tenants. Final approval of the new lots will also be subject to impact fees designed to support park
acquisition(Quimby fees).
CONCLUSION: Less than significant,
15. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would theproject:
a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the 14 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)?
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 chane in air trafficpatterns?
The project will result in a total of nine single-family residential dwellings to be served by a single 16-foot wide
driveway that will intersect with Ella Street, an existing local street. The site contains sufficient space to allow it
to be designed to allow on-site parking for tenants, guests and an adequate tum around area. The Institute of
Trak Engineers Manual estimates that single-family homes generate an average of 10 vehicle trips per day. A
total of nine homes might generate 90 trips per day on average. Existing street systems are capable of handling
the additional trips. Furthermore, the site is within reasonable walking distance from access trails to the
downtown, parks, and transit services. The City's Transportation Division has reviewed the project and
determined that the existing road system is adequate to accommodate the project.
am CRY OF SAN Luis Osispo 14 1NmAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CmcmusT 2M
4,40
Attachment 7
Issues, Discussion and Suppon (formation Sources sources Po, :y Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER #129-05 Issues Unless Impact
1063 Ella Street MitigationIncorporated
CONCLUSION: Less than significant.
16.UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the miect:
a) .Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable X
Regional Water Quality Control Board?
b) Require or result in theconstructionor expansion of new.water X
treatment,wasterwater treatment,or storm drainage facilities,
the.construction of which could cause significant environmental
effects?
c) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve 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,mayserve the project that it has adequate
capacity to serve the,project'_•projected;demand and addition to,
the provider's existing commitment?
e) Be served by a landfill with sufficientpermitted capacity to X
accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? °
�f), .Comply with federal,state,and local statutes and regulations, X
- >related iosolid waste?
At this time, the City can supply water to the proposed additional residences without significant impacts or
without exceeding existing water resources. A water allocation is required, due to the additional demand on the
City's water supplies. The City currently has water to allocate, and does so on a"first-come, first-served" basis.
Water is allocated at the time building permits are issued and the Water Impact Fee is paid. The new residences
are not likely to create significant impacts to available City Utilities and Service Systems.
CONCLUSION: Less than significant.
17.MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a) Does the piodect have the potential to degrade the quality,.of the X
�Ft' 'envir6hment,��.ubstanhally redu1 .ce the habitat of.a fish or wildlife.
s species;cause a.fish or wildlife populati%on to drop below:sel£ °
.-sustaining;Ievels;threaten'to eliminate a plain of arirmal
community,Eeduceafie number or restrict th'e'iange of a.rare or
endangered"plant or.animid or eliminate important ezaritples:of,
the major kdods of California histo or tehistor `h .
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 ace considerable
when viewed'in connection with the effects of the past projects,
the effects of other-curgent projects,and theeffects of probable '
future rojects
N/A
c) Does the pzoject have environmental effects-'Which will ca tai . X
substantial adverse effects on human beings either directly or
-
indirectly? `
N/A
CrrY OF SAN Luts OBWO 15
INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
2006
q-4
Attachment 7
Issues, Discussion and Supportil._ .iormation Sources sources Pote. Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER # 129-05 Issues Unless Impact
Mruganon
1063 Ella Street
Incorporated
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) Impactsadequately 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.
19. SOURCE REFERENCES.
1. Community Design Guidelines,May 2003
2. Website of the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency:
httpJ/www.c nsrv.caov/d /FMMP/
3. CEQA Air Quality handbook
4. City of SLO General Plan Open Space Element
5. City Land Use Inventory GIS
6. City of SLO Historic Resource Preservation Guidelines,on file in the Community Development Department
7. City of San Luis Obispo,Archaeological Resource Preservation Guidelines,on file in the Community
Development Department
8. City of San Luis Obispo,Historic Site Ma
9. City of San Luis Obispo Burial Sensitivity Map
10. City of SLO General Plan Energy Conservation Element,April 1981
11. San Luis Obispo Quadrangle Map,prepared by the State Geologist in compliance with the Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake It Zoning Act,effective January 1, 1990
12. City of SLO General Plan Safety Element,July 2000
13. SLO County ort Land Use Plan
14. Institute of Traffic Engineers Manual
15. Flood Insurance Rate Ma (Community Panel 0603100005 C)dated July 7, 1981
16. Citv of SLO General Plan Land Use Element,December 2004
17. City of SLO General Plan Noise Element&Guidebook
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.
Attachments:
1. Project Vicinity Map
CRY OF SAN Luis OBISPO 16 INmAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2006
1
q' 1c!�_
Attqrhmpnt
Issues, Discussion and Supporta ,iformation Sources sources pote ~ ' Potentially Less Than No 7
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER # 129 05 Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
1063 Ella Street Incorporated
1. Project Vicinity Map
2. Historic evaluation prepared by Andrew Merriam
3. Proposed development plan
REQUIRED MITIGATION AND MONITORING PROGRAMS
Air Quality
1. The project shall be conditioned to comply with all applicable District regulations pertaining to the control of
fugitive dust(PM-10)as contained in section 6.4 of the Air Quality Handbook. All site grading and demolition
plans notes shall list the following regulations:
a. All material excavated or graded shall be sufficiently watered to prevent excessive amounts of dust..
Watering shall occur at least twice daily with complete coverage, preferably in the late morning and after
work is finished for the day.
b. All clearing, grading,earth moving, or excavation activities shall cease during periods of high winds(i.e.
greater than 20 mph averaged over one hour) so as to prevent excessive amounts of dust.
c. All material transported off-site shall be either sufficiently watered or securely covered to prevent
excessive amounts of dust.
d. The area disturbed by clearing,grading,earth moving, or excavation operations shall be minimized so as
to prevent excessive amounts of dust.
e. Permanent dust control measured identified in the approved project revegetation and landscape plans
shall be implemented as soon as possible following completion of any soil disturbing activities.
f. Exposed ground areas that are planned to be reworked at dates greater than one month after initial
grading shall be sown with fast-germinating native grass seed and watered until vegetation becomes
established.
g. All disturbed areas not subject to revegetation shall be stabilized using,jute netting,or other methods
approved in advance by the APCD.
h. All roadways, driveways, sidewalks, etc.to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible. In addition,
structural foundations shall be completed as soon as possible following building pad construction.
I. On-site vehicle speed shall be limited to 5 mph for any unpaved surface.
j. All unpaved areas with vehicle traffic shall be watered at least twice per day,using non-potable water.
k. Streets adjacent to the project site shall be swept daily to remove silt,which may have accumulated from
construction activities so as to prevent excessive amounts of dust from leaving the site.
• Monitoring Program:
Plans submitted for construction shall include a cover page with clear notes illustrating the mitigation
measures. The notes shall also be included on any separate grading plans. All contractors and sub-
contractors shall be informed of the requirements by the general contractor. The City will monitor
construction activities on an ongoing basis as well as respond to complaints from the neighborhood. If dust,
or other air pollution factors exceed the anticipated limitations, construction work will be stopped by the
City until the situation can be corrected.
CITY OF SAN LUIS-0stspo 17 INITIAL STuOY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2006
43
--' Attachment 8
RESOLUTION NO.####-06
A RESOLUTION OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO CITY COUNCIL
APPROVING A CONDOMINIUM TRACT MAP FOR 9 RESIDENTIAL UNITS FOR
PROPERTY AT 1063 ELLA STREET
TR/ER 129-05
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
April 26, 2006 pursuant to an application filed by Brian Rolph, applicant, and recommended
approval of the subdivision map to the City Council; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo has considered testimony of
the applicant, interested parties, and evaluation and recommendations by staff; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the draft Mitigated Negative Declaration of
environmental impact as prepared by staff,
BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of San Luis Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. Findings.
1. The design of the tentative tract map is consistent with the General Plan because the
proposed subdivision respects existing site constraints, will incrementally add to the City's
residential housing inventory, will result in condominium units that meet subdivision
standards, and will be consistent with the development potential anticipated within the
Medium Density Residential District.
2. The site is physically suited for the proposed type of development allowed in the R-2 zone
since the site is sloped less than 16%, surrounded by existing high density residential
development and close to parks, transit services and trail linkages to the downtown.
3. The design of the subdivision will not conflict with easements for access through (or use of
property within) the proposed subdivision.
5. A Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared by the Community Development Department
on April 14, 2006. The Council finds and determines that the project's Mitigated Negative
Declaration adequately addresses the potential significant environmental impacts of the
proposed project.
SECTION 2. Action.
The Council hereby approves the Tentative Tract Map for 9 residential units and adopts the
Mitigated Negative Declaration (TR/ER 129-05), with incorporation of the following project
mitigation measures and conditions:
'44
Resolution No.####-06 1 ' Attachment 8
1063 ELLA ST. 129-05
Page 2
Mitigation Measures:
1.The project shall be conditioned to comply with all applicable District regulations pertaining to
the control of fugitive dust(PM-10) as contained in section 6.4 of the Air Quality Handbook. All
site grading and demolition plans notes shall list the following regulations:
a. All material excavated or graded shall be sufficiently watered to prevent excessive
amounts of dust. Watering shall occur at least twice daily with complete coverage,
preferably in the late morning and after work is finished for the day.
b. All clearing, grading, earth moving, or excavation activities shall cease during periods of
high winds (i.e. greater than 20 mph averaged over one hour) so as to prevent excessive
amounts of dust.
c. All material transported off-site shall be either sufficiently watered or securely covered to
prevent excessive amounts of dust.
d. The area disturbed by clearing, grading, earth moving, or excavation operations shall be
minimized so as to prevent excessive amounts of dust.
e. Permanent dust control measured identified in the approved project revegetation and
landscape plans shall be implemented as soon as possible following completion of any soil
disturbing activities.
f. Exposed ground areas that are planned to be reworked at dates greater than one month
after initial grading shall be sown with fast-germinating native grass seed and watered until
vegetation becomes established.
g. All disturbed areas not subject to revegetation shall be stabilized using,jute netting, or
other methods approved in advance by the APCD.
h. All roadways, driveways, sidewalks, etc. to be paved shall be completed as soon as
possible. In addition, structural foundations shall be completed as soon as possible
following building pad construction.
i. On-site vehicle speed shall be limited to 5 mph for any unpaved surface.
j. All unpaved areas with vehicle traffic shall be watered at least twice per day, using non-
potable water.
k. Streets adjacent to the project site shall be swept daily to remove silt, which may have
accumulated from construction activities so as to prevent excessive amounts of dust from
leaving the site.
Monitoring Program:
Plans submitted for construction shall include a cover page with clear notes illustrating the
mitigation measures. The notes shall also be included on any separate grading plans. All
contractors and sub-contractors shall be informed of the requirements by the general
contractor. The City will monitor construction activities on an ongoing basis as well as
respond to complaints from the neighborhood. If dust, or other air pollution factors exceed
the anticipated limitations, construction work will be stopped by the City until the situation
can be corrected.
n
Resolution No.####-06 Attachment 8
1063 ELLA ST. 129-05
Page 3
Conditions:
1. All project conditions associated with the architectural approval of the project as
approved by the Architectural Review Commission on February 6, 2006 shall be
incorporated herein as conditions of approval.
2. An affordable housing agreement consistent with the draft affordable housing proposal,
shall be submitted for review and approval of the Community Development Director
prior to proceeding to the City Council.
3. The final map shall indicate common and private open space yards and the CC&R's shall
describe maintenance of all common areas.
4. Storage facilities, independent of kitchen cabinets and household closets, shall be
supplied for each unit, to the approval of the Community Development Director.
5. The applicant shall pay Park In-Lieu Fees prior to recordation of the Final Map,
consistent with SLO Municipal Code Section 16.40.080.
6. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66474.9(b), the subdivider shall defend, indemnify
and hold harmless the City and/or its agents, officers and employees from any claim,
action or proceeding against the City and/or its agents, officers or employees to attack, set
aside, void or annul, the approval by the City of this subdivision, and all actions relating
thereto, including but not limited to environmental review.
Code Requirements:
The following code requirements are included for information purposes only. They serve to give
the applicant a general idea of other City requirements that will apply to the project. This isnot
intended to be an exhaustive list as other requirements may be identified during the plan check
process.
Public Right-of-way
L The subdivider shall dedicate a 2m wide public utility easement and.a 3m wide street tree
easement across the frontage of the property. Said easement shall be adjacent to and
contiguous with all public right-of-way lines bordering the property.
2. The internal driveway and turnaround area curbs shall be panted red and properly signed
and stenciled as a"Fire Lane" per the Fire Department's "Developer's Guide in order to
prohibit parking in unauthorized areas and preventing access in case of emergencies.
Grading & Drainage
3. Provide a proposed storm water plan and hydrology calculations for site drainage
including proposed culverts and bridge crossing at street entry. The rate of runoff from
the site post development shall not significantly exceed (5-percent) that of
predevelopment for the 2, 10, 100 year 24hour storm. Analysis and design of stormwater�
Resolution No.####-06 �
Attachment 8
1063 ELLA ST. 129-05
Page 4
facilities shall be consistent with the City's Waterways Management Plan - Drainage
Design Manual.
4. In order to mitigate for a decrease in water quality, the stormwater runoff from all
improved areas of the development site,except rooftops, shall be treated in accordance
with the Best Management Practices published in the California Stormwater Quality
Association's Best Management Practice Handbook, January 2003.. For the purposes of
water quality design, all water quality BMPs shall be designed to treat runoff from a 25
mm/24=Hour storm event.
5. In order to mitigate for a decrease in water quality, the stormwater runoff from all
improved areas of the development site, except rooftops, shall be treated in accordance
with the Best Management Practices published in the California Stormwater Quality
Association's Best Management Practice Handbook, January 2003. For the purposes of
water quality design, all water quality BMPs shall be designed to treat runoff from a 25
mm/24-Hour storm event.
6. Prior to the approval of public improvement plans, the subdivider shall submit an updated
report based on the final design in accordance with the City's Waterways Management
Plan Drainage Design Manual
Water, Sewer & Utilities
7. The subdivider shall place underground, all existing overhead utilities along the public
street frontage(s), to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director and utility companies.
8. The existing_ sewer laterals stubbed to the property shall be properly abandoned at the public
main. The sewer lines in the public right-of-way shall be parallel or perpendicular to the
street centerline. The minimum slope for any public sewer is 0.005. The water service
configuration appears adequate, however it is suggested that the ten meters be configured in
manifolds of 4, 3, and 3 meters each, with the landscape meter being the fourth meter on
one of the manifolds.
Resolution No.####-06 J Attachment 8
1063 ELLA ST. 129-05
Page 5
On motion of seconded by and on
the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this day of 2006.
Mayor David F. Romero
ATTEST:
Audrey Hooper, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
—C
Jon anLowell, City Attorney
G`.\Pdunsmore\Subdivisions\TR 129-05(1063 EOa)\PC Reso TR-ER 129-05.doc