The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About07/18/2006, PH3 - TENTATIVE TRACT MAP PROPOSAL FOR A 9-UNIT CONDOMINIUM DEVELOPMENT (2932 AUGUSTA, TR/ER 159-05). Council j agenda izepoizt ,tmN�. CITY O F SAN LUIS OBISPO FROM: John Mandeville,Community Development Direct Prepared By: Philip Dunmore, Associate Planner yy SUBJECT: TENTATIVE TRACT MAP PROPOSAL FOR A 9-UNIT CONDOMINIUM DEVELOPMENT (2932 AUGUSTA,TR/ER 159-05). CAO RECOMMENDATION As recommended by the Planning Commission, adopt a resolution approving a tentative tract map and Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impact for a 9-unit condominium development located at 2932 Augusta Street (TR/ER 159-05). DISCUSSION Situation/Previous Review The City has received an application to construct a new condominium project at 2932 Augusta Street at the site of an existing facility owned and operated by Congregation Beth David. The applicant intends to demolish the existing improvements on the site in order to construct the new 9-unit residential condominium project and site improvements. The Architectural Review Commission (ARC) originally approved the project design on March 6, 2006. On March 22, 2006, the Planning Commission (PC) reviewed the proposed project and unanimously recommended approval of the subdivision map and environmental document to the City Council (Attachments 3, 4, and 5). However, following the PC hearing, the site plan was revised (in a mirror image) to respond to an emergency access easement serving Judson Terrace. Staff forwarded the revised site plan to the ARC to review the changes and the ARC granted final approval to the revised project on June 5, 2006 (Attachment 6). 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. Now, the applicants are seeking final approval of the tentative subdivision map by the City Council. Data-Summary Address: 2932 Augusta Street Applicant/Representative: Steno-Wolf Associates Zoning: R-4 (High-Density Residential Zone) General Plan: High-Density Residential Environmental Status: 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 7).. 3 - f 1 i Council Agenda Report TR 159-05 (2932 Augusta) Page 2 Site.Description The long, narrow 0.48-acre project site is located on the north side of Augusta Street between Laurel Lane and a City Park known as Johnson Park. The existing property contains a religious facility owned and operated by Congregation Beth David. Adjacent properties to the east and west and to the south across the street are developed with multi-family residential apartment units. Proiect Description The project includes the demolition of existing structures associated with a religious facility and construction of a new 9-unit condominium project. The project includes seven 2-bedroom units and two 3-bedroom units. Each unit is designed with a small private rear yard and private, upper level decks. A common open space area is provided at the rear of the site. A single 20-foot wide driveway provides access on the west side of the site. Garbage collection will be accommodated via a common trash enclosure that will be designed near the front of the site. Parking for units is provided by enclosed garages, each containing two spaces. Four unenclosed guest parking spaces, three at the rear and one in the middle, are also provided. The design of the project is indicative of a Mission/Spanish theme, with concrete, clay-colored, tile roofs with exposed rafter tails, smooth off-white plaster finish, and false window shutters. The project includes removal of several eucalyptus trees adjacent to the east property line and several pepper trees adjacent to the west property line. 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 5). 1. General Plan The site's High-Density Residential land use designation is designed for multi-family developments with compact outdoor spaces. Adjacent properties throughout this neighborhood are developed with similar high-density residential developments. 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 mixture 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. Council Agenda Report - TR 159-05 (2932 Augusta) Page 3 2. Compliance with R-4 Zone Development Standards As proposed, the project complies with R-4 property development standards including parking, height, lot coverage, and other yard setbacks. No exceptions are requested and the project meets density standards as anticipated for the high-density residential district. 3. Subdivision Regulations The project is proposed to be developed as an airspace condominium. Each unit will be eligible for private ownership while the driveway and other common areas would be commonly owned and managed by a homeowners association. 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 5) 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 7. 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. Next Steps Tract maps are a two-step process made up of a tentative map and a final map. The applicant must satisfactorily complete all conditions of the tentative map before City consideration of the final map. Final maps are brought back to the Council for action on the Consent Calendar. 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 and design 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 Council Agenda Report TR 159-05 (2932 Augusta) Page 4 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: Planning Commission Resolution Attachment 4: Planning Commission meeting minutes Attachment 5: Planning Commission staff report Attachment 6: ARC approval letter 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:\CD-PLAN\Pdunsmore\Subdivisions\TR 159-05(2932 Augusta)\TR and ER 159-05 Council Report.doc i mmw xs°""°M ONUB vo vo an era Baa va mr ##aaaa e Attachment 2 93HOH NMOLyienJttV 3 i i zz:g3� •, � � � o $ t e ¢ a lip Wg8� x sii5Hgs:8 $ 8 sssssu. ' I CQ �iysuirs k1 0 Pi##53=i8 L 1 _ CQ $ 1 t ®� i; L� Ili ,,,,III IIIb.. I. 0©.IEf EMN: '� I�� IIL, �� , III i2 622229221:2222222122 2 2222 2Ea29: -------------c I m vu ..:. Iram■ .-. ■IIIIIIIitI1111L� 26i` E/ 11►Rr"":IIIIIIIIIm r7►Ot HN �4 llll�� '-i''_i'. �I 11� ' ■�� -yam '- ■ ' - ,f� � ■ � .,so _ ��,� �1� a • • '0' . 1> log LINME ►" oil ��■c;:7ulnuna; i�i►za711unliu � c�►_r �• mow' ■I:;:71G�IIIII►\ei !1►.t l:"I"IIIIIIIII�' C7►5 ' Culp �.. -- a , ; ■ ■ �, �■lp�w�� .�• .... .� �Jl=eft fie lti.. • , -- _ -- i■�r a-- ................... eeEeeS":rte - �wQww�rlrr � - ■�� ■�� I_11 /-1 Imo► ON NMOlv.Lanonv • _I 71 -PIH __ \ 1, I ,I i, Ila� — -•\,! :iii•� ' � '�,_- � tt' +� 1i:9I \�� I 1=_..--1 , iii •• u +J iiC'" is CLEI, � 1 - z gill. ._j n�,� � 4zi i iy+ '•_ ,_ ,, ioI•,"! � _�I ',`•"''" a —11I111 � xil Mn ,;1�,:; fj'�' I•.'.�,Ii�� r11:.'�?ISI - 1 p C _ IIIIIIII # _q - Li» �� I 1 / f 3.: JI1 —m VIII .e¢ r�� I._:;• _� - 7 •IV, ' ) 111111 ' Attachment 2 a ^ u1i a � nµ m I d • �--�=— __ it� Ail I �fl L..,_ 16 I xE oFr 'I 0 O ; I ri ^= \\ R zo AIN r -' < o 3 �+ I°I �� r 2\ '•`� � � �--� � � I III \`. E"1 I ? 5� s` I ° L 3� L�HtI !• - lI��II04 I lei !, � I I 3 " >.. — I, _ a tr I `• gR A:n a E A1 slyi e� 5s IyE , $8 _ _ a� r', � a g Q �a3• a i33tu v1s n .r: to Q keg e 1 Attachment 2 I 7• p 'i,s } I , J^ i 1f 47 E } fig• e� i I (� Y 3 �o O � � Ia Ell r-- 0 s w ' y — s J' _ _ 1a3x ULSsq n_v s Attachmgnf 2 ��•.-�_ usld ednspuvl loWeauco aewyv.+mm� e18 N90o0 ata avwn�a va'�mo mn ws M .WftN SBE SMOMM01 V1Snorri/ S a if 9 e e 4 i a 00 ; le a3E 2i Efl gig a , 5 3' � 6-------------- jjj if u di % 3d Jim g jp3 7Yd i3 $p.5 g gggg3 a9 ~ gas �•9i5m j$�3qg 3y$ge� IMM, F 5.1 F H AM:13F � fl81 $$if 38g1I q e. U �2 ?q -- 4G9Yb lugs E3s4:YF mT EE511A � s V 0 16 ' F p $ m l { � a ° -- Ht { B -------------- m k �Ig ------------- ° i Attachment 3 RESOLUTION NO.5447-06 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 2932 AUGUSTA STREET TR/ER 159-05 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 March 22, 2006 pursuant to an application filed by Steno-Wolf Associates, 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 density standards, and will be consistent with the density and development limits established by the High Density Residential District. 2. The site is physically suited for the proposed type of development allowed in the R-4 zones since the site is generally flat, surrounded by existing high density residential development and close to parks, schools and transit services. 3. The design of the subdivision will not conflict with easements for access through (or use of property within)the proposed subdivision. 4. A Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared by the Community Development Department on March 15, 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 159-05), with incorporation of the following project mitigation measures and conditions: 34D, Attachment 3 Resolution No.5447-05 2932 Augusta 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, constniction work will be stopped by the City until the situation can be corrected. 3--t 3 Attachment 3 Resolution No.5447-05 2932 Augusta Page 3 SECTION 3. Conditions. 1. All project conditions associated with the architectural approval of the project as approved by the Architectural Review Commission on March 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 applicant shall pay Park In-Lieu Fees prior to recordation of the Final Map, consistent with SLO Municipal Code Section 16.40.080. 4. 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. Conditions and code requirements from other departments: 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 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 Attachment 3 Resolution No.5447-05 2932 Augusta Page 4 Management Practice Handbook,January 2003. For the purposes of water quality design, all water quality BMPs shall be designed to treat runoff from a25 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. On motion by Commissioner Miller, seconded by Commissioner McCoy, and on the following roll call vote: AYES: Commrs. McCoy, Brown, Miller, Osborne, Carter, and Christianson NOES: None REFRAIN: None ABSENT: Commr.Loh The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 22 day of March, 2006. Pam Ricci, Se retary Planning Commission GAPdunsn=eSubdivisions\TR 159-05(2932 Augusta)\PC Reso TR-ER.159A5.doc Attachment 4 SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES March 22, 2006 OATH OF OFFICE: City Clerk Hooper administered the oath of office to newly- appointed Commissioner Peter Brown ROLL CALL: Present: Commissioners Carlyn Christianson, Peter Brown, Andrew Carter, Jason McCoy, Vice Chairperson Andrea Miller, and Chairperson Ovral Osborne Absent: Commissioner Alice Loh Staff: Interim Deputy Director Pam Ricci, Assistant City Attorney Christine Dietrick, Associate Planner Phil Dunsmore, and City Clerk Audrey Hooper ACCEPTANCE OF LAGENDA: Commissioners or staff may modify theorder of items. The agenda was accepted as written. MINUTES: Minutes of March 8, 2006. Approve or amend. Motion by Commr. Christianson to approve the minutes of March 8, 2006, as written. Seconded by Commr. Carter. AYES: Commrs. Brown, Carter, Christianson, McCoy, and Osborne NOES: None ABSENT: Commr. Loh ABSTAIN: Commr. Miller PUBLIC COMMENT: There were no comments made by the public. PUBLIC:HEARINGS: 1. 2932 Augusta. Street: TR and ER 159-05; Request to create 9 residential condominiums; R-4 zone; Steno-Wolf Associates, applicant. (Phi!Dunsmore) Associate Planner Phil Dunsmore presented the staff report recommending the Commission recommend that the City Council approve the condominium tract map and Mitigated Negative Declaration. Planning Commission Minutes Attachment 4 March 23, 2006 Page 2 PUBLIC COMMENTS: Garth Kornreich, 1135 Marsh Street, discussed the project design and layout, project security and safety, parking requirements, indoor storage space, and other components of the project. Louise Justice, 3000 Augusta, Judson Terrace Homes, explained that there is a fence and gate between the Beth David Temple and the Judson Terrace Homes property. She said her main concern is related to emergency vehicle access should that fence and gate be blocked. She also expressed concern regarding parking, traffic, view, light and noise impacts that will result from the condominium project. Francesca DeLorenzo, 3000 Augusta Street, #109, Judson Terrace Homes, expressed the same concerns, as well as concerns regarding the impact of construction on the health of senior citizens residing in the vicinity of the project. Peggy Durham, 3000 Augusta, #249, Judson Terrace Homes, concurred with the prior speakers. At the request.of Chairperson Osborne, Mr. Kornreich explained that he was not aware of emergency vehicle access through the Beth David Temple site. He clarified that while the site won't be made inaccessible by grading or retaining walls, most of the site along the common property line will be occupied as private backyards. COMMISSION COMMENTS: At the request of Commr. Brown, Mr. Dunsmore displayed an aerial photograph of the site and discussion ensued regarding the area in question. Staff was not aware of easements or agreements for emergency access through the Beth David Temple property. Commrs. Carter, McCoy, and Miller concurred that because no exceptions had been requested and there was no indication that an easement was recorded against the property, the Commission could not rule against the proposal. Commr. Miller explained why she thought it would be possible to create studio apartments in four of these units, which would increase the number of cars. Staff explained that there doesn't appear to be room for kitchenettes in the units, that changes in the Building Code require some living space on the ground floor of the units, and that CC&Rs will serve as an oversight and prevent this type of conversion from occurring. On _motion by Commr. Miller to recommend that the City Council approve the condominium tract map for nine residential units. Seconded by Commr. McCoy. In response to concerns raised regarding construction impacts, it was noted that 3 -�'! Attachment 4 Planning Commission Minutes March 23, 2006 Page 3 mitigation measures are in place that will address these impacts. In response to Chairperson Osborne, staff reviewed the parking. requirements and assured that they are being met. AYES: Commrs. Brown, Carter, Christianson, McCoy, Miller and Osborne NOES: None ABSENT: Commr. Loh ABSTAIN: None The motion carried on a 6:0 vote. 2. Staff A. Agenda Forecast Interim Deputy Director Pam Ricci presented an agenda forecast of upcoming projects. She also reported that the Conservation and Open Space Element will be considered by the City Council on April 4 and the General Plan Annual Report will be considered by Council on April 18. Ms. Ricci acknowledged that tonight is the last meeting for Commissioner Alice Loh, who has served on the Planning Commission for seven years and previously served on the Architectural Review Commission and Cultural Heritage Committee. It is also the last meeting for Chairperson Osborne, who has served on the Planning Commission for six years and on the Mass Transportation Committee for two years. Cornmrs. Miller, McCoy, Carter and Christianson voiced their appreciation to Commr. Loh and Chairperson Osborne. 3. Commission Comments Commr. Miller briefly discussed the composition of the Planning Commission with professional and non-professional planners, and said that she will no longer be a County planner as of April 3, 2006. ADJOURNMENT: With no further business before the Planning Commission, the meeting adjourned at 8:00 p.m. to the regular meeting of the Planning Commission scheduled for Wednesday, April 12, 2006, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street. Approved by Planning Commission: 4/22/06 Respectfully submitted by Audrey Hooper Diane R. Stuart, 1CM City Clerk Management Assistant 3 -cg Attachment 5 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMIS��S77ION AGENDA REPORT ITEM# 1 BY: Philip Dunsmore"Associate Planner(781-7522) MEETING DATE: March 22, 2006 FROM: Pamela Ricci, Interim Deputy Director- Development Review FILE NUMBER: TR/ER 159-05 PROJECT ADDRESS: 2932 Augusta Street SUBJECT: Review of a proposed tract map to allow a new 9-unit condominium subdivision on the north side of Augusta Street, west of Laurel Lane. 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 December 19, 2005, and granted final approval to the project on March 6, 2006, contingent upon approval of a tract map(Attachment 3). Data Summary Address: 2932 Augusta Street Applicant/Representative: Steno-Wolf Associates Zoning: R-4 (High-Density Residential Zone) General Plan: High-Density Residential Environmental Status: 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). Site Description The long, narrow 0.48-acre project site is located on the north side of Augusta Street between Laurel Lane and a City Park known as Johnson Park. The existing property contains a religious 3 - i1 -Attachment 5 TR/ER 159-05 (Citywide) Page 2 facility owned and operated by Congregation Beth David. Adjacent properties to the east and west and to the south across the street are developed with multi-family residential apartment units. Project Description The project includes the demolition of existing structures associated with a religious facility and construction of a new 9-unit condominium project. The project includes seven 2-bedroom units and two 3-bedroom units. Each unit is designed with a small private rear yard and private, upper level decks. A common open space area is provided at the rear of the site. A single 20-foot wide driveway provides access on the west side of the site. Garbage collection will be accommodated via a common trash enclosure that will be designed near the front of the site. Parking for units is provided by enclosed garages, each containing two spaces. Four unenclosed guest parking spaces, three at the rear and one in the middle, are also provided. The design of the project is indicative of a Mission/Spanish theme, with concrete, clay-colored, tile roofs with exposed rafter tails, smooth off-white plaster finish, and false window shutters. The project includes removal of several eucalyptus trees adjacent to the east property line and several pepper trees adjacent to the west property line. EVALUATION 1. General Plan The following paragraphs evaluate the proposed project for consistency with applicable General Plan Policies. General Plan Policy is in italics followed by staff's response. LU 2.4.8:High-Density Residential Development should be primarily attached dwellings in two- or three-story buildings, with common outdoor areas and very compact private outdoor spaces. Other uses which are supportive of and compatible with these dwellings, such as group housing, parks, schools, and churches, may be permitted. Such development is appropriate near the college campus, the downtown core, and major concentrations of employment. Staffs Analysis: The project site is designated as "High-Density Residential' on the General Plan Land Use Element (LUE) map. The project is consistent with the LU 2.4:8 since it proposes attached dwellings in a multi-story configuration with compact private outdoor spaces. LU 2.2.12:Residential Project Objectives Residential projects should provide: A)Privacy,for occupants and neighbors of the project; B) Adequate usable outdoor area, sheltered from noise and prevailing winds, and oriented to receive light and sunshine; 3 -ou Attachment 5 TR/ER 159-05 (Citywide) Page 3 C) Use of natural ventilation, sunlight, and shade to make indoor and outdoor spaces comfortable with minimum mechanical support, D) Pleasant views from and toward the project, E)Security and safety; F)Separate paths for vehicles and for people, and bike paths along collector streets; G)Adequate parking and storage space; I) Design elements that facilitate neighborhood interaction, such as front porches, front yards along streets, and entryways facing public walkways. Staffs Analysis: The site's narrow, deep lot makes it more difficult to design a project that easily complies with General Plan Policy LU 2.2.12. The required 20-foot wide driveway, parking requirements and the solar orientation of the property are constraints that affect the quality of the provided amenities. However, the project includes private yards and decks for each unit, and a reasonably sized common open space has been provided at the rear of the site. At the first ARC hearing, the project was introduced as a 10-unit project; however, in response to ARC comments the scale of the project was reduced to 9-units to enhance the size and quality of the common open space area. With this change, allowing for a functional and sensibly located common open space area, the project is in substantial compliance with the residential project objectives. General Plan HE Policy 7.2.1: "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." Staffs Analysis: The project site is surrounded by high density multi-family, multi-story apartments and condominiums. The height, mass, and density of the proposed project is very similar to adjacent development and complies with Housing Element Policy 7.2.1. 2. Subdivision Regulations The Tentative Tract Map will be subject to processing under the City's recently approved Subdivision Regulations, adopted by City Council on March 7, 2006. These new regulations will become effective on April 6, 2006. The soonest that the tentative tract map could be approved by City Council would be April 18, 2006. The new regulations are part of the City's Municipal Code and contains provisions for the development of new condominiums similar to the existing condominium development standards. Consistent with the General Plan and the Community Design Guidelines, these provisions 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 has been included as Attachment 4. In general, the regulations require 100 square feet of private open space and 100 3 - �-i Attachment 5 TR/ER 159-05 (Citywide) Page 4 square feet of common open space for each unit. Additionally the regulations require that projects in the R-4 zone have a combined total of at least four hundred square feet of both private and common open space per unit. Therefore, either the private or common open space must exceed the minimum 100 square feet for each unit. The regulations 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. Staff's Analysis: Private Open Space (100 s.f. per unit): The proposed project includes ample private open space yards for all units that exceed the minimum requirements. In total, including upper level decks, the project includes 2,258 square feet of private open space exceeding the 900 square foot minimum. Common Open Space (100 s.f. per unit): The proposed project.includes approximately 1,435 square feet of common open space and exceeds the 900 square foot minimum. Combined "Total' open space (400 s.f. per unit): The project includes a total of 3,693 square feet and is exceeds the total requirement (9 X 400=3,600). Recreation amenity: The project contains benches and a barbeque area with landscape treatment within an area that is approximately 400 square feet. The minimum recreation area is 360 square feet. Considering the scale of the project (only nine units) it is not expected to contain larger recreational facilities such as a pool or recreation room. The recreation space is adequate, and includes appropriate improvements 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. 3. Proaerty Develoament.Standards The project complies with the R-4 zone property development standards in terms of height, coverage, yards and density. Staff has reviewed page 1 of the applicant's site plan that provides site planning statistics and all aspects of the project are in compliance. No exceptions have been requested. Condominium projects are not subject to minimum lot sizes or dimensions. 5. Landscaping The landscape plan indicates removal of the existing eucalyptus trees and pepper trees adjacent to the east and west property lines. Existing Carrotwood trees adjacent to the west property line are proposed to remain. New trees for the west property line and street yard are indicated as Cajeput ( Attachrnent 5 TR/ER 159-05 (Citywide) Page 5 trees. The plan also includes a variety of trees, groundcover plants and shrubs, including fruit trees for the common areas. A narrow, 2-3 foot wide planter is proposed for the edge of the driveway at the west property boundary. No landscape is proposed for the private yards and it is assumed that each property owner would install their own landscape in the small private yard. Given the size and configuration of the site and required improvements, the landscape plan is appropriate. 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. RECOMMENDATION Adopt a resolution recommending approval of the condominium tract map and Mitigated Negative Declaration to the City Council. 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. ATTACHMENTS Attachment 1: Vicinity map Attachment 2: Reduced scale project plans Attachment 3: Draft ARC meeting minutes Attachment 4: Condominium standards from new Subdivision Regulations Attachment 5: Draft Initial Study of Environmental Review Attachment 6: Resolution recommending approval of the tract map to City Council Enclosed: Full-size project plans. G:\Pdunsmore\Subdivisions\TR 159-05(2932 Augusta)\TR 159-05 PC rpt(3-22-06).DOC v._a3 ��III��II �IIII�I � ��ll�lllll� III 21A"ent 6 apty of sAn lids OBISPO 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 June 6, 2006 Steno-Wolf Associates PO Box 5160 San Luis Obispo, CA 93403 SUBJECT: ARC 159-05:.2932 Augusta Street Review of a modified site plan for 9 residential condominiums Dear Steno-Wolf Associates: The Architectural Review Commission, at its meeting of June 5, 2006, granted final approval to your project, based on the following findings, and subject to the following conditions, and code requirements: Findings 1. The proposed project is consistent with the High-Density Residential General Plan map designation for this property since it proposes attached high density residential units with compact outdoor spaces. 2. The project is consistent with other residential buildings in the vicinity and provides for an above average design that will complement the neighborhood. The proposed scale and design of the buildings will be compatible to the site since they are similar in design and scale to existing buildings within the immediate vicinity. 3. As conditioned; the project is consistent with the Community Design Guidelines policies for high density residential development as discussed in the December 19, 2005 staff report. The re-design of the site plan is consistent with the intent of the approval granted on March 6, 2006 and furthers the intent of the Guidelines. 4. The location of the trash enclosure is appropriate given the configuration of the property; the high density character of the neighborhood, and the quality design of the enclosure. 5. As further discussed in the initial study of environmental review prepared for the tract map portion of the project, the development of this site will have less than significant impacts when developed in accordance with prescribed mitigation measures (ER 159-05). Conditions 1. The Community Development Department shall have the authority to approve minor changes to the project that (1) result in a superior site design and appearance, and/or (2) address a construction design issue or building code discrepancy that is not substantive to the Architectural Review approval. 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 6 ARC159-05 Page 2 2. All ducts, meters, air conditioning equipment and all other mechanical equipment, whether on the ground, on the structure or elsewhere, shall be screened from public view with materials architecturally compatible with the main structure. Public view includes the existing views from all public streets and sidewalks. Gas and electric meters, electric transformers, and large water piping systems (backflow prevention devices) shall be completely screened from public view with approved architectural features and/or landscape plantings and/or placed on the interior of the structure. 3. The accent color and garage door color shall be changed to a lighter tone such as buckskin. Final color shall be approved by the Community Development Department. 4. Backflow prevention devices, fire department connections or other similar devices that are not shown on the plans approved by the Architectural Review Commission shall be approved by the Planning Department prior to placement on the site. If located within the street yard, such devices shall be screened by landscape walls or landscape shrubs and painted a flat green color. 5. A complete landscape plan shall be submitted with the construction drawings for review and approval by the Community Development Department. The landscape plan shall be prepared by a qualified professional. The landscape plan should identify street trees and shall identify landscape shrubs, trees and groundcover plants for all areas not developed with hardscape. The landscape plan shall include an irrigation plan (drip irrigation) for all proposed landscape areas). The following changes shall be implemented into the landscape plan along with the building permit application: a. Species for all trees, shrubs and groundcover plants shall be indicated on the plan and shall include quantity and nursery stock size. A key to identifying the location of each species shall be included. b. Street trees shall be planted with a maximum spacing of 35 feet on center. Additional street trees and shrubs shall be added to compensate for plantings that are displaced by the proposed trash enclosure. 6. A blend of concrete roof tiles shall be utilized for the units. 7. The rafter tails shall be designed with sufficient reveal to be visible following the installation of rain gutters (6 to 8 inch minimum rafter). The rain gutters should be recessed into the rafter tails. 8. The final design of the trash enclosure shall be approved by the City Utilities Department and the San Luis Obispo Garbage Company. Planning staff shall review the exterior appearance of the enclosure to ensure appropriate use of materials that complement the design of the residential units. The enclosure shall be designed (and located) so that the doors do not encroach into the public right of way. The roof of the enclosure shall consist of a trellis feature with landscape vines. The height of the enclosure shall be the lowest height possible to allow for access and functionality (7-foot interior height). The design of the doors shall be a high quality design with hardware of a decorative motif. -3 - ?T' Attachment 6 ARC15"5 Page 3 9. The design of the deck adjacent to unit 9 at the east property line shall be adjusted to not cover the existing storm drain and swale adjacent to the east property line. 10. Consider a lighter stain color for the garage doors of Unit A. 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. Transportation 1. Decorative paving and fire lane markings shall be shown within the driveway to clearly identify the 20 foot wide fire lane and 24 foot drive aisle. As currently shown, the western side of the driveway which is to be used as backup for vehicles exiting the project garages could be misinterpreted as a parallel parking area. 2. The project's CC&R's shall include language requiring vehicles to park in designated spaces and prohibiting parking within the project's drive aisles. 3. The City will not permit the pickup of individual waste wheelers at the street due to the impact it would have on pedestrian and vehicle circulation on pick up days. 4. Required bicycle parking has not been addressed. Show the design and location of all required short-term and long-term bicycle parking per M.C. Section 17.16, Table 6.5, and in accordance with standards contained in the 2002 Bicycle Transportation Plan update and 2002 Community Design Guidelines. Show all dimensions and clearances to obstructions per city standard. The project summary shall include the required and proposed bicycle parking accordingly. a. Short-term bicycle parking may be either the inverted "U"or"Peak Rack" design. b. Long-term bicycle parking may consist of lockers or interior space within each dwelling or garage. Interior space shall be at ground level (no lifting of bicycles needed) and shall be labeled and reserved for bicycle storage. Utilities 5. If a hydrant is required on-site, it must have a separate connection to the public water main in Augusta and a USC approved backflow preventer. The domestic water services cannot be served from a private fire hydrant lateral. 6. All on-site water and sewer facilities shall be privately owned and maintained. The water meters shall be located behind the curb in the public right-of-way, in accordance with City standards. Each unit is required to have a separate water meter. 7. Please refer to Municipal Code Section 13.20 for landscape irrigation requirements. The irrigation systems for common areas, parks, detention basins, and other large landscape - -- Attachment 6 ARC159-05 Page 4 areas shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the standards for reclaimed water use. If reclaimed water is not yet available, the system shall be designed and constructed to reclaimed water standards, and temporarily connected to the City's potable water system in the area of the anticipated connection to the reclaimed water system. Appropriate backflow protection shall be installed with this connection to the satisfaction of the County Cross Connection Inspector, Henry Ruiz, who can be reached at 781-5567. 8. The irrigation plans shall include standard notes regarding construction and the use of recycled water. The City's Water Reuse Coordinator can provide the standard notes and help with issues regarding the design of the system and use of recycled water. The City's Water Reuse Coordinator, Katie DiSimone, can be reached at 781-7239. 9. By ordinance, the applicant is required to prepare a recycling plan for approval by the City to address the recycling of construction waste for projects valued at over $50,000 or demolition of structures over 1000 square feet. The recycling plan shall be submitted to the Building Department with the building plans. The City's Solid Waste Coordinator can provide some guidance in the preparation of an appropriate recycling plan. 10. San Luis Garbage Company (SLG) shall approve the solid waste collection plan, in writing, for the project. The applicant has the option to provide a centralized solid waste collection area. If such an area is utilized, it must be a double wide enclosure to provide for both trash and recycling collection and must be noted on the plans. For more information or assistance, contact San Luis Garbage Company at 543-0875 or Ron Munds at 781-7258. Building 11. At least one condominium unit must satisfy the disabled access regulations that became effective on July 1, 2007. See CBC Section 1105A.2. Fire Department 12. Provide hammerhead tum-around per City specs or provide NFPA 13 fire sprinkler system. 13. Address Numbers-Approved address numbers shall be placed on all new buildings in such a position to be plainly visible and legible from the street fronting the property. Numbers shall be a minimum of 5° high x 1/2" stroke and be on a contrasting background. 14. Provide an approved fire hydrant within 225' of the building. 15. Portable fire extinguishers, rated 2A, 10 BC, shall be mounted within 75'of travel and at each exit. Public Works 16. Traffic impact fees shall be paid for this development prior to building permit issuance. Credit for removal of the existing buildings will be applied based on the use of the existing development 17. An encroachment permit will be required from the Public Works Department.for any work or construction staging in the public right-of-way. Attachment 6 ARC159-o5 - Page 5 18. A traffic control plan and/or pedestrian control plan shall be approved prior to encroachment permit issuance for work in the public right-of-way. The decision of the Commission is final unless appealed to the City Council within 10 days of the action. Any person aggrieved by the decision may file an appeal. Appeal forms are available in the City Clerk's office, or on the City's website (www.slocity.org). The fee for filing an appeal is $100.00, and must accompany the appeal documentation. While the City's water allocation regulations are in effect, the Architectural Review Commission's approval expires after three years if construction has not started, unless the Commission designated a different time period. On request, the Community Development Director may grant a single one-year extension. If you have questions, please contact Phil Dunsmore at 781-7522. Sincerely, -e_e.1 Pamela Ricci, AICP Senior Planner Community Development cc: County of SLO Assessor's Office Kornreich Architects 11.35 Marsh Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Beth David Congregation 2932 Augusta Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Attachment 7 ��I�Ilif�all�ill iaflli�lill — - _ Cl of511'1 WioBispo 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM ER 159-05 1. Project Title: Condominium Tract Map 2771 (TR/ER 159-05) 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 Dunmore (805) 781-7522 4. Project Location: 2932 Augusta Street(as shown on attachment 1, vicinity map) 5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Steno-Wolf Associates PO Box 5160 San Luis Obispo 93403 6. General Plan Designation: High Density Residential 7. Zoning: R-4 8. Description of the Project: The project includes the demolition of existing structures associated with a religious facility and construction of a new 9-unit condominium project. The project includes six 2- bedroom units and three 3-bedroom units. 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. A common open space area is provided at the rear of the site. A single 20-foot wide driveway provides access on the west side of the site. A large enclosure at the front of the site is designed to accommodate common trash and recycling bins. Parking for units is provided by enclosed garages,. each containing two spaces. Four unenclosed guest parking spaces, three at the rear and one in the middle, are also provided. The design of the project is indicative of a Mission/Spanish theme, with concrete, clay-colored, file roofs with exposed rafter tails, smooth off-white plaster finish, and false window shutters. 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. U �� Telecommunications Device for the Deaf(805)781-7410. Attachment 7 Project Entitlements Requested: Tract Map to allow a condominium development in the R-4 district (TR-159-05). 10. Surrounding Land Uses and Settings: The long, narrow 0.48-acre project site is located on the north side of Augusta Street between Laurel Lane and a City Park known as Johnson Park. The existing property contains a religious facility owned and operated by Congregation Beth David. The site is substantially covered with asphalt driveway, parking and existing improvements. Adjacent properties to the east and west and to the south across the street are developed with multi-family residential apartment units. 11. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g. permits, financing approval, or participation agreement): None. CITY OF SAN LUIS Ommo 2 INmAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2006 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 Geology/Soils Public Services Agricultural Resources Hazards&Hazardous Recreation Materials X Air Quality Hydrology/Water Quality Transportation&Traffic Biological Resources Land Use and Planning Utilities and Service S stems Cultural Resources Noise Mandatory Findings of Significance Energy and Mineral Population and Housing s y Resources FISH AND GAME FEES There is no evidence before the Department that the project will have.any potential adverse effects on fish X and wildlife resources or the habitat upon which the wildlife depends. As such, the project qualifies for a de minimis waiver with regards to the filing of Fish and Game Fees. The project has potential to impact fish and wildlife resources and shall be subject to the payment of Fish and Game fees pursuant to Section 711.4 of the California Fish and Game Code. This initial study has been circulated to the California Department of Fish and Game for review and comment. STATE CLEARINGHOUSE This environmental document must be submitted to the State Clearinghouse for review by one or more State agencies (e.g. Cal Trans; California Department of Fish and Game, Department of Housing and Community Development). The public review period shall not be less than 30 days (CEQA Guidelines 15073(a)). 3 3A Issues, Discussion and Supportir iformation Sources sources tore. j Poteptialiy Usi rhm No 7 Significant Significant Significant hapact ER# 159-05 Issues Unless Impact 2932 Augusta Mitigation 9 incorporated IDETERMINATION: 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 prcject, nothing further is required. i G March 15,2006 Signature Date Pamela Ricci Interim Deputy Director of Community Development For. John Mandeville,Community Development Director Printed Name Crry OF SAN Luis OwsPo 4 INmAL STuny ENVIRONMENTAL CHEC#WST 2006 3-3 a-. - Attachment 7 Issues, Discussion and Supportin,_.iformation Sources Sources Poten. :� Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact ER# 159-05 Issues unless Impact Mitigation Augusta incorporated ted Rm 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. CITY OF SAN Lots Osispo 5 INITUiL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2006 3 -33 Attachment 7 Issues, Discussion and Supportit.,, .nformation Sources Sources Pote, y Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact ER # 159-05 Issues Unless Impact IWngauon 2932 Augusta 9 Incorporated 1.AESTHETICS. Would theproject: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista)...-' ' X b) Substantially damage scenic resources,including,but not limited X to,trees,rock outcroppings;open space,and,historic buildings, within a local or state scenic-highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of 1 X the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would X adversely effect day or ni nime.views in the area?, _. , 1., - 7 The subject property is currently surrounded by urban uses and is not within a location that is considered a scenic vista. However, the project proposes multi-story units within close proximity to the rear yards of existing multi-family units, therefore potentially modifying the views and solar access of adjacent properties. However, the proposed height, scale, mass and density matches the General Plan and Zoning expectations for this high-density property. Furthermore, the new development will replace existing structures already on this site. 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: ,_) %Convert Pilule Farmland,Unique Farmland,or.I*mland.of 2 X Statewide Importance(Farmland),as shown ori the maps.': pursuant tote Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency,-to non-agricultural use?' 'b Conflict with exisung.zoning for agdculttual use ora ' X Williamson Act,contract? c), Involve otbec changes in the existing environment which;due to X tficir 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 igrij air quality standard or contribute substatitially to an X esistingorpr 'ected air quality violatidn? bZ Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable airy "' X Quality ? CrrY OF SAN Luis 081SPO 6 INmAL STUDY ENvIRONAmENTAL CHECKLIST 2006 - Attachment 7 Issues, Discussion and Supportir,, .oformation Sources sources Po . .y Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact ER # 159-05 Issues Unless Impact 2932 Augusta Mitigation o o�n, m 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 ozoneprecursors)? 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, CRY OF SAH LUIS Osispo 7 ImnAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKusT 2006 3 -3S Attachment 7 Issues, Discussion and Supportit,, ordormation Sources Sources Pote"_%y Potentially . Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact ER # 159-05 Issues Unless Impact 2932 Augusta ung��d 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 plans,policies,or regulations,or by the California Department of.Fish and Game or U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service? wb) Have a substantial adverse effect,on any riparian habitat or 4,5 X other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans,policies,,or.regulations;_or by the California Department of Fish and Game or'U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service) C) Conflict with any local policies_or ordinances protecting X fi , .biological resources,such Asa tree•preservation policy or oidtnance.(e.g.Heritage Trees)? d) Interfeie'subsiantially with the movement of any native resident X or ggratory fish orwildlife species or with established native resident brmigrafory wildlife corridors,or impede the use of '= Wildlife nursery.sites? Lam) ,.0iihici'with the'provisions of.an,adopted habitat Conservation X 'Plan,,Natural Community:Conservation Plan;or other approved,' j . local fegtonal,'or"state:habitat consery400n�pla i? have a substantial adverse effect on Federally protected X 'wetlands as defined in Section 404 of the Clean Water,Act (including,_but not limited to,marshes,verpal pools,etc.), through direct rernova,filling,tiydrological interruption,or 1 ether tRteaut'Sv 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 High 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 surrounding residential properties as a yard and recreation area 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. S.CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would theproject: a) Cause a�substantiai adverse change in the significance of a 6 X _ historic resource?(See CEQA Guidelines 15064.5 b) ' Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance 6f`an 7,8 X archeological resource?(See CEQA Guidelines 150¢4 5).; 'a Directly orindirectly destroya ue aleontoloj ical resource' X CrrY OF SAN Luis OBisPO 8 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECIO M 2006 3 - - Attachment 7 Issues, Discussion and Supporting .. formation Sources Sources –To—ten, -y Potentially less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact ER# 159-05 Issues Unless Impact Mitigation 2932 Augusta Incorporated orsite 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 may be affected by the proposed project. The existing structures on the property are not considered historic resources and were constructed between 1962 and 1971. CONCLUSION: Less than signiAcant. 6. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the miect: �.. ____ --__ _ a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? w 10 X Use non-renewable resources In�a wasteful and inefficiegt: X manner? cj "Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource X t that would,be of value to-the,region:and the residents of<the 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 mineral resources exist within the project vicinity. CONCLUSION: Less than signifcant. 7. GEOLOGY AND SOME Would theproject: a)' Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects,including risk of loss,injury or death involving: L Rupture of a known earthquake fault,as delineated in the 11 X " most recent Mquist-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? k 12 X M. Seismic related giound-failure,including liquefaction? . ,_ X J. IV. Landslides oimudflows7 X b) Result in substantial soil erosion or.the loss'ofiopsoiM'- X c} 'Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable,oc that . X would become unstable as a result of the project„atld pq'tendally; H: res tin odor off site landslides lateral s ceadi ' subsidance CRY OF SAN tuts OetsPo 9 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2006 3 - 1 Attachment 7 Issues, Discussion and Supporting (formation Sources sources Potm.. Potentially teas Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact ER# 159-05 Issues Unless hnpact 2932 Augusta Mitigation o porated liquefaction or collapse? '- =v d) Be located on expansive soil,as deftned n Table.l8 1-B of the X Uniform Building Ccde,(1994),creating substantial risks to life`> of r0 ert ? The site is developed with an existing religious facility, a driveway and a small parking area. One of the structures on the site will be demolished to accommodate this project, however site grading is not anticipated to significantly alter the existing landform. 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. Sols Stability Although a soils study has not been prepared for this site, soils studies prepared for immediately adjacent properties have been evaluated by staff. The primary concerns at adjacent properties were "the potential for different settlement, the potential for subsurface water, and the expansive soil condition." The study concluded that the sites were suitable, from a geotechnical standpoint, for the proposed project and provided recommendations to insure long-term soils stability. The City's construction permit process already requires a site specific soils report to be prepared for this project in order to identify appropriate construction techniques, therefore mitigation measures are not necessary. CONCLUSION:Less than significant 8. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the ro'ect: a); Creme a significant hazard'to the putilic or the.:egv�romnent X P�: thotrgh'the routine use,transport or:dispo�al of hazardous°R r niatenals? : F o. �:- =r - " b) Create a sigwficant_hazard-to the public of the environment X through reasoriably.foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into•the 'environment?. q) Emk hazardous emissio tis or handle hazardous or acutely X hazardous materials,substances,or waste v+itlun one-quarter uu7e of an existing or proposed school? :'d5';- Expose people or structures to existing sources of hazardous X �_,emissions or hazardous or acutely Hazardous matetxals, '. substances,or waste? e).: Be towed on a site which is included on a tikof hazardous X ,!';materials:s4es compiledpurstiant to Government _W Section 65951.5 and,as a result,it would create a slgntficant hazard lo , tithe public or the environment? �1 l~ora pro ect locasteil wsthra an'attpod1afidba :plan, tr witlua .`u• 13 X `two miles of a irblic v+diild the ro'ect result in a safe CITY OF SAN LUIS OBtspo 10 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CNEcKLtsT 2006 Attachment 7 Issues, Discussion and Supporting information Sources sources PoteMJ. 'y Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact ER # 159-05 Issues Unless Impact 2932 Augusta Mitigation Incorporated hazard for the people residing or working in the project area? g) Impair implementation of,or physically interfere with,the X adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation• Plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of lose,injury, X or death,involving wildland fires,including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residents are intermixed with wifdlands? The project proposal does not involve the use of hazardous materials nor will it involve hazardous conditions. In order to accommodate new condominium traits 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 signiflcant. 9. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALM. Would the project. Ai Violate.agy water quality standards or waste discharge X requirements? -.Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere X `. substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be. "Y a net deficit in aquifer volume ora lowering•of,the local groundwater,table level(eg.The production raw of preexisting_ nearby wells would drop to a level-which woul&hot support '=;existing land,uses,for.which permits have been granted)?, c)'`Gieate or contribute runoff water,that would exceed the capacity s X t of existing of planned storm-watdr-drainage,systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted,runoff. d)Y Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or X area in a manner that would result in substantial erosion or s4tation onsite or offsite? e).'Substan6ally'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 4lWyear flood hazard area structures which X o would impede or,redirect flood flows? .. ` u �Y. h), Otherwise,substantially deale water qwait 1. X The existing project site slopes at approximately 10% towards Au to Street. The existing sloe convenient) 11 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INmAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CNEcKusT 2006 3 Attachment 7 Issues, Discussion and Supportin, .formation Sources Sources Potei. _ 1 Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant hnpact ER# 159-05 Issues Unless Impact Mitigation 2932 Augusta Incorporated 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 maps. 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 paved, the existing drainage pattern of the site will not be modified from the introduction of new impervious surfaces and new structures. Construction of the site will require the review of a grading and drainage plan that results in adequate site drainage. 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. 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 UBC and City Standards. On-site drainage impacts are anticipated to be less than significant. 10. LAND USE AND PLANNING- Would theproject: aj Conflict witif applicable land use plan,'polic y,:or;regulation of 16 }{ an agency, with,jurisdiction over the:project adopted f6r..ing,' P"of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? rb} Physically Aivide an established community? g e;} Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan of natural X �t .. conurnmit .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-4 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-4 district. Adjacent sites are also within the R-4 district and are already developed with high density apartments. 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"anacceppiable"noise° 17 g -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 groundbome X vibration or groundborne noise levels? For a project located within an airport land use°plan,or within ` X two miles of a public airport or public use airport;Avoirld the prqi6ct expose people residing or woWng in the ptpJiget.azea to CR12Y OF SAN LUIS OstsPo INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHEcn&T2006 4D Attachment 7 Issues, Discussion and Supporting information Sources Sources Potenno.�y Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact ER# 159-05 Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Augusta ornrr� 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: 'a) Induce substantial population growth in an'area eitherdirectly. X (for exanipleby .proposing new hanies or businesses) or indirectly,'(for examfte, :through .extension=:of:road?or other infrastructure)? ,h)-?Displace substantial,numbers of existing housing or'people X -necessitating . the construction of rePlacement .housing, s 3 elsewhere?, A total of 9 residential units will occupy the property in place of a religious facility. The project places needed additional housing in a location near schools, employment and parks. The project is proposed to be built to the maximum density as allowed within the R-4 district given required improvements. 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 Muse significant environmental impacts,in order to maintain acceptable service ratios,response times,or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Ptre�protec4on? X �..-° ,' £b) �Police proteeiton?- " ,4�� X �c),=Schools? - X d) ".Parks? _ X r. e) Roads and other transportation infrastructure?` X other viibritfacilities? 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-nse ofexisting neigh borhoo4*regional parks or,. X '� ': ilii►errecrgatiotialfacilitiesstieh'thatspbstat+taalphystcal .`: '`` dere ri'oration of thefacility would occur orbe accelerated? ' b 'Include rep 65atibnal-facilities orrequire'the construction or X 4 a expansion of recreational facilities,which'*ht have an adverse h al:effectniitheeriviionmerit? Nine additional residences on this property are not likely to create significant impacts to recreation services in the am CnY OF SAN LUIS OBlspo 13 INMAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 211116 3 - 4► ant 7 Issues, Discussion and Supportir,, .oformation Sources Sources Pote. _y Potentially [rssThan No Significant Significant Significant Impact ER# 159 05 Issues Unless Impact Mitigation 2932 Augusta omrte City. The project includes individual yards, decks and a common open space (pocket park) 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 change 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 Augusta Street, an existing local street. The site contains sufficient space to allow the site to be designed to allow on site parking for tenants, guests and an adequate turn around area. The Institute of Traffic 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 shopping, schools, 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. CONCLUSION: Less than significant. 16.UTLLrr ES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would theproject: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable X Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction or expansion of new water 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 the project X from existing entitlements and resources, or are new and expanded water resources needed? d) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider X which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand and addition to the provider's existing commitment? e) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to X accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? fZ _ Comply with federal,state,and local statutes and.regulations X Crry OF SAN LUIS Owspo 14 INmAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2006 3 - 4a- Attachment 7 Issues, Discussion and Supporting wformation Sources Sources Potenno. Potentially Less No y Significant Significant Significant Impact ER# 159-05 Issues Unless Impact Mitition 2932 Augusta Incorporated m related to solid waste? 777 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 signiftcant. 17.MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a) Does the project have the,potential to'degrade the quality of the X ,.environment,substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife.' ';'.;species;cause A fish"or wildlife population to.drop below self- sustaining leve,ls,,'thieaten to_eliminate a plant or animal `community,reduce•th 'iumber or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or.animal or eliminate important examples of the major eriQds_of California histo =qr, rehisto I i' N/A b ,.hoes the projeci%have,impacts:that are individually limited,b-, .r' X i =cumulatively considerable -('Cumulatively comiderabie', rte; rt" =ziieans:that the incremental effects of p projectare considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of the:past;projects a effects of other currentproleO and the effects of probable - N/A - rx ,-Does the project have environmental effects which will cause, X q);substanugl adverseffects on.humanbemgs ;eitl%erdirectly orm N/A 18.EARLIER ANALYSES. tier adaf sts ;" ,_ ._. y ;pray be used where, pursuant to rt a ttenttg •program EIIt, or other�EQATrocess, one or more effecns have abee n adequately anaLyud to an earlier,OR or 1`tegative Declaration iSectttim 5b63 �c) {3)fD) Itt this case a d'vscusston sfiou1d ttlen the followinitems r = aaSGer aural sis used. 3d`e_atif earlieranai ses and_` tam uvhere-the.-are avatlable-.for review. N/A It) 'Impac 9dequately addressed Ideafity which dfi6ts from the above checklist were within the scope O"d,adequately, t anal iti an.earpier docutiient pursuant to,applicable legal stYndards,and state w,iio r'such effects were addressed by t»t ., rHe" i ,: a. tl� atiotirmibastues basedon the earlier anal sis., .. '' n - f N/A r Mitigation measures For effects ihat are"I:ess than Signi6eant'with'Mitigadon_Incorporated,"'describe the mitigation. .-measutes which were incorporated-dr refined frnin the earlier docu_'ment and'die extent to Whidh.they`address site�pecific-. conditions of the project. s r ' Circ of SAN alts OsiSPo 15 INMAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CNECMST 2006 3 - 43 Attachment 7 Issues, Discussion and Supporting .,rformation Sources Sources poiet.. .Y potentially Liss-Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact ER# 159-05 Issues Unless Impact Mitigation 2932 Augusta Incorporated 19. SOURCE REFERENCES. I. Community Design Guidelines,May 2003 2. Website of the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency: httn://www.consrv.ca.gov/dlrp/FNIMP/ 3. CEQA Air Quality handbook 4. City of SLO General Plan Open Space Element 5. City Land Use Invento (GIS) 6. City of SLO Historic Resource Preservation Guidelines,on file in the Conummity Development Department 7. City of San Luis Obispo,Archaeological Resource Preservation Guidelines,on file in the Community Develo went Department 8. City of San Luis Obispo,Historic Site Ma 9. City of San Luis Obispo Burial Sensitivity Ma 10. City of SLO General Plan Energy Conservation Element,April 1981 ]I. San Luis Obispo Quadrangle Map,prepared by the State Geologist in compliance with the Alquist-Priolo Earth uake Fault Zoning Act,effective January 1, 1990 12. City of SLO General Plan Safety Element,July 2000 13. SLO County Airport Land Use Plan 14. Institute of Traffic Engineers Manual 15. Flood Insurance Rate M (Community Panel 0603100005 C)dated July 7, 1981 16. City 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 2. Proposed Tract Map REOUIRED 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: I. 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. a.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. b.All material transported off-site shall be either sufficiently watered or securely covered to prevent excessive amounts of dust. 16 COF SAN Luis OBLSro mr INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHEcKusT 200066.�..�/ Attachment 7 Issues, Discussion and Supporting_,iforMation Sources Sources Potd.. -:� Potentially tessThan No Significant Significant Significant Impact ER # 159-05 Issues Unless Impact 2932 Augusta ci°mo�a° ted c.The area disturbed by clearing,grading,earth moving, or excavation operations shall be minimized so as to prevent excessive amounts of dust. d.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. e.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. f.All disturbed areas not subject to revegetation shall be stabilized using,jute netting, or other methods approved in advance by the APCD. g.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. h.On-site vehicle speed shall be limited to 5 mph for any unpaved surface. i. All unpaved areas with vehicle traffic shall be watered at least twice per day, using non-potable water. j. 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 OBISPo 17 INmAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CNECKUST 2006 3 -4�- Attachment 8 RESOLUTION NO.####-06 A RESOLUTION OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO CITY COUNCIL APPROVING A TENTATIVE TRACT MAP AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT FOR A 9-UNIT CONDOMINIUM DEVELOPMENT LOCATED AT 2.932 AUGUSTA STREET (TR/ER 159-05) 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 March 22, 2006 pursuant to an application filed by Steno-Wolf Associates, 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. Findinss. 1. The design of the tentative tract map is consistent with the General Plan because the proposed subdivision will respect existing site constraints, will incrementally add to the City's residential housing inventory, will result in condominium units that meet density standards, and will be consistent with the density and development limits established by the High Density Residential District. 2. The site is physically suited for the proposed type of development allowed in the R-4 zones since the site is generally flat, surrounded by existing high density residential development and close to parks, schools and transit services. 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 March 15, 2006. The City 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 159-05), with incorporation of the following project mitigation measures and conditions: 3 - `[ Resolution No.####-06 �'�_-� Attachment 8 2932 Augusta Street. 159-05 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. 3 �� Resolution No.####-06 � ` Attachment 8 2932 Augusta Street. 159-05 Page 3 Conditions: 1. All project conditions associated with the architectural approval of the project as approved by the Architectural Review Commission on June 5, 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 applicant shall pay Park In-Lieu Fees prior to recordation of the Final Map, consistent with SLO Municipal Code Section 16.40.080. 4. 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. Conditions and code requirements from other departments: 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 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 p water quality design, all water quality BMPs shall be designed to treat runoff from a 253 - b Resolution No.####-06 Attachment 8 2932 Augusta Street. 159-05 Page 4 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. 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: Jonathan well, City Attorney G:\CD-PLAN\Pdunsmore\Subdivisions\TR 159-05(2932 Augusta)\CC Rego TR-ER 159-05.doc