Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
01/23/2007, PH2 - TENTATIVE TRACT MAP TO CREATE SEVEN AIRSPACE RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUMS (1231 LAUREL LANE, TR 37-06).
council M.6nD.W �a j agenda Report �N� CITY OF SAN LUIS O B 1 S P 0 FROM: John Mandeville, Community Development Dire o Prepared By: Tyler Corey, Associate Planner SUBJECT: TENTATIVE TRACT MAP TO CREATE SEVEN AIRSPACE RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUMS (1231 LAUREL LANE, TR 37 -06). CAO RECOMMENDATION As recommended by the Planning Commission, adopt the attached Draft Resolution "A ", which: 1. Reaffirms Council's prior approval (July 6, 2004) of a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impact. 2. Approves the Tentative Tract Map to create seven airspace residential condominiums, based on findings and subject to conditions and code requirements. DISCUSSION Data Summary Address: 1231 Laurel Lane Applicant; Paul Nagy Development Representative: Triad/Holmes Associates Zoning: R-4 (High- Density Residential) General Plan: High- Density Residential Environmental Status: On July 6, 2004, the City Council approved a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impact for a General Plan Amendment, rezone and residential project at the subject site. Situation On July 6, 2004, Council approved a General Plan Amendment and rezone from Neighborhood Commercial (C -N) to High- Density Residential (R-4) to allow the development of a residential project at the subject site. On September 6, 2005, Council granted final architectural approval to a seven -unit apartment project at the site (Attachment 3). The City has now received an application for a tentative tract map to convert the previously approved apartment project into seven airspace residential condominiums on a 16,524 square -foot site located on the northeast comer of Laurel Lane and Southwood Drive in the High- Density Residential (R-4) zone. According to the City's Subdivision Regulations, Council approves or denies condominium projects with five or more units after considering a Planning Commission recommendation. On December 13, 2006, the Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval of the tentative tract map to the City Council (Attachment 4). 02,-1 Council Agenda Report — TR 37 -06 January 23, 2007 Page 2 Site Description The project site consists of approximately 16,545 square feet located on the northeast corner of Laurel Lane and Southwood Drive. The site is vacant with a less than 5% slope. The project area is predominantly residential in character with some commercial and community- serving uses in the immediate area. Surrounding uses include single - family residences, apartments, condominiums, a senior -care facility, the Laurel Lane Shopping Center, a City fire station, Sinsheimer Park, Sinsheimer Elementary School, YMCA facilities, and social services. Zoning surrounding the site is shown in the attached vicinity map (Attachment 1). Project Description The proposed project includes the request for the following entitlements: ➢ Tentative tract map for the creation of seven airspace residential condominiums (Tract 2825) ➢ Acceptance of the previously approved Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impact (ER 121 -03) The project includes the construction of seven detached, two - bedroom dwelling units on either side of a 20 -foot wide driveway located off Southwood Drive. Two separate building designs are being proposed: Building A is approximately 1,521 square feet and includes 3- levels with 2- bedrooms and a loft, 2-car garage, 110 square -foot deck and front yard areas that face Laurel Lane; Building B is approximately 1,529 square feet and also includes 3- levels with 2- bedrooms and a loft, 2 -car garage, three decks totaling 290 square feet and private rear yard areas. Other components of the project include site grading and installation of utilities, one guest parking space and a common outdoor use area with flatwork, basketball court and fixed barbeque at the northeast comer of the site. Planning Commission Action On December 13, 2006, the Planning Commission, on a 5 -0 vote (two vacancies) recommended that the City Council reaffirm their prior approval (July 6, 2004) of a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impact and adopt the addendum, and approve the tentative tract map, based on findings and subject to conditions and code requirements (Attachment 4). There was no public testimony on the item and Commission discussion was brief. The Planning Commission staff report and hearing minutes are attached (Attachments 5 & 6). General-Plan Consistency The attached Planning Commission staff report includes a complete General Plan analysis for the project. The Commission found the project consistent with the General Plan for the following reasons: A 2 Council Agenda Report — TR 37-06 January 23, 2007 Page 3 1) Adds to the City's High- Density Residential housing inventory. 2) Provides privacy for occupants and neighbors of the project. 3) Provides separate paths for vehicles and pedestrians. 4) Is consistent with the scale and character of surrounding developments.. Conformance with Subdivision Regulations As discussed in further detail in the Planning Commission staff report, the project complies with all of the provisions in the Subdivision Regulations for the development of new residential condominiums. To improve the usability of the common recreation area proposed along the northeast property line, the Planning Commission recommended a condition that the area include fixed seating. Conformance with Property Development Standards On September 6, 2005, Council granted street yard setback exceptions for the development plan with the Architectural Review approval along Laurel Lane and Southwood Drive. The exception along Laurel Lane reduced the required street yard from 15 feet to 12 feet for trellises. The exception along Southwood Drive reduced the street yard from 15 feet to 10 feet for structures. The project has been designed consistent with these modified setback requirements. No other development exceptions have been granted or are requested. Environmental Review On July 6, 2004, Council approved a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impact for a General Plan Amendment, rezone and residential project at the subject site. Section 15164 of the CEQA Guidelines allows a lead agency to prepare an addendum to a previously adopted Negative Declaration if only "minor technical changes or additions" have occurred in the project description since the study was originally prepared. The request for the proposed vesting tentative tract map will enable the separate sale of residential units within the project, but will not result in any additional physical changes to the site. Therefore, no new environmental impacts have been identified with the subdivision proposal and an addendum to Initial Study ER 121 -03 has been prepared for the project (Attachment 7). Next Steps Tract maps are approved through a two -step process: first a tentative map, and then 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. 2 -3 Council Agenda Report — TR 37 -06 January 23, 2007 Page 4 CONCURRENCES This item was distributed to various City departments and comments received have been included as conditions and code requirements where appropriate. 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 The Council may approve the project with modified findings and/or conditions. 2. The Council may deny the proposed subdivision, based on findings of inconsistency with the General Plan as specified by the Council. 3. The Council may continue review of the project, if more information is needed. Direction should be given to staff and the applicants. ATTACIIMENTS: 1. Vicinity Map 2. Reduced scale project plans 3. Council Resolution No. 9733 (2005 Series) 4. Planning Commission Resolution 5467 -06 5. Draft Planning Commission minutes 6. Planning Commission staff report 7. Addendum to Initial Study ER 121 -03 8. Draft Resolution "A" as recommended by the Planning Commission and staff 9. Alternative Draft Resolution `B" to deny the proposed project Reading File: Full -size project plans GAtcorey\CC\TR 37 -06 Nagy \TR 37- 06rpt.doc � -y 'I 0 tir: • W 0 4 1S Ll dLl Ll �dLl Attachment 2 a i I I I 1 ��MHO Mp4 ���RM4 �p \q !! aaaR aaaR RReass R4 9 R@ R Attachment 2 I� 3^ ., x 9NPl T3871Y1 awn oa da I�a�a S € 849I£3 I o la �'a y W3 _ __ 3NY7 Z�XQf7 d m 1111 Vm KKOUV Vi�e� OIO-/ rnova /i -RT M I nV- IN/�IN IMV r" (ic ! $i!a y' Yri ' 7Z11YYd bbpy I qpk i k �g� F y IN gg § a R yp: p j Qd E `y •.g pC1 q39 p!eye�Ygg b 9 bad c�6 � . �$i sggf� 4a B�RoYgo.;d8�� kill^ till 9��� . i gag& 4g 11�� Ilk 'I �snn tiwa�nlwml�w�a i I I I 1 r e I� 3^ ., x 9NPl T3871Y1 awn oa da I�a�a S € 849I£3 I o la �'a y W3 _ __ 3NY7 Z�XQf7 d m 1111 Vm KKOUV Vi�e� OIO-/ rnova /i -RT M I nV- IN/�IN IMV r" (ic ! $i!a y' Yri ' 7Z11YYd bbpy I qpk i k �g� F y IN gg § a R yp: p j Qd E `y •.g pC1 q39 p!eye�Ygg b 9 bad c�6 � . �$i sggf� 4a B�RoYgo.;d8�� kill^ till 9��� . i gag& 4g 11�� Ilk 'I �snn tiwa�nlwml�w�a va VdM S#77 ars 7W rte= p ,_� 9Z8Z ON dY M .LOYYI 34&'V1N31 ONLLS3A L 16111461 I B9 ,vv7d 9NANYD AWNinrrbd I 1d61 oLl aLl ,I$1 9� 611 6i R }� g 3 I ja ai ; B it a . Iat qh 'kl to 'I tgt , yAyiYL`p�i6o 9 � Ie1 O 0000 000 0OV e �4 R a a g Mh Q 7 ai e e B� 7 9j ingF i aR it I all 11 �3& � pips ihq i it ee eat ppL ( 6® ®m©®mISM r�t 2 NQ .1. W1 lit gg@@ Q4 aeearrreaR�nn�eYe.n Y WT.yll .nU.wM� VO OaM S07 MW 5WT ZW SLBZ ON ddry W 3A LL v.LIM 9NLIS3/1 +� � ph, 1d61 AS SAMO-S 9IV/012�J ANYAfII►rWd ti iG.l VI nl11 m 4 { V i! Se rvrnw 2 Y7 bdS W SV77 NYS :W UYAO Q q 11 s=4" Anmwoa= 1 C .NV JNLS3i0.9e ON db`V � 16, NV7d .unun .(1/VNlmrz?yd �3 1 ! t 4. h h e. F` i t ll, 'Jill 1 U phl Un a all �l1 11 . 0.1E ON Attachment 2 Rl 0 0 0 0 Nq n �n M M �® �/ I 9a ■e ■�o■uH■ f��W■ 1,0■I�■ I ■■■ ■ ■1 1! . - - -I H �11'�I ■ ■�� Ell ra". moll ■■■■ ■I ■mI ■ !!_ ■■w■■ei■ ... ■ •■ ■Nei■ \ 1■■■Io...- [son NEON iI /I �oVN 111 ■■ e Leo NONE NOON _ ■� ■E■■■ ■E■■■ MEMO NONE MONO I1 ■■■■ rte_ _ �iasii N I; ®.�■ ■ ■� ■ ■ ■ ■■HI ■1■ ■NN■ II! Li :: L� snueuiin0 �r�� Io ■oe�.ou NOON ... MENE� °= ���!! ENROi ii ?� II E■■■■ �j rV o WIIIIIlIW�iI�.. 1�b�l� lilf� l�- iGmiGeii �Cllr�■■■ IN �I, �I ! ■ ■■ ■ 1 ■e �� 1 ° ga VSO ■■ r� I■. MORO ■Ih"L4■���1 �■1 �WL■eu�ww�ii� •..G° ■� �■I i�bi" �■ [d.0 �� ■IyN \1 - NNER �����,w.1 ■ENE■ II ill ■ ■NE/ ■ ■EEO w:u 1���I ■I I' ° EE N ■ ■■ ■ ■O ^OV�II?I �V ■Wl�i �______ __tea, n �"�" ___ _____.._ NOON■ E� ■E/ ®i lid,; W it I �� � ! ■IEI� „ iii ., �� IIO ■ ■ _ H �ii� _! ����"�• ENRON ��n ■ ■...�,. I ■ON■Eilnn.a/1vE . ■....�� ■ ■NON I ■I� ■ ■N ■[79 ?:�ICO22N ■1He■N ■■ ERROR L ■ ■■ ■ICI ■ ■ ■ ■■ ■lug ■ ■ ■ ■. —IIO ■■ ■I 1 Ali O / N W W �I�:I � H H H �I n ' e Rl UM. MW 9 °V'CV `mod V UMIS it n C 9Y=3 e;_ :III° LL SON . Ii1111 p 9 4 :III w UJ r a a �m3t J U W a s a N F_ W rn z Ed ppgg s a 3� � 8 w U 2 W LL m 33 � e Attachment 2 r N a ;a9 021-11 P E IIIII ;3•as s'; III= F12'fi' ; m - Ve I I IIIIi I I I I I f V VS N l0 W U Z S` N N _ J a awi a . m a -+ ¢. a 2: w U 2 W LL m 33 � e Attachment 2 r N a ;a9 021-11 Irwn¢uruu¢ IlmerxKWwll.�"....,....�II' I I l I I I I I f V I w U 2 W LL m 33 � e Attachment 2 r N a ;a9 021-11 Irwn¢uruu¢ IlmerxKWwll.�"....,....�II' w U 2 W LL m 33 � e Attachment 2 r N a ;a9 021-11 � , «'d\@� ! [ ) _ Mm— Attachment 2 z j .� j� ( \ \ � Z z) \ ; n | / - � � 2 § 2 2 2 g O 4 S e o e) w_» � ,• , z j .� j� ( \ \ � Z z) \ ; n | / - � � 2 § 2 2 2 g O 4 S e o e) w_» I V I •V-'S;Ind U U9,W191 Attachment 2 aIl zj lu� 142 ON T] h, % # (L 0, z lu A I ° in ° � w • H !h; c a O fII:IJ ° Attachment 2 Q' S d qq ,JI J Y 9 5 tlg aa � • 8 i t i c7 8 j- ljt399jj. �; �Q o i3 #a '�$s1j9'i5i .' i ii,�. • itt �ii I iRf18D� H ❑ ❑ ''}�� � yrj , rr��R❑ I�� II H I.Il�ilriuiri ' Cr■sli.- ° win win in H �1 ,118. n Yo s al__I_ ©• a r u H H r!1 ❑ n ,,, ,,, _ s I o� �.� � n •�I�E5ilE73 �.� I Coy n �Ir eeoer�:.o III' IIiU_ � Fj7 � VIII �1 r� o � �4111�', VIII 6 w �a 4 f @—, @) O .O § 13 1§ xw 3 E � 3 s g gB @��Y� @@enc6y6y66 i §jii }16� g ',E�9��S4iliS35�i�9Yi95S�4 1 y • Its .Y,; iJ g eHilli !y ' ill YtI' ii}��`' 'lit il$ 1 ilk yy . lilt litlit [q DE j11�€ �E2-7/ i' S8jD170SST/9 'V'fV S11�M'Q,qu2�J21S'ni j j§iii�3Y e e _ _ J � i�� - -lit p p c.. I I in ° � w • H !h; c a O fII:IJ ° Attachment 2 Q' S d qq ,JI J Y 9 5 tlg aa � • 8 i t i c7 8 j- ljt399jj. �; �Q o i3 #a '�$s1j9'i5i .' i ii,�. • itt �ii I iRf18D� H ❑ ❑ ''}�� � yrj , rr��R❑ I�� II H I.Il�ilriuiri ' Cr■sli.- ° win win in H �1 ,118. n Yo s al__I_ ©• a r u H H r!1 ❑ n ,,, ,,, _ s I o� �.� � n •�I�E5ilE73 �.� I Coy n �Ir eeoer�:.o III' IIiU_ � Fj7 � VIII �1 r� o � �4111�', VIII 6 w �a 4 f @—, @) O .O § 13 1§ xw 3 E � 3 s g gB @��Y� @@enc6y6y66 i §jii }16� g ',E�9��S4iliS35�i�9Yi95S�4 1 y • Its .Y,; iJ g eHilli !y ' ill YtI' ii}��`' 'lit il$ 1 ilk yy . lilt litlit [q DE j11�€ �E2-7/ Attachment 2 Q' S d qq ,JI J Y 9 5 tlg aa � • 8 i t i c7 8 j- ljt399jj. �; �Q o i3 #a '�$s1j9'i5i .' i ii,�. • itt �ii I iRf18D� H ❑ ❑ ''}�� � yrj , rr��R❑ I�� II H I.Il�ilriuiri ' Cr■sli.- ° win win in H �1 ,118. n Yo s al__I_ ©• a r u H H r!1 ❑ n ,,, ,,, _ s I o� �.� � n •�I�E5ilE73 �.� I Coy n �Ir eeoer�:.o III' IIiU_ � Fj7 � VIII �1 r� o � �4111�', VIII 6 w �a 4 f @—, @) O .O § 13 1§ xw 3 E � 3 s g gB @��Y� @@enc6y6y66 i §jii }16� g ',E�9��S4iliS35�i�9Yi95S�4 1 y • Its .Y,; iJ g eHilli !y ' ill YtI' ii}��`' 'lit il$ 1 ilk yy . lilt litlit [q DE j11�€ �E2-7/ win win in H �1 ,118. n Yo s al__I_ ©• a r u H H r!1 ❑ n ,,, ,,, _ s I o� �.� � n •�I�E5ilE73 �.� I Coy n �Ir eeoer�:.o III' IIiU_ � Fj7 � VIII �1 r� o � �4111�', VIII 6 w �a 4 f @—, @) O .O § 13 1§ xw 3 E � 3 s g gB @��Y� @@enc6y6y66 i §jii }16� g ',E�9��S4iliS35�i�9Yi95S�4 1 y • Its .Y,; iJ g eHilli !y ' ill YtI' ii}��`' 'lit il$ 1 ilk yy . lilt litlit [q DE j11�€ �E2-7/ 6 w �a 4 f @—, @) O .O § 13 1§ xw 3 E � 3 s g gB @��Y� @@enc6y6y66 i §jii }16� g ',E�9��S4iliS35�i�9Yi95S�4 1 y • Its .Y,; iJ g eHilli !y ' ill YtI' ii}��`' 'lit il$ 1 ilk yy . lilt litlit [q DE j11�€ �E2-7/ I■II I ME YA ON rod WN p1 4 j yP i i Attachment 2 � T 4 v z S a. zz 0 F a LU W S 0 0 Wb y 5 u p1 4 j yP i i Attachment 2 � T 4 v z S a. zz 0 F a LU W S 0 0 Wb y 5 II saJnposw 9 Y'ry'vind 'a umis II 0 W 0 O LL Ilia v w� �s m O LL I�■;fr 1I ��ineRail ea �� � a � N\ tll lil �:i ll i $ ; H ✓ey � III y1B1 F H • i 0 W 0 O LL Ilia v w� �s m O LL I�■;fr 1I ��ineRail ea �� � a � N\ tll lil �:i ll �' ✓ey � III • i m O LL I�■;fr 1I ��ineRail ea �� � a � N\ tll lil �:i ll �' ✓ey � III • i iAepra! o Or ° a ri r1 Il�ypy�I ' N ■■■ „ � o w II13 � r u m o LL H I�■;fr 1I ��ineRail ea �� � a � N\ tll lil �:i ll �' ✓ey � III • i m o LL H of- .:.. ®a.....® 0 Attachment 2 yrp� ♦ T +a li o a T "; �� ? s Q 3 d OR G g s �g off. If. � Y,Y z . kpl q�g§G @g;@g��p6p gp6gp�38$�p�p���1�0� x i �k 1 e i S 3 L :.s3 I�■;fr 1I ��ineRail ea �� � a � N\ tll lil �:i �' ✓ey � III • i of- .:.. ®a.....® 0 Attachment 2 yrp� ♦ T +a li o a T "; �� ? s Q 3 d OR G g s �g off. If. � Y,Y z . kpl q�g§G @g;@g��p6p gp6gp�38$�p�p���1�0� x i �k 1 e i S 3 L :.s3 ra7n�ossy9 Y'fV S71nd'Q��1S" a�A � ;'��' � 21 Fjia 3 a t all& M No ' ■ ■l MM R C I OF q 8 I f v 4• .,4 t ps Y Attachment 2 I /7 m � Attachment 3 RESOLUTION NO. 9733 (2005 Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO DENYING AN APPEAL OF THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION'S ACTION, THEREBY APPROVING A 7 -UNIT, DETACHED APARTMENT PROJECT IN THE R -4 ZONE FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1231 LAUREL LANE, (ARC IW04). WHEREAS, the Architectural Review Commission, on June 20, 2005, approved a 7- unit, detached apartment project in the R-4 zone, based on findings and subject to conditions and code requirements; and WHEREAS, Ken Hampian, City Administrative Officer, filed an appeal of the Architectural Review Commission's action on June 23, 2005; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on Septernber 6, 2005, for the purpose of considering an appeal of the Architectural Review Commission's action; and WHEREAS, the Council has duly considered all evidence, including the records of the Architectural Review Commission hearings and action, testimony of interested parties, and the evaluation and recommendations by staff, presented at said-hearing. BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. Findings. Based upon all the evidence, the City Council makes the following findings:. 1. The project is consistent with the City's General Plan in that there is no required mandate that structures in the R-4 zone be attached, nor is there a maximum unit size or minimum density requirement. 2. The proposal to locate the seven units in detached buildings is a superior design given the quality of the proposed architecture and building materials and detailing. 3. The site design with detached buildings results in greater air and light being available to residents given the spacing between buildings. 4. A proposal to attach the buildings would not necessarily result in increased density being provided in the project or a more attractive appearing development. 89733 I Resolution No. 9733 (2005 Series) Page 2 Attachment 3 5. The street yard setback exceptions along Southwood Drive (10 feet) and Laurel Lane (12 feet) are wan-anted because the site is constrained by two street frontages and a drainage easement that significantly limits the site's buildable area The street yard exceptions along Laurel Lane are for trellises, which were requested by the ARC and provide the buildings with a sense of street presence and visual interest, as well as needed architectural relief for the 23 -foot tall wall planes that face the street. 6. The project is consistent with the Chapter 5.3 of the Community Design Guidelines because the unique design provides for superior. architectural quality and materials, incorporates a mixture of the predominant colors and materials found in the surrounding neighborhood and includes private outdoor living areas (yards, decks) within the building form. 7. On July 6, 20041 the City Council adopted a. Mitigated Negative Declaration for a rezoning from C -N to R-4 at the subject property, which evaluated environmental impacts associated with residential development. SECTION 2. Action. The City Council does hereby deny an appeal of the Architectural Review Commission's action, thereby approving a 7 -unit, detached apartment project in the R-4 zone at 1231 Laurel Lane, application No. ARC 180 -04, subject to the following conditions and code requirements: onditions: 1. The applicant shall construct project so as to substantially conform to plans submitted to the Community Development Department on June 7, 2005. Any change to approved design, colors, materials, landscaping or other conditions of approval must be approved by the Director or Architectural Review Commission, as deemed appropriate. 2. If significant archaeological materials are discovered during grading and construction, all construction activities that may damage those materials shall immediately cease. The project sponsor shall then propose specific mitigation based on a qualified archaeologist's recommendations. The Community Development Director shall approve, approve with changes, or reject the mitigation proposal (if found incomplete, infeasible, or unlikely to reduce adverse impacts to an acceptable level). If the proposal is approved, the project sponsor shall implement mitigation, to the satisfaction of the Director. 3. The applicant shall submit a revised landscape plan with the building permit application for the project that accurately reflects the approved site plan with specific attention given to plantings along Laurel Lane, subject to the approval of the Community Development Director. 4. The proposed solid wood fencing shall be modified to an open design, such as wrought iron, to soften the appearance of the project as viewed from Laurel Lane and allow for views into and out of the project, subject to the approval of the Community Development Director. —/ � Attachment 3 Resolution No. 9733 (2005 Series) Page 3 5. The applicant shall submit an acoustical analysis (noise study) with the building permit application or any subsequent planning application(s) to ensure that interior spaces and exterior private use areas comply with standards contained in the City's General Plan Noise Element per Council Resolution No. 9571 (2004 Series). Code Requirements: 1. The applicant shall satisfy the project's Inclusionary Housing requirement prior to occupancy of the buildings. 2. As shown, public right -of -way does not exist beyond the back of the new driveway approaches. A pedestrian access easement is required to accommodate the ADA sidewalk extension. The required easement shall be recorded prior to building permit issuance. The applicant shall provide any required exhibits necessary to define the area of the easement. Otherwise, the approaches shall be designed to fir within the public right -of -way if possible. 3. This development shall comply with the Waterways Management Plan, Volume III, Drainage Design Manual. The building plan submittal or any subsequent planning application(s) shall include a complete hydrologic and hydraulic analysis report if warranted based on the amount of pervious surface proposed with the final plan. The submittal shall include erosion control measures and stormwater quality management in accordance with Section 10.0 of the manual. 4. A soils report will be required for development of all new structures, site improvements, retaining walls, new parking lot areas, and for public improvements. The soils report shall be included with the building permit submittal package and with the submittal of public improvement plans. 5. The Chinese Pistache along Laurel Lane is on the. City's master street tree list and shall be planted 7.5 feet to 10 feet behind sidewalk. The Birch on Southwood are an acceptable species for this location. Birch Trees within 7.5 feet from back of sidewalk are to be planted with a deep root planter. No trees shall be planted within 5 feet from back of sidewalk. Species and numbers of trees are within the cities requirements of one tree per 35 lineal feet of street frontage. 6. Long -term bicycle parking areas shall be stenciled/labeled so future occupants will know that the space is intended for bicycle parking. 7. The existing on- street parking shall be maintained. If line of sight issues are identified at the driveway locations prior to final occupancy, the applicant shall process and maintain a red curb permit with the City to install red curbing at the locations identified by the Public Works Department. f Resolution No. 9733 (2005 Series) Page 4 Attachment 3 On motion of Council Member Settle, seconded by Vice Mayor Ewan, and on the following roll call vote: AYES: Council Members Brown and Settle, Vice Mayor Ewan and Mayor Romero. NOES: Council Member Mulholland ABSENT: None The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this a day of September, 2005. ATMST- dd4t-'I p1�:�L Audrey H City Clerit APPROVED AS TO FORM Jonathan P. Lowell City Attorney .r in Mayor David F. Romero 02 oZ / RESOLUTION NO. 5467-06 A RESOLUTION OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF A VESTING TENATIVE TRACT MAP AND ADDENDUM TO INITIAL STUDY ER 121 -03 FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1231 LAUREL LANE (TR 37 -06; TRACT 2825) Attachment 4 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 December 13, 2006, for the purpose of considering TR 37 -06, a vesting tentative tract map to create 7 airspace residential condominiums; 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 and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reaffirmed the Council's adoption of a Negative Declaration with Mitigation Measures and reviewed and considered the Addendum to Initial Study ER 121 -03 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. Based upon all the evidence, the Commission makes the following findings in support of the tentative tract map: 1. The design of the tentative tract map is consistent with the General Plan because the project will incrementally add to the City's High - Density Residential housing inventory, provides privacy for occupants and neighbors of the project, provides separate paths for vehicles and pedestrians and is consistent with the scale and character of surrounding developments. 2. The site is physically suited for the proposed type of development allowed because it is adjacent to existing street right -of -ways with complete City services. 3. The design of the subdivision will not conflict with easements for access through (or use of property within) the proposed subdivision since all adjacent properties are accessed independently. Planning Commission Resolutio. o. 5467 -06 Attachment 4 TR 37 -06 Page 2 4. The design of the tentative tract map and proposed improvements are not likely to cause serious health problems, 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 and wildlife, is surrounded by urban development and has been previously developed with a service station. 5. On July 6, 2004, the Council approved a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impact (ER 121 -03) for a General Plan Amendment, rezone and residential project at the site. The City of San Luis Obispo has determined that an addendum to Initial Study ER 121 -03 is necessary to document minor technical changes or additions that have occurred in the project description since the initial study was originally prepared. The Planning Commission has reviewed and considered the information contained in the Addendum in its consideration of ER 121 -03 and finds and determines that the environmental document adequately addresses the potential significant environmental impacts of the proposed project and that the preparation of a subsequent Negative Declaration is not necessary. Section 2. Environmental Review. The Planning Commission does hereby recommend that the City Council reaffirm their adoption on July 6, 2004 of a Negative Declaration with Mitigation Measures and adopt an Addendum to Initial Study ER 121 -03 for TR 37 -06 with incorporation of the following mitigation measure: - Mitigation Measure: Noise 1. The construction of future residential uses shall be accompanied by an acoustical analysis (noise study) to ensure that interior spaces and exterior private use areas comply with standards contained in the City's General Plan Noise Element. ➢ Monitoring Program: Compliance with this requirement shall be monitored through the review of detailed plans submitted for architectural review and building permit primarily by the Community Development Department staff. Section 3. Recommendation. The Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council approval of application TR 37 -06 with incorporation of the following conditions and code requirements into the project: Conditions: I. All project conditions associated with the architectural approval of the project as approved by Council on September 6, 2005, via Resolution No. 9733 (2005 Series) shall be incorporated herein as conditions of approval. 2. 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 9 =P?3 Planning Commission Resolutroi, _ .J. 5467 -06 Attachment 4 TR 37 -06 Page 3 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. 3. Fixed seating, such as concrete or metal picnic tables, shall be provided within the common recreation area located along the northeast property line, subject to the approval of the Community Development Director. 4. 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 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. 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. The project is subject to all requirements in effect at the time of the building permit or map vesting date. 6;� _2;Iy Attachrr,ent 5 DRAFT SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES December 13, 2006 LL CALL: Commissioners Jason McCoy, Charles Stevenson, John Ashbaugh, Vice -Chair Carlyn Christianson Chairperson Andrea Miller (and two Absent: Staff: Associate ner Michael Codron, Deputy Community Development Director Doug vidson' Deputy Director Long -Range Planning Kim Murry, Community velopment Director John Mandeville, Assistant City Attorney Christine trick, and Recording Secretary Jill Francis ACCEPTANCE OF AGENDA: Commissioners'%4,,staff may modify the order of items. The agenda was accepted as presented. MINUTES: Minutes of November 15, and November 29, 200Z*#,,,Approve or amend. The minutes of November 15, 2006, were approved as amende The minutes of November 29, 2006 were approved as submitted. PUBLIC COMMENT: There were no public comments on non - agenda items. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1. 1231 Laurel Lane. TR 37 -06 (Tract 2825): Consideration of a vesting tentative tract map creating seven residential air -space condominium units from one lot; R -4 zone; Paul Nagy Development, applicant. (Tyler Corey) Deputy Director Doug Davidson presented the staff report, recommending the Planning Commission adopt the resolution which recommends that the City Council reaffirm their prior approval (July 6, 2004) of a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impact, and adopt the Addendum; and approve the Tentative Tract map, based on findings and subject to conditions and code requirements. PUBLIC COMMENTS: There were no comments made from the public. COMMISSION COMMENTS: Draft Planning Commission Mina._. December 13, 2006 Page 2 Attachment 5 Commr. Ashbaugh asked staff to verify that the parking requirement for the project has been met, and was advised that the project does meet the city's parking standards. He asked how the project met its affordable housing requirement, and was advised that it will be met by the payment of in -lieu fees. Commr. Ashbaugh also wanted to go on record as being uncomfortable with the project not maximizing the city's R -4 density requirements. Commr. Stevenson noted that he was on the ARC when the project went before that Commission and remembers the compelling evidence to support the project as designed regarding construction liability and supported the lower density on this site. . AYES: Commrs. Miller, Ashbaugh, McCoy, Stevenson and Christianson NOES: None RECUSED: None ABSENT: Two vacancies The motion carried on a 5:0 vote. Downtown Core Area. GPA and ER 50 -06; Discussion of recommended General lan Amendments to revise policies and programs relating to downtown building he t, intensity limits and floor area ratio in the downtown core, and environmental revie ity of San Luis Obispo, applicant. (Michael Codron) Associate Planne ichael Codron presented the staff report, recommending that the Planning Commission ommend approval of the proposed General Plan Amendments relating to downtown buil height and intensity limits to the City Council. City Housing Programs Manager er Brown explained the need to update the current limitations in place in order to meet th ed for mixed -use development. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Shawn Fitzpatrick, 560 Higuera Street, noted that bui rs know un what the existing rules are and have purchased property based upon that der ding of the site's potential. Allowing taller buildings allows a windfall to current owners. is would be fine IF the city received some benefit as a result. However, the taller height ' result in a negative impact to the downtown. Workforce housing will not happen. Only c lier housing will be built. Chinatown is only proposing 3.3 affordable units and 49 ma rate units. Muzios upstairs residences have been vacated. These units were true rkforce housing units and will be replaced with the development of higher end housin . The City will not be getting what they want. Attachment 6 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT ITEM # 1 BY: Tyler Corey, Associate Planner (781 -7169) DATE: December 13, 2006 FROM: Doug Davidson, Deputy Director of Community Development FILE NUMBER: TR 37 -06 (County Tract Map No. 2825) PROJECT ADDRESS: 1231 Laurel Lane SUBJECT: TR 37 -06 — Consideration of a tentative tract map to create 7 airspace residential condominiums on R-4 zoned property located on the northeast corner of Laurel Lane and Southwood Drive. RECOMMENDATION Adopt the attached Planning Commission resolution which recommends that the City Council: Reaffirm their prior approval (July 6, 2004) of a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impact, and adopt the Addendum. 2. Approve the Tentative Tract Map, based on findings and subject to conditions and code requirements. BACKGROUND Situation On July 6, 2004, the City Council approved a General Plan Amendment and rezone from Neighborhood Commercial (C -N) to High- Density Residential (R-4) to allow the development of a residential project at the subject site. On September 6, 2005, the City Council granted final architectural approval to a 7 -unit apartment project at the site (Attachment 3). The City has now received an application for a tentative tract map to convert the previously approved apartment project into 7 airspace residential condominiums on a 16,524 square -foot site located on the northeast corner of Laurel Lane and Southwood Drive in the High- Density Residential (R-4) zone. The Planning Commission reviews tentative tract maps and environmental documents for compliance with the Subdivision Regulations and makes a recommendation to the City Council, which takes a final action on such requests. Data Summary Address: 1231 Laurel Lane Applicant: Paul Nagy Development Representative: Triad/Holmes Associates Zoning: R-4 (High - Density Residential) General Plan: High- Density Residential Environmental Status: On July 6, 2004, the City Declaration of environmental impact for a General project at the subject site. Council approved a Mitigated Negative Plan Amendment, rezone and residential c;2 --�27 TR 37 -06 (Paul Nagy Develo, ...lj ' Attachment 6 1231 Laurel Lane Page 2 Site Description The project site consists of approximately 16,545 square feet located on the northeast corner of Laurel Lane and Southwood Drive. The site is vacant with a less than 5% slope. The project area is predominantly residential in character with some commercial and community - serving uses in the immediate area. Surrounding uses include single - family residences; apartments, condominiums, a senior -care facility, the Laurel Lane Shopping Center, a City fire station, Sinsheimer Park, Sinsheimer Elementary School; YMCA facilities, and social services. Zoning surrounding the site is shown in the attached vicinity map (Attachment 1). Project Description The proposed project includes the request for the following entitlements: ➢ Tentative tract map for the creation of 7 airspace residential condominiums (Tract 2825) ➢ Acceptance of the previously approved Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impact (ER 121 -03) Thd project includes the construction of seven detached, two - bedroom dwelling units on either side of a 20 -foot wide driveway located off Southwood Drive. Two separate building designs are being proposed: Building A is approximately 1,521 square feet and includes 3- levels with 2- bedrooms and a loft, 2 -car garage, 110 square -foot deck and front yard areas that face Laurel Lane; Building B is approximately 1,529 square feet and also includes 3- levels with 2- bedrooms and a loft, 2 -car garage, three decks totaling 290 square feet and private rear yard areas. Other components of the project include site grading and installation of utilities, one guest parking space and a common outdoor use area with flatwork, basketball court and fixed barbeque at the northeast corner of the site. EVALUATION Section 66474 of the California Government Code specifies the findings for approval of a tentative map. These findings include: 1. The proposed tentative map and its design and improvements are consistent with the General Plan; and 2. The site is physically suited for the type and density of development; and 3. The design of the subdivision will not cause substantial environmental damage or cause serious public health problems; and 4. The design of the subdivision will not conflict with public easements through or within the property. TR 37 -06 (Paul Nagy Develol lj Attachment 6 1231 Laurel Lane Page 3 The following discussion evaluates the proposed tentative tract map for consistency with these findings. General Plan Consistency General Plan conformity is essential in reviewing this application. The City must make a finding that a tentative map approval is consistent with the General Plan. The site is designated as "High- Density Residential" on the General Plan Land Use Element (LUE) map and the site is currently vacant. The General Plan contains several policies on subdivision design and housing that apply to the project. Those policies are listed below in bold print and staff's analysis follows in italics. 1. General Plan LUE Policy 2.2.12 states: "Residential projects should provide: A) Privacy, for occupants and neighbors of the project; B) Adequate usable outdoor area, sheltered from noise and prevailing winds, and oriented to receive light and sunshine; Q Use of natural ventilation, sunlight, and shade to make indoor and outdoor spaces comfortable with minimum mechanical support; D) Pleasant views from and toward the project; E) Security and safety; F) Separate paths for vehicles and for people, and bike paths along collector streets; G) Adequate parking and.storage space; I) Design elements that facilitate neighborhood interaction, such as front porches, front yards along streets, and entryways facing public walkways." Analysis: The proposed site layout, unit configuration and outdoor use areas for the project have been designed to minimize privacy and overlook impacts for occupants. Based on existing development, building locations, grade changes and primary use areas on properties to the southeast, the project is not likely to create significant privacy and overlook impacts on adjacent properties. The unique architectural design of the project provides for superior architectural quality and materials, incorporates a mixture of the predominant colors and materials found in the surrounding neighborhood and includes private outdoor living areas (yards, decks) within the building form. 'Pedestrian walkways have been provided for units 1 -3 that connect the public right -of -way to front patio areas facing Laurel Lane. Parking and storage has been provided consistent with the Parking and Driveway Standards and Subdivision Regulations. 2. General Plan LUE Policy 2.2.10 states: "Housing built within an existing neighborhood should be in scale and in character with that neighborhood." 3. General Plan Housing Element Policy 7.2.1 states: "Within established neighborhoods, new residential development shall be of a character, size, density and quality that preserves the neighborhood character and maintains the quality of life for existing and future residents." � �g TR 37 -06 (Paul Nagy Develop _ ,!..L ! Attachment 6 1231 Laurel Lane Page 4 Analysis: The project site is surrounded by medium -high density, multi - family, multi -story apartments and condominiums. The height, mass, and density of the proposed project is similar to adjacent developments, and therefore, complies with these General Plan policies. 4. General Plan Housing Element Goal 6.1 states: "Plan for new housing to meet the full range of community housing needs." Analysis: The project will ultimately provide for the development of 7 airspace residential condominiums consistent with the property's zoning district, which will incrementally add to the City's High - Density Residential housing inventory. Conformance with Subdivision Regulations The City's Subdivision Regulations contain provisions for the development of new condominium projects. Consistent with the General Plan and Community Design Guidelines, these provisions contain standards for common and private open space, recreation amenities and storage. Unlike a rental apartment. project, which are open to discretion on the size and placement of open space areas, the condominium standards have specific guidelines that must be incorporated into ownership condominium projects. The applicable standards for common and private open space and recreation amenities are attached to this report for reference (Attachment 4). In general, the regulations require 400 square feet of private and common open space per unit while each individual unit must contain a minimum of at least 100 square feet of private open space. The regulations also require that the project contain an indoor common recreation facility of at least 20 square feet per unit or outdoor common recreation facility of at least 40 square feet per unit. Storage must also be included for each unit and shall include at least 200 cubic feet of enclosed, weatherproof and lockable private storage space, exclusive of cabinets and closets within the unit. The following analysis evaluates the project's conformance with these requirements: 1. Private Open Space (100 s.f. per unit) Analysis: The minimum private open space requirement for the project is 700 square feet (7 X 100 = 700). The project proposes 2,240 square feet of qualifying private open space provided within front yards for units I & 2, rear yards for units 4 -7 and elevated decks for all of the units. To qualify, open space must have a minimum dimension in every direction of 10 feet for open space provided at ground level or 6 feet for open space provided on a balcony or elevated deck. 2. Common Open Space (100 s.f. per unit) Analysis: The minimum common open space requirement for the project is 700 square feet (7 X 100=700). The project proposes 1,026 square feet of qualifying common open space within the interior of the site and along the northeast property line. a x:36 TR 37 -06 (Paul Nagy Develoi !:h) Attachment 6 1231 Laurel Lane Page 5 3. Combined "Total" open space (400 s.f. per unit) Analysis: The minimum total open space requirement for the project is 2,800 square feet (7 X 400=2,800). The project proposes 3,266 square feet of qualifying total open space. 4. Common Recreation Facility Analysis: The minimum common outdoor recreation facility requirement for the project is 280 square feet (7 X 40 = 280). The project proposes 758 square feet of qualifying common recreation area along the northeast property line. This area is proposed to be improved with concrete flatwork, landscaping, barbeque and basketball hoop with the drive aisle doubling as the court area. Considering the scale of the project (7 units), it is not expected to contain larger recreational facilities such as a pool or recreation room. With the incorporation of fixed seating, such as concrete or metal picnic tables, the recreation space is adequate and would include appropriate improvements. A condition has been added to project approval that requires the common recreation area include fixed seating. 5. Storage Analysis: The minimum private storage space requirement for each unit is 200 cubic feet. Each unit contains compliant storage areas within individual garages with direct access to the unit they serve. Property Development Standards On September 6, 2005, Council granted street yard setback exceptions for the development plan with the Architectural Review approval along Laurel Lane and Southwood Drive. The exception along Laurel Lane reduced the required street yard from 15 feet to 12 feet for trellises. The exception along Southwood Drive reduced the street yard from 15 feet to 10 feet for structures. The project has been designed consistent with these modified setback requirements. No other development exceptions have been granted or are requested. Environmental Review On July 6, 2004, Council approved a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impact for a General Plan Amendment, rezone and residential project at the subject site. Section 15164 of the CEQA Guidelines allows a lead agency to prepare an addendum to a previously adopted Negative Declaration if only "minor technical changes or additions" have occurred in the project description since the study was originally prepared. The request for the proposed vesting tentative tract map will enable the separate sale of residential units within the project, but will not result in any additional physical changes to the site. Therefore, no new environmental impacts have been identified with the subdivision proposal and an addendum to Initial Study ER 121 -03 has been prepared for the project (Attachment 5). ,;2--31 TR 37 -06 (Paul Nagy Develop.) Attachment 6 1231 Laurel Lane Page 6 OTHER DEPARTMENT COMMENTS This item was distributed to various City departments and comments received have been included as conditions and code requirements where appropriate. ALTERNATIVES The Commission may recommend approval of the project with modified findings and/or conditions. 2. The Commission may approve a resolution recommending that the City Council deny the proposed subdivision, based on findings of inconsistency with the General Plan as specified by the Planning Commission. _. 3. The Commission may continue review of the project, if more in_ formation is needed. Direction should be given to staff and the applicants. ATTACHMENTS 4. Property improvement standards for common interest subdivisions �. 3cD .......... L.� .1. : :y .b Y. 1�q6610 Attachment 6 n addition to lication submittal requirements for Tentative Maps provided in Chapter 16. 10, the follow - ng additional info lion is required in order to complete an application submittal: A. Common interes bdivisions are subject to the City's Architectural Review process and require a separate application chitectural Review. The information required for the architectural review application can be foun the City checklist for architectural review applications and is available at the Community Develop t Counter. In summary, a development plan that includes the fol- lowing information will be require 1.: A site plan with proposed b ng footprints with property boundaries. All dimensions shall be deady labeled. = 2 Proposed building elevations with ensions and, where pertinent, floor plans shall be provided. J. A grading and site drainage plan in comp with the City's Flood Damage Prevention Regulations and the City's Waterways Manage t Plan. 4. Parking stalls, driveways and associated public ' rovements shall be provided and dearly dimensioned in accordance with the City's Pa and Driveway Standards. 5. A fist of property statistics, Including any proposed exce ns, shall be provided on the plans. The statistics shall Identify how the project compges rlvate and common open space and recreation standards as listed below in Section 16.17. 6. A landscape plan. 7. Commonly owned parcels or easements and methods of maintenance dation) shall be dearly idea ffred on the plans. B. Any other information deemed necessary by the Community Development Director. A. Property Development Standards: Within condominiums, stock cooperatives and community apartment projects, property development standards (SLOMC 17.16), In (but not limited to) density, yards, and coverage, shall apply with respect to the exterior boundary lines (property ones) of.the proposed subdiviston and not to individual dwelling units within the project. Within planned development subdivisions (subdivisions which Include land ownership as defined by Chapter 1826.070 B.), property development standards shat apply to each lot within the project that con- tains one or more dwelling units, unless different standards are approved through the Planned De- velopment zoning process (SLOMC 17.50 and 17.62). 1. Common open space, recreation facllitles and driveways may be contained within ease- ments or a commonly owned separate lot. 2. Common Interest subdivisions must provide a method of common area maintenance by means of an association or agreement. 55 33 Attachment 6 amspace conaomintum Area outside of units is owned and maintained by a home- owners association. Density may be averaged over the entire site, and separation between units is not governed by the Zoning Regulations Yard Requirements. Each unit must meet the private open space requirements and a common open space must be provided on site. Typically, the map consists of one common lot with a condominium plan identifying the outline of each unit. B. Private Open Space. There shall be provided with each unit a minimum of two hundred fifty square feet of qualifying private open space for projects in the R -2 zone, and a'minimum of one hundred square feet for projects in the R-3 or R4 zones. To qualify, open space must be private and directly accessible from the unit it serves, and must have a minimum dimension in every direct tion of ten feet for open space provided at ground level or six feet for open space provided on a balcony or elevated deck, and must be located outside the street yard required by zoning regula- tions. 57 g- -3 7 } Attachment 6 C. Common open space. There shall be provided in each project a minimum of one hundred square feet of qualifying open space per unit for projects in the R -3 or R4 zones and one hundred fifty square feet for projects in the R -2 zone. To qualify, open space. shall have a minimum dimension in every direction of ten feet for open space provided at ground level or six feet for open space pro- vided on a balcony or elevated deck, and must be located outside the street yard required by zon- ing regulations. Common open space need not be located with each unit. D. Combined Total open space. The cumulative amount of common and private open space shall be at least 400 square feet per unit All open space areas must be qualifying as described in section C above. Total open space exceeds the minimum private and common open space since the City recognizes that some projects benefit from larger private yards while other projects rely upon common open spaces. The total open space requirement allows for flexibility in providing logical, usable and appropriately sized amenities for high density, ownership residential projects. E. Common recreation facilities. There shall be provided in each project of five or more units in the R -3 or R4 zones a minimum of twenty square feet per unit of common indoor recreation facilities, or forty square feet per unit of improved outdoor recreation facilities. Area of common recreation facilities may be within required common open space and may be counted towards minimum common open space requirements. Common recreation facilities shall be available for, and limited to, the use of the project's tenants and their guests. Common recreation facilities must be located outside the street yard required by zoning regulations. Examples of acceptable recreation facilities for smaller projects may consist of permanent, high quality foxed seating and tables, fire or barbe- que facilities, and other passive use facifities. For larger projects of more than 10 units, more sub- stantial improvements may be required and may include ball courts, children's play equipment, community gardens or other features that can be appropriately incorporated into the project design. F. Open space and recreation facilities In nonresidential zones. Requirements for open space and recreational facilities for projects in nonresidential Tones shall be set by the review body at the time the project is reviewed. G. Storage. Each dwelling unit shall have provision for at least two hundred cubic feet of enclosed, weatherproof and lockable private storage space, exclusive of cabinets and closets within the unit This'space shall be for the sole use of the unit owner. The minimum opening shall be two and one hall feet by four feet and the minimum height shall be four feet H. Laundry facilities. A laundry area shall be provided in each unit, or in common laundry space. Common facilities shall consist of at least one washer and dryer for each ten units or fraction thereof. The following shall be provided aa�Pll3' a plication for condominium conversion: A. Property condition report. The community development direr stablish the final form of the reports. Approved reports shall remain on file with the community defflrorwMWartment for review by interested persons. The application shall be accompanied by a property con 58 ADDENDUM TO INITIAL STUDY ER 121 -03 FOR TR 37 -06 1. Project Title: Paul Nagy Development Residential Subdivision (TR 2825) 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: Tyler Corey, Associate Planner (805) 781 -7169 4. Project Location: 1231 Laurel Lane 5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Paul Nagy 2691 Laurel Avenue Mono Bay, CA 93442 6. General Plan Designation: High- Density Residential 7. Zoning: R-4 (High- Density Residential) 8. Description of the Project: The project includes the construction of seven detached, two- bedroom dwelling units on either side of a 20 -foot wide driveway located off Southwood Drive. Two separate building designs are being proposed: Building A is approximately 1,521 square feet and includes 3- levels with 2- bedrooms and a loft, 2-car garage, 77 square -foot deck and front yard areas that face Laurel Lane, Building B is approximately 1,455 square feet and also includes 3- levels with 2- bedrooms and a loft, 2-car garage, two decks totaling 220 square feet and private rear yard areas. Other components of the project include site grading and installation of utilities, one guest parking space and a common outdoor use area with concrete flatwork, landscaping, barbeque and basketball court at the northeast comer of the site. A vesting tentative tract map is proposed to enable the separate sale of the residential units within the project. 9. Surrounding Land Uses and Settings: The project site consists of approximately 0.38 acres (16,545 square feet) located on the northeast comer of Laurel Lane and Southwood Drive. The site is vacant with a less than 5% slope. No rare or endangered species were observed on the site as it has been disturbed by past human activities. 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) 791 -7410. Addendum to Initial Study ER 1' Attachment 7 For TR 37 -06 Page 2 The project area is predominantly residential in character with some commercial and community- serving uses in the immediate area. Surrounding uses include single - family residences, apartments, condominiums, a senior -care facility, the Laurel Lane Shopping Center, a City fire station, Sinsheimer Park, Sinsheimer Elementary School, YMCA facilities, and social services. 10. Project Entitlements Requested: The applicant is requesting approval of a vesting tentative tract map, which includes acceptance of the previously approved Negative Declaration with Mitigation Measures (ER 121 -03). 11. Other public agencies whose approval is required: None. 12. Previous Environmental Review: On July 6, 2004, the City Council approved a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impact for a General Plan Amendment, rezone and residential project at the subject site. A Notice of Determination was with the County Clerk on August 10, 2004. A copy of the adopted initial study is attached. Section 15164 of the CEQA Guidelines allows a lead agency to prepare an addendum to a previously adopted Negative Declaration if only "minor technical changes or additions" have occurred in the project description since the initial study was originally prepared. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: Environmental impacts associated with the construction of a 7 -unit residential project were evaluated in the Initial Study ER 121 -03 with the land use change from Neighborhood Commercial to High- Density Residential. The request for the proposed vesting tentative tract map will enable the separate sale of residential units within the project, but will not result in any additional physical changes to the site. Therefore, no new environmental impacts have been identified with the subdivision proposal. DETERMINATION: The City of San Luis Obispo has determined that this addendum to Initial Study ER 121- 03 is necessary to document "minor technical changes or additions" that have occurred in the project description since the initial study was originally prepared. The Planning Commission has reviewed and considered the information contained in this addendum in its consideration of the Mitigated Negative Declaration ER 121 -03 and TR 37 -06, and finds that the preparation of a subsequent Negative Declaration is not necessary because: 1. The request for a vesting tentative tract map enables the separate sale of residential units within the project, which does not result in any additional physical changes to the site that were not previously addressed by the Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impact ER 121-03 approved by City Council on July 6, 2004. � 37 Addendum to Initial Study ER 1� Attachment 7 For TR 37 -06 Page 3 2. The request for a vesting tentative tract map to create seven residential condominiums is consistent with the residential apartment project previously approved for the same site by the City Council on September 6, 2005. 3. The 7 -unit residential condominium project is consistent with City goals and polices that promote the intensification of infill sites and provides for a variety of housing types in the community. Attached: Initial Study ER 121 -03 RIM cit Of Still } ) Attachment 7 luls OBI . SW 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 -3249 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM For ER 121 -03 Project Title: General Plan Amendment and Rezone GP/R 121 -03 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: Tyler Corey, Associate Planner (805) 781 -7169 4. Project Location: 1231 Laurel Lane 5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Paul Nagy 6050 York Mountain Road . Templeton, California 93465 6. General Plan Designation: Neighborhood Commercial 7. Zoning: C -N (Neighborhood Commercial) 8. Description of the Project: General Plan Amendment and Rezone to change the property's designation from Neighborhood Commercial to High- Density Residential to accommodate a future residential development project. 9. Surrounding Land Uses and Settings: The project site consists of approximately 0.38 acres (16,545 square feet) located on the northeast corner of Laurel Lane and Southwood Drive. The site is vacant with a less than 5% slope. Vegetation is limited to seasonal grasses. No rare or endangered species were observed on the site as it has been disturbed by past human activities. The project area is predominantly residential in character with some commercial and community - serving uses in the immediate area. Surrounding uses include single - family residences, apartments, condominiums, a senior -care facility, the Laurel Lane Shopping Center, a City fire station, Sinsheimer Park, Sinsheimer Elementary School, YMCA facilities, and social services. OThe City of San Luis Obispo is committed to Include the disabled in all of its services, programs and activities. �� Telecommunications Device for the Deaf (805) 781 -7410. Attachment 7 10. Project Entitlements Requested: The applicant is requesting a General Plan (Land Use Map) amendment and rezone. Future applications to be reviewed by the City include: architectural review of a seven to nine unit multi - family residential project. 11. Other public agencies whose approval is required: Airport Land Use Commission Cm of SAN Luis OsisPo 2 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CNEcKusT 2004 �- -yd Attachment 7 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. FISH AND GAME FEES Aesthetics X 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 X Noise Mandatory Findings of Significance Energy and Mineral Population and Housing Resources FISH AND GAME FEES STATE CLEARINGHOUSE This environmental document must be submitted to the State Clearinghouse for review by one or more State agencies (e.g. Cal Trans, California Department of Fish and Game, Department of Housing and Community Development). The public review period shall not be less than 30 days (CEQA Guidelines 15073(a)), CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 3 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2004 4P -W There is no evidence before the Department that the project will have any potential adverse effects on fish X and wildlife resources or the habitat upon which the wildlife depends. As such, the project qualifies for a de minimis waiver with regards to the filing of Fish and Game Fees. The project has potential to impact fish and wildlife resources and shall be subject to the payment of Fish and Game fees.pursuant to.Section 711.4 of the California Fish and Game Code. This initial study has been circulated to the California Department of Fish and Game for review and comment. STATE CLEARINGHOUSE This environmental document must be submitted to the State Clearinghouse for review by one or more State agencies (e.g. Cal Trans, California Department of Fish and Game, Department of Housing and Community Development). The public review period shall not be less than 30 days (CEQA Guidelines 15073(a)), CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 3 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2004 4P -W �! 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 a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, X there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made, or the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet(s) have been added and agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant" impact(s) or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact(s) on the environment, but at least one effect (1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL RAPACT 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 im osed u on the proposed project, nothing further is required. Signature I erniela ,A • 4 Rod Whisenand, Deputy Director of Community Development Printed Name CITY of SAN Luis OBISPO 4 April.21, 2004 Date For::John Mandeville, Community Development Director INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CNECKLIST 2004 } ��) 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 Code of Regulations. Earlier analyses are discussed in Section 17 at the end of the checklist. 6. Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g. general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. 7. Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in th"e'discussion. In this case, a brief discussion should identify the.following: a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above.checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on earlier analysis. c) Mitigation 'Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site - specific conditions for the project. CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 5 INITIAL STuOY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2004 �13 Issues, Discussion and SupportA. 1. .. tion Sources sources Po rol tentially Less Than No ` Significant Significant Significant Impact ER # 121 -03 Issues Unless Impact Mitigation I :within a.local or state scenic htghway7 Incorporated 1. AESTHETICS. Would the project: a) Nave a substantial: adverse eff'8cttfn a scenic•v siafi 1,2 X b) .Substantially damage scenic resources, mclti tig, but not limiW 1,11 X M, trees, rock outcroppings, open .space, and.;historic Wildutgk., :within a.local or state scenic htghway7 e) ~ Substaitr3ally deg ade,the e4s4ng - ;jsual cbatactex or gdalrty Of . 1,11 X the site and its surrouridings? w. d) - Create a riew smite of substantial light a 14,e; .w fr would;, X adversely, affect,day,or nigh ttime views in the area? Evaluation a), b), c), d) Laurel Lane is considered a road of moderate scenic value as designated within the General Plan Circulation Element. The scenic value of the roadway is recognized by the views of local hillsides. The General Plan Amendment/rezoning (GPA/R) will allow for the development of a high- density residential project with buildings up to 35 feet in height, The current C -N zoning allows buildings with the same 35 -foot maximum height limit. Therefore, the zone change will not significantly impact the proposed scale of development which could impact views. Future site development will require review by the City's Architectural Review Commission (ARC), which will address /mitigate the project's impacts to views and other potential aesthetic issues like light/glare to a less than significant level. Conclusion: Less than significant impact. 2. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES. Would the ro'ectr ttj,--; ogvertNineFann'land, Unique 1~artitland,.or.lfiarmlatitl pf : -= °• 14 X r.Stat; wide impo tauce ()~arutland }. as.slrbwri bn t6e trraps. b t•Sua� to the F�iland 1Vfap,,putg itnd �fit�h�tptang I'rogGarit •u�` 61t< alilornia R srt�irues agency, to nornagri lztturalsUse. 6) 4 t3oriflitt ynili eltisting zomng fb> agriculttual mse o> "a . '. ! 10 X ? • -` iiansn Ac conk-act. s)�..:InvDlvagthf i'c(_iauges.in the 'envlrontrent,whtn6,dd64 eXrstir .9;, 12 X t6eu Iclation pr pature, cool$ result in ce Fsjon tnf d " n - e ..alttttlLa ultutal use3 Evaluation a) b) c) The site is a small parcel that is surrounded by developed properties and public streets. The Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency designates this property as Urban Land. There is no Williamson Act contract in effect on the project site. No impacts to existing on site or off site agricultural resources are anticipated with development of the project site. Conclusion: No impact. 3. AIR QUALITY. Would the project: a' "iafat'aay tirr qualrty stridarrd or gzimbu siibstuiltjally to ajt ; 12,15, X ° 18dsting or pMec LW ari quality v'iolatlon"t ! . 16 tonfliot with orobstruct implementation o the appllcab c arr 12,15, X gtrahty. plan?,. 16 F c} .expose,sensitivesecepto tp subswntiab ,aXlutant , 12 X t , , ebncentrhhons�� •;• < ,�° . �, , ; ° a f.• z. `d }, ;Create gtijeUiohable odors ctitlg'a:stlt 9tatitiai numlt "eu d :` 12 X g) �itestlltin a cumulatNbly eonstdergble net tricneas of&tcy,,ofttexfa' 12,15, X s _ i 0211HIMMI wbj4h Ae. Pioiebt re ' >; i$,10t# Allatmaht %Q40 air, . 16 Crnr OF SAN Luis OBIspo INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2004 --//v VA rte, 1 Attachment 7 Issues, Discussion and Supporti Fit— tion Sources sources Foa. tentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact ER # 121 -03 Issues Unless hnpact Mitigation Inc orated 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 standard. 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 2001 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. Short-term Impacts: Future _development of the site could result in increased levels of fugitive dust associated with construction and grading activities, as well as construction emissions associated with heavy -duty construction equipment. Compliance with the dust management practices contained in Municipal Code Section 15.04.040 X. (Sec. 7004 (b)) will adequately mitigate short-term impacts. Those measures are: (A) A demolition permit must be approved prior to commencement of any demolition activities at the property. The demolition permit shall list detailed methods of handling potentially hazardous materials such as asbestos. If asbestos is present, -a demolition plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Air Pollution Control District prior to approval of City Demolition Permit. The demolition plan shall contain adequate measures for the removal and disposal of any hazardous materials such as asbestos. (B) Prior to any ground disturbance, sufficient water must be applied to the area to be disturbed to prevent visible emissions from crossing the property line; (C) Areas to be graded or excavated must be kept adequately wetted to prevent visible emissions from crossing the property line; (D) Storage piles must be kept adequately wetted, treated with a chemical dust suppressant, or covered when material is not being added to or removed from the pile; (E) Equipment must be washed down before moving from the property onto a paved public road; and (F) Visible track -out on the paved public road -must be cleaned using wet sweeping or a HEPA filter equipped vacuum device within twenty-four (24) hours. , Long -term Impacts: 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. Assuming the site is developed with a 9 -unit apartment complex, future development would be of a size that is.well 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. It should also be noted that City Code requires any future project to incorporate features such as required bicycle parking that will achieve the long -term goals of typical air quality mitigation measures to reduce motor vehicle trips and miles traveled by local residents. d) No objectionable odors will emanate from the project. Less than 12 Cm of SAN Luis Oetspo X INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CNEcKusT 2004 -� Attachment 7 Issues, Discussion and Supporti .�r1TL. . �tion Sources sources Pot tially Less Than No ' Significant Significant Significant Impact Eft # 121-03 Issues Unless I Impact Mitigation Inco orated X 12 1 I I x 12 1 1 1 1 x 5,12 1 1 1 1 x 12 1 1 I I x Evaluation: a), b) According the Natural Diversity Database of the California Department of Fish and Game, there are no 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 on or near the project site, nor is riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified. c) No tree removals are proposed, as no trees exist on the site. d) The property is completely surrounded by urban development and the proposed GPA/R will not interfere with the movement of any wildlife species or migratory wildlife corridor. e). The proposed project will not conflict with any local policy protecting biological resources nor any adopted habitat conservation plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. . f) The site is not near any natural waterway and will therefore have no adverse effect on Federally protected wetlands. "01 1 5, CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the oroiect: 10,21, 1 1 1 1 X ,22 1 1 1 1 X 11,21 I I 1 I X 23 a), b) Based on review of the City's Historic Site Map and Land Use Information System, the project is not located on or near a known sensitive archaeological site or historic resource. c) There are no known paleontological resources or unique geologic features on the project site. CITY OF SAN Luis OBISPO 8 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2004 r/ V/ Attachment 7 Issues, Discussion and Supportik fit._.:'. tion Sources Sources Potel. .f tially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact ER # 121 -03 Issues Unless Impact Yl'rt' apu 'Me.. f Mitigation 6 Incorporated d) The project site is outside of the areas designated on the City's Burial Sensitivity Map as potential burial sites. Conclusion: No impact. 6. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the ro'ect: ?v ro+ z a c- v -�-- ar a�a. onflt�t�wtth adq}y�te%e,�erg`y1c servaao pans n d a1.. ' '$:j t`S k 7r ii^ ". a ,q$ d"stL ( 1 , 1� Lase nonce a}b eresO�U�rce9s�tn�a�y d "y 6 X 6,12 X Yl'rt' apu 'Me.. f 6 �fe�sltnheoss�c5avalea�yb hijtailrow�t mlpe o' Evaluation a) b) The GPA/R will not conflict with adopted energy conservation plans or promote the use of non- renewable resources in an efficient manner. Future development on the site must comply with the policies contained in the General Plan Energy Element. The Energy Element states that, "New development will be encouraged to minimize the use of conventional energy for space heating and cooling, water heating, and illumination by means of proper design and orientation, including the provision and protection of solar exposure." The City implements energy conservation goals through enforcement of the California Energy Code, which establishes energy conservation standards for residential and nonresidential construction. Future development of this site must meet those standards. The City also implements energy conservation goals through Architectural Review. Project designers are asked to show how a project makes maximum use of passive means of reducing conventional energy demand, as opposed to designing a particular image and relying on mechanical systems to maintain comfort. c) No known mineral resources exist within the project vicinity. Conclusion No impact. 7. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project: 25 X ;'?�'` i >:�lijut • ploy u ' 25 13 X Sndell _ YK , alt, S1fn�o F "lo sib ' lU X 13 X 4 n a6geb3ogt l.. urn tg l lr{S xm 't `•111 t'.t, arld O 13 X ofis," e 1 tl t AIRt i ✓ ttjll lt,tx$ 13 X 1 stl c a t At 41 yy Evaluation a) c) San Luis Obispo County, including San Luis Obispo is located within the Coast Range Geomorphic Province, which extends along the coastline from central California to 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. CITY OF SAN Luis OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2004 v 1// Attachment 7 Issues, Discussion and SupportikAi. _ .' ion Sources sources Po ... y ally Less Thy No Significant Significant Significant Impact ER # 121 -03 Issues unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated Under the Alquist - Priolo Special Studies Zone 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 Los Osos faults. The edge of this study area extends to the westerly city limit line, near Los Osos Valley Road. According to a recently conducted geology study (source 25), 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," specifically Seismic Zone 4, which means that future buildings constructed on the site will most likely be subjected to excessive ground shaking in the event of an earthquake. New 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 Code and City Codes require new structures to be built to resist such shaking or to remain standing in an earthquake. b) The site is basically flat and development of the site with residential, rather than commercial uses would not have any greater impact on soil erosion or loss of topsoil. The Uniform Building Code contains standards requirements that address soil erosion and loss of topsoil associated with future site development. c), d) The Safety Element of the General Plan indicates that the project site has a high potential for liquefaction, which is true for most of the City, and the site contains highly expansive soils as defined in Table 18 -1 -B of the Uniform Building Code (2001). Recommendations included in a soils report are sufficient to mitigate potential hazards from building in these areas. In general, the presence of expansive soils requires additional base for roadways and flat work and deeper footings for building foundations. Conclusion: MATERIALS. 28 1 1- I I X 28 I I I I X 28 1 1 1 1 X 28 1 1 1 1 X 12 1 1 1 1 x 27 1 1 1 X 4,12 CITY OF SAN LUIS OSISPO 10 1NrnAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2004 I /-- ,, Attachment 7 Issues, Discussion and SupportiAi, A- .,,..aon Sources Sources —Pwe -4 lintially Less Than No g Significant Significant Significant Impact ER # 121 -03 Issues Unless Impact Mitigation groundwater table level (e.g. The production rate of pre - existing Inco orated 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) The project does not involve the routine use, transport, or disposal of hazardous materials. b), d) The project site was originally constructed with a service station in 1962. The service station was demolished in 1978. On July 25, 2003, the City reviewed the documentation and site investigation information for the former service station with the help of the previous property owner, UNOCAL Corporation, and issued a letter of `clean closure" for the parcel. There is no known contamination on the project site. c) The project is about y mile from an existing school site (Sinsheimer Elementary School), however, the project will not involve hazardous emissions or include handling of hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances or waste. e) The project site is not included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code § 65962.5. f) The site is located in Airport Land Use Plan (ALUP) Zone 6 — Other land within the airport planning area. Tile subject property is also located within an Airport Safety Area where aircraft operations are at 500 to 1,000 feet above ground level. The ALUP requires general plan amendments and rezones to be consistent with ALUP Safety Policies when located within an Airport Safety Area. On April 21, 2004, the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) found the project consistent-with the ALUP and safety policies established for the Airport Safety 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. 9. HYDROLOGY AND WA'F'ER OUALUY. Would the project:. ;a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? 12 g b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be 12,19 X a not deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g. The production rate of pre - existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses for which permits have been granted)? e) Create or contribute runoff' water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or 12,19 X provide additional sources of runoff into surface waters (including, but not limited to, wetlands, riparian areas, ponds, springs, creeks, streams, rivers, lakes, estuaries, tidal areas, bays, ocean, etc.)? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or- area in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or X siltation onsite or offsite? e) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area in a manner which would result in substantial flooding X onsite or offsite? f) Place housing within a I00 -year flood hazard area as mapped on a Federal Flood Hazard_ Boundary- or Flood Insurance Rate Map 26 X CRY OF SAN LUIS OsisPo 11 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CNECKUST 2004 r,;) - Attachment 7 Issues, Discussion and Supporti ,- rt�ifo_ etion Sources Sources Pot. AY �tiauy tom: man No 26 Significant Significant Significant Impact ER # 121 -03 g) Place within a 100 -year flood hazard area structures which Issues unless Impact Mitigation b) Will the project introduce typical storm water pollutants into, 12 Taco orated X ground or surface waters? or other flood hazard delineation map? 26 X g) Place within a 100 -year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? b) Will the project introduce typical storm water pollutants into, 12 X ground or surface waters? i) Will the project alter ground water or surface water quality, 12 X temperature, dissolved oxygen, or turbidity? Evaluation a), b) The project will not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. Future site development will be served by the City's sewer and water systems and will not use or otherwise deplete groundwater resources. c), d) h) 1) Physical improvement of the project site will be required to comply with the drainage requirements of the City's Waterways Management Plan. This plan was recently adopted for the purpose of insuring water quality and proper drainage within the City's watershed. The Waterways Management Plan requires that site development be designed so that post - development site drainage does not exceed pre - development run -off. This can be achieved through a combination of detention and use of pervious surfaces to increase water absorption on -site. Compliance with the requirements of the plan are sufficient to mitigate any potentially significant impacts of the project in the area of water quality and hydrology.. Future development plans will be evaluated by the Public' Works Department and must be designed in a manner that is consistent with the requirements of the Waterways Management Plan. e) f), g) The project is located out of the 500 -year flood zone per the Federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map. Therefore, future structures developed on the property would not impede or redirect flood flows or occur within a 100 -year flood hazard area. Conclusion: No impact. 10. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project: a) Conflict with applicable land use plan, policy, flr reguiation of 1,8 X an agency with jurisdiction over the project adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? 1,10 X :bj Physically divide an, established community? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or nattaral 1,12 X community conservation plans ? Evaluation a) The proposed GPA/R does not conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. The GPA/R would change the land use designation of the site from Neighborhood Commercial to High- Density Residential to accommodate a future residential project. The potential impacts of the rezone on the Citywide supply of Neighborhood Commercial properties would be evaluated by the Planning Commission and City Council with their review of the project. b) c) The GPA/R will not physically divide an established community or conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plans. Conclusion: No impact. 11. NOISE. Would the pEWect result in: a) Exposure. of people to or geneiadon of "unaeeeptable" noise levels as defined by the San Luis Obispo Oonerai Plan Noise 3,18 X Element, or general noise levels in excess otstandards established in the Noise Ordinance? b) A substantial temporary, periodic, or permanent increase in X ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above leaelb exi da rr without the project? ZCri-Y of SAN Luis Oetspo 12 INITIAL STuOY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2004 �V `D Attachment 7 Issues, Discussion and Supporting r. ia-ion Sources sources PoteL1, Foceau'uy sThan No Significant significant significant Impact ER # 121 -03 Issues unless Impact Mitigation Incorpoi ated 3,18 1 1 1 I X 27 1 I I X a) According to the Noise Contour Map in the Noise. Element, the project site is located within an area susceptible to 60 -65 decibles (dB) Ldn due to transportation noise generated from Laurel Lane. Maximum noise exposure for residential uses is 45 dB for indoor spaces and 60 dB for outdoor activity areas. Development of the site with a residential project could expose people to unacceptable noise levels, if not properly mitigated. The following mitigation will ensure that noise impacts are identified and reduced to a less than significant level. Conclusion: Potentially significant unless mitigation incorporated. Mitigation Measure: 1. The construction of future residential uses shall be accompanied by an acoustical analysis (noise study) to ensure that interior spaces and exterior private use areas comply with standards contained in the City's General Plan Noise Element. b) The construction of a future residential development project will temporarily increase 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) The project will not expose people to the generation of excessive groundbome noise levels or vibration. d) The project site is located within Zone 6 of the ALUP, but is not directly in a flight path where occupants would be subject to excessive noise levels generated from airport operations. 12 X 12 1 1 1 1 x a) According to 2003 California Department of Finance (CDF) estimates, there was an average of 2.3 persons per occupied household in the City of San Luis Obispo. Under the existing land use and zoning designation of Neighborhood Commercial, the site could accommodate 4.5 dwelling units and 10 people. If the property was designated High- Density Residential, the site could accommodate 9 dwelling units and 20 people. Based on these assumptions, the GPA/R will allow for a slight increase in population and housing. While a slight increase in population can be expected, the anticipated increase is within the General Plan's projection and will not induce substantial growth into the area or result in population exceeding local and regional growth projections. The project site is vacant undeveloped land bordered by urban development, which represents an inffll development opportunity. This type of development is encouraged because it can take advantage of existing facilities for water, sewer, storm drainage, transportation and parks. b) The project would not displace existing housing since the site is vacant undeveloped land. The proposed GPA/R would increase the City's inventory of R-4 zoned land, and increase residential opportunities for residents. Development of the property with apartments or condominiums could be a beneficial impact on affordable housing. The City's Inclusionary CITY OF SAN Luis OwsPo 13 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2004 Issues, Discussion and SupporM,,i- n ration Sources Sources Po eotentiauy Less Than No significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services: a) Fire protection? Significant Significant Significant Impact ER # 121 =03 Issues Unless Impact X Mitigation 12 X Incorporated 12 Housing Requirement requires that any future project with five or more lots or dwellings to either construct affordable units or pay an in -lieu fee. Conclusion: Less than significant impact. 13. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision, or need, of new or physically altered government facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services: a) Fire protection? 12 X b) Police protection? ;c) Schools? 3) Parks? 'e) Roads and other transportation infrastructure? f) Other Publ.1c facilities? 12 X 12 X 12 X 12 X 12 X Evaluation a), b), d), e), f) As an infill site, adequate public services are available to the property. Whether the site is developed with commercial or residential uses will not significantly alter the levels of public service available to the site. Future development must comply with all applicable City Codes and State regulations. c) The project could result in an increase in school -aged children if the site is developed with a residential project rather a commercial project. According to the State:of California Department of Finance estimates, San Luis Obispo had an average household size of 2.3 persons in 2003. If nine dwelling units were constructed and occupied, the project could ultimately generate 20 people. According to 2000 census figures, approximately 13.8% of the city's population is aged seventeen or younger. Therefore, we would expect to find 20 X. 13.88% = 2.7 (rounded to 3) school -age children living in this development It should be noted that the number of school -aged children might be slightly higher because multi- family housing units tend to -attract young families. School districts in this state are separate governing bodies with authority to collect fees to finance school construction and parcel acquisition. Section 65995 of the Government Code prohibits the City from denying a development or collecting any fees beyond those required by the school district itself, to mitigate effects of inadequate school facilities. Any effect that the additional 3 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 home. Conclusion: Less than Significant. 14. RECREATION. Would the project: a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood or regional paft or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical X deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated:? b) Include recreational facilities or require die construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which ;aright have an adverse X h sicai effect on the environment? Evaluation a) Future site development will add to the demand for parks and other recreational facilities. However, given the size of the parcel and associated residential density (nine dwelling units), no significant recreational impacts are expected to occur. Park Land In -Lieu fees would be collected to insure adequate provision of park facilities for the new residents of the project, per existing City policy, if a tentative map were pursued resulting in the creation of additional parcels. The City also collects a Dwelling Unit Construction tax that goes to a Park Improvement Fund with building permits for multi- family projects where further subdivision of parcels is not necessarily proposed. Collection of these fees help offset the impacts of new projects on the City's recreational facilities. The project site is located near existing recreational facilities such as Sinsheimer Park and Sinsheimer Elementary School. MCITY OF SAN Luis Obispo 14 INrnAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2004 �a 7 ) Attachment 7 Issues, Discussion and Supportih9I nation Sources So es Po potentially , Less Than No 2,12 Significant Significant Significant Impact ER # 121 -03 2,12 Issues Unless Impact X Mitigation Incorporated b) No site specific development plan is proposed at this time. However, given the size of the parcel, future site development is not likely to include the construction or expansion of recreational facilities. Conclusion: Less than significant impact. 15. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the reject: sr-- -r . x- :-a a---r - + / m�� ^•.'e4. Y•t * r'a rm asuse grease ?ut�traffic�w{u P �rliai`anu''vtha �'lextshnatfic, loaiiand5c ��r 2,12 ){ rc auta�y t 2,12 X ` �,, y��.' .d� ��r. t� 'hFF� +�• "k.'Y. 3l �` <S,i��7 f`��1 'iy. ;.7 X y r. ar n `�a yob i n 9 X 2,12 X y 0 r { � 27 X �' •�� "'6 It Ii'�`' re a .� - Ev uation a) b) c) d) e) Laurel Lane and Southwood Street provide access to the project site. The City's General Plan Circulation Element designates Laurel Lane as an Arterial between Orcutt Road and Johnson Avenue. Arterial Streets provide circulati on between major activity centers and residential areas. They have a desired level of service (LOS) of 'b" and a - desired maximum speed of 40 miles per hour (mph). Southwood is designated as a Residential Collector. Residential Collectors collect traffic from residential areas and channel it to arterials. They have a desired maximum speed of 35 mph, a desired traffic volume of 3,000 average daily trips and two travel lanes. According to the Institute of Transportation Engineer's (ITE) Trip Generation Manual (sixth edition), apartments generate approximately 6.6 average daily trips (ADT) per dwelling unit, and .65 p.rrL peak hour trips (PPHT) per dwelling unit. Small commercial centers generate approximately 16.70 average daily trips per 1000 square feet of gross floor area (GFA) and 4.97 peak hour trips GFA. If the site were developed with commercial uses, it could potentially generate 418 ADT and 124 PPHT. If the site were developed with nine residential units, it would generate approximately 60 ADT and 6 PPHT. Based on this information, the proposed GPA/R would allow a future project. that generates fewer vehicle trips than a neighborhood commercial use. It can also be concluded that a residential development would require fewer parking spaces, which could reduce the potential for future parking conflicts in the neighborhood. f) Future site development will require review by the ARC for compliance with City's policies and standards supporting /requiring alternative transportation, such as, bus turnouts and bicycle parking. g) The project site is located within Zone 6 of the ALUP, but is not directly in a flight path where occupants would be subject to excessive noise levels or hazards associated with airport operations. . Conclusion; Less than significant impact. 16. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project: AR'T'A'r) "M.TW . t T ' C�r`etr8met4 °. h �" 12 X �t imtmlt n-wffs eWS er lil tlTleII S C ` 9T �� 01 6 Orm f . 12 X CITY OF SAN Luis OstsPo 15 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2004 -5-3 Attachment 7 Issues, Discussion and Supporti jr. nation Sources Sources Po 4 Potentially Less Than . No Significant Significant Significant Impact ER # 121 -03 Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated 12 1 1 1 X 12 1 1 1 I X 24 I 1 1 X 24 1 1 1 I 1 X a), b) The GPA/R will allow for the development of a project with slightly higher water demands. However, the incremental change is not considered to be significant. This project has been reviewed by the. City's Utilities Engineer and no resource/infrastructure deficiencies have been identified. Future site development is subject to, water impact fees which were adopted to ensure that new development pays its fair share of the cost of constructing the water supply, treatment and distributionlacilities that will be necessary to serve it. c) .The City has adopted Water Allocation Regulations to insure that increased water use by new development.and land use changes do not jeopardize adequate water service to current and new customers. Section 17.89.030 of the regulations states that a water allocation shall be required to: "obtain a connection to the city water system for a structure or facility not previously connected; change the use of land or buildings, whether or not a construction permit is also required; obtain a construction permit." Compliance with the City standards and State requirements will assure that.impacts to water supplies are less than significant. d) The City wastewater treatment plant and existing sewers in the vicinity have sufficient capacity to serve the project site. 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. 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) 0 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. The GPA/R will allow for the development of a project with slightly higher solid waste generation. However, this incremental change is not expected to create significant impacts to solid waste disposal. Future site development will be required to comply with the City's Source Reduction and Recycling Element. .TORY in the this study, there are no a X status CrrY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 16 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CNECKLIST 2004 a- 75_y Attachment 7 Issues, Discussion and Supporti Iy F, itition Sources sources Pote,..dlly rotenflally . Less Than No b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but Significant Significant Significant Impact ER # 121 -03 cumulatively considerable? : ( "Cumulatively Gglasid cab}e Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Inco orated when viewed in ,cotmection with.ihe effects of the past ptx jects. 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 on or near the project site, nor is riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified. With regard to historical resources, the project is not located on or near a known sensitive archaeological site or historic resource. There are no known paleontological resources or unique geologic features on the project site, and the project site is outside of the areas designated on the City's Burial Sensitivity Map as potential burial sites. b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but g cumulatively considerable? : ( "Cumulatively Gglasid cab}e means that the incretrtental effects of 4 project are donslzi'erable . ?' when viewed in ,cotmection with.ihe effects of the past ptx jects. the el at§ of other current pro tl a effects of probable,. future �a.'ects The impacts identified in this initial study are specific to this project and would not be categorized as c vely significant c),1Doe4 the,pr4ob )lave env ro ntentg1 efifocA WIl 0h ** Chti i g Sdbst is_ T adyarse: a •fleets on human beiA M ei&ei dipectty or. indir `� _ _.. With the incorporation of a mitigation measure, the project will not result in substantial adverse impacts on humans. 18. EARLIER ANALYSES. F rh"er att?tij*sis ttiay be used wiieare� putsuaM to ilae hepntg,; pxogram. ,' ox of eu QA process,, one or, more effects have" adegualely' attttllyzed tn'at3 eaghei EIR1oe Nggt 11aati0tit 5cs3ou 156 103 (3.) (Li): In tliis case stscussioit shouldi the ibue'wikt 'items .� , ieiratna sesnsed Ida . ' :eaxlier attaC'ses anti_stat� kvhere tkte ,nzeavalla�le �t�le�ie_w' :' .._` - - - =.- - _ -' N/A 1t) :Impacts atdetj�,atel'y ad ressed:'Jt entify which effecis'ficsnl the above chetsklist wemwidiin the'scope of and adequaeely., arwyzegi in an eariiar d cement p�lrsnant to agPics le legal standards, and srate�ut e_the> sticli.effects:vvere adcttcssed bX ,- a, w, sJnih titan m ulrbs b '.•Qii the ear er N/A �i'�gaiioat �asu� Etyz. e�bcts'that ate, °�S� tlra�i Sigm�o`an"t �i+ith J�4itigafori.Ta��i�px�" 8e`be the.tzutiga—pi a trtba res wfueltvuese #deprfaorat d;4r re rtte fromthe,eaz a ilt�ut�iti nt mrtcl'f#tg extent fo whim they stidtoss site -s p ; llfCSn5of�ioect. f6e _ N/A 19. SOURCE REFERENCES. 1. City of SLO General Plan Land Use Element, Au 1994 2. City of SLO General Plan Circulation Element, November 1994 3. City of SLO General Plan Noise Element, May 1996 4. City of SLO General Plan Safety Element, July 2000 5. City of SLO General Plan Conservation Element, July 1973 6. City of SLO General Plan Energy Conservation Element, April 1981 7. City of SLO Water and Wastewater Element, July 1996 8. City of SLO General Plan EIR 1994 for Update to the Land Use and Circulation Elements 9. City of San Luis Obispo Municipal Code 10. City of San Luis Obispo, Land Use Inventory Database 11. Site Visit 12. Staff Knowledge 13. USDA, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Soil Survey of San Luis Obispo County 14. Website of the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency: http://www.consrv.ca.gov/dlrpAFMMP/ 15. Clean Air Plan for San Luis Obispo County, Air Pollution Control District, 2001 16. CE QA Air Quality Handbook, Air Pollution Control District, 2003 17. Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation Manual, 6 Edition, on file in the Community Development Department CRY of SAN Luis OBISPO 17 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CNECIWST 2004 ' Attachment 7 Issues, Discussion and Supporting in, a ion Sources sources Po tea, 4 . ntialty iessnan No City of San Luis Obispo, Historic Resource Preservation Guidelines, on file in the Community Development Department 21. Significant Significant Significant Impact ER # 121 -03 City of San Luis Obispo Burial Sensitivity Ma Issues Unless Impact 25. San Luis Obispo Quadrangle Map, prepared by the State Geologist in compliance with the Alquist- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act, effective January 1, 1990 26. Mitigation 27. 1 San Luis Obispo County Airport Land Use Plan 28. 1 2001 Uniform Building Code Incorporated 18. City of San Luis Obispo Noise Guidebook, May 1996 19. 2002 City of San Luis Obispo Water Resources Report 20. City of San Luis Obispo, Historic Resource Preservation Guidelines, on file in the Community Development Department 21. City of San Luis Obispo, Archaeological Resource Preservation Guidelines, on file in the Community Development Department 22. City of San Luis Obispo, Historic Site Ma 23. City of San Luis Obispo Burial Sensitivity Ma 24. City of SLO Source Reduction and Recycling Element on file in the Utilities Department 25. San Luis Obispo Quadrangle Map, prepared by the State Geologist in compliance with the Alquist- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act, effective January 1, 1990 26. Flood Insurance Rate (Community Panel 0603100005 Q dated July 7, 1981 27. 1 San Luis Obispo County Airport Land Use Plan 28. 1 2001 Uniform Building Code Attachment: 3. Clean Closure letter from the City and spot soil density tests REOUIRED MITIGATION AND MONITORING PROGRAM 1. Mitigation Measure: Noise The construction of future residential uses shall be accompanied by an acoustical analysis (noise study) to ensure that interior spaces and exterior private use areas comply with standards contained in the City's General Plan Noise Element. ➢ Monitoring Program: Compliance with this requirement shall be monitored through the review of detailed plans submitted for architectural review and building permit primarily by the Community Development Department staff. CITY OF SAN LUIS OBIsFO 18 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKusT 2004 —✓ 4 city of san luis oBi II FIRE DEPARTMENT 2160 Santa Barbara Avenue • San Luis Obispo, CA 934013240 • 8051781 -7380 "Courtesy & Service" July 25, 2003 Mr. Paul Nagy 6050 York Mountain Road Templeton, CA. 93465 Attachment 7 Re: 1231 Laurel Lane (Previously Addressed as 1214 Southwood Drive) , San Luis Obispo, CA. Former UNOCAL Service Station. Dear Mr. Nagy: Thank you for the opportunity to review the documentation and site investigation for the former service station located at the address mentioned above. Site addressing formerly identified the site as located on Southwood Drive, but the City reassigned the street address to Laurel Lane and current records reflect that change. After a review of the information and fiuther investigation with the help of UNOCAL Corporation we are issuing this letter of clean closure for the parcel located at 1231 Laurel Lane (previously addressed as 1214 Southwood Drive), San Luis Obispo, CA. Provided that all of the information is current and correct and that no contamination exists at the site we have no Rather requirements. If contamination is discovered during the course of grading or site improvements, soil samples must be collected and analyzed. If lab results exceed State. action levels for Lead, Petroleum Hydrocarbons, or related compounds further requirements such as excavation and verification samples would be required. Also, if there are impacts to groundwater then monitoring wells may be required by the Regional Water Quality Control Board. Should you have any questions regarding this correspondence please contact me at (805) 781 -7383. Sincerely, L• a D. Kerry Bo Hazardous Materials Coordinator cc: Mr. Corey Walsh, RWQCB ©The 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. 7 7 A ttachment 7 Central Coast Lab- SO,IL MECHANICS 996 BUCKLEY ROAD . S44.9276 FOUNDATION ENGINEERING SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA 99401 FOR: R.E.- Curtis DATE: October P.O. Box 4977 LABORATORY NC Thousand Oaks, CA 91359 PROJECT: Tank Backfi.11 - Laurel Ln & Southwood, SLO, CA SUBJECT: Spot Soil Density Tests taken in Tank Backfill V. ytt ! Li�1 The tests were performed by T. Cox.& M. Shorba of Central Coast Laboratories on August 30 & 31, 1978, and September l & 2, 1978. I - -Compaction and Density of Soil: Material. No. Sample Location 1 Composite Tests 173. 2 Composite Tests. 4 -11 ASTM Designation D1557 Maximum Dry Density Lbs. /cu. ft. 131.6 130.0 Optimum Moisture, % 8.5 9.2 II - Field Density Tests: Depth below Field Existing Density Field Relative Test Material Grade (Dry) Moisture Compactic - No. Test, Location No. Inches/ Lbs /cu..ft % % Tests taken_Auaust-31, 1978 1 SE Sector 1 72 -80 125.1 9.9 95.0 2 N Center Sector 1 72 -80 126.2 .9.1 9.5.8 . 3 SW Sector 1 60 -68 126.8 8.5 96.3 Tests taken September 1, 1978 . 4 NW Sector 2 60 -68 123.8 8.2 95.2 5 S Center Sector 2 56 -64 124.2 9.5 95.5 6 NE Sector 2 56 -64 124.7 10.8 95.9 7 E Sector 2 48 -56 123.4 11.5 95.0 8 W Sector 2 48 -56 120.2 12.1 92.4 Tests taken September 2 1.978 8A Retest of Test #8 1.25.3 1,215 96.4 :��itral Coas! laboratories Attachment T PROJECT: DATE: LABORATORY NO. II - field Density Tests: Depth below Field Test Existing Density Fi.el.d Relative Material. Grade (Dry) Moisture Compaction No. Test Location No. Inches/ Lbs /cu.ft % 9 Center Sector 2 24 -32. 130.4 9.7 99.0 10 SE Sector 2 0- 8 123.7 9.2 95.1 11 NW Sector, 2 0- 8 126.0 10.3 96.9 Site inspection August 309 19789 indicated excavation and clearing would be corn- pleted by end of day. Water intrusion into bottom of excavation. Subcontractor informed to pump-out prior to backfilling. On .August 315 1978, backfi11 had been placed in the bottom of the excavation. Soil was in an extremely saturated condi- tion and the subcontractor was informed that the saturated soils would have to be removed: This was accomplished. Our tests now indicate that the minimum 95% com- paction has been met. The scope of this test program is as authorized. by Mr. Ken Curtis. PAS:jak CENTRAL COAST LABORATORIES ea-9 'Patrick Alan mith, uality Contra irector J Attachment 8 Draft Resolution "A" RESOLUTION NO. (2007 Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO APPROVING AN ADDENDUM TO INITIAL STUDY ER 121 -03 AND TENATIVE TRACT MAP TO CREATE SEVEN AIRSPACE RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUMS LOCATED AT 1231 LAUREL LANE (TR 37 -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 December 13, 2006, and recommended approval of Application TR 37 -06, a request to create seven airspace residential condominiums; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on January 23, 2007, for the purpose of considering Application TR 37 -06; and WHEREAS, the Council has reviewed and considered the Addendum to Initial Study ER 121 -03 for the project; and WHEREAS, the Council has duly considered' all evidence, including the recommendation of the Planning Commission, testimony of interested parties, and the evaluation and recommendations by staff, presented at said hearing. BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows:. SECTION 1. Findings. Based upon all the evidence, the City Council makes the following findings: 1. The design of the tentative tract map is consistent with the General Plan because the project will incrementally add to the City's High- Density Residential housing inventory, provides privacy for occupants and neighbors of the project, provides separate paths for vehicles and pedestrians and is consistent with the scale and character of surrounding developments. 2. The site is physically suited for the proposed type of development allowed because it is adjacent to existing street right -of -ways with complete City services. 3. The design of the subdivision will not conflict with easements for access through (or use of property within) the proposed subdivision since all adjacent properties are accessed independently. 4. The design of the tentative tract map and proposed improvements are not likely to cause serious health problems, 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 and wildlife, is surrounded by urban development ;1--60 Attachment 8 Resolution No. (2007 Series) Page 2 and has been previously developed with a service station. 5. On July 6, 2004, the Council approved a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impact (ER 121 -03) for a General Plan Amendment, rezone and residential project at the site. The City of San Luis Obispo has determined that an addendum to Initial Study ER 121 -03 is necessary to document minor technical changes or additions that have occurred in the project description since the initial study was originally prepared. The City Council has reviewed and considered the information contained in the Addendum in its consideration of ER 121 -03 and finds and determines that the environmental document adequately addresses the potential significant environmental impacts of the proposed project and that the preparation of a subsequent Negative Declaration is not necessary. SECTION 2. Environmental Review. The City Council does hereby reaffirm their adoption on July 6, 2004, of a Negative. Declaration with Mitigation Measures and adopt an Addendum to Initial Study ER 121 -03 for TR 37 -06 with incorporation of the following mitigation measure: Mitigation_ Measure: Noise 1. The construction of future residential uses shall be accompanied by an acoustical analysis (noise study) to ensure that interior spaces and exterior private use areas comply with standards contained in the City's General Plan Noise Element. ➢ Monitoring Program: Compliance with this requirement shall be monitored through the review of detailed plans submitted for architectural review and building permit primarily by the Community Development Department staff. SECTION 3. Action. The City Council does hereby approve Application TR 37 -06 with incorporation of the following conditions and code requirements into the project: Conditions: L All project conditions associated with the architectural approval of the project as approved by Council on September 6, 2005, via Resolution No. 9733 (2005 Series) shall be incorporated herein as conditions of approval. 2. 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. —�e l Attachment 8 Resolution No. (2007 Series) Page 3 3. Fixed seating, such as concrete or metal picnic tables, shall be provided within the common recreation area located along the northeast property line, subject to the approval of the Community Development Director. 4. 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 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. 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.. The project is subject to all requirements in effect at the time of the building permit or map vesting date. 1. The subdivider shall dedicate a 6' (2m) wide public utility easement and a 10' (3m) wide street tree easement across the tract frontages. Said easements shall be adjacent to and Attachment 8 Resolution No. (2007 Series) Page 4 contiguous with all public tight -of -way lines along the Laurel Lane and Southwood Drive frontages. 2. Any building permits issued for work required to satisfy the conditions of the subdivision shall receive final inspection approvals or shall have substantially completed all work to the satisfaction of the Building Official prior to recordation of the map. 3. The final map shall include any required public or private easements as required for the proposed development of the tract. Easements may include, but are not limited to, grading, drainage, water, sewer, storm drainage, access, vehicle turn- around, and utilities. Any CC &Rs, maintenance or common driveway agreements shall be completed and recorded concurrent with final map approval. 4. The subdivider shall install street lighting and all associated facilities including but not limited to conduits, sidewalk vaults, fusing, wiring, and lumenaires per City standards if determined necessary and/or beneficial by the City Engineer. Off -site street lighting improvements, alterations, or upgrades may be required along roadways leading to and from the proposed development to complete the necessary public improvements. 5. The CC &Rs for the project shall require that the homeowners association or acceptable maintenance organization submit, to the City of San Luis Obispo Public Works Department, a detailed report prepared by a licensed Civil Engineer addressing the condition of all private stormwater facilities and any necessary maintenance activities on a semi- annual basis (April 30 and October 1 of each year). The CC &Rs for the project shall also include detailed procedures for maintenance and operations of any storm water facilities, common sewer lateral and green waste recycling. 6. The subdivider shall submit a final map to the city for review, approval, and recordation. The map shall be prepared by, or under the supervision of a licensed land surveyor or registered civil engineer authorized to practice land surveying. The final map shall be prepared in accordance with the Subdivision Map Act and the Subdivision Regulations. 7. Since the proposed project results in additional demand on the City's water supplies, the project must comply with the City's Water Allocation Regulations, which can be found in the Water and Wastewater Element of the City's General Plan. The City currently has water to allocate, and does so on a "first -come, first- served' basis. Water is allocated at the time building permits are issued and the Water Impact Fee is paid. Both the Water and the Wastewater Impact Fees are charged on a per residential unit basis, with appropriate credit given for any prior accounts on the property. 8. By ordinance, the applicant is required to prepare a recycling plan for approval by the City to address the recycling of construction waste for projects valued at over $50,000 or demolition of structures over 1000 square feet. The recycling plan shall be submitted to the Building Department with the building plans. The City's Solid Waste Coordinator can provide some a- 3 Attachment 8 Resolution No. (2007 Series) Page 5 guidance in the preparation of an appropriate recycling plan. 9. One street tree is required per 35 lineal feet of street frontage or any part thereof. No trees shall be planted within 5 feet from the back of sidewalk. Trees shall be planted to City specifications. 10. The preliminary soils report prepared shall be referenced on the final map in accordance with the City's Subdivision Regulations. On motion of , seconded by and on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 23rd day of January, 2007. Mayor David F. Romero ATTEST: Audrey Hooper, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Jona well, City Attorney -' Aftachment 9 Draft Resolution `B" RESOLUTION NO. (2007 Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO DENYING AN ADDENDUM TO INITIAL STUDY ER 121-03 AND TENATIVE TRACT MAP TO CREATE SEVEN AIRSPACE RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUMS LOCATED AT 1231 LAUREL LANE (TR 37 -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 December 13, 2006, and recommended approval of Application TR 37 -06, a request to create seven airspace residential condominiums; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on January 23, 2007, for the purpose of considering Application TR 37 -06; and WHEREAS, the Council has reviewed and considered the Addendum to Initial Study ER 121 -03 for the project; and WHEREAS, the Council has duly considered all evidence, including the recommendation of the Planning Commission, testimony of interested parties, and the evaluation and recommendations by staff; presented at said hearing. BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. Findings. Based upon all the evidence, the City Council makes the following findings: [Council specifies findings] SECTION 2. Denial. The tentative tract map proposed at 1231 Laurel Lane (TR 37 -06) is hereby denied. --'6 Resolution No. Page 2 (2007 Series) On motion of _ following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: seconded by The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 23`d day of January, 2007. Mayor David F. Romero ATTEST: Audrey Hooper, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Jonathan Lowell, City Attorney Attachment 9 and on the