Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
08/01/2006, PH 4 - TENTATIVE TRACT MAP PROPOSAL FOR A TEN-UNIT CONDOMINIUM DEVELOPMENT (153 STENNER STREET, TR/ER-1-06
council W I0.0 acEnaa w001A CITY OF SAN LUIS OB ISP O FROM: John Mandeville, Community Development Direct Prepared By: Jaime Hill, Associate Planner,-5H- SUBJECT: TENTATIVE TRACT MAP PROPOSAL FOR A TEN-UNIT CONDOMINIUM DEVELOPMENT (153 STENNER STREET,TR/ER-1-06). CAO RECOMMENDATION As recommended by the Planning Commission, adopt a resolution approving a tentative tract map and Negative Declaration of environmental impact for a ten-unit residential condominium development located at 153 Stenner Street (TR/ER 1-06). DISCUSSION Background The City has received an application to construct a residential condominium project at Stenner Street, north of Murray Street. The applicant intends to demolish the existing structures on the site in order to construct the new units and site improvements. Residential condominium projects with five 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 (ARC) reviewed this project on January 19, 2006, and directed the applicant to reduce the scale of the units to comply with standard side and rear yard setback requirements and to provide adequate trash collection facilities (Attachment 3). On June 28, 2006, the Planning Commission reviewed the project and recommended approval of the subdivision map and environmental document to the City Council (Attachments 4, 5, and 6). Following approval of the environmental document and tract map the project will return to the ARC for final architectural approval. Data Summary Address: 153 Stenner Street Property Owner- Ocean Ridge Development Group Applicant: C.M. Florence, Oasis Zoning: R-3 (Medium-High Density Residential) General Plan: Medium-High Density Residential Environmental Status: An initial study of environmental review has been prepared for the project and a Mitigated Negative Declaration was recommended by the Deputy Director on June 20, 2006 (ER 207-05, Attachment 7). Council Agenda Report �— TR/ER 1-06 (153 Stenner Street) Page 2 Site Description The 0.58-acre site is located mid-block on Stenner Street and is currently developed with a single-family residence, triplex, and several miscellaneous accessory structures. The project site is surrounded by a mixture of single and multi-family residences, and offices to the west along Casa Street. Although surrounding development represents a variety of styles and densities, the area is dominated by residential uses which are similar in scale to the proposed project. The site is relatively flat, with drainage historically discharged along the front of the lot to Stenner Street and to the back of the lot onto an adjacent property which fronts Casa Street. Proiect Description The project involves complete site demolition, including removal of the existing structures and associated improvements and landscaping, with the exception of the two mature Canary Island Palms which will be relocated on-site and integrated into the new landscape plan. The applicant is proposing to construct ten residential units which are held within six structures (four duplexes and two free-standing homes), parking, and associated site improvements. Because of existing flooding problems in this area, drainage has been one of the primary issues in reviewing the proposed development. The drainage system for the project has been designed to ensure that flows discharged onto adjacent properties do not exceed historical flow discharge, and that there is.no difference in the depth of flow along the curbs downstream of the project. The proposed two- and three-story homes include architectural elements and treatments that are typical of the California Craftsman style, with low pitched gabled roofs, exposed rafter tails, small single-hung windows with grids, and entry porches with tapered columns (Project Plans, Attachment 2). Evaluation The Planning Commission has considered each of the project's issue areas prior to making a recommendation of approval on the subdivision and negative declaration of environmental impact to the City Council. The Planning Commission found the subdivision and residential development project to be consistent with General Plan Policy and in compliance with the Subdivision Regulations, and therefore recommended approval of the project, as conditioned. A complete review of the issue areas summarized below can be found in the Planning Commission Staff Report, Attachment 6. 1.General Plan The site's Medium-High Density Residential land use designation is intended to provide housing opportunities for smaller households desiring little private open space and to provide various types of group housing. Consistent with several General Plan Land Use and Housing Element policies, this plan proposes to more intensely utilize an underdeveloped site that is close to public services, job centers, Siena Vista Hospital, and the Cal Poly campus. As discussed in the Planning Commission staff report, the project was found to be consistent with Land Use Element Policies 2.2.10 and 3.2.1, and Housing Element Policies 7.2.1 through 7.2.4. These policies relate to neighborhood compatibility and demolition of existing housing. y- z Council Agenda Report TR/ER 1-06 (153 Stenner Street) Page 3 2. Compliance with R-3 Zone Development Standards As proposed, the project complies with property development standards, including vehicle and bicycle parking, height, lot coverage, and street yard setbacks. The allowed density in the R-3 district is 18 units per acre. This property is 0.58 acres, which allows for 10.44 density units, with 10.00 density units proposed. As part of their conceptual review of the project, the ARC reviewed the other-yard (side and rear) setback reductions that had been requested, and determined that the exceptions unnecessarily increased the scale and massing of the development as viewed from Stenner Street and adjacent properties and could not be justified given the site conditions and large size of the units. They directed the applicants to modify the plans as necessary to comply with the City setback standards or provide some justification for lesser setbacks. After listening to testimony from neighboring property owners about parking concerns and the number of individuals potentially living in the large units, the Planning Commission also endorsed reducing the scale of the units to comply with setbacks, as the generous floor plans of the two-bedroom units could lend themselves to unusually large household sizes. The Planning Commission also recommended that the CC&R's for the project include a provision that only designated bedrooms be used as sleeping rooms in the future. This provision has been included in the recommended conditions of approval. With the setback changes and proposed conditions, the project will comply with the City's development standards. 3.Subdivision Regulations The project complies with all standards for condominium developments, as established by the Subdivision Regulations. Through a combination of ground level yard space and decking, the amount of private, common and total open spaces, and recreational areas exceed that required to meet the Subdivision Regulations; and required lockable storage has been included within the garage of each unit, consistent with standards for the provision of lockable storage outside the units themselves. Environmental Review The Planning Commission has recommended a Negative Declaration for the project. The Initial Study has been included as Attachment No. 7 to this staff report. Next Stens 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 layout, drainage plan, and driveway access to be acceptable. The Utilities Department provided specific comments on the location of the trash enclosure, and the final design of the required 7 Council Agenda Report - TR/ER 1-06 (153 Stenner Street) Page 4 trash enclosures will be reviewed by the ARC. Additional discussion can be found in the attached Planning Commission staff report. 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. 2. Approve a resolution recommending that the City Council deny the proposed subdivision, based on findings of inconsistency with the Subdivision Regulations and/or General Plan Policies as specified by the City Council. Attachments: Attachment 1: Vicinity Map Attachment 2: Reduced Size Development Plans Attachment 3: ARC meeting update and follow-up letter Attachment 4: Planning Commission Resolution Attachment 5: Planning Commission meeting update Attachment 6: Planning Commission agenda report Attachment 7: Initial Study of Environmental Impact Attachment 8: Draft Resolution approving a negative declaration and tentative map G:UHiU\Subdivision\I-06 TRIR.ARC.A(153 Stenner)\Council Rpt I-06.doc �y s s ■ rs ri r�r ' Ism moon Fml o ■ VICINITY MAp • 001 =06,' Attachment 2 all 0� �*fe a .w ` JZ O ;z W � Cly v, 0 4 a dal = IRS - |bk ! ! /] . m , . . | .i | > � « ,�,,!: |■ ■ � | , . ■ . --.. � � . 0 0 _ ( | ■ . � ! 6 | , � k| - § ■ 2 i a = � � � r � � • � 4, | / & ! ! a | %j | ; | | CIL ©*, < v . ! ! 133NIS ,,.N,., | | | \ ( ) . . . � � . . . � ,.. �. � — - ` G � . 2 ( / z � § § � � ( i I = _ � p ! | ° Z� - | - | () § _[ e« | �� Attachment 2 t F ti - t ° ' _ 9 Z S:El�o Q Z °,q, a >q ~i 71�j < � � Q }• IJ1 ' '1 ry -v qx a 65 q D � S q F '• ! � � v� .oven I � FWD 0 CL al• __._.--l-¢__ _.._ sI 1-.x_ .__ �____l.Y[ ............... Yd ..a-.x .. ..,_- ____ .. DH sII ' Oa y ~ a � 3 8 a i . r iy : y i 's � k,b•,., i Tyr 5 -'- Y 9 N w Z 'yS < aYS C. lF c Ct rY 8 - t 14 - s ' s 1'' Z s a i , 3 1 �, I rj jall ��lall `Nil _ 11 4 k i`all ern i �.t f „p.. - 1 'TM I-1 i (— aw ;iii M, C s til"fit cl�11 ME r i �plhy"IkklMt(IkiX �C C n Attachment 2 xud d 9x n�e ge u 6 xoil d 1Wy N 4 ® � V W Q Z W i N w 1 J ✓' z x�t1 M G�fF C'- Z O E eea t � 1 y-ia _ A#amment 2 sjqo wjn7__+ -____X a § _,rte_ a�___oo_' ^ _dun©__O.L 610—. \ im - - a \ . : . ■ - ■ � - � , _ ■�� . � , |� & !. § .$ ; _ § !| ai k � 1B} pis � \ ■ | !! 52 ! | �| !| |! | § -|; ■ ! .! |i §,,05 _` ,�! ,!. § ■! ! | . |i ff x=. . : _ -�.! ■ ! � ! � ��� - - eJ'odr/40 ele7—6;0 dW .ds!40 eln'I ucS M AYJ �nt 2 97/BW/L 3M07 C lo'i old aa. .ty 7Qotolo!ttau4too*IN C ni 808Z((doW ine+l uAoloal BoApA h '� Ijta ° gg 9 ••g �6 ait8` Ifr:Pt, J�uo b'4 iy� IPp �ta t4tFF1j4[;1 �: t � d� � ege 9 4�QecE�QI °b=€€£ of � d a•••a t�a l ��1��}�1} C ! SE• t ff Y Yn YE eSns°PE t E§fp ¢I 96°prft"C' s a gy. � � .a• � tr B � t� �� E � i : 8 :� _g_a Ft.tfiyPe i a_ i g� k$�t Cg5gP iso@ I y Y:^4R 6e�Y yy M c 'x eg m . m A 3KW 03NN31S T- "p .L . L .F O8 I� r4 c b O e'n Il' i yt v ^w FIRb YI+I � FfVb D.r1' `� L toe i1 C #yam yy F _ q ry\ v lOi ZOO-Z6(-250 Fld4'" ew-Z6f-250 NdV y�z o �S+ :;:'i, ••�• �• �•• gbdrMO sin7 ueS/o 40 Wsm%e+7 ms -ant /�M1711�Ci gtmwL 3M07 f Io7 uid tea_. .ad gzaimul u uwoo my ' _ $ ii tiliilif i. BOBa.'deal 3—u eAIMMA S 1pSuA Z5 iv-1,0L1 t eid aj et° .i a a ��, � ¢�¢ � �" �ye110 *°� ala al•i � lelff[�Eii$�f =' � ffi �� r P y a� � 3' •�r ` • `I Q`� Y 1 �k tz i 133MAs U3MMAS M fix _ ,I a m � ••. .F 2.1 1 1420 F _ 7�— -677 - gh e �Al crV nt 2 rtdC�� yN3 ! " u00 z gs i eke n : �EaJI Ili - c � d i B oqqi Y i� X y"F Ski' E3 5 - v 3 'y .C• = 133N15 43NN31S I ? "r al d •e d x ! } 3 i n o } t I '- @ 2 € J� @-03 3 3 - a •°� � 3 ttl a 363 ❑OOO❑000 s ::110000000000 ❑❑❑❑❑❑ EI °3000❑°❑°❑O° u al m y�y � pplfL&I� I C W �� wiu 5'g I 3 co� $�� Kn nn §tee z�� 'doh $ Iny ll 2 ."44e Ldell I !: pp '•- �d u k_ n _ 1 L a • P. �. L. k, Z i yf L£ £ 1338's Y3NN311 Rz OO O 17, „ I J kr Q•:El 1. D ❑ {^\ \ \ A#achmen`2 I ' } fin! K CL2- } m $ zz < < ' ® z ! 2-311 z _ ' 2 ! a N CL - } ® . . . < Z \ | <� � mK / ,y . ��. —\ < , ,, 7 . } / ± ' � � I f \ ; . ( < ! • ƒ . , , , ( ! ^ / A ! q \z 2 0 \ ƒ � m ! ril Lr) - % _ » a - � ! ( : � � ƒ `\ \ � • E}ƒ . y � /. \ | � $ �� � • • ; f • / . CL./ CL ; 7a . § J ■ Z /// � � 7 . 2 I , UD ■ % N@ # 2 e �� . _ � � •� . ) 3 Gm CLI f f f fa , ; aI Ogg A. 3 /� Meeting Update Attachment 3 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION June 19, 2006 Monday 5:00 p.m. ROLL CALL: Commrs. Zeljka Howard, Jim Lopes, Anthony Palazzo, Greg Wilhelm, Steven Hopkins, Vice-Chair Allen Root, and Chairperson Michael Boudreau All Commissioners were present. ACCEPTANCE OF AGENDA: The order of the agenda was not modified. PUBLIC COMMENT: There was no public comment other than on regular agenda items. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1. 153 Stenner Street. ARC 1-06; Review of plans to construct a new 10-unit residential condominium project; R-3 zone; Ocean Ridge Development Group, applicant. (Jaime Hill) On a 7-0 vote, the ARC continued the project to a date uncertain, providing direction and comments to the applicant. Discussion focused on trash collection, common open space, and the requested setback exceptions. The Commission generally liked the site design and layout of the proposed development, but felt that too many exceptions were being requested and that the project could be scaled down to conform with City Standards. They discussed alternative trash collection methods, such as shared waste wheelers, having dumpster enclosures outside of the street yard, and splitting the recycling and refuse enclosures to flank the driveway and provide something of an entry feature. Finally, they supported the open space plan as proposed, including the landscape path areas leading to the units (but excluding the area of the guest parking spaces), and requested that the fountain be brought forward in the common open space/recreation area. 2. 2238 Broad Street. ARC and ER 62-05; Final review of a new mixed-use development project with 91 residential units and approximately 25,000 square feet of commercial space, and environmental review; C-N-H, C-S-H and C-S-S-H zones; Halferty Development, applicant. (Whitney Mcllvaine) On a 7-0 vote, the ARC granted final approval to the project and adopted the mitigated negative declaration. The Commission discussed changes to the project based on previous direction and newly provided project details, including lighting, screen and retaining wall design, modified building colors, building elevations, altemative paving materials, tree choices in the landscape plan, and the proposed roof garden on top of the project's largest building. In granting final approval, the Commission acknowledged that this is a large and somewhat complex project and that there will likely be some additional review of project details during development of construction drawings. Both y--/7 Attachment 3 Architectural Review Commission June 19, 2006 Meeting Update Page 2 the applicant and staff concurred. In general all the Commissioners were very supportive of the project's mixed-use concept and its design. COMMENT & DISCUSSION: 3. Staff: A. Agenda Forecast Pam Ricci provided a forecast of items expected on the next meeting agenda. She reminded the Commission that the meeting of July 3rd has been cancelled. 4. Commission: The meeting adjourned around 9:14 p.m. to a regular meeting scheduled for Monday, July 17, 2006, at 5:00 p.m., in the Council Hearing Room at City Hall, 990 Palm Street. - Attachment 3 AR��I�oB�llllll�hllll���� plllllllllllll i city Of SAn WIS OBISPO 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 June 22, 2006 Ocean Ridge Development Group 1190 Bassi Drive San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 SUBJECT: ARC 1-06: 153 Stenner Street Review of a plans to construct a new 10-unit residential condominium project. Dear Ocean Ridge Development Group: The Architectural Review Commission, at its meeting of June 19, 2006, continued consideration of the project to a date uncertain, with the following direction: Direction: 1. Buildings shall be reduced to adequately conform with Zoning Regulations yard setback requirements and to reduce the overall scale and mass of the structures, unless the applicant can provide justification for lesser setbacks. 2. Provisions for trash and recycling collection shall be modified as necessary to comply with the collection agencies maneuvering needs while minimizing impacts to area circulation and on-street parking. Appropriate size and orientation shall be confirmed by the San Luis Garbage Company. Details of any required shared enclosures shall be included in plans submitted for final ARC review of the project. Comment: 1. The ARC endorsed the open space plan as proposed. If you have questions, please contact Jaime Hill at 781-7165. Sincerely, oqww,�C� Pam Ricci, AICP Senior Planner Community Development cc: County of SLO Assessor's Office C.M. Florence 3427 Miguelito Court San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 ,/ /9 The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services,programs and activities. y Telecommunications Device for the Deaf(805)781-7410. Attachment 4 RESOLUTION NO.5456-06 A RESOLUTION OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTATL IMPACT AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP FOR 10 RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM UNITS FOR PROPERTY AT 153 STENNER STREET; TR/ER 1-06 (TRACT 2808) 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 June 28, 2006, for the purpose of considering application TR/ER 1-06, a request to allow a ten- unit residential airspace condominium subdivision; and WHEREAS, said public hearing was for the purpose of formulating and forwarding recommendations to the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo regarding the project; and WHEREAS, notices of said public hearing were made at the time and in the manner required by law; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed and considered the Negative Declaration of environmental impact for the project; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has duly considered all evidence,,including the testimony of the applicant, interested parties, and the evaluation and recommendations by staff, presented at said hearing. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. Findings. 1. The proposed tentative tract map is consistent with the General Plan because the subdivision will provide for residential development consistent with the Medium-High Density Residential Zone. 2. As conditioned, the design and improvement of the proposed subdivision is consistent with the General Plan because each dwelling has access to a compact, private open space area and adequate common open space and recreation areas, and the development will occur as part of the neighborhood pattern anticipated for the medium-high density residential zone. 3. The site is physically suited for the proposed type of development because it is an under- developed site that is adjacent to an existing street right-of-way. 4. As conditioned, the site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development because the site is within an existing City block, services are available to serve the development, and utilities have been designed to serve the site per City standards. 5. The design of the subdivision, or the type of improvements,is not likely to cause substantial y-2.o Attachment 4 Planning Commission Resolution#5456-06 TR/ER 1-06 Page 2 environmental damage or substantially and unavoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat because the site does not have any creeks or other potentially significant habitat areas for fish or wildlife.. 6. The design of the subdivision, or type of improvements, is not likely to cause serious public health problems because the type of improvements are residential and development will be designed to meet existing building and safety codes. 7. The design of the subdivision, or the type of improvements, will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, property within the proposed subdivision because no such easements exist. 8. A Negative Declaration was prepared by the Community Development Department on June 20, 2006. The Planning Commission finds and determines that the project's Negative Declaration adequately identifies that there is no foreseeable potential for significant environmental impacts by the proposed project. SECTION 2. Action. The Commission hereby recommends approval of the tentative tract map for ten residential units and adoption of said Negative Declaration (TR/ER 1-06), with incorporation of the following project conditions: 1. The project shall be forwarded to the Architectural Review Commission to review the project design for consistency with the Community Design Guidelines following approval of the Common Interest Subdivision by the City Council. Their review shall includeapprovalof the final location and design of the necessarytrash enclosure(s) and consistency with property development standards. 2. Applicant shall pay the Inclusionary Housing in-lieu fee prior to issuance of building permits. 3. The final map shall indicate common and private open space yards and the CC&R's shall describe maintenance of all common areas. 4. Long term bicycle storage shall be supplied for each unit, to the approval of the Community Development Director. 5. The applicant shall pay Park In-Lieu Fees prior to recordation of the Final Map, consistent with SLO Municipal Code Section 16.40.080. 6. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66474.9(b), the subdivider shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City and/or its agents, officers and employees from any claim, action or proceeding against the City and/or its agents, officers or employees to attack, set aside, void or annul, the approval by the City of this subdivision, and all actions relating thereto, including but not limited to environmental review. U Attachment 4 Planning Commission Resolution#5456-06 TR/ER 1-06 Page 3 7. The Conditions, Covenants, and Restrictions (CC&R's) for the project shall include a requirement-, to be enforced by the homeowners association and the City, that all garages must be available for parking a vehicle at all times. 8. Subdivider shall prepare conditions, covenants, and restrictions (CC&R's) to be approved by the Community Development Director and City Attorney prior to final map approval. CC&R's shall contain the following provisions: a. Creation of a homeowners' association to enforce the CC&R's and provide for professional, perpetual maintenance of all common areas including private driveways, drainage; on-site sewer facilities, parking lot areas, walls and fences, lighting, and landscaping. b. Grant to the City the right to maintain common areas if the homeowners' association fails to perform, and to assess the homeowners' association for expenses incurred, and the right of the city to inspect the site at mutually agreed times to assure conditions of CC&R's and final map are being met. c. No parking except in approved, designated spaces. d. Grant to the city the right to tow away vehicles on a complaint basis which are parked in unauthorized places. e. No outdoor storage of boats, campers, motorhomes; or trailers nor long-term storage of inoperable vehicles. f. No outdoor storage by individual units except in designated storage areas. g. No change in City-required provisions of the CC&R's without prior City Council approval. h. Homeowners' association shall file with the City Clerk the names and addresses of all officers of the homeowners' association within 15 days of any change in officers of the association. L Provision of appropriate "no parking" signs and red-curbing along interior roadways as required by the City Fire Department. j. CC&R's shall not prohibit location of solar clothes drying facilities in private yards which are substantially screened from view. k. All garages must be available for parking a vehicle at all times, to be enforced by the homeowners association and the City. 1. No change in City-required provisions for trash collection without prior Community Development Director approval. zz� Attachment 4 Planning Commission Resolution#5456-06 TR/ER 1-06 Page 4 m. No rooms other than those designated as bedrooms may be used as sleeping rooms. Code requirements: The following code requirements are included for information purposes only. They serve to give the applicant a general idea of other City requirements that will apply to the project. This is not intended to be an exhaustive list as other requirements may be identified during the plan check process. Public Works 1. The map shall be recorded prior to building permit issuance in accordance with the city's subdivision regulations and the Subdivision Map Act.. 2. Public improvements required as a condition, code requirement, or mitigation measure may be shown on a separate plan and approved prior to building permit issuance. Said improvements may be completed or a bond posted for their completion to allow for recordation of the map prior to the completing of all required and/or proposed improvements. 3. The required improvements may be processed as required for Tract maps or may be processed under an encroachment permit at the discretion of the City Engineer. If an encroachment permit is used to complete all improvements, then a separate plan review fee shall be established based on the requirements for subdivisions. Depending on the proposed timing for map recordation and building permit issuance, a completion guarantee may be required per city standards. 4. The provisions of Section 16.20.220 of the Subdivision Regulations are applicable to any public improvements and generally those improvements that may have a direct impact on public improvements as determined by the City Engineer. 5. 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. Credit will only be applied to permanent, lawfully existing structures. 6. An encroachment permit will be required from the Public Works Department for any work or construction staging in the public right-of-way. 7. Any easements including but not limited to provisions for all public and private utilities, access, drainage, common driveways, and maintenance of the same shall be shown on the final map or recorded separately prior to map recordation if applicable. 8. All wire utilities to the new units shall be underground. 9. Underground electrical service may be provided from the existing overhead system provided at the rear of the property. The owner/applicant shall secure any necessary easements Attachment 4 Planning Commission Resolution#5456-06 TR/ER 1-06 Page 5 required to extend services to this development. 10. Any sections of damaged or displaced curb, gutter& sidewalk or driveway approach shall be repaired or replaced to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director prior to recordation of the map. 11.The existing street pavement shall be maintained in good repair during construction. The final pavement condition shall be evaluated at the completion of the project for excessive wear or damage resulting from construction operations.. Pavement repairs and a slurry seal may be required per city standards if determined as being necessary by the City Engineer. 12. The existing curb grades shall be verified as being consistent with the approved street grades. If it is determined that the curb and gutter has settled to unacceptable limits, then they shall be restored to curb and gutter elevations approved by the City Engineer. Any new curb grade plans shall be prepared by a licensed engineer and shall be the responsibility of the owner/developer. 13. The subdivider shall dedicate.a 6' (2m) wide public utility easement and a 10' (3m) wide street tree easement across the frontage of each lot. Said easements shall be adjacent to and contiguous with all public right-of-way lines bordering each lot. 14. A private sewer mainline may be proposed in-lieu of separate sewer laterals for each unit. If proposed or required by the Utilities Director, the on-site sewer main shall be privately owned and maintained by the Homeowner's Association. 15. A maintenance agreement for the sewer, paving, landscape improvements, and any other common improvements shall be recorded prior to or concurrent with the map recordation. 16. The parking lot design shall comply with the parking and driveway standards and Engineering Standard Section 2010.E.7. All parking spaces must be designed so that vehicles can enter in one maneuver. Furthermore, all spaces shall be designed so that vehicles can exit to the adjoining street in a forward direction in not more than two maneuvers. 17. The demolition of the existing building shall comply with all local, state, and federal requirements for the demolition of structures. 18. A preliminary soils report is required in accordance with the Subdivision Map Act and the City of San Luis Obispo Subdivision. Regulations. The report is required at the time of tentative map submittal or if approved may be deferred to map recordation. The report shall be referenced on the final map in accordance with the city's Subdivision Regulations and the Subdivision Map Act. 19. This project shall comply with the requirements for engineered grading in accordance with the grading ordinance. The grading, drainage, and erosion control plans shall be prepared by a licensed civil engineer. Attachment 4 Planning Commission Resolution#5456-06 TR/ER 1-06 Page 6 20. The building plan submittal shall include a complete grading, drainage and topo plan. The grading plan shall show existing structures and grades located within 15' of the property lines in accordance with the grading ordinance. The plan shall consider historic offsite drainage tributary to this property that may need to be conveyed along with the improved on-site drainage. This development will alter and/or increase the storm water runoff from this site. The improved or altered drainage shall be directed to the street and not across adjoining property lines unless the drainage is conveyed within recorded easements or existing waterways. 21. The grading and drainage plan shall show the existing and proposed contours and/or spot elevations to clearly depict the proposed grading and drainage. Show and label the high point elevation or grade break at the yard areas, drainage arrows, and spot elevations to show positive drainage away from the building pads and foundations to an approved point of disposal. The plan shall include the FF of the units, finish grade elevations, finish surface elevations, and parking lot drainage. 22. The building plan submittal shall include an erosion control plan and erosion control notes in accordance with the Waterway Management Plan Drainage Design Manual and to the satisfaction of the Building Official .and Public Works Director. Erosion control measures shall be implemented and maintained for construction occurring between October 15 and April 15. 23. One 15-gallon street tree is required for each 35 lineal feet of frontage. A portion or all the required street trees shall be planted in the parkway per city engineering standards#8010 and #8230 prior to recordation of the map. The remaining street trees shall be planted within the street tree easement area. The final mix of species and tree locations shall be approved to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and City Arborist. 24. The.proposed street trees and any parkway landscaping shall be installed and maintained by the HOA. The final planting plan for the parkway and onsite landscape areas shall consider the required line-of-sight distances for vehicles exiting onto Sandercock. Mapping and Misc. Requirements 25. All boundary monuments, lot comers and centerline intersections, BC's, EC's, etc., shall be tied to the City's Horizontal Control Network. At least two control points shall be used and a tabulation of the coordinates shall be submitted with the final map or parcel map. All coordinates submitted shall be based on the City coordinate system. A 3.5" diameter computer floppy disk, containing the appropriate data compatible with Autocad (Digital Interchange Format, DXF) for Geographic Information System (GIS) purposes, shall be submitted to the City Engineer. 26. The parcel map/final map preparation and monumentation shall be in accordance with the city's Subdivision Regulations, Engineering Standards, and the Subdivision Map Act. The parcel map may use Customary U.S. Units or the International System of Units (metric 17 zs Attachment 4 Planning Commission Resolution#5456-06 TR/ER 1-06 Page 7 system). All record data shall be entered on the map in the record units, metric translations should be in parenthesis if applicable. Grading &Drainage 27. 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. 28. 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 29. All water and sewer facilities shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the City's Engineering Standards and Standard Specifications. City Standards require water meters to be located within the public right-of-way, in the sidewalk or parkway area just behind the curb (refer to City Standards 6010, 6110, 6140, 6210, and 6260). Water meters in parkway areas shall have a concrete apron between and around the meter boxes, as required by the standards. 30. Water meters shall be manifolded in logical groups to the extent feasible, in order to minimize the number of service laterals and taps on the public water mains. Up to four 1" water meters can be installed on a single 2" water service lateral. On motion by Commissioner Brown, seconded by Commissioner Christianson, and on the following roll call vote: AYES: Commrs. Stevenson, Ashbaugh, Brown, McCoy, Christianson, and Miller NOES: None REFRAIN: None ABSENT: Commr. Carter The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 28`s day of June, 2006. Doug avids Secretary Planning Co 'ssion y-- z� Attachment 5 Meeting Update SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION June 28, 2006 Wednesday 7:00 p.m. CALL TO ORDER/PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL: Commissioners Charles Stevenson, John Ashbaugh, Peter Brown, Andrew Carter, Jason McCoy, Vice Chairperson Carlyn Christianson, and Chairperson Andrea Miller Commissioner Carter was absent. ACCEPTANCE OF AGENDA: Commissioners or staff may modify the order of items. The Commission moved Item No.3 to the beginning of the agenda. MINUTES: Minutes of June 14, 2006. Approve or amend. The minutes were approved as submitted. PUBLIC COMMENT: PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1. 499 N Chorro .Street. TR and ER 207-05: Request for a 6 unit condominium project and public right-of-way property exchange, and environmental review; R-4 zone; Bella Vista, SLO, applicant. (Tyler Corey) On a motion by Commissioner Christianson and seconded by Commissioner McCoy, the Commission voted 6-0 to recommend approval of a 6-unit airspace residential condominium project to the City Council, based on findings and subject to conditions and code requirements. Discussion was brief and focused on site drainage. One neighbor spoke on the project discussing concems about the existing drainage situation and that significant improvements are needed. 2. 153_Stenner Street . TR and ER 1-06: Request for a 10-unit condominium project, and environmental review R-3 zone; Ocean Ridge Development Group, applicant. (Jaime Hill) On a motion by Brown, seconded by Christianson, the Commission voted 6-0 to recommend the environmental document and tentative tract map to the City Council for final approval. y- � 7 j Attachment 5 Architectural Review Commission Page 2 The Commissioner's discussion focused on drainage, density, and the social and behavioral issues of the student-dominated neighborhood. Carol Florence of Oasis Design and Brad Breckenwald of Wallace group explained the project design and site drainage. Several neighboring property owners also spoke, their major concerns being drainage and the effect on the neighborhood of adding additional density on the site. The Commission commented that the proposed project would not significantly worsen existing social conditions in the area. They did however feel that given the large size of the units additional assurance that the units would remain 2-bedrooms was needed. To that effect they added a condition to be added to the CC&R's that only designated bedrooms be used as sleeping rooms. Commissioner Stevenson also endorsed the ARC's direction that the units be reduced in scale to comply with setback standards. 3. Corner of Los Osos Valley Road and -Foothill Boulevard. GPC 92-06: General Plan Conformity Report for acceptance of a conservation easement; City of San Luis Obispo, applicant. (Neil Havlik The Planning Commission determined and recommended to the City Council approval, finding that the proposed property acquisition conforms with the General Plan. COMMENT AND DISCUSSION: 4. Staff A. Agenda Forecast 5. Commission The meeting adjourned at 8:45 p.m. to the regular meeting of the Planning Commission scheduled for Wednesday July 12, 2006 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street. -y-z� Attachment 6 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT ITEM#2 BY: Jaime Hill, Associate Planner(781-7165) MEETING DATE: June 28, 2006 FROM: Doug Davidson, Deputy Director(Development Review) �j, FILE NUMBER: TR/ER 1-06 PROJECT ADDRESS: 153 Stenner Street SUBJECT: Review of a tentative tract map to allow a new 10-unit common-interest (air-space condominium) subdivision. RECOMMENDATION Adopt a resolution recommending approval of the Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact and tentative tract map to the City Council. BACKGROUND Situation The applicant proposes to demolish the existing structures on the site and construct a new 10- 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 (ARC) conceptually reviewed this project on June 19, 2006, and continued it to a date uncertain with direction on the site planning and the scale of the buildings (ARC Follow Up Letter, Attachment 3). Following approval of the environmental document and tentative tract map by the City Council the project will return to the ARC for final architectural approval. Data Summary Address: 153 Stenner Applicant/Property Owner: Ocean Ridge Development Group Representative: C.M. Florence, Oasis Zoning: R-3 (Medium-High Density Residential) General Plan: Medium-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 Negative Declaration (Attachment 5). Attachment 6 TR/ER 1-06 (153 Stenner) Page 2 Site Description The 25,123 square-foot (0:58-acre) site is located on the west side of Stenner Street, north of Murray Street, and is currently developed with a single-family residence, a triplex, and several small accessory structures. Properties along the west side of Stenner are designated as Medium- High Density Residential (R-3) and are developed with a mixture of single-family residences and multi-family units, while those properties along the east side of Stenner are designated High Density Residential (R-4) and are developed primarily with multi-family projects. Properties to the west of the site, fronting on Casa, are designated Office (0) and are developed with a mixture of residential and office uses.. Trees on the site include several ornamental varieties which will be removed, and two mature Canary Island Palms which will be relocated on-site. Project Description The project involves complete site demolition, including removal of the existing structures and associated improvements and aforementioned trees. Although the primary building was likely constructed in 1921, the property has not been designated as historic and does not appear eligible for listing on the California Register or the local Inventory of Historical Resources. Additionally, no "Heritage Trees are located on the property according to Heritage Trees of San Luis Obispo. The potential for a structure to be found historically significant is based on a number of criteria including, style, design, age, architect, environmental design continuity, history-person, history- event and history-context as described in the Historical Preservation Program Guidelines. The property has not been demonstrated to be associated with events that have made a significant contribution in our past; nor has any previous person associated with the property been shown to be significant. As the buildings are very common examples of this building style, the property does not embody distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, nor does it represent the work of an important creative individual or possess high artistic value. Finally, this property cannot be reasonably be expected to yield information important in prehistory or history. Following site demolition, the applicant is proposing to construct ten residential units which are held within six structures (4 duplexes and 2 free-standing homes), parking, and associated site improvements. The 2-bedroom units, which range in size from 1,646 square feet to 2,176 square feet, are symmetrically arranged along a central motor court which is perpendicular to Stenner Street, with the three different building designs repeated on either side. Each unit is provided with a small front porch and private rear yard. Common open space areas include the landscape areas adjacent to the front entry walkways and a common recreation facility at the rear of the site. Parking for each unit is within attached garages, with the two required guest-parking stalls located off the central driveway. The proposed two- and three-story homes include architectural elements and treatments that are typical of the California Craftsman style, with low pitched gabled roofs, exposed rafter tails, small single-hung windows with grids, and entry porches with tapered columns (Project Plans, Attachment 2). The applicant is proposing to meet their inclusionary housing requirement through the payment of in-lieu fees. The applicant will be required to pay the Inclusionary Housing In-Lieu fee prior to issuance of building permits. i1 TR/ER 1-06 (153 Stenner) C ` '' 8' Page 3 EVALUATION The General Plan goals that new projects be compatible with existing surrounding development and acknowledge site context are also tenets in many of the applicable infill and multi-family development guidelines contained in the Community Design Guidelines. With the incorporation of changes recommended by the ARC, staff feels that the design of the proposed units achieves these goals, while adding a new home ownership option in this neighborhood. The following analysis calls out discussion areas for the Planning Commission to consider: 1. General Plan The site's Medium-High Density Residential land use designation is intended to provide housing opportunities for smaller households desiring little private open space and to provide various types of group housing. Consistent with several General Plan Land Use and Housing Element policies, this plan proposes to more intensely utilize an undeveloped site that is close to public services,job centers, and the Cal Poly campus. A significant factor in analyzing General Plan consistency is determining whether the proposed development is compatible with the neighborhood. General Plan LU policy 2.2.10 and Housing Element Policies 7.2.1 through 7.2.4 discuss the importance of neighborhood compatibility and relate specifically to infill development. With the direction that was given by the Architectural Review Commission to reduce the scale of the units to eliminate the encroachments into required yards and revise the mode of trash collection to eliminate the need for at-curb pick up of individual bins, staff believes that the project will to be compatible with the neighborhood in terms of density, scale, massing and building articulation as viewed from the street and adjacent properties. As previously mentioned, the residence that will be removed as part of the site redevelopment has not been designated as historic, is not enforceably restricted as affordable housing, and will be available for relocation prior to demolition. Housing Element Policy 3.2.1 directs that the City encourage rehabilitation, remodeling or relocation of rehabitable housing rather than demolition. In this case, the demolition of the non-historic housing may be permitted as the conservation of the existing housing would preclude the achievement of other housing objectives and adopted City goals. Therefore, the proposed project could be found consistent with this policy as it will allow more intensive development of the infill site with a project that will provide for relatively affordable and conveniently located housing called for by other policies. 2.Community Design Guidelines Two chapters of the Community Design Guidelines, Chapter 5.3: Infill Development, and Chapter 5.4: Multi-Family and Clustered Housing Design discuss the importance of neighborhood compatibility and relate specifically to infill development. The guidelines stress the importance of neighborhood compatibility in terms of building design, scale, and detailing. The project incorporates many features that are consistent with the guidelines in that it provides for attached units with traditional architectural features and building articulation. Proposed parking areas are covered and screened from street view, and facade and roof articulation is appropriately incorporated given the scale of the project. Ample private outdoor spaces are provided for each unit, in addition to the common open space/recreation area. Attachment 6 TR/ER 1-06 (153 Stenner) Page 4 . The overall design illustrates general compliance with the Design Guidelines. However, this project would provide significantly larger units than other development in the area, which is reflected in the scale and massing as viewed from Stenner Street and adjacent properties. Although staff commends the applicants on providing a unique and "open' site plan, in addition to well-articulated building elevations, the large size and mass of the individual buildings would be a considerable departure from the existing development pattern in the area, and require the approval of several setback reductions. Given the large size of the proposed 2-bedroom units, ranging from 1,646 square feet to 2,176 square feet, the size of the units could be reduced to comply with the required setbacks. The ARC determined that smaller sized units would likely result in improved building floor plans and less massive buildings that are more compatible with the neighborhood. Though they generally endorsed the design of the project, they directed the applicant to reduce the scale of the units as necessary to comply with City standards (Attachment 3). 2.Medium-High Density Residential Development(R-3) Zone Development Standards As proposed, the project complies with most property development standards, including vehicle and bicycle parking, height, lot coverage, and street yard setbacks. The allowed density in the R- 3 district is 18 units per acre. This property is 0.58 acres, which allows for 10.44 density units, with 10.00 density units proposed. As part of their conceptual review of the project, the ARC reviewed the 10 other-yard (side and rear) setback reductions that had been requested, and determined that the exceptions unnecessarily increased the scale and massing of the development as viewed from Stenner Street and adjacent properties, and could not be justified given the site conditions and large size of the units. They directed the applicants to modify the plans as necessary to comply with City standards or provide some justification for lesser setbacks. The following table provides a complete analysis of the proposed development and City standards, including the 10 other-yard setback reductions which were requested. �/3.2 Attachment 6 TR/ER 1-06 (153 Stenner) Page 5- Table 1: Project Statistics and Code Requirements - - - - _ - - STANDARD _ =`,. CQDE?RE. UIlZEIVIENTw,w: .. PROPOSED Street Yard 15 Feet 15 Feet de Yard • it 1 6 '/z Feet (south elevation) 5 Feet 1 'h Foot exception • Unit 6 '/z Feet (south elevation) 5 Feet 11/:Foot exception • Ur 7 Feet compliant • U ARC has directed the applicant t° 5 Feet 2 Foot exception • U modify to conform with standards 5 Feet 21/z.Foot exception for side and rear yards p 5 Feet 3 Foot exception • Unit 6 7 '/z Feet (north elevation) 5 Feet 21/z Foot exception 8 Feet (west elevation) �7et 3 Foot exception • Unit 7 7 Feet-(north elevation) 5 Fee 2 Foot exception • Unit 8 61/z Feet (north elevation) 7 Feet mpliant • Unit 9 6 '/z Feet (north elevation) 5 Feet 11/z exception • Unit 10 61/z Feet (north elevation) 5 Feet 11/z Foot excepun Building Height 35 Feet 35 Feet Max. Lot Coverage 60% 44% Parking • 10 2-bdr unit 20 spaces 20 covered • . Guest 2 spaces (1 per 5 units) 2 uncovered Total = 22 spaces Total =22 Spaces Density Site Area 0.58 ac. * 18 10 2-bdr= 10.00 units 10.44 Maximum Density Total = 10.00 Units proposed 3.Subdivision Regulations The tentative tract map will be subject to processing under the City's recently approved Subdivision Regulations, which became effective on April 6, 2006. The Subdivision Regulations contain standards for common and private open space, recreation amenities and storage. Unlike a rental apartment project, which are open to discretion on the size and placement of open space areas, the condominium standards have specific guidelines that must be incorporated into ownership condominium projects. Condominium projects in the Medium-High Density Residential Zone (R-3) are required to provide a minimum of 400 square feet of total open space per unit, consisting of at least 100 square feet of private space and 100 square feet of common space per unit. Additionally,40 square feet per unit of improved common recreation facilities are required, though this area may be counted toward the common open space requirements. Each unit is provided with more than the required amount of complying private open space area in the rear yards directly adjacent to the units. Likewise, the amount of common open space, common recreation facilities and total open space exceeds that required to meet the Condominium Regulations. An exhibit provided by the applicant (Attachment 4) shows four areas labeled as "common open space". However, it should be noted that two of the areas shown as common 'Z7 29 Attachment 6 TR/ER 1-06 (153 Stenner) - Page 6 open space include required guest parking spaces (which cannot be counted as open space), leaving approximately 290 square feet of qualifying common area in each location. Recreational amenities in the larger common open space/recreation area include an arbor, fountain, and pair of benches. The ARC reviewed the design and layout of the common areas, the usability of the smaller areas adjacent to the motor court, and the adequacy of recreational amenities provided and endorsed the plan as proposed. They concluded that the site plan provided for a variety of use areas which would provide a variety of outdoor functions. The analysis below describes these requirements and the proposed project: Private Open Space (100 s.f. per unit): In total, ground level rear yards include over 2,406 square feet of qualifying private open space, exceeding the minimum requirement of 1000 square feet (5 x 100). Common Open Space (100 s.f.per unit): Project plans call out approximately 1,791 square feet of common open space (including the common recreational area), which would exceed the minimum requirement of 1,000 square feet (10 x 100). However, 580 square feet of this area is required guest parking which cannot be counted towards the open space requirement. Exclusive of these areas the project still maintains 1,211 square feet of qualifying common open space, 211 square feet more than required. As part of their conceptual review of the project the ARC assessed the functionality and aesthetics of the proposed common open space areas and endorsed the proposal as designed. Combined "Total' open space(400 s.f. per unit): The project generally meets the minimum requirement (10 X 400 = 4,000 square feet). While the exhibit provided by the applicant quantifies the total open space as 4,197 square feet, this erroneously includes the 580 square feet of required uncovered parking in their calculation. However, other qualifying areas such as the areas within the side and rear were not included in the calculations. Recreation Facilities (40 s.f. per unit): Storage: Each unit contains storage areas or cabinets within the garages that generally comply with the minimum storage requirements of 200 cubic feet. 4. Trash Collection Trash collection had originally been designed to be accommodated through the use of individual waste wheelers which would be stored in the rear yards of the individual units or in the garages and collected at the street. While this design meets City standards in terms of screening and minimum dimensions, having 20 to 30 individual bins on the street on trash pick-up day would severely impact neighborhood circulation and street parking on Stenner. With the goal of limiting these impacts, it is desirable to either minimize the number of individual bins that need to be placed along the right-of-way on trash collection day or provide for dumpster service. As part of the conceptual review of the project the ARC explored various ways that trash and recycling collection could be accommodated within the proposed project. They explored options such as pairing enclosures within the street yard and designing them to appear as an entry feature flanking the central driveway or using waste wheelers that are shared between units to reduce the AttaahmPnt 6 TR/ER 1-06 (153 Stenner) Page 7 total number of bins needed. The ARC will review the ultimate design of the collection facilities as part of their final design review of the project approval. 5. Landscaping and other site details The proposed landscape plan includes a variety of trees, groundcover plants and shrubs for the street frontage, common areas, and areas visible from the motor court. Tree varieties are reflective of the California Craftsman style architecture, with a mixture of Jacaranda, Sweetshades, and mature Canary Island Palms that will be relocated from their existing placement on the site. Other plant materials have been selected for compatibility with the site conditions, drought tolerance, and hardiness. They include a pleasant variety of flowering perennials and evergreens against a backdrop of textured ferns and grasses. No landscaping is proposed for the private yards and it is assumed that each property owner would install their own landscape in the small private yards. Summary The Architectural Review Commission has conceptually reviewed the design details of the site plan and architecture of the proposed project and provided direction on modifications that should be incorporated into the final projects for consistency with the Community Design Guidelines and City property development standards. These changes include modifying the buildings as necessary to conform with side and rear yard standards and providing for trash collection that can be accommodated on-site..The responsibility of the Planning Commission and City Council is to review the subdivision map requirements and the applicable General Plan Policies and open space standards. ALTERNATIVES 1. Continue the item. An action to continue the item should include a detailed list of additional information or project modifications required. 2. Recommend denial of the project to the City Council. Action denying the application should include the basis for denial. If the condominium map is denied, then the applicant could still potentially develop the site with an apartment project. ATTACHMENTS Attachment 1: Vicinity map Attachment 2: Reduced scale project plans Attachment 3: ARC Follow-Up Letter, June 19, 2006 Attachment 4: Open space exhibit Attachment 5: Initial Study of Environmental Review ER 1-06 Attachment 6: Resolution recommending approval of the tract map to City Council Enclosed: Full Size Project Plans G:VHi111Subdivision\1-06 TR,ER.ARC.A(153 Stenner)1PC rpt I-06.DOC Auacnmenu_t �������►►�����I�I►II►IIIIIIlIIIII VIIIBlia tpy Of SAn kifs 0 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM For ER 1-06 1. Project Title: Stenner Street Townhomes 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: Jaime Hill, Associate Planner (805) 781-7165 4. Project Location: 153 Stenner Street, City of San Luis Obispo (west side of Stenner Street, north of Murray Street) 5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Applicant: Ocean Ridge Development Group 1090 Longview Avenue Pismo Beach, Ca 93449-2433 Representative: C.M. Florence, Oasis 3427 Miguelito Court San Luis Obispo, Ca 93405 6. General Plan Designation: Medium-High Density Residential 7. Zoning: R-3 (Medium-High Density Residential) 8. Description of the Project: The 25,123 square-foot (0.58-acre) site is located north of Murray Street, on the west side of Stenner Street, and is currently developed with a single-family residence, a triplex, and several small accessory structures. Trees on the site include multiple ornamental species.which will be removed, and two mature Canary Island Palms which will be relocated on-site. Development of the proposed project will include demolition of the existing structures and construction of six new structures with a total of ten dwellings, parking, and outdoor use areas. The site has been designed around a motor court with a single driveway and with garages and uncovered parking located at the center of the site. The eight duplex units and two free-standing residences range in size from 1,646 square feet to 2,176 square feet, each with an attached two-car garage. 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. C{ Attachment 7 9. Surrounding Land Uses and Settings: Properties along the west side of Stenner are designated as Medium-High Density Residential (R- 3) and are developed with a mixture of single-family residences and multi-family units, while those properties along the east side of Stenner are designated High Density Residential (R4) and are developed primarily with multi-family projects. Properties to the west of the site, fronting on Murray, are designated Office (0) and are developed with a mixture of residential and office uses. 10. Project Entitlements Requested: The applicant has requested architectural review and approval of a tentative tract map for the ten- unit air space residential condominiums. 11. Other public agencies whose approval is required: None Attachrnent 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" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. Aesthetics Geology/Soils Public Services Agricultural Resources Hazards&Hazardous Recreation Materials Air Quality Hydrology/Water Quality Transportation&Traffic Biological Resources Land Use and Planning Utilities and Service Systems Cultural Resources Noise Mandatory Findings of Significance Energy and Mineral Population and Housing Resources FISH AND GAME FEES 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)). Attachment 7 DETERMINATION: On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and X a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made, or the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet(s) have been added and agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I rind that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant" impact(s) or "potentially significant unless mitigated impact(s) on the environment, but at least one effect (1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (1) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (2) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR of NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are_imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. Signature Date Doug Davidson, Deputy Director,Development Review John Mandeville;Community_ Development Director Printed Name for Attachment 7 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 do 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. o) 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 Issues, Discussion and Supportin formation Sources Sources Potenr; Potentially tcss an W6 1 t7 Signif. Significant Significant Impact ER # 1 06 Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated Page No. 6 1.AESTHETICS. Would theproject: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? 1 X b) Substantially damage scenic resources,including,but not limited 1,2, X to,trees,rock outcroppings,open space,and historic buildings 8,9 within a local or state scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of 9,22 X the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would 19,22 X adversel effect nighttime views in the area? Evaluation a), b), c), d) The project involves redevelopment of a single parcel substantially surrounded by urban development. The project is not in the area of any roads of high or moderate scenic value, as determined by the City's Scenic Roadways Map. The project includes development within the allowable property development standards of the Zoning Regulations. The Architectural Review Commission has conceptually reviewed the project and given direction on minor modifications to the project to increase compliance with City standards. The project site contains no scenic resources, such as significant trees or rock outcroppings. The project will not create a new source of substantial light or glare. Conclusion No impacts have been identified relating to aesthetics. The project is subject to architectural review. The City's Architectural Review Commission routinely reviews new development projects to insure a high level of architectural integrity and aesthetic quality. The ARC has conceptually reviewed the project and has directed the applicant to modify the units to reduce the exceptions needed to City standards. No further mitigation is required. 2.AGRICULTURE RESOURCES. Would theproject: a) Convert Prime Farmland,Unique Farmland,or Farmland of Statewide Importance(Farmland),as shown on the maps 8, 10, X pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of 1 I the California Resources Agency,to non-agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use,or a 8 X Williamson Act contract? c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which,due to 9 X their location or nature,could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? Evaluation a), b),c)The site is designated as Urban Land by the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency. The project will not convert prime farmland to any non-agricultural use. The project site is within an urban area and will not conflict with any agricultural zoning or Williamson Act contract. The project is an in-full development that will not result in changes that could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural uses. Conclusion The project will not have any impact on agricultural resources. 3. AIR QUALITY. Would theproject: a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an 12, 13 X existing or projected air quality violation? b) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air 12 X quality plan? c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant 22 X concentrations? d) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of 2 X •��tlrrlent 7 Issues, Discussion and Supportin formation Sources Sources Pote, Potentially Less Than No Signit. Significant Significant Impact ER # 1 O6 Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated Pae No.7 people? e) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard 22 X (including releasing emissions which exceed qualitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? Evaluation a),b),c),e) San Luis Obispo County is a non-attainment area for the State PMto(fine particulate matter 10 microns or less in diameter)air quality standards. State law requires that emissions of non-attainment pollutants and their precursors be reduced by at least 5% per year until the standards are attained. The Clean Air Plan (CAP) for San Luis Obispo County was developed and adopted by the Air Pollution Control District (APCD) to meet that requirement. The CAP is a comprehensive planning document designed to reduce emissions from traditional industrial and commercial sources, as well as from motor vehicle use. Land Use Element Policy 1.18.2 states that the City will help the APCD implement the Clean Air Plan. According to the Air Pollution Control District's(APCD)"CEQA Air Quality Handbook;' land uses that cause the generation of 10 or more pounds per day (PPD) of reactive organic gases, oxides or nitrogen, sulfur dioxide, or fine particulate matter have the potential to affect air quality significantly. A 50-unit apartment complex generates over 10 pounds of these pollutants. Since the site is proposed to be developed with 10 condominium dwellings, the project is of a size that is below APCD's air quality significance thresholds. Therefore, the project and resulting development will not generate a significant impact on long-term air quality impacts. d)The project is a residential condominium development and will not create objectionable odors under normal circumstances. Conclusion The project does not exceed APCD thresholds and air quality mitigation measures are not required. The City's Grading Ordinance includes dust control measures that will apply to the project. Energy efficiency is a factor that is routinely considered by the City's Architectural Review Commission and conditions of approval may be required to insure that City goals are met with respect to solar orientation,building materials and general methods for conservation. No further mitigation is required. 4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would theproject: a) Have a substantial adverse effect,either directly or indirectly or 1,5,9 X through habitat modifications,on any species identified as a candidate,sensitive,or special status species in local or regional plans, policies,or regulations,or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect,on any riparian habitat or 5,9 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 5,9 biological resources,such as a tree preservation policy or X ordinance(e.g. Heritage Trees)? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native 9 X resident or migratory wildlife corridors,or impede the use of wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted habitat Conservation Plan,Natural Community Conservation Plan,or other approved 5 X local,regional,or state habitat conservation plan? f) Have a substantial adverse effect on Federally protected t 'y / 7 Issues, Discussion and Supportim formation Sources So Cs Potent APotentially Less Than No Signil Significant Significant Impact ER # 1-06 Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated Pae No. 8 wetlands as defined in Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including,but not limited to,marshes,vernal pools,etc.) 5 X through direct removal,filling,hydrological interruption,or other means? Evaluation a), b),c), e), f) The site is not within a riparian corridor and there are no creeks on the property. No endangered, threatened or other protected species have been reported on the project site. There are no local ordinances or habitat conservation plans that affect the property or that identify the site as potential habitat for any protected species of plant or animal. Although several trees are proposed for removal the City's Urban Forester has review the project and determined that the proposed landscape plan provides for adequate replacement plantings. Conclusion The project does not have the potential to impact biological resources. 5.CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would theproject: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a 9, 15, X historic resource?(See CEQA Guidelines 15064.5) 17,21 b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an 9, 14, X archeological resource?(See CEQA Guidelines 15064.5) 21 c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource 5, 14, X or site or unique geologic feature? 21 d) Disturb any human remains,including those interred outside of 16, X formal cemeteries? 17,21 Evaluation a) The project will remove the existing structures from the site. Although the primary building was likely constructed in 1921, the property does not appear eligible for listing on the California Register or the local Inventory of Historical Resources. Additionally, no "Heritage Trees" are located on the property according to Heritage Trees of San Luis Obispo. The potential for a structure to be found historically significant is based on a number of criteria including, style,design, age, architect, environmental design continuity, history-person, history-event and history-context as described in the Historical Preservation Program Guidelines. The property has not been demonstrated to be associated with events that have made a significant contribution in our past, nor has any previous person associated with the property been shown to be significant.As the buildings are very common examples of this building style, the property does not embody distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, nor does it represent the work of an important creative individual or possess high artistic values. Finally, this property cannot be reasonably be expected to yield information important in prehistory or history. The City's Building Demolition Code includes specific provisions to encourage the conservation of older structures in the City. The requirements of the code include a 90-day "cool-off' period during which the buildings proposed for demolition would be advertised as available for relocation. The Code also requires photo and historic documentation of structures over 50 years old. The City keeps the documentation in the Community Development Department Library for future research. With these code requirements in place,no further mitigation is necessary. b) The City's Archeological Resource Preservation Guidelines require preliminary archeological studies for properties that are considered sensitive sites. The project site does not meet the criteria for sensitive site designation because it is more than 200 feet away from the City's major creeks and known archeological sites. The site is also outside of a historical district and the property is not on the City's Inventory of Historic Resources. These factors indicate that the project will have no impact on archeological resources. c), d) The project site does not contain any known paleontological or geological resources and is not within an area where burials are likely,as indicated by the City's Burial Sensitivity Map,on file in the Community Development Department. / 4e�p Issues, Discussion and Supportin_ `ormation Sources Sources Pote, Potentially Less Than IVo Signit, Significant Signiflcant Impact ER# 1 06 Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated Page No. 9 Conclusion The project site contains structures that are over 50 years old that are proposed for demolition. Based on the City's Historic Resource Criteria for Building Evaluation and Recommendations, the structures proposed for demolition are not historic resources. The requirements of the Building Demolition Code will require proper documentation of the existing structures and will potentially provide for their relocation. No further mitigation is required. 6. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the ro'ect: a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? 5, 22 X b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient 5,22 X manner? c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the 9 X State? Evaluation a) The project is a residential development consistent with the site's General Plan designation and Zoning,and will not conflict with adopted energy conservation plans or promote the use of non-renewable resources in an inefficient manner. b)Any development on the site must comply with the policies contained in the General Plan Conservation and Open Space Element.The COSE states encourages new development to minimize the use of conventional energy for space heating and cooling, water heating,and illumination by means of proper design and orientation,including the provision and protection of solar exposure. The City implements energy conservation goals through enforcement of the California Energy Code,which establishes energy conservation standards for residential and nonresidential construction. Future development of this site must meet those standards. c)There are no known mineral resources on the project site that would be of value to the region or the State. Conclusion No further mitigation is required beyond compliance with City established energy conservation standards and all applicable State requirements. The City's Development Standards for New Condominium Projects (SLOMC 17.82.110) requires solar water heating to be provided to each unit unless equivalent energy savings can be made through other means. The Architectural Review Commission regularly reviews development projects for compliance with this standard. 7. GEOLOGY AND SOILS Would theproject: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse 4,22 X effects, including risk of loss,injury or death involving: I. Rupture of a known earthquake fault,as delineated in the 18 X most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area,or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? H. Strong seismic ground shaking? 4 X III. Seismic related ground-failure,including liquefaction? 4 X IV. Landslides or mudflows? 4 X b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? 4,22 X c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable,or that 4 X would become unstable as a result of the project,and potentially result in on or off site landslides, lateral spreading,subsidance, liquefaction, or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil,as defined in Table 18-1-B of the 4 X Uniform Building Code(1994),creating substantial risks to life or property? t I Issues, Discussion and Supportir .. formation Sources Sources Poten" " Potentially Ixss ar ' Ne 7 Signi: Significant Significant Impact ER # 1 06 Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated Pae No. 10 Evaluation a) San Luis Obispo County, including the City of San Luis Obispo, is located within the Coast Range Geomorphic Province, which extends along the coastline from central California into Oregon. This region is characterized by extensive folding, faulting, and fracturing of variable intensity. In general, the folds and faults of this province comprise the pronounced northwest trending ridge-valley system of the central and northern coast of California. Under the Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zones Act, the State Geologist is required to delineate appropriately wide special studies zones to encompass all potentially and recently-active fault traces deemed sufficiently active and well-defined as to constitute a potential hazard to structures from surface faulting or fault creep. In San Luis Obispo County, the special Studies Zone includes the San Andreas and the Los Osos faults.The edge of this study area extends to the westerly city limits line, near Los Osos Valley Road. According to a recently conducted geology study, the closest mapped active fault is the Los Osos Fault, which runs in a northwest direction and is about one mile from the City's westerly boundary. Because portions of this fault have displaced sediments within a geologically recent time(the last 10,000 years), portions of the Los Osos fault are considered "active". Other active faults in the region include: the San Andreas, located about 30 miles to the northeast, the Nacimiento, located approximately 12 miles to the northeast,and the San Simeon- Hosgri fault zone, located approximately 12 miles to the west. Although there are no fault lines on the project site or within close proximity, the site is located in an area of"High Seismic Hazards",which means that future buildings constructed on the site will most likely be subjected to excessive ground shaking in the event of an earthquake. Structures must be designed in compliance with seismic design criteria established in the California Building Code for Seismic Zone 4. To minimize this potential impact, the Uniform Building Codes and City Codes require new structures to be built to resist such shaking or to remain standing in an earthquake. b), c) The project will not result in the loss of topsoil as most of the site will be covered by impervious surfaces or planted with vegetation. Conclusion Future development will be required to comply with the Uniform Building Codes and City Codes which require new structures to be built to resist such shaking or to remain standing in an earthquake, and proper documentation of soil characteristics for designing structurally sound buildings. The Building Division of the Community Development Department routinely reviews project for their compliance with the recommendations of the soils engineering report for the site. No further mitigation is required. 8. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the pro'ect: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment 22 X though the routine use,transport or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment 22 X through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely 22 X hazardous materials,substances,or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Expose people or structures to existing sources of hazardous 22 X emissions or hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances,or waste? e) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous 8 X materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and,as a result, it would create a significant hazard to Issues, Discussion and Supportin- -formation Sources Sources Poter Potentially Less atn 0' k 't 7 Sigm Significant Significant Impact ER # 1-06 Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated Pae No. 11 the public or the environment? f) For a project located within an airport land use plan,or within 8 X two miles of a public airport,would the project result in a safety hazard for the people residing or working in the project area? g) Impair implementation of,or physically interfere with,the 4 X adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of lose,injury, 4 X or death,involving wildland fires,including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residents are intermixed with wildlands? Evaluation a), b), c), d), e) The site does not contain any know hazardous substances and is not located in an area of high risk. As a residential subdivision the project will not emit any hazardous emissions or require handling of hazardous wastes. The site is not on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. f) The project site is outside of the Airport Land Use Plan area. g) The project has been reviewed by the Fire Marshall and will not conflict with any emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. h) The Safety Element of the General Plan identifies the site as having a low potential for impacts from wildland fires. Conclusion The project will not involve any impacts with respect to hazards or hazardous materials. 9. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the ro'ect: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge 6,20 X requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere 6,22 X substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level(eg.The production rate of preexisting nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses for which permits have been granted)? c) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the 20,22 X capacity of existing or planned storm-water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff. d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or 20,22 X area in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation onsite or offsite? e) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or 20,22 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 8 X a Federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation trap? g) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which 8 X would impede or redirect flood flows? h) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? 21 LX Evaluation Issues, Discussion and Supporting ,formation Sources Sources Poten•' ", Potentially Les Wo„1^ ] Sign, Significant Significant Impact ER # 1-06 - Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated Pae No. 12 a), b), h) The project will not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. All of the residences will be served by the City's sewer system and run-off is required to be directed to an approved point of disposal, in this case flows discharged onto adjacent properties do not exceed historical flow discharged along the front and back of the lot. The project will be served with water by the City's Utilities Department and will not use or otherwise deplete groundwater resources or negatively effect water quality. c),d)Future development of the site will increase the amount of impervious surfaces on the site and affect the absorption rate, drainage patterns and the amount and rate of surface runoff. To assure that potential drainage impacts are minimized to a level of insignificance, any future development of the site will be required to be designed to meet all applicable City codes, including City grading and drainage standards. Site runoff rates will be slightly increased as a result of this project, however, flows discharged onto adjacent properties and the public right-of-waywill not exceed historical flow discharges,and there will be only insignificant differences in the depth of flow along the curbs downstream of the project. e), f)The project site is not within the boundaries of an area subject to inundation from flood waters in a 100-year storm. Conclusion No impacts have been identified with respect to water quality or hydrology. Drainage plans have been evaluated for consistency with existing City codes as part of the subdivision and architectural review process. No further mitigation is required. 10. LAND USE AND PLANNING- Would theproject: a) Conflict with applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of I X an agency with jurisdiction over the project adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? b) Physically divide an established community? 1,2 X c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural 5 X community conservationplans? Evaluation a) The General Plan Land Use Map designates the site Medium-High Density Residential. The land use designation is described as"primarily attached dwellings in two-or three-story buildings,with common outdoor areas and very compact private outdoor spaces. Such development is appropriate near employment centers and major public facilities". The project site is zoned R-3(Medium-High Density Residential)with a maximum allowable density of 18 units per net acre,or 10.44 for this 0.58 acre site. The project has been designed with a density equivalent of 10.00 density units,slightly less than the maximum density allowed on the site.The ten units are arranged within six buildings, including eight duplex units and two free standing homes.Each unit is provided with a private entrance,two-car garage and private yard area. b) The project site includes one land parcel on a 0.58 acre site. The project will be served by existing streets and will be bordered by other residential uses. The project will not physically divide an established community. c) The project will not conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plans or natural community conservation plans. Conclusion The project will be developed with the type of improvements anticipated by the General Plan and Zoning Regulations and will not create any impacts to land use and planning. 11.NOISE. Would the project result in: a) Exposure of people to or generation of"unacceptable"noise levels as defined by the San Luis Obispo General Plan Noise 3 X Element,or general noise levels in excess of standards established in the Noise Ordinance? y-y�7 Attachment 7 Issues, Discussion and Supportir formation Sources Sources Pore Potentially Less Than No Sigm. Significant Significant Impact ER# 1-06 Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated Pae No. 13 b) A substantial temporary,periodic,or permanent increase in 3,22 ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing X without the project? c) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundbome 22 X vibration or groundborne noise levels? d) For a project located within an airport land use plan,or within 8 two miles of a public airport or public use airport,would the X project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? a)The project site is completely outside of the measured noise contours for California Blvd. and Foothill Ave., and Highway I and Highway 101, the closest noise sources of significance. Since the project is subject to ambient noise levels at build-out of less than 60 dB Ldn (24-hour day and night average), the potential impact of noise exposure for future residents is considered less than significant. b) During construction, there will be a temporary increase in ambient noise levels. This type of noise is regulated by the City's Noise Ordinance, which regulates times of construction and maximum noise levels that may be generated. If noise levels exceed the Noise Ordinance thresholds,the property owner would be subject to possible citations. c),d)The project will not expose people to the generation of excessive groundbome noise levels or vibration. The project is outside of the Airport Land Use Plan area and is not directly in a flight path where occupants would be subject to noise from aircraft operations. Conclusion The location of the project is outside of the areas defined by the Noise Element as subject to excessive noise levels. During construction there will be a temporary increase in ambient noise levels, as controlled by the City Noise Ordinance. No im acts with respect to noise have been identified. 12. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would theproject: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly 1,22 (for example by proposing new homes or businesses) or X indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing or people 1,22 necessitating the construction of replacement housing X elsewhere? Evaluation a), b) The population added by this project is within the General Plan's projection and will not induce substantial growth in the area or result in population exceeding local and regional growth projections. The project site is substantially surrounded by urban development and the development of the site represents an in-fill development opportunity. This type of development is encouraged because it can take advantage of existing facilities for water,sewer,storm drainage,transportation and parks. The project site is presently developed with a single family residence and triplex, which are rented on short term basis. As a result,significant numbers of people will not be displaced by the project. Conclusion The population growth created by the project is considered to be less than significant since the development is on an existing, residentially zoned parcel of land, and development of the project site has been accounted for in the population estimates contained in the City's General Plan. 13.PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision,or need,of new or physically altered government facilities,the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts,in order to maintain acceptable service ratios response times or other _J_/-y? Issues, Discussion and Supportir- '-formation Sources Sources Pote, Potentially INo , 7 Sign. Significant Significant Impact ER# 1-06 Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated Pae No. 14 performance ob'ectives for any of the public services: a) Fire protection? 1,22 X b) Police protection? 1,22 X c) Schools? 1,22 X d) Parks? 1,22 X e) Roads and other transportation infrastructure? 1,22 X Other public facilities? 1,22 X Evaluation a) b), d), e), f) No potential impacts have been identified to any public services because of the small scale of the project and its location within an existing residential neighborhood. c) The school districts in the state are separate governing bodies with authority to collect fees to finance school construction and parcel acquisition. Section 65955 of the Government Code prohibits the City from denying a subdivision or collecting any fees beyond those required by the school district itself, to mitigate effects of inadequate school facilities. Any effect that the additional children will have on school facilities will be mitigated in whole or in part by the districts per square foot fees, charged at the time of building permit issuance for each residence. Conclusion The project has been routed to City Departments for review and comments on the proposal. As part of each routing, the reviewing department is required to certify that serving the project will not result in a deficiency to any City facility or resource. All reviewing departments have indicated their ability to serve this project. 14. RECREATION. Would theproject: a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood or regional parks or 22 X other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Include recreational facilities or require the construction or 22 X expansion of recreational facilities,which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Evaluation a) The project will add incrementally to the demand for parks and other recreational facilities. However,given the size of the project and the expected number of residents, no significant recreational impacts are expected to occur with development of this site. Park Land In-Lieu fees will be collected, with credit given for the existing lot, to insure adequate provision of park facilities for the new residents of the project,per existing City policy. b) The project does not include the construction of recreational facilities beyond small private and common open space areas. The construction of these facilities will not have an adverse physical effect on the environment because of their small scale. Conclusion Park and recreation facility demand will increase incrementally,and not significantly,with the development of the project. 15. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would theproject: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the 2,22 X existing traffic load and capacity of the street system? b) Exceed,either individually or cumulatively,a level of service 2,22 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 22 X curves or dangerous intersections)or incompatible uses(e.g. farm equipment)? y-Z/ 9 Attarb-nmr-t 7 Issues, Discussion and Supporting 'formation Sources Sources Poten•' Potentially Less Than No Signi Significant Significant Impact ER # 1-06 Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated Pae No. 15 d) Result in inadequate emergency access? 22 X e) Result in inadequate parking capacity onsite or offsite? 9,22 X f) Conflict with adopted policies supporting alternative 2,22 X transportation(e.g.bus turnouts,bicycle racks)? g) Conflict with the with San Luis Obispo County Airport Land 8 X Use Plan resulting in substantial safety risks from hazards,noise, or a change in air trafficpatterns? Evaluation a), b),c), d) The project will incrementally contribute to an increase in traffic on Sterner and surrounding streets. The City's Transportation Division has indicated that these streets are operating at acceptable levels of service and that they can adequately accommodate the project's anticipated vehicle trips without changing the current level of service. The Fire Marshall has reviewed the private drive configuration proposed for the project and determined that the site can be adequately accessed by emergency vehicles. e) Each dwelling has been provided with two parking spaces as required. No parking will be permitted along the private driveway. On-street parking is fairly constrained due to the proximity to several dense residential developments and the Cal Poly campus. Two guest parking spaces are provided to meet the City's code requirement, which will make it more convenient for guests visiting residents of the project. f) Each unit within the project will includes a two-car garage that will be able to accommodate bicycle storage in addition to a parked vehicle. Residents of the project will have access to transit stops on Santa Rosa,Murray,Casa,and Foothill Blvd. e) The project is outside of the Airport Land Use Plan area. Conclusion The project will add incrementally to existing traffic conditions in the City, but the City's Transportation Division has determined that development of the project as proposed will not have an effect on the level of service on adjacent streets. Parking proposed by the project meets Zoning Regulations requirements. No impacts have been identified with respect to transportation and traffic. 16.UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the ro'ect: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable 6,22 X Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction or expansion of new water 6,22 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 6,22 X from existing entitlements and resources,or are new and expanded water resources needed? d) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider 6, 22 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 6, 22 X accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? f) Comply with federal,state,and local statutes and regulations 6, 22 X related to solid waste? Evaluation a), b) This project has been reviewed by the Utilities Department staff. Comments note that the project is subject to water y-moo Issues, Discussion and Supporting ',formation Sources Sources Potent Potentially 1 $fT3ia+ r�r1act 7 Signi. Significant tgm scant Impact -� Issues Unless Impact ER# 1-06 Mitigation Incorporated Pae No. 16 impact fees which were adopted to ensure that new development pays its fair share of the cost of constructing the water supply,treatment and distribution facilities that will be necessary to serve it. c) The City Water&Wastewater Management Element projects the City water needs at its ultimate build-out of 56,000 people.The project site is included in the anticipated build-out,because it was in the Urban Reserve at the time the element was adopted. Each unit in the subdivision will have an annual water usage estimated at.21 acre feet. For the total project,the annual water usage is estimated at 2.1 acre feet(.21*10 units). The 2001 Water Resources Report indicates that there is currently 142 acre feet of water available to allocate to in-fill development(development within the 1994 City Limits). Another 142 acre feet is available for allocation to the City's expansion areas. d) The City wastewater treatment plant has adequate capacity to serve this development. The existing sewers in the vicinity have sufficient capacity to serve the development. The developer will be required to construct private sewer facilities to convey wastewater to the nearest public sewer. The on-site sewer facilities will be required to be constructed according to the standards in the Uniform Plumbing Code. Subdivision improvement plans and building plans will be checked for compliance with UPC standards. Impact fees are collected at the time building permits are issued to pay for capacity at the City's Water Reclamation Facility. The fees are set at a level intended to offset the potential impacts of each new residential unit in the project. e),f)Background research for the Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989(AB939)shows that Californians dispose of roughly 2,500 pounds of waste per month. Over 90%of this waste goes to landfills,posing a threat to groundwater,air quality,and public health. Cold Canyon landfill is projected to reach its capacity by 2018. The Act requires each city and county in California to reduce the flow of materials to landfills by 50% (from 1989 levels)by 2000. To help reduce the waste stream generated by this project,consistent with the City's Source Reduction and Recycling Element,recycling facilities must be accommodated on the project site and a solid waste reduction plan for recycling discarded construction materials must be submitted with the building permit application.The project is required by ordinance to include facilities for recycling to reduce the waste stream generated by the project,consistent with the Source Reduction and Recycling Element. Provision of adequate trash and recycling collection facilities is routinely reviewed by the ARC as part of the determination of consistency with City property development standards. Conclusion No impacts have been identified relative to utilities or service systems. The City has recently adopted a solid waste recycling ordinance to insure recycling of construction debris,which the project will need to comply with. No further mitigation is re uired. 17.MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the X environment,substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species,cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels,threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community,reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the ma'or nos of California history or prehistory? As indicated in the Table on Page 3,the project does not have the potential to have adverse impacts on any of the issue areas evaluated. b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited,but X cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of the past projects, the effects of other current projects,and the effects of probable futureprojects) No impacts have been identified in this initial study. c Does the project have environmental effects which will cause X Y -,5-1 Issues, Discussion and Supportin- '-iformation Sources Sources Potent: Potentially Less ^hiih`U .WO.?; ,t 7 Signi Significant Significant Impact ER# 1 06 Issueb Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated Pae No. 17 substantial adverse effects on human beings,either directly or indirectly? The pro ect will not result in substantial adverse impacts on humans. 18.EARLIER ANALYSES. Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration. Section 15063 (c) (3) (D). In this case a discussion should identify the following items: a Earlier analysis used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. The San Luis Obispo Land Use Plan Element update and Final EIR can be found at the City of San Luis Obispo Community Development Department at 990 Palm Street,San Luis Obispo,California. b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards,and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. Not applicable. c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions of the project. Not applicable. 19. SOURCE REFERENCES 1. City of SLO General Plan Land Use Element,August 1994 2. City of SLO General Plan Circulation Element,November 1994 3. City of SLO General Plan Noise Element 4. City of SLO General Plan Safety Element 5. City of SLO General Plan Conservation and Open Space Element,April 2006 6. City of SLO Water and Wastewater Element,July 1996 7. City of San Luis Obispo Municipal Code 8. City of San Luis Obispo,Land Use Inventory Database 9. Site Visit 10. USDA,Natural Resources Conservation Service,Soil Survey of San Luis Obispo County Il. Website of the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency: http://www.consrv.ca.gov/dlrp/FMMP/ 12. Clean Air Plan for San Luis Obispo County,Air Pollution Control District,2001 13. CEQA Air Quality Handbook,Air Pollution Control District,2003 14. City of San Luis Obispo,Archaeological Resource Preservation Guidelines,on file in the Community Development Department 15. City of San Luis Obispo,Historic Site Ma 16. City of San Luis Obispo Burial Sensitivity Ma 17. City of San Luis Obispo,Historic Resource Preservation Guidelines,on file in the Community Development Department 18. San Luis Obispo Quadrangle Map,prepared by the State Geologist in compliance with the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act,effective January 1, 1990 19. City of San Luis Obispo Community Design Guidelines 20. Hydrology and Hydraulics Drainage Report,Prepared by Wallace Group on April 2,2006 21. Historical Resource Assessment,Prepared by Chattel Architecture on June 1,2005 22. Project Plans u Attachment 8 RESOLUTION NO.####-06 A RESOLUTION OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO CITY COUNCIL APPROVING A TENTATIVE TRACT MAP AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT FOR A TEN-UNIT CONDOMINIUM DEVELOPMENT LOCATED AT 153 STENNER STREET (TR/ER 1-06) 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 June 28, 2006 pursuant to an application filed by Ocean Ridge Development Group, LLC., property owners, 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 Negative Declaration of environmental impact as prepared by staff; BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. Findings. 1. The proposed tentative tract map is consistent with the General Plan because the subdivision will provide for residential development consistent with the Medium-High Density Residential Zone. 2. As conditioned, the design and improvement of the proposed subdivision is consistent with the General Plan because each dwelling has access to a compact, private open space area and adequate common open space and recreation areas, and the development will occur as part of the neighborhood pattern anticipated for the medium-high density residential zone. 3. The site is physically suited for the proposed type of development because it is an under- developed site that is adjacent to an existing street right-of-way. 4. As conditioned, the site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development because the site is within an existing City block, services are available to serve the development, and utilities have been designed to serve the site per City standards. 5. The design of the subdivision, or the type of improvements, is not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and unavoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat because the site does not have any creeks or other potentially significant habitat areas for fish or wildlife. 6. The design of the subdivision, or type of improvements, is not likely to cause serious public health problems because the type of improvements are residential and development will be designed to meet existing building and safety codes. 7. The design of the subdivision, or the type of improvements, will not conflict with easements, y �3 -' Attachment 8 Resolution No.####-06 _ 153 Stenner Street 1-06 Page 2 acquired by the public at large, for-access through or use of, property within the proposed subdivision because no such easements exist. 8. A Negative Declaration was prepared by the Community Development Department on June 20, 2006, and found to be adequate by the Planning Commission on June 28, 2006. The City Council finds and determines that the project's Negative Declaration adequately identifies that there is no foreseeable potential for significant environmental impacts by the proposed project.. SECTION 2. Action. The Council hereby approves the tentative tract map for a ten-unit residential condominium development and adoption of said Negative Declaration (TR/ER 1-06),with incorporation of the following project conditions and code requirements: Conditions: 1. The project shall be forwarded to the Architectural Review Commission to review the project design for consistency with the Community Design Guidelines following approval of the Common Interest Subdivision by the City Council. Their review shall include approval of the final.location and design of the necessary trash enclosure(s) and consistency with property development standards. 2. Applicant shall pay the Inclusionary Housing in-lieu fee prior to issuance of building permits. 3. The final map shall indicate common and private open space yards and the CC&Rs shall describe maintenance of all common areas. 4. Long term bicycle storage shall be supplied for each unit, to the approval of the Community Development Director. 5. The applicant shall pay Park In-Lieu Fees prior to recordation of the Final Map, consistent with SLO Municipal Code Section 16.40.080. 6. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66474.9(b), the subdivider shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City and/or its agents, officers and employees from any claim, action or proceeding against the City and/or its agents, officers or employees to attack, set aside, void or annul, the approval by the City of this subdivision, and all actions relating thereto, including but not limited to environmental review. 7. Subdivider shall prepare conditions, covenants, and restrictions (CC&Rs) to be approved by the Community Development Director and City Attorney prior to final map approval. CC&Rs shall contain the following provisions: a. Creation of a homeowners' association to enforce the CC&Rs and provide for professional, perpetual maintenance of all common areas including private driveways, drainage, on-site sewer facilities, parking lot areas, walls and fences, lighting, and Resolution No.####-06 Attachment 8 153 Stenner Street 1-06 Page 3 landscaping. b. Grant to the City the right to maintain common areas if the homeowners' association fails to perform, and to assess the homeowners' association for expenses incurred, and the right of the City to inspect the site at mutually agreed times to assure conditions of CC&Rs and final map are being met. c. No parking except in approved, designated spaces. d. Grant to the city the right to tow away vehicles on a complaint basis which are parked in unauthorized places. e. No outdoor storage of boats, campers, motorhomes, or trailers nor long-term storage of inoperable vehicles. f. No outdoor storage by individual units except in designated storage areas. g. No change in City-required provisions of the CC&Rs without prior City Council approval. h. Homeowners' association shall file with the City Clerk the names and addresses of all officers of the homeowners' association within 15 days of any change in officers of the association. i. Provision of appropriate "no parking" signs and red-curbing along interior roadways as required by the City Fire Department. j. CC&Rs shall not prohibit location of solar clothes drying facilities in private yards which are substantially screened from view. k. All garages must be available for parking a vehicle at all times, to be enforced by the homeowners association and the City. 1. No change in City-required provisions for trash collection without prior Community Development Director approval. m. No rooms other than those designated as bedrooms may be used as sleeping rooms. Code requirements: The following code requirements are included for information purposes only. They serve to give the applicant a general idea of other City requirements that will apply to the project. This is not intended to be an exhaustive list as other requirements may be identified during the plan check process. Public Works 1. The map shall be recorded prior to building permit issuance in accordance with tthe`City's ' 7 — 7 Resolution No.####-06 Attachment 8 153 Stenner Street 1-06 Page 4 subdivision regulations and the Subdivision Map Act. 2. Public improvements required as a condition, code requirement, or mitigation measure may be shown on a separate plan and approved prior to building permit issuance. Said improvements may be completed or a bond posted for their completion to allow for recordation of the map prior to the completing of all required and/or proposed improvements. 3. The required improvements may be processed as required for tract maps or may be processed under an encroachment permit at the discretion of the City Engineer. If an encroachment permit is used to complete all improvements, then a separate plan review fee shall be established based on the requirements for subdivisions. Depending on the proposed timing for map recordation and building permit issuance, a completion guarantee may be required per city standards. 4. The provisions of Section 16.20.220 of the Subdivision Regulations are applicable to any public improvements and generally those improvements that may have a direct impact on public improvements as determined by the City Engineer. 5. 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. Credit will only be applied to permanent, lawfully existing structures. 6. An encroachment permit will be required from the Public Works Department for any work or construction staging in the public right-of-way. 7. Any easements including but not limited to provisions for all public and private utilities, access, drainage, common driveways, and maintenance of the same shall be shown on the final map or recorded separately prior to map recordation if applicable. 8. All wire utilities to the new units shall be underground. 9. Underground electrical service may be provided from the existing overhead system provided at the rear of the property. The owner/applicant shall secure any necessary easements required to extend services to this development. 10. Any sections of damaged or displaced curb, gutter & sidewalk or driveway approach shall be repaired or replaced to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director prior to recordation of the map. 11. The existing street pavement shall be maintained in good repair during construction. The final pavement condition shall be evaluated at the completion of the project for excessive wear or damage resulting from construction operations. Pavement repairs and a slurry seal may be required per City standards if determined as being necessary by the City Engineer. 12. The existing curb grades shall be verified as being consistent with the approved street grades. If it is determined that the curb and gutter has settled to unacceptable limits, then they shall be restored to curb and gutter elevations approved by the City Engineer. Any new curb grades / — 5—`i' Attachment 8 Resolution No.####-06 153 Stenner Street 1-06 Page 5 plans shall be prepared by a licensed engineer and shall be the responsibility of the owner/developer. 13. The subdivider shall dedicate a 6' (2m) wide public utility easement and a 10' (3m) wide street tree easement across the frontage of each lot. Said easements shall be adjacent to and contiguous with all public right-of-way lines bordering each lot. 14. A private sewer mainline may be proposed in-lieu of separate sewer laterals for each unit. If proposed or required by the Utilities Director, the on-site sewer main shall be privately owned and maintained by the Homeowners Association. 15. A maintenance agreement for the sewer, paving, landscape improvements, and any other common improvements shall be recorded prior to or concurrent with the map recordation. 16. The parking lot design shall comply with the Parking and Driveway Standards and Engineering Standard Section 2010.E.7. All parking spaces must be designed so that vehicles can enter in one maneuver. Furthermore, all spaces shall be designed so that vehicles can exit to the adjoining street in a forward direction in no more than two maneuvers. 17. The demolition of the existing building shall comply with all local, state, and federal requirements for the demolition of structures. 18. A preliminary soils' report is required in accordance with the Subdivision Map Act and the City of San Luis Obispo Subdivision Regulations. The report is required at the time of tentative map submittal or if approved may be deferred to map recordation. The report shall be referenced on the final map in accordance with the City's Subdivision Regulations and the Subdivision Map Act. 19. This project shall comply with the requirements for engineered grading in accordance with the grading ordinance. The grading, drainage, and erosion control plans shall be prepared by a licensed civil engineer. 20. The building plan submittal shall include a complete grading, drainage and topo plan. The grading plan shall show existing structures and grades located within 15' of the property lines in accordance with the grading ordinance. The plan shall consider historic offsite drainage tributary to this property that may need to be conveyed along with the improved on-site drainage. This development will alter and/or increase the storm water runoff from this site. The improved or altered drainage shall be directed to the street and not across adjoining property lines unless the drainage is conveyed within recorded easements or existing waterways. 21. The grading and drainage plan shall show the existing and proposed_contours and/or spot elevations to clearly depict the proposed grading and drainage. Show and label the high point elevation or grade break at the yard areas, drainage arrows, and spot elevations to show positive drainage away from the building pads and foundations to an approved point of disposal. The plan shall include the finish floor of the units, finish grade elevations, finish y- 5_� Resolution No.####-06 Attachment 8 153 Stenner Street 1-06 Page 6 surface elevations, and parking lot drainage. 22. The building plan submittal shall include an erosion control plan and erosion control notes in accordance with the Waterway Management Plan Drainage Design Manual and to the satisfaction of the Building Official and Public Works Director. Erosion control measures shall be implemented and maintained for construction occurring between October 15 and April 15. 23. One 15-gallon street tree is required for each 35 lineal feet of frontage. A portion or all the required street trees shall be planted in the parkway per city engineering standards #8010 and #8230 prior to recordation of the map. The remaining street trees shall be planted within the street tree easement area. The final mix of species and tree locations shall be approved to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and City Arborist. 24. The proposed street trees and any parkway landscaping shall be installed and maintained by the Home Owners Association. The final planting plan for the parkway and onsite landscape areas shall consider the required line-of-sight distances for vehicles exiting onto Sandercock. Mapping and Misc.Requirements 25. All boundary monuments, lot corners and centerline intersections, BC's, EC's, etc., shall be tied to the City's Horizontal Control Network. At least two control points shall be used and a tabulation of the coordinates shall be submitted with the final map or parcel map. All coordinates submitted shall be based on the City coordinate system. A 3.5" diameter computer floppy disk, containing the appropriate data compatible with Autocad (Digital Interchange Format, DXF) for Geographic Information System (GIS) purposes, shall be submitted to the City Engineer. 26. The parcel map/final map preparation and monumentation shall be in accordance with the City's Subdivision Regulations, Engineering Standards, and the Subdivision Map Act. The parcel map may use Customary U.S. Units or the International System of Units (metric system). All record data shall be entered on the map in the record units, metric translations should be in parenthesis if applicable. Grading & Drainage 27. 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. 28. 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 - Affachment 8 Resolution No.####-06 153 Stenner Street 1-06 Page 7 report based on the final design in accordance with the City's Waterways Management Plan Drainage Design Manual Water,Sewer & Utilities 29. All water and sewer facilities shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the City's Engineering Standards and Standard Specifications. City Standards require water meters to be located within the public right-of-way, in the sidewalk or parkway area just behind the curb (refer to City Standards 6010, 6110, 6140, 6210, and 6260). Water meters in parkway areas shall have a concrete apron between and around the meter boxes, as required by the standards. 30. Water meters shall be manifolded in logical groups to the extent feasible, in order to minimize the number of service laterals and taps on the public water mains. Up to four 1" water meters can be installed on a single 2" water service lateral. On motion by 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 y AS TO FO well, City Attorney G:VHiII\Subdivision\1-06TR.ER.ARC.A(153 Stenner)\Council Reso 1-06.doc - RED FILE RECEIVED - MEETING AGENDA JUL 2 7 2006 DA TEM # SLO CITY CLERK TO: San Luis Obispo City Council Members z L L 4:Z COUNCIL Er:-CDD DIR ® CAO @ FIN DIR FROM: Victoria B. McEntire ATTO FIRE CHIEF ATTORNEY �PW DIR FERK/ORIG POLICE CHF 0 DEPT HEADS ® REC DIR 0 �� �UTIL DIR DATE: July 26, 2006 �' vG C HRDIR �G eq v o CLEtZ[G SUBJECT: Regarding Proposal for 153 Stenner Street A member of the Planning Commission suggested that I prepare and submit 5 hard copies of these programs so that they would know the history behind this house and the problems that have long been bothering the permanent members of this area. The program on the "Flow of Traffic on Casa Street" was done earlier and only the most relevant slides remain. I V 4=J s4=J T LU u CD V) LA Ln . m c� U V) u o0 ► LLI M > V-) >% •' 1•. .:i. -iii��.. -''�> Sly' � =: � .• ; A {{s_ �•�.� �r �tib-- - •. ., � [[ Y c^. -••sal: '�- �, `` �; �-! �,�:•`. _•.•Yom. �' -' -. �. •� i, v 1� } t } S C �� � I A t• t t'� 1 YF _ WA, I I z i ��+^ � y I �•� i O LU rt000 W LLJ z z Vn cem a) W W m � cn~ Q Q n, LLJ 2 � W � Q � � o � N LU � u 2 1- i i; �I I� I • �I r,�. 1. f Y K ���� si .r+"IR rr!r �� _ i '.-. ,: '�t,v;,t,'w .. .J. i _ �' r.. ;' r _3i�'':✓�`-.Ft ply`?+ ��, _ . ��- 7-._ I. SAA r*� d..A� �' ,'_� _ � %%�� 1' .. t • A:KWrLW�ry�iyA'S �V rrL ?� � 1' 1'�" ' • �w �� L d I, IM1M1M1,, i� I Winnow r� Q) V „ 4-JClam °e cr 0 '0 O o cen 4=J +J ® u Mc A ® l .sem +—J ■amino calmawl R� ® � 4-J8 mamma �+- S .® " �-- alowl 01 LU (.0 rq �. 4=J .. E so pC c� .� N E o Q u cn U ® V i : -C-�s i Ic I�SJ Il lrf l�•J. . �a - � F _ G i 1 i I S -1.; 7, %✓fir% r l\ 1 i J. J I • �� � :y��y/<r. anis-- �.'.'� _��_�i�. 1 , 1 ' a , 7 , t. . 4..J i i! r - L V ►+ oma c � oE ■ ,i� O �- ° EoU y— CU= (zft ■ � Q) o v� c� W a U� � 0-0. C ' a1a , + in Y p'0C � E E o , —CUM f t 4-JY O CL ra O ` l ai S >sEo *' oc z z-at O C.— ao j � u0� a U E ' co i t � Ln r— i � GJ 0 EW 1 1 '® cam, o o 0000 - X 00 00 (1) N oo (Noe m 00 E O cn m m C* N oo M N O s oo P oo M 4=0CL 4-J E E Ln 00 '® 00 00 00 ,® 00 4-J ja CL c1 Qji Ln o 4 M � E LA ct 4-J 0 N '— �n — s � 0 •- u u °J w _^_N -m- o ® ❑ ❑ }, •� O 000 � w0. U � -a a) Ln 010 CL �- 0 i r `1 >Jm s •v •� vii 4..r a Ln 0 4mJ a � � s o V o V CU E ► sE C/1 °; o o - 4=Jp •- L) 4- m ® (Vp (V - ._ - � V) > E s QJ :1 :3 >, ( � t - _ t t �� >< int ��' i •� d' / 1•, .Nor/r. _ _ y 1 .I i3 Y ' - a ;k Y' I • 1 r • 1 6 � 1 _ t R. •�'p i f. ti 41 _ W 00 00 O o 4--J° 00 u LA .0 . ® 4mi c� 0. 000 c � •o I= i ® n Cts W _ ® s U O •_ O +- N CL 4-0 (� + '_ _ 4-J +- - O Ate,, � > O D. -O Ln E O 00 W N N NCL tA aJ V 00 V � S-+ >% Q o 00 aJ '+ 0 N CL 00 00 (V 000 - .a„ in „ e 3 swass V Ni ° M 1. F� I v i 7 S � _ _•' t.� r. �ty _ f "-j• iY '. `' —.ate'—c � ` r 0• 00 CL _ • - _ • e e • • • - • • - 00 Ln Ln we 0E • t . _. e • - • 4-0 • • — - - • _. • • • . • e • e • -- • • - • e4-J = e e • - - v �0 O O V) Y M O X vi p N � .1� N i > u +�-' O00 LA a p 4 09 V -a O -Y rd `� 0 > i - et MOU. > > W � 00 0 ,® LA v -0 N i as-2 o o > 0 U � f.. a.+ s 00 W oo 0 LA WE c o o cn a, C: E Ln V Q�_ N C � � C1 >c� LA cn LA +-+W +-' LA Cd E i Q N 3 4-1 icf O p Q1 CO E V I `n > = OHOas-a "aLA W i. 0= LA m 00 p EE Es � G7 a O �'O � rti O GJ O.N Z 01 }' ,- 'i w ate.+ O r y W s -� n O :3-0 4-0 41-J N LA C) 0 _ � O O) 00 N p -p L2x +� >rz i CIO 0) 0N (1) 4.j � - — - }, aJ O ice.+ 2 'A Ol � � s GJO �iV) Q flw O — of ,.+ N Q � c� N E N NO o0 .`AE 'aO O- `A _ �� r� 2 a°1. � ' ou Q � live Q0-0Ou