The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About07/03/2007, PH2 - PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY'S SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS TO INCLUDE AIRSPACE SUBDIVISIONS (TA/ER 7 council M.6Ma� j Agcnaa REpoRt CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO FROM: John Mandeville, Community Development Director Prepared By: Phil Dunsmore, Associate Planner SUBJECT: PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY'S SUBDMSION REGULATIONS TO INCLUDE AIRSPACE SUBDMSIONS (TA/ER 75-07) CAO RECOMMENDATION As recommended by the Planning Commission on June 13, 2007: 1. Introduce an ordinance to adopt the proposed amendments to the Subdivision Regulations thereby implementing minor text clarifications and adding regulations to govern Airspace Subdivisions and; 2. Adopt an addendum to the approved environmental determination. DISCUSSION Background A comprehensive update to the City's Subdivision-Regulations was approved by the City Council on March 7, 2006. Since that time, the need to recognize Airspace Subdivisions, a new trend in the subdivision of multi-story buildings, has been brought to staff's attention. Mixed use projects, such as a proposed project by People's Self Help Housing that combines housing and offices, would benefit from the ability to subdivide the property into airspace lots. Staff has prepared a new section of the regulations and a new definition to accommodate this type of subdivision. Airspace subdivisions are similar to condominiums, except they allow multiple ownerships in one structure without a common lot. For more information, also see Attachment 4, "Creating Airspace Subdivisions", an article published in Land Development Today, July 2006. Additionally, staff has noted several code sections throughout the regulations that should be amended to increase clarity. These revisions have been prepared based on comments received from other City departments and members of the private development community. Planning Commission Action The draft amendments to the regulations were introduced to the Planning Commission on June 13, 2007 (see Attachments 1, 2, and 3). The Commission discussed the proposed amendments with staff and supported the introduction of new regulations to allow Airspace Subdivisions. The Commission also agreed with other minor amendments to clarify the existing text. On a 6-0 vote the Commission forwarded the amendments to the City Council for consideration and approval. /r/ Council Agenda Report—TA/ER 75-07 Citywideamendments to the Subdivision Regulations Page 2 Key Components of Proposed Amendments The attached Planning Commission staff report, Attachment 3, provides additional discussion on the key components of the proposed amendments. Exhibit A of the attached draft ordinance (Attachment 6) is a legislative draft of the proposed amendments. In summary, the key components of these amendments include the following: 1. Airspace Subdivisions The primary basis of the amendment is to include new regulations that will guide "Airspace Subdivisions". Airspace Subdivisions are a creative way for mixed-use developments to accommodate separate ownership of various parts of the building. It can benefit downtown mixed-use projects because it allows owners of a residential project to be separated from owners of commercial properties in the same building. Two significant downtown projects, Chinatown and Garden Street Terraces, are already interested in exploring this option. For example, the residential portion of the building can remain outside of the homeowner's association with regard to rules and regulations, parking and common spaces. Additionally, benefits can be found through the creation of increased project value. A commercial property investor may just want the first story, while those interested in residential or other land uses could purchase a separate portion of the building. Subdividing the uses gives potential property owners additional flexibility while adding value to the project. This possibility already exists with condominium subdivisions, however, condominium subdivisions require that each independent ownership share a common interest in the building or in a common lot. With airspace subdivisions, the common interest does not exist. Instead, common maintenance is regulated by an association based on a recorded set of agreements. In an airspace, or three-dimensional subdivision, the property is divided into three instead of two- dimensional lots. Essentially a building is sliced up along its vertical height. Each three- dimensional lot may be bought, sold, and financed just like a conventional lot. Real property lines are recorded to separate spaces within a single building. Airspace Subdivisions do not conflict with the Subdivision Map Act or with the City's policies relative to the regulations of subdivision maps. This is simply an alternative method of subdividing an existing or proposed building into separate ownership parcels. In order to simplify building code and planning review of a building subdivided by an airspace subdivision the City would continue to review the project as a single building. Airspace subdivisions also facilitate independent financing and insurance, a valuable asset in adaptive reuse of older commercial buildings and mixed-use developments. Although very similar to an airspace condominium, which is already allowed for commercial properties in the City, an airspace subdivision does not involve individual interest in a common area. Because there is no common area, an airspace subdivision is not a condominium project for purposes of the Subdivision Map Act. Legal agreements recorded with the subdivision define how the lots and uses will function once individual components are sold. This approach helps to allocate the costs of operating a building more fairly. Similar to a typical condominium project, a property owner's association would manage the legal provisions and maintenance of the shared building. z -2 Council Agenda Report–TA/ER75-07 Citywide amendments to the Subdivision Regulations Page 3 2.Tentative Map Preparation Currently, the City's Subdivision Regulations require that a tentative parcel map be prepared by a licensed civil engineer. Consistent with the Subdivision Map Act, the proposed amendment would allow additional flexibility in who may prepare a tentative map, subject to approval of the Community Development Director. There are many professionals such as architects, land surveyors and private sector planners who are capable of preparing a tentative map that will meet the City's requirements. 3. Vesting Maps Changes to the regulations regarding vesting maps are proposed. In summary, the amendments to the vesting map section are intended to simplify/clarify the code without changing the intent. The primary amendment is to eliminate overlapping requirements and to clarify when vesting rights become effective. See Attachment 6 fora legislative draft of these amendments. 4. Common Interest Subdivisions: Open Space requirements Common interest subdivisions include condominium projects, planned unit developments, and similar forms of residential development projects. The Subdivision Regulations contain requirements for each residence in a common interest subdivision to provide for both common and private open space. The open space is intended to function as a yard area for private and shared uses. In small projects, the common open space requirement is too small to be an effective use of property and ends up as an underutilized "remainder" space. For example, in a four unit project, the common open space is only required to be 400 square feet in area. This is too small to incorporate the type of improvements that would facilitate usable improvements that can be shared by tenants or property owners. Because common open space is not effective in small projects, the proposed amendment would eliminate the common open space requirement for smaller projects, instead increasing the amount of private open space that each unit must incorporate. In summary, all residential common interest projects will continue to be required to incorporate at least 400 square feet of open space per unit, however smaller projects of fewer than five units will be able to have the flexibility of incorporating this space as private yards, patios and decks rather than a common area that is shared by all tenants. 5. Common Interest Subdivisions: Condominium Conversions: affordable housing A minor amendment to the text in this section is proposed in order to clarify the intent of the City's desire to preserve affordable housing within a condominium conversion project. General Plan Consistency The comprehensive update to the approved by City Council last year is consistent with the General Plan and implements a variety of policies from the City's Land Use, Open Space, —,�g Council Agenda Report—TA/ER'75-07 Citywide amendments to the Subdivision Regulations Page 4 Circulation, Parks and Recreation and Housing Elements. The proposed amendments to the recent update, including the incorporation of Airspace Subdivisions, do not change the intent of the regulations and are consistent with both the General Plan and the Subdivision Map Act. The inclusion of provisions to allow Airspace Subdivisions in commercial zones can be tied to a number of General Plan Housing Element policies because these regulations will be helpful in facilitating affordable housing projects and a variety of other mixed-use projects. Environmental Review Amendments of the Municipal Code pertaining to the Subdivision Regulations are not exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and therefore are subject to an environmental determination. The City Council adopted a negative declaration for the comprehensive Subdivision Regulations amendment that was approved last year(Attachment 5). No significant environmental impacts are likely to occur with the adoption of the amended regulations, and the new amendments do not change the intent or purpose of the code. Therefore, an addendum to the adopted Negative Declaration is the appropriate method of recognizing the proposed code amendments for consistency with CEQA. Conclusion The proposed amendments to the Subdivision Regulations are not intended to alter the intent of the current regulations or to alter the development pattern in the City, but instead are intended to update the current standards to comply with the Map Act, the City's General Plan and current subdivision trends. Airspace subdivisions are already an acceptable form of subdividing multi- story buildings in other California communities. City policies and market trends encourage mixed-use development and airspace subdivisions are another tool for the City to facilitate such development where appropriate in a land use context. Other amendments are intended to clarify the intent of the existing code and enhance a reader's general understanding of the City's regulations. CONCURRENCES The draft regulations have been reviewed by other City departments including Public Works, Utilities, Building and the City Attorney. Comments from each of the departments have been included in the proposed amendments prior to proceeding to Planning Commission. All affected departments concur with the draft amendments. FISCAL IMPACT When the General Plan was prepared, it was accompanied by a fiscal impact analysis, which found that overall the General Plan was fiscally balanced. As proposed by staff, the draft amendments to the regulations do not significantly impact City revenues. However, as noted in the attached article "Creating Airspace Subdivisions", published in Land Development Today, July 2006 (Attachment 4) private property values may increase due to the enhanced ability for new or existing buildings to separate ownership of particular components of a single building. ,2 -y Council Agenda Report—TA/ER'75-07 Citywide amendments to the Subdivision Regulations Page 5 "In addition to creating greater value when selling a property, an airspace subdivision offers building owners the opportunity to pull out equity and gives large tenants the option of separate ownership. If a building's financial status is upside down, it can lessen some of the loan burden. From a city's point of view, the sale of commercial parcels within a building can result in reassessment at market value, with local agencies benefiting from increased property values." ALTERNATIVES 1. Continue the item for additional research or discussion with specific direction to staff for items to return to Council. 2. Deny the amendments. Specific findings shall be created for denial of the amendments in order for staff to prepare a denial resolution. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Planning Commission resolution,June 13, 2007 2. Planning Commission meeting minutes June 13, 2007 3. Planning Commission staff report, June 13, 2007 4. Land Development Today article on Airspace Subdivisions 5. Council adopted Initial Study of Environmental Impact and staff proposed addendum 6. Draft Ordinance as recommended by CAO including Exhibit A, legislative draft of amendments. A complete copy of the existing Subdivision Regulations is available in the City Council reading file, in the City Clerk's office, and in the Community Development Department. GACD-PLAN\Pdunsmore\Text AmendmentASubdivision Ordinance\June 2007 Edits\TA 75-07 Council rpt(07-03-07).doc - i Attachment 1 RESOLUTION NO. 5483-07 A RESOLUTION OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 16 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS TA 75-07 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, Califomia, on June 13, 2007 to consider amendments to Chapter 16 of the Municipal Code pertaining to Subdivisions; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo has considered public testimony,interested parties, and evaluation and recommendations by staff; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed and considered the addendum to the Negative Declaration of environmental impact prepared for the project; and BE IT RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. Findings. 1. The proposed amendments are necessary to accommodate the evolution of commercial real-estate and to accommodate a recognized form of subdividing properties known as "Airspace Subdivisions". Airspace subdivisions will benefit both private development and local jurisdictions by allowing the individual ownership boundaries (real lot lines) to be created within a single building. 2. The proposed amendments will allow the City's Subdivision Regulations to be consistent with the description of subdivisions as recognized by the Department of Real Estate and as adopted by the Davis Sterling Act. 3. The proposed amendments will recognize current development trends and allow for the incorporation of necessary subdivision amenities and appropriate subdivision design standards as recognized by the City's recently adopted Community Design Guidelines. 4. The proposed amendments are consistent with General Plan Policies since the regulations implement General Plan policies associated with preservation of neighborhood character, establishment of Open Space, and the preservation of established General Plan density standards. 5. The proposed amendments will not significantly alter the character of the neighborhoods or cause significant health, safety or welfare concerns, since the regulations do not alter the density, character, or allowed uses within the City. Instead, the regulations define the logical interpretation of ownership boundaries and the municipal procedures surrounding the establishment of such ownership boundaries. 2-g:�? Resolution No. 5483-07 J Attachment 1 Page 2 6. The proposed amendments will not result in significant impacts to the environment, therefore the draft addendum to the adopted Negative Declaration is appropriate for the scope of the text amendment. SECTION 2. Action. The Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council approval of Municipal Code amendments as prescribed in legislative draft format in attached Exhibit A. On motion by Conunissioner Stevenson, seconded by Commissioner Miller, and on the following roll call vote: AYES: Commrs. Brodie, Stevenson, Christianson, Miller, Gould-Wells, Carpenter NOES: Commrs. REFRAIN: None ABSENT: Commr. Ashbaugh The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 13 day of June, 2007. Doug Davids n, Secretary Planning Commission 2� / ' Attachment 2 DRAFT SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES June 13, 2007 ROLL CALL: Present: Commissioners Dan Carpenter, Amanda Brodie, Diana Gould-Wells, Carlyn Christianson, Andrea Miller, Charles Stevenson Absent: Commr. John Ashbaugh Staff: Deputy Director Doug Davidson, Senior Planner Jeff Hook, Housing Programs Manager Peter Brown, Associate Planner Phil Dunsmore, Assistant City Attorney Christine Dietrick, and Recording Secretary Jill Francis ACCEPTANCE OF AGENDA: Commissioners or staff may modify the order of items. The order of the agenda was accepted as written. MINUTES: Minutes of May 23, 2007. Approve or amend. The minutes of May 23, 2007 were approved as amended. PUBLIC COMMENT: There wereno comments made from the public. PUBLIC HEARINGS: Ci ide. TA and ER 79-07; Amendments to Municipal Code Chapter 17.90 'ng regulations) to clarify the resident selection process for affordable housing proje nd environmental review; City of San Luis Obispo, applicant. ( Peter Brown) Housing Programs M er Peter Brown presented the staff report explaining the background and need for s ' is policy on how candidates are selected for affordable housing projects, and recomm ing the Commission adopt the resolution which recommends that the City Council ve the revisions to the Zoning Regulations in Chapter 17.91, and approve a Negative ration of environmental impact.. PUBLIC COMMENTS: There were no comments made from the public. COMMISSION COMMENTS: Commissioners had one question regarding the resident selection process and ex ed a desire to not allow employee selection even when going above and beyond inclusionary housing requirement. Z Draft Planning Commission Miutes AttaChment 2 June 13, 2007 Page 2 Co7=7tionb filler questioned the possibility or need of employee incentives. OnCom carpenter to adopt the resolution recommending that the Cit Co 3 claration and revisions to the Zoning Regulations in Chapter 17.91. Seconded by Com ler. AYES: Commrs. Carpenter, Brodie, Gould- ristianson, Miller and Stevenson NOES: None RECUSED: None ABSENT: Commr. Ashbaugh The motion carried on a 6 : 0 vote. 2. Citywide. TA 75-07; Amendments to the City's Subdivision Regulations including new standards for airspace subdivisions; City of San Luis Obispo, applicant. (Phil Dunsmore) Associate Planner Phil Dunsmore presented the staff report giving an explanation of airspace subdivisions and other minor text clarifications proposed to the Subdivision Regulations, and recommending the Commission adopt a resolution recommending the City Council approve the revisions to the Subdivision Regulations. PUBLIC COMMENTS: There were no comments made from the public. COMMISSION COMMENTS: The Commission had several questions regarding the airspace subdivision process and what has been done in other communities Commr. Stevenson had questions regarding the minimum amount of backyard space required for common interest subdivisions and asked who would be responsible for building maintenance within the airspace subdivision when there is no homeowners association. Commr. Christianson asked if there would be a checklist on items to go over such as insurance, retrofitting, plumbing, etc. for airspace maps. She also questioned who would be responsible for preparing the tentative map and asked if a member of the public could prepare it as long as it had all the required information. Commr. Miller asked if there are any other cities amending their regulations, and if so, are they having any issues. It was noted that revisions are being considered in Santa Monica, Los Angeles and Sacramento, with no issues to report. On motion by Commr. Stevenson to adopt a resolution recommending approval of the revised Subdivision Regulations to the City Council. Seconded by Commr. Miller. 2 - 9 Draft Planning Commission Miriafes Attachment 2 June 13, 2007 Page 3 AYES: Commrs. Carpenter, Brodie, Gould-Wells, Christianson, Miller and Stevenson NOES: None RECUSED: None ABSENT: Commr. Ashbaugh The motion carried on a 6 : 0 vote. The Commission commended staff for taking the initiative to introduce innovative code amendments. 3. i ide. GPA and ER 49-06; Review of goals, objectives and land use; and i duction to form-based codes proposed for the South Broad Street Corridor Plan are ity of San Luis Obispo, applicant. (Jeff Hook) Senior Plann Jeff Hook presented the staff report recommending the Commission review and corn nt on the Draft Plan's goals and objectives, proposed land use, and form-based codes. r. Hook gave a PowerPoint presentation to better review the plan. Members of the focu oup were present to answer questions. Michael Young, Rick Engi ring, explained form—based codes. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Elaine Lawson, SLO, focus group ber, noted the primary concerns of the focus group are keeping a sense of place i ding the area's "funkiness" and uniqueness, traffic safety, and affordable housing. Jeff Jaminson, SLO, focus group member an isan, would like to see the area keep its uniqueness. Leanna Daniel, SLO, focus group member, voiced co ern with traffic safety and with public access to properties on Broad Street. Jeff Lambert, SLO, focus group member, explained that the als are in no particular order but stressed the importance of the Land Use section. There were no further comments made from the public. COMMISSION COMMENTS: Commr. Stevenson asked about methods of financing, requested a better understanding of cottage industry, and noted he would like to see the plan h e a unified edge with the Railroad area as well as closing off random access to the area. Jeff Hook explained that the feasibility of economic strategy was in process. Commr. Brodie did not feel the goals and values listed were specific enough, asked what specific things would help to keep the artisan, funky sense of place feel to the area, and noted that the focus group has directives on this element. 2, -16 � Attachment 3 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT ITEM# BY: Philip Dunsmore, Associate Planner(781-7522) MEETING DATE: June 13, 2007 FROM: Doug Davidson, Deputy Director- Development Review D.P. FILE NUMBER: TA 75-07 PROJECT ADDRESS: Citywide SUBJECT: Amendments to the City's Subdivision Regulations including new provisions for Airspace Subdivisions and corrections to the existing text for clarity. SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION Adopt a resolution recommending approval of the revised Subdivision Regulations to the City Council. BACKGROUND Situation A comprehensive update to the City's Subdivision Regulations was approved by the City Council on March 7, 2006. Since that time, the need to recognize Airspace Subdivisions, a new trend in the subdivision of multi-story buildings, has been brought to staff's attention. Staff has prepared a new section of the regulations and a new definition to accommodate this type of subdivision. Additionally, staff has noted several code sections throughout the regulations that should be % amended to increase clarity. These revisions have been prepared based on comments received from other City departments and members of the private development community. Staff has prepared a revised draft that is ready for Planning Commission review and a recommendation to the City Council. EVALUATION Summary of Amendments As introduced to the Planning Commission and City Council in 2006, the Subdivision Regulations was an entirely new document that repealed and replaced the existing regulations, Chapter 16 of the Municipal Code. Now, over a year later, several minor clarifications of the text have become apparent, as well as the need to recognize "Airspace Subdivisions". Based on City policies and market trends, there is increasing mixed-use development in San Luis Obispo. Airspace Subdivisions are a creative way for these developments to accomodate separate Attachment 3 TA 75-07 (Citywide) Page 2 ownership of various parts of the building. The following discussion highlights the proposed code amendments. 1. Airspace Subdivisions In an airspace, or three-dimensional subdivision, the property is divided into three instead of two- dimensional lots. Essentially a building is sliced up along its vertical height. Each three- dimensional lot may be bought, sold, and financed just like a conventional lot. Real property lines are recorded to separate spaces within a single building. Unlike an airspace condominium or other form of a common interest subdivision, an airspace subdivision does not involve individual interest in a common area. Because there is no common area, an airspace subdivision is not a condominium project for purposes of the Subdivision Map Act. Legal agreements recorded with the subdivision define how the lots and uses will function once individual components are sold. This approach helps to allocate the costs of operating a building more fairly. Certain uses have different requirements for operation. For example, a homeowner's association does not want to incur the cost associated with the commercial building that may be on the first floor of the building. This type of vertically oriented, three dimensional subdivision is appropriate when applied to mixed-use, multi-story buildings in commercial zones. For an additional overview, also see Attachment 1, "Creating Airspace Subdivisions", an article published in Land Development Today,July 2006. Already in use in several communities in southern California, airspace subdivisions are useful for adaptive re-use, or new multi-story buildings. It allows developers to enhance the marketability of a property by making the parts of a building worth substantially more than the whole. From the City's perspective, the sale of commercial properties within a building can result in reassessment at market value, with local agencies benefiting from increased property values. Additionally, Airspace Subdivisions do not conflict with the Subdivision Map Act or with the City's policies relative to the regulations of subdivision maps. This is simply an alternative method of subdividing an existing or proposed building into separate ownership parcels. Zoning and Building Code Because the Zoning Code and the Building Code often review development on a per-lot basis, airspace subdivisions can make interpretation of things like lot coverage, setbacks, floor area ratio, and building code separation requirements somewhat challenging. In order to simplify the review of buildings that utilize the airspace subdivision process, other communities treat the entire building as if it were within a single lot. For example, for the review of a typical three- story building with commercial on the first floor, offices on the second floor, and residential on the top floor, each floor might consist of a separate parcel, however the building would be reviewed as a single building for the purposes of the zoning regulations and the building code. The proposed new code section for San Luis Obispo includes a similar provision and requires that a single building that is subdivided into airspace lots be reviewed as though it were within a single lot(see Exhibit A, Attachment 3). 2 r/�. Attachment 3 TA 75-07 (Citywide) Page 3 Although the complete text of the proposed new code section can be found in Attachment 3, the following definition is proposed for the City and provides an overview of the description: 16.26.035 Airspace Subdivision An Airspace Subdivision for the purposes of these regulations is the three-dimensional subdivision of a commercial zoned property. Because there are no common areas, an airspace subdivision is not a condominium project for purposes of the Subdivision Map Act. Legal agreements recorded with the subdivision define how the lots and uses will function once individual components are sold. Air space lots are defined as a division of the space above or below a lot, or partially above and below a lot, having finite width, length, and upper and lower elevations, occupied by a building or portion thereof. An air space lot shall have access to appropriate public rights of way by means of one or more easements. Minimum lot sizes, lot dimensions, and lot area requirements shall not apply to air space lots. Parking requirements, setback requirements, building density, floor area ratio, and associated property development standards shall apply and shall be determined as if all lots, buildings, or structures in the airspace subdivision were merged into the same lot, building or structure. 2. Tentative Map Preparation Currently, the City's Subdivision Regulations require that a tentative parcel map be prepared by a licensed civil engineer. It has been brought to staff's attention that the Subdivision Map Act does not require this, and our former Subdivision Regulations did not require this. Instead, some flexibility as to who prepares the tentative map should be written into the code. There are many other licensed professionals who are qualified to prepare tentative maps in addition to civil engineers. The following change is reccomended to the City's Subdivision Regulations to accommodate this. (bold underlined portions are new text): Unless exempted by the Community Development Director, the tentative map shall be prepared by, or under the direction of, a licensed land surveyor or a State registered civil engineer authorized to practice land surveying. 3. Vesting Maps The comprehensive update to the subdivision regulations completed in 2006 included significant revisions to the regulations governing vesting maps. A vesting map differs from a standard tentative map in that it allows an applicant to lock in the development codes at the time of the completion of an application for a vesting map. Staff has found that some of these new regulations overlap existing requirements that are already in place for review of standard tentative maps. Additionally, staff has found that it is not necessary for vesting map approvals to obtain architectural review approval if a specific plan or planned development already contains specific architectural review standards and development plan information. Therefore, staff is recommending that the overlapping application requirements be removed, and that maps that are Attachment 3 TA 75-07 (Citywide) Page 4 submitted in conjunction with Planned Development Rezoning or as part of a Specific Plan be exempted from the requirement to obtain architectural review prior to approval of the final map. In summary, the amendments to the vesting map section are intended to simplify the code without changing the intent. See Attachment 3 for a legislative draft of these amendments. 4. Common Interest Subdivisions: Open Space requirements The addition of a chapter regulating common interest subdivisions was another major accomplishment of the 2006 update. Common interest subdivisions include condominium projects, planned unit developments, and similar forms of residential development projects that contain ownership (rather than rental) properties. These are the most common types of subdivisions that have been occurring in the City over the past couple of years because they allow for compact, individually owned residences on small infill sites. The common interest regulations contain requirements for each residence to provide for common and private open space. These regulations are designed to ensure that each residence has access to a private outdoor space and a larger common outdoor space that can be shared between tenants. The common open space requirement is not logical to incorporate into small infill development projects. Because the requirement for the size of the common open space is based on the number of units, projects with three or four units end up with a common open space area of only 300 to 400 square feet since only 100 square feet is required per unit. These common open space areas end up as remnant space without significant purpose. Therefore, staff is reccommending that the common open space requirement be eliminated for projects of four or fewer units. Instead, these smaller projects should be required to incorporate additional private open space in the foram of decks, yards or patios in the amount of at least 400 square feet per unit. 5. Common Interest Subdivisions: Condominium Conversions The intent of this code section is to ensure that existing affordable units are not eliminated during a condominium conversion. The existing language has been difficult to interpret. The following changes are recommended to clarify the intent of the code regarding the required findings for condominium conversions: 16.17.060 Required findings for Condominium Conversions A. That: (1)Any existing deed-restricted affordable housing units shall remain at fordable rates for the remainder of the recorded agreement or (2) an equivalent number of new units comparable in affordability and amenities to those being converted are being created as part of the new project; and that low- or moderate-income persons will not be displaced by the proposed conversion. 2 -iy TA 75-07 (Citywide) Attachment 3 Page 5 Environmental Review Amendments of the Municipal Code pertaining to the subdivision regulations are not exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act and therefore are subject to an environmental determination. However, the proposed changes in this case are minor in nature and do not change the intent of the code in relation to the City's General Plan or Zoning Regulations. Therefore, staff has prepared an addendum to the environmental document prepared for the subdivision regulations update of 2006. No significant environmental impacts are likely to occur with the adoption of the amended.regulations. Conclusion Although the main purpose of the amendment is to recognize Airspace Subdivisions, this is also an opportunity to clarify the text. The Commission may wish to make additional text clarifications or refer this item back to staff for additional analysis. However, the intent of these amendments is not to alter the code, but to make it more efficient while recognizing current trends. The commission's final action will be in the form of a recommendation to the City Council, where the document would be incorporated into the. Municipal Code as a text amendment. RECOMMENDATION Adopt a resolution recommending approval of the revised document and proposed addendum to the environmental document to the City Council. Attachments: 1. Article regarding Airspace Subdivisions from"Land Development Today" magazine,July 2006. 2. Draft addendum to the approved Environmental Initial Study 3. Draft resolution recommending approval of the document to the City Council including an exhibit (Exhibit A) of proposed amendments in legislative draft format. GACD-PLAN\Pdunsmore\Text Amendments\Subdivision OrdinanceUune 2007 Edits\TA 75-07 PC rpt(6-13-07).DOC n �- VOL 2 ISSUE 7 TEN DOLLARS July 2006 LAND DEVELOPMENT ' *nWW.LarW[hve1*p=*ftTada3�=m Aftchment 4 Today's Perspective. Tomorrow's Success."A I By Matt Rowe Creating Airspace Subdivisions Segregating a building's uses can make the parts worth more than the whole. When the owners of Macy's Plaza decided to ty and an office investor likely is only inter- Whde the Macy's Plaza property is all under sell their four-acre retail/commercial/hotel ested in the office component. one owner once again, it is still subdivided to complex in downtown Los Angeles (CA), allow the pieces to be sold separately in the they rook an approach chat is growing in Although it might be easy to package the hiture. The airspace subdivision approach &vor in mixed-use developments.They sub- commercial and retail together, the three basically brings more investor interest and divided the rerail/commerciallhorel property uses combined lessened the price the prop- more competition to the propert)4 and that into three separate uses in order to take each erty could command. Subdividing the uses potential remains today. piece to market separately. gave potential buyers the flexibiliEy to pur- chase the whole property or just the 26- In addition to creating greater value when Known as an airspace subdivision, this story hotel, the 33-srory office tower or the selling a property, an airspace subdivision approach co, subdividing property can 349,109 square foot retail portion. In par- offers building owners the opportunity to enhance the value, and thus the marketabili- cicular, subdividing the uses made the hotel pull out equity and gives large tenants the ty, of a project — making the parts worth component more attractive as a stand-alone option of separate ownership. If a building's substantially more than the whole. property. While a hotel may be a real estate financial status is upside down, it can ]essen investment, it is also a business with a very some of che loan burden. From a city's point Inting Value different cash flow operation from com- of view, the sale of commercial parcels with- airspace, or three-dimensional subdivi- mercial/rerail uses. in a building can result in reassessment at sion, the property is divided into three market value, with local agencies benefiting instead of two-dimensional lots. Essentially a The office/retail was sold to one owner in From increased property values. building is sliced up along its vercic2l height. March 2005. Interesting enough, that owner Each three-dimensional lot may be bought, then bought the hotel a couple of months Added Flexibility sold, and financed just like a conventional later,but at a much higher price. B'yspinning Another significant advantage of an airspace loc. off the hotel as a separate use, the sellers subdivision is added flexibility in terms of[he increased the depth of the market.The even- rights and responsibilities in how a building The saga of Macy's Plaza, built in the early Eual owner bid for the hotel againsr four is governed. For example, in a 70s, is an excellent illustration of an air_ other bidders and ended up paying fall mar- residential/retail building the retail can space subdivision increasing project value. kcE value because of the competition. This remain outside the purview of the homeown- In large mixed-use buildings, investors may would not have been the case if the entire ers association with regard to rules and regu- discount the value of the property — a property had sold as a single entity. lations, parking,and common spaces. hotel buyer may want just the hotel proper- Rtnw r.-ed v.,t� perrri��r -rr- Tindo), 2 210 Attachment 4 Because there are no common areas, an air space subdivision is not a Mixed-use buildings are becoming more common in urban and sub- condominium project for purposes of California's Subdivision Map urban communities as valuable land becomes increasingly scarce and Act or other related regulatory controls. Legal agreements recorded as support for this type of project grows in municipalities both large with the subdivision define how the lots and uses will function once and small. Given this trend, airspace subdivisions will likely become individual components are sold. the norm for mixed-use projects, whether in the adaptive reuse of an underutilized office building or for a luxurious new high-rise. LOT This approach also allocates more fairly the costs of operating the building. Certain uses have different requirements for operation. For the author.Mau Rowe is a vitt president with Psomas. instance. a homeowner's association does not want to incur the cost of staffing a hotel loading dock 24 hours a day. Valuable in Adaptive Reuse Airspace subdivisions are gaining popularity in the adaptive reuse projects that are a major trend in Los Angeles as older commercial areas of the city are being revitalized and transformed into urban res- idenrial neighborhoods. 1100 Wilshire, a 36-story office building located just west of down- 4°`' town, is a case in point. Vacant for 17 years, the underurilized com- mercial �� i ��' Y e J mercial structure is being remodeled house 267 condos on 22 � r `` � floors with 22,000 square feet of commercial floor area on the lobby \�� and mezzanine levels for neighborhood, serving retail and restaurant uses. Separate airspace lots will facifirare independent financing and/or sale of the residential and commercial components of the prof- ecr, as well as allow further subdivision into condominiums. Spreading to Smaller Cities ! Nearly 20 years ago, Psomas processed the first airspace subdivision in the region: the California Plaza in downtown Los Angeles. Since that ! i I ' rime, Psomas has prepared dozens of airspace subdivision maps for I approval in the LosAngeles region.Today the City of Los Angeles is very familiar and quite comfortable with airspace subdivisions and their complex mapping requirements. The approach also has been used in other large cities. K L� Yet this is still largely a big city LOT NO. _ 'Jcr f XIfrN r FAOUTI S) phenomenon and a new and unfamiliar concept for smaller cities. The Towers on Capitol Mall in Sacramento (CA) is � breaking new ground for this °'` "'°' tv° ^° ^�•°�. I r' i city of less than two million res- 0i s MWMIIX.'a/=x roco7 as idents, both literally and figura- ,°,S-II.0 " Lively_ The state capitol is wit- ,°,,_„:.,,,,.,.�,.�,„I nessing its first airspace subdivi- L t01-,”„ I•r, * k� cion with the construction of i two separate 58-story luxury 1 ` �� im,o-nraL v(n•...;.rot nw1 \ \��. ,,rP�\' i towers in the heart of the city. i The 765 luxury condos, a 60,000 square-foot high-end restaurant/retail component, a stare-of- the art fitness center/spa and a 276-room InterContinental Hotel and Resort have each been subdivided for separate ownership. EAST SOmr-PLr InF P J ® /moi S C2� '�7 www.psomas.com ' C) Attachment 5 Addendum to Subdivision Regulations Certified by City Council on March 7, 2006 1. Project Title: City of San Luis Obispo Subdivision Regulations Amendment 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of San Luis Obispo 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Phil Dunsmore, Associate Planner (805) 781-7522 3. Project Contact Person and Phone Number: Phil Dunsmore, Associate Planner (805) 781-7522 4. Project Location: Citywide Subdivision Regulations. 5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: City of San Luis Obispo Community Development Department 919 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 6. Previous Environmental Review On March 7, 2006, the City Council certified a Negative Declaration for the Subdivision Regulations Project. A Notice of Determination was filed with the County Clerk. Section 15164 of the CEQA Guidelines allows a lead agency to prepare an addendum to a previously environmental document if "some changes or additions are necessary" but none of the conditions included in the Guidelines, whichrequire the preparation of a new environmental document, have occurred. This addendum has been prepared consistent with Section 15164 to document why the potential environmental impacts of the updated information in the Subdivision Regulations is consistent with the prior analysis included in the March 2006 Negative Declaration that was prepared, jzx/90 Addendum to Negative Db_uration for the City's Subdivision Regulati61 Attachment 5 Page 2 7. Project Description: A comprehensive update to the City's Subdivision Regulations was approved by the City Council on March 7, 2006. Since that time, the need to recognize Airspace Subdivisions, a new trend in the subdivision of multi-story buildings, has been brought to staff's attention.. Both the Chinatown project and the proposed Garden Street Terraces project (both of which are major downtown mixed-use projects) are proposing to utilize the airspace subdivision process in order to allow separate ownership of various parts of the building. This amendment includes a new section of the regulations and a new definition to accommodate this type of subdivision. Additionally, staff has noted several code sections throughout the regulations that should be amended to increase clarity. These revisions do not change the intent of the code and have been prepared based on comments received from other City departments and members of the private development community. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The original negative declaration certified by the City Council in March of 2006 did not identify any significant environmental effects and therefore did not identify any issue areas or associated mitigation measures. The most important factor in determining that the new information constitutes an insignificant change and that the evaluation done in the certified negative declaration is still applicable is that the same subdivision principles, consistent with the Subdivision Map Act, evaluated in the negative declaration, continue to apply. DETERMINATION The City of San Luis Obispo has determined that this addendum to the Negative Declaration for the Subdivision Regulations is necessary to document minor technical changes or additions that have occurred in the project description since the environmental document was originally prepared. The City Council has reviewed and considered the information contained in this addendum in its consideration of the Subdivision Regulations, and finds that the preparation of a new initial study is not necessary because: 1. None of the circumstances included in Section 15162, which require a subsequent environmental document, have occurred, specificallyi a. The project changes do not result in new or more severe environmental impacts. b. The circumstances under which the project is undertaken will ,2'/? Attachment 5 Addendum to Negative DE_aration for the City's Subdivision Regulation,. " Page 3 not require major changes to the environmental document. C. There is not a need to modify previously approved mitigation measures. Attached: Negative Declaration certified by City Council, March 2006 GACD-PLAMPdunsmore7ext Amendments\Subdivision OrdinanceUune 2007 Edits\Addendum to Negative Declaration.doc ��I��IIVII�III�IIIIIIII I Attachment 5 ��Illlllllf Ililllllll III cityof sAn IuIS OBISPO Community Development Department•919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM For ER# 153-04 1. Project Title: Subdivision Regulations Update TA 153-04 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of San Luis Obispo, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 3. Contact.Person and Phone Number: Philip Dunsmore, Associate Planner (805) 781-7522 4. Project Location: Citywide, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: City of San Luis Obispo Community Development Department 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo CA 93401 6. General Plan Designation: N/A, (Citywide Municipal Code amendment) 7. Zoning: N/A, (Citywide Municipal Code amendment) 8. Description of the Project: The project involves the repeal and replacement of the City of San Luis Obispo Municipal Code Chapter 16, the City's Subdivision Regulations and the repeal of Chapter 17.82 of the Municipal Code, Condominium Development and Conversion, for incorporation into the new Chapter 16. The new regulations is primarily guided by updates to the City's Subdivision Regulations for consistency with the 2005 Subdivision Map Act and for consistency with Department of Real Estate terminology. Updates to procedural handling of subdivisions have also been updated to reflect current processing demands. Updates to the code include modifications to the City's review procedures, updates to the application and map requirements, and the addition of regulations regarding condominiums and common interest subdivisions. Minor adjustments to the City's minimum lot sizes and codes governing flag lots will also be incorporated. The City' street standards will be removed and incorporated into a separate document known as the City's engineering standards. The new document will promote contemporary street and lot standards and interpretive definitions and graphics for ease of understanding. 9. Surrounding Land Uses and Settings: N/A (Citywide Municipal Code amendment) 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. Attachment 5 10. Project Entitlements Requested: Approval of significant revisions.and updates to the City's Subdivisions Regulations and repeal of the Municipal Code Chapter 16 regarding Subdivisions and 17.82 regarding residential condominium development and conversion. 11. Other public agencies whose approval is required: None. CITY OF SAN Luis OBISPO 2 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2005 —� Attachment 5 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a"Potentially Significant Impact' as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. Aesthetics Geology/Soils Public Services Agricultural Resources Hazards&Hazardous Recreation Materials Air Quality Hydrology/Water Quality Transportation&Traffic Biological Resources Land Use and Planning Utilities and Service Systems Cultural Resources Noise Mandatory Findings of Significance Energy and Mineral Population and Housing Resources FISH AND GAME FEES X There is no evidence before the Department that the project will have any potential adverse effects on fish and wildlife resources or the habitat upon which the wildlife depends. As such, the project qualifies for a de minimis waiver with regards to the filing of Fish and Game Fees. The project has potential to impact fish and wildlife resources and shall be subject to the payment of Fish and Game fees pursuant to Section 711.4 of the California Fish and Game Code. This initial study has been circulated to the California Department of Fish and Game for review and comment. STATE CLEARINGHOUSE This environmental document must be submitted to the State Clearinghouse for review by one or more State agencies (e.g. Cal Trans, California Department of Fish and Game, Department of Housing and Community Development). The public review period shall not be less than 30 days (CEQA Guidelines 15073(a)). CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 3 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2005 r'1 ~� Attachment 5 DETERMINATION: On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and X a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made, or the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet(s) have been added and agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IlvMACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant" impact(s) or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact(s) on the environment, but at least one effect (1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (1) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (2) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR of NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project,nothing further is required. Signature Date Ronald Whisenand Deputy Community Development Director For:John Mandeville, Printed Name Community Development Director �i CIT/OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 4 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST ZOO5 -Cy Attachment 5 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: 1. A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the analysis in each section. A "No Impact' answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A"No Impact"answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g. the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants,based on a project-specific screening analysis). 2. All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site,cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. The explanation of each issue should identify the significance criteria or threshold,if any,used to evaluate each question. 3. "Potentially Significant Impact'is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant. If there are one or more"Potentially Significant Impact"entries when the determination is made,an EIR is required. 4.. "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section 17, "Earlier Analysis,"may be cross-referenced). 5. Earlier analysis may be used where,pursuant to the tiering,program EIR,or other CEQA process,an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063 (c) (3) (D) of the California Code of Regulations. Earlier analyses are discussed in Section 17 at the end of the checklist. 6. Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g. general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate,include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. 7. Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached,and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. In this case,a brief discussion should identify the following: a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on earlier analysis. C) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project. �r CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISpo 5 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2005 2_C;L*5 A:�ach Issues, Discussion and Supporting .,,formation Sources Sources Poteottu.y Potentially Less Ttum No Subdivision Regulations TA 153-04 significant Significant Significant Impact ER# 153-04 Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated 1.AESTHETICS. Would theproject: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? --X-- b) Substantially damage scenic resources,including,but not limited --X-- to,trees,rock outcroppings,open space,and historic buildings within a local or state scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of —X— the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely effect effect da or nighttime views in the area? Evaluation The project involves an update to the City's Subdivision Regulations to ensure that the City's procedures are consistent with the Subdivision Map Act and Department of Real Estate terminology. Other changes to the regulations are incorporated to ensure the implementation of existing General Plan Policies and Community Design Guidelines which enhance the protection of aesthetics. The new regulations implement policies that will further the protection of hillsides, vistas and open space. No significant changes to the location,character,or quality of development are anticipated with the revisions to the regulations. The City's adopted plans and policies help to maintain the City's beauty and environmental quality by articulating principles to guide existing and new development. Most new multi-family residential, commercial and industrial projects in the community require some form of architectural review. Through the City's established architectural review process,all aspects of a project's site and building design are scrutinized to assure that new development is high quality and aesthetically pleasing. The City's Architectural Review Commission (ARC) is an appointed advisory body whose job it is to review new project designs, as well as remodels and civic projects. The new subdivision regulations further the City's interests in requiring architectural review for certain development projects. Conclusion Impacts to aesthetics associated with the new regulations are anticipated to be less than significant. 2.AGRICULTURE RESOURCES. Would theproject: a) Convert Prime Farmland,Unique Farmland,or Farmland of --X-- Statewide Importance(Farmland),as shown on the maps pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency,to non-agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract? c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which,due to —X- their location or nature,could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use? Evaluation The proposed amendments do not include modifications to the development rights associated with agricultural resources within the City. However, the proposed amendments strengthen the regulations that require urban development to recognize the importance of buffering and separation from existing agricultural uses. The proposed regulations require mapping and identification of agricultural resources with each subdivision project. Conclusion: Less than significant impacts to agricultural resources are anticipated to occur with the proposed amendments. 3. AIR QUALITY. Would theproject: a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an _X__ existing or projected air quality violation? b) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air __X__ qty per? CITY OF SAN Luis OBISpo 6 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2005 /- Attachment 5 Issues, Discussion and Supporting ...formation Sources Sources Potentia.,y Potentially Less Than No Subdivision Regulations TA 153-04 Significant Significant Significant Impact ER # 153-04 Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Inco orated c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? d) d) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? e) e) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria --X- pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed qualitative thresholds for ozoneprecursors)? Evaluation The revised regulations will not result in additional residential or commercial density and therefore are not anticipated to create additional associated impacts to air quality. In fact, the new regulations contain provisions to allow for compact urban growth and subdivision design that reduces fossil fuel energy dependence,therefore reducing potential impacts to air quality. As currently require through the City Subdivision process, a soils report is required for all subdivision projects. Naturally Occurring Asbestos has been identified by the state Air Resources Board as a toxic air contaminant.Serpentine and ultramafic rocks are very common in the City of San Luis Obispo and may contain naturally occurring asbestos. Under the State Air Resources Board Air Toxics Control Measure (ATCM) for Construction, Grading, Quarrying, and Surface Mining Operations, the applicant must comply with all applicable requirements outlined in the Asbestos ATCM, prior to any construction or grading activities at the site. The required soils report for each subdivision project will outline soil conditions and specify project conditions. Conclusion: No impacts to air quality are anticipated with the propose amendments to the Subdivision Regulations. 4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would theproject: a) Have a substantial adverse effect,either directly or indirectly or --X-- through habitat modifications,on any species identified as a candidate,sensitive,or special status species in local or regional plans,policies,or regulations,or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect,on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans,policies,or regulations,or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources,such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance(e.g.Heritage Trees)? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident _7{_ or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors,or impede the use of wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted habitat Conservation Plan,Natural Community Conservation Plan,or other approved local,regional,or state habitat conservation plan? f) Have a substantial adverse effect on Federally protected _7{__ wetlands as defined in Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including,but not limited to,marshes,vernal pools,etc.) through direct removal,filling,hydrological interruption,or other means? Evaluation The Citywide amendments to the Subdivision regulations is not anticipated to impact biological resources since no chane to CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 7 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2005 Al. achr>. r Issues, Discussion and Supporting ..,formation Sources Sources Potentia..r J--P�Significant ThanNo Subdivision Regulations TA 153-04 Significant Than Impact ER# 153-04 Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated the development capacity of properties is incorporated into the subdivision regulations. Furthermore, the regulations are intended to implement General Plan Policies which are designed to protect biological resources in the City. The City's existing creek setback regulations in addition to the City's Open Space and Conservation Elements of the General Plan are designed to recognize and protect biological resources. Amendments to the subdivision regulations will not modify how subdivisions are to be processed consistent with these superior documents. The mapping and documentation of potentially affected biological resources for each new subdivision in the City are proposed requirements to be added to the new subdivision regulations. The new provisions will further the ability of the City to monitor and protect biological resources within public and private development projects. Conclusion No impacts to biological resources are anticipated with the proposed amendments to the subdivision regulations. 5.CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would theproject: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a --X-- historic resource?(See CEQA Guidelines 15064.5) b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an —X— archaeological resource?(See CEQA Guidelines 150645) c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource --X-- or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains,including those interred outside of - X— formal cemeteries? Evaluation The Citywide amendments to the Subdivision regulations is not anticipated to impact cultural resources since no change to the development capacity of properties is incorporated into the subdivision regulations. Furthermore,the regulations are intended to implement General Plan Policies which are designed to protect cultural resources in the City. The City's existing creek setback regulations in addition to the City's Open Space and Conservation Elements of the General Plan are designed to recognize and protect cultural resources. Amendments to the subdivision regulations will not modify how subdivisions are to be processed consistent with these superior documents. The mapping and documentation of potentially affected cultural resources for each new subdivision in the City are proposed requirements to be added to the new subdivision regulations. The new provisions will further the ability of the City to monitor and protect cultural resources within public and private development projects. Conclusion No impacts to cultural resources are anticipated with the proposed amendments to the subdivision regulations. 6. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the rOect: a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? —X— b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient -X-- manner? c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource —X-- that would be of value to the region and the residents of the State? Evaluation The Citywide amendments to the Subdivision regulations is not anticipated to impact energy and mineral resources since no change to the development capacity of properties is incorporated into the subdivision regulations. Furthermore, the regulations are intended to implement General Plan Policies which are designed to protect energy and mineral resources in the City. Amendments to the subdivision regulations will not modify how subdivisions are to be processed consistent with the City's Conservation Element. The mapping and documentation of potentially affected energy and mineral resources for each new subdivision in the City are proposed requirements to be added to the new subdivision regulations. The new provisions will further the ability of the City to monitor and protect energy and mineral resources within public and private development projects. Crrr OF SAN LUIS OBispo 8 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2005 G Attachment � Issues, Discussion and Supporting . .rormation Sources Sources Potentia„y Potentially Less Than No Subdivision Regulations TA 153-04 Significant significant significant Impact ER# 153-04 Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated Conclusion No impacts to energy and mineral resources are anticipated. 7. GEOLOGY AND SOELS. Would theproject: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse --X effects,including risk of loss,injury or death involving: I. Rupture of a known earthquake fault,as delineated in the _X_ most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area,or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? II. Strong seismic ground shaking? __X__ 1H. Seismic-related ground failure,including liquefaction? __X__ IV. Landslides or mudflows? 7_X_ b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? __X__ c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable,or that --X— would become unstable as a result of the project,and potentially result in on or off site landslides,lateral spreading,subsidence, liquefaction,or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil,as defined in Table 18-1-B of the -X- Uniform Building Code(1994),creating substantial risks to life or property? Evaluation Consistent with the existing subdivision regulations, the amendments will continue to require a soils report and in some cases a geotechnical report for every subdivision request. The proposed amendments to the regulations will not modify the City's review process associated with the geology and soils conditions for properties. In fact, the proposed amendments clarify and substantiate the details that will be required to be submitted with each subdivision application. Therefore, the proposed amendments will reduce the likelihood of impacts to Geology and Soils. Conclusion No impacts to Geology and Soils are anticipated. & HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the pro"ect: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment -X-- through the routine use,transport or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment _X__ through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials,substances,or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Expose people or structures to existing sources of hazardous emissions or hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances,or waste? e) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and,as a result,it would create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? f) For a project located within an airport land use plan,or within _X_ _ two miles of a public airport,would theproject result in a safety CITY OF SAN Luis Osispo 9 INmAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2006 C _�` r-- 1 Attachment 5 Issues, Discussion and Supporting„ formation Sources Sources Potwtia«y Potentially Less Than No Subdivision Regulations TA 153-04 Significant Significant Significant impact ER# 153-04 Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated hazard for the people residing or working in the project area? g) Impair implementation of,or physically interfere with,the --_X-- adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of lose,injury, 4 --X-- or death,involving wildland fires,including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residents are intermixed with wildlands? Evaluation The proposed amendments to the regulations include updates to the standards associated with wildland fire risk and airport land use compatibility. No amendments to the regulations are anticipated to create or increase potential impacts associated with hazards or hazardous materials. Instead the amendments to the regulations will help to insure that new subdivisions are protected from such concerns. Conclusion No impacts associated with hazards or hazardous materials are anticipated. 9. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would theproject: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge --X-- requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level(e.g.The production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses for which permits have been granted)? c) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity X-- capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide additional sources of runoff into surface waters (including,but not limited to,wetlands,riparian areas,ponds, springs,creeks,streams,rivers,lakes,estuaries,tidal areas,bays, ocean,etc.)? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or —X— area in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation onsite or offsite? e) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area X-- area in a manner which would result in substantial flooding onsite or offsite? f) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on --X— a Federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? g) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which —X— would impede or redirect flood flows? h) Will the project introduce typical storm water pollutants into --X-- ground or surface waters? i) Will the project alter ground water or surface water quality, temperature,dissolved oxygen,or turbidity? Evaluation The City's new regulations are designed to accommodate the City's adopted Waterways Management Plan,thereby increasing awareness of City drainage regulations. The new requirements are substantially strengthened to include enhanced protection of structures and property from flood damage or erosion. The new regulations do not allow for additional density or development entitlement in flood prone areas, or areas subject to erosion. As recommended by the Regional Water Quality CnY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 10 INMAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2005 2 -36 A;2achment 5 Issues, Discussion and Supporting i irormation Sources Sources Potemiauy Potentially Less Than No Subdivision Regulations TA 153-04 Significant Significant Significant Impact ER# 153-04 Issues Unless Impact Mitigation In orated Control Board the new regulations stipulate Best Management Practices in handling site drainage and runoff for each subdivision. Conclusion Less than significant impacts are anticipated to occur with the proposed amendments to the regulations. 10. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would theproject: a) Conflict with applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of --X-- an agency with jurisdiction over the project adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? b) Physically divide an established community? --X-- c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural --X-- community conservationplans? Evaluation Adoption of the guidelines will complement and implement the City's zoning regulations and General Plan, therefore no conflicts with land use and planning policies are anticipated. Conclusion No impacts to Land Use and Planning are anticipated. 11.NOISE. Would the project result mi : a) Exposure of people to or generation of"unacceptable"noise —X— levels as defined by the San Luis Obispo General Plan Noise Element,or general noise levels in excess of standards established in the Noise Ordinance? b) A substantial temporary,periodic,or permanent increase in --X-- ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? c) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne X-- vibration or groundborne noise levels? d) For a project located within an airport land use plan,or within —X— two miles of a public airport or public use airport,would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? Evaluation There is no direct relationship between the guidelines and physical changes to sites that could potentially create noise issues. The City's Noise Element and Noise Guidebook implement noise policies that will continue to be reviewed in the amended subdivision regulations. Conclusion No impacts to noise are anticipated with the proposed amendments to the subdivision regulations. 12. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would theproject: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly -X-- (for example by proposing new homes or businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing or people —X-- necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO t'I INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2005 ,=;!, -31 __1\ Attachment 5 Issues, Discussion and Supporting .,,formation Sources Sources Potentia ry I Potentially Less Than No Subdivision Regulations TA 153-04 Significant Significant Significant impact ER # 153 04 Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated Evaluation The proposed amendments to the regulations are consistent with the 2004 General Plan Housing Element and further the City's interest in ensuring a variety of housing types. Since the regulations do not allow for an increase in development density,less than significant impacts to population growth are anticipated. Conclusion Less than significant impacts are anticipated to occur to Population and Housing with the proposed amendments. 13.PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision,or need,of new or physically altered government facilities,the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts,in order to maintain acceptable service ratios,response times,or other performance objectives for any of the public services: a) Fre protection? —X-- b) Police protection? __X__ c) Schools? _X_ d) Parks? __X__ e) Roads and other transportation infrastructure? —X-- Other public facilities? --X-- Evaluation Since the proposed amendments do not increase development density potential,the project is not likely to result in substantial adverse impacts to public services. In fact, the new regulations will require enhanced public improvements associated with each new subdivision,therefore potentially reducing the current impacts that result from subdivision projects. Conclusion No impacts are anticipated to Public Services. 14.RECREATION. Would theproject: a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood or regional parks or _X_ other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Include recreational facilities or require the construction or _X_ expansion of recreational facilities,which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Evaluation The new subdivision regulations will require development applications to supply parkland or pay in-lieu fees (QUIMBY act fees) similar to the existing regulations. No changes are anticipated to the regulations that would deteriorate or place larger demands on existing facilities.. Conclusion No significant impacts to recreation facilities are anticipated. 15. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would theproject: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the __X__ existingtraffic load and capacity of the street system? b) Exceed,either individually or cumulatively,a level of service —X-- standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads and highways? c) Substantially increase hazards due to design features(e.g.sharp _X__ curves or dangerous intersections)or incompatible uses(e.g. farm equipment)? CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 12 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2005 Issues, Discussion and Supporting ...iormation Sources Sources Potentia y Potentially Less an o V Subdivision Regulations TA 153-04 Significant significant Significant Impact ER # 153-04 Issues Unless Impact Mitigation incorporated d) Result in inadequate emergency access? -X e) Result in inadequate parking capacity onsite or offsite? —X— f) Conflict with adopted policies supporting alternative --X-- transportation(e.g.bus turnouts,bicycle racks)? g) Conflict with the with San Luis Obispo County Airport Land --X-- Use Plan resulting in substantial safety risks from hazards,noise, or a chane in air trafficpatterns? Evaluation Amendments to the regulations are consistent with existing regulations and City policies which will require public improvements, including road and public access requirements, with each subdivision.No decrease in required improvements is proposed. Instead, the new guidelines elaborate the information and details regarding street improvements for each subdivision. This will assist the City in determining the appropriate level of improvements required for each subdivision project. Conclusion No impacts to Transportation or Traffic is anticipated with the proposed amendments. 16.UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would theproject: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable -X-- Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction or expansion of new water —X-- treatment,waste water treatment,water quality control,or storm drainage facilities,the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project -X-- from existing entitlements and resources,or are new and expanded water resources needed? d) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider -X-- which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitment? e) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to --X-- accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? f) Comply with federal,state,and local statutes and regulations —.X— related to solid waste? Evaluation Since the proposed amendments to the regulations do not increase density or modify the utility standards established by the City,no changes to the City's utilities and service systems are anticipated.The language in the regulations has been modified, however, to comply with current City regulations regarding such utility systems and the preferred design and placement of such systems. Conclusion In Summary the Utilities Department has commented on the amendments and has concluded that the project is anticipated to create no impacts to utilities and service systems. 17.MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the —X— environment,substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species,cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels,threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community,reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 13 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2005 -33 n. A'-taci hent 5 Issues, Discussion and Supporting ..,tormation Sources Sources Potentia y Potentially Less Than No Subdivision Regulations TA 153-04 Significant Significant Significant impact ER# 153-04 Issues Unless Impact Mitigation incorporated N/A b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited,but -X- cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of the past projects, the effects of other current projects,and the effects of probable futureprojects) N/A c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause -X-- substantial adverse effects on human beings,either directly or indirectly? N/A CITY OF SAN Luis OBISPO 14 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2005 .). -3l/ 18.EARLIER ANALYSES. Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR,or other CEQA process,one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration. Section 15063 (c) (3) (D). In this case a discussion should identify the following items: a) Earlier analysis used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. N/A b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards,and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. N/A c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions of the project. N/A 19. SOURCE REFERENCES. 1. City of SLO General Plan Land Use Element,2004 2. City of SLO General Plan Circulation Element,November 1994 3. City of SLO General Plan Noise Element,May 1996 4. City of SLO General Plan Safety Element,July 2000 5. City of SLO General Plan Open Space Element,January 1994 6. City of SLO General Plan Energy Conservation Element,April 1981 7. City of SLO Water and Wastewater Element,July 1996 8. City of SLO General Plan EIR 1994 for Update to the Land Use and Circulation Elements 9. City of San Luis Obispo Municipal Code 10. City of San Luis Obispo,Land Use Inventory Database 11. Site Visit 12. USDA,Natural Resources Conservation Service,Soil Survey of San Luis Obispo County 13. Website of the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency: http://www.consrv.ca.gov/dlrp/FMNT/ 14. Clean Air Plan for San Luis Obispo County,Air Pollution Control District, 1995 15. City of San Luis Obispo Noise Guidebook,May 1996 16. 2001 City of San Luis Obispo Water Resources Report 17. City of San Luis Obispo,Historic Resource Preservation Guidelines,on file in the Community Development Department 18. The City Waterways Management Plan and Drainage Design Manual 19. City of San Luis Obispo,Archeological Resource Guidelines 20. City of San Luis Obispo Burial Sensitivity Ma 21. City of SLO Source Reduction and Recycling Element,on file in the Utilities Department 22. San Luis Obispo Quadrangle Map,prepared by the State Geologist in compliance with the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act,effective January 1, 1990 23. Flood Insurance Rate Ma (Community Panel 0603100005 C)dated July 7, 1981 24. San Luis Obispo County Airport Land Use Plan 25. San Luis Obispo Community Design Guidelines 26. 1997 Uniform Building Code All documents listed above are available for review at the City of San Luis Obispo Community Development Department,990 Palm Street,San Luis Obispo,California(805)781-7522. Available in the project rile: Proposed new draft of the City's Subdivision Regulations. r3J `- Attachm, ent S DRAFT ORDINANCE NO. (2007 Series) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SAN LUIS OBISPO AMENDING CHAPTER 16 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE, THE CITY'S SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS TO ACCOMMODATE AIRSPACE SUBDIVISIONS AND TO INCORPORATE MINOR TEXT AMENDMENTS (TA/ER 75-07) WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on June 13, 2007 and recommended approval of amendments to the Citywide subdivision regulations to accommodate Airspace Subdivisions and to incorporate minor text amendments; 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 July 3, 2007, for the purpose of considering Application TA/ER 75-07; and WHEREAS, notices of said public hearings were made at the time and in the manner required by law; and WHEREAS, the Council has reviewed and considered the Addendum to the adopted Negative Declaration of environmental impact for the project; and WHEREAS, the Council has duly considered all evidence, including the recommendation of the Planning Commission, testimony of interested parties, and the evaluation and recommendations by staff, presented at said hearing. WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the proposed text amendment is consistent with the General Plan, the purposes of the Subdivision Map Act, and other applicable City ordinances; and BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. Environmental Determination. The City Council finds and determines that the addendum to the Negative Declaration adequately addresses the potential environmental impacts of the proposed text amendment to the Subdivision Regulations, and reflects the independent judgment of the City Council. The Council hereby adopts said addendum to the Negative Declaration. SECTION 2. Findings. The City Council makes the following findings: 1. The proposed amendments are necessary to accommodate the evolution of commercial real-estate and to accommodate a recognized form of subdividing properties known as "Airspace Subdivisions". Airspace subdivisions will benefit both private development and local jurisdictions by allowing the individual ownership boundaries (real lot lines) to a-3& Attachment 6 Ordinance No. (2007Series) TA/ER 75-07 Subdivision Regulations Page 2 be created within a single building. 2. The proposed amendments will allow the City's Subdivision Regulations to be consistent with the description of subdivisions as recognized by the Department of Real Estate and as adopted by the Davis-Sterling Act. 3. The proposed amendments will recognize current development trends and allow for the incorporation of necessary subdivision amenities and appropriate subdivision design standards as recognized by the City's recently adopted Community Design Guidelines. 4. The proposed amendments will not significantly alter the character of the neighborhoods or cause significant health, safety or welfare concerns, since the regulations do not alter the density, character, or allowed uses within the City. Instead, the regulations define the logical interpretation of ownership boundaries and the municipal procedures surrounding the establishment of such ownership boundaries. 5. The proposed amendments will not result in significant impacts to the environment, therefore the draft addendum to the adopted Negative Declaration is appropriate for the scope of the text amendment. SECTION 3. Action. Title 16 (Subdivisions) of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code is hereby amended as set forth in attached Exhibit A. SECTION 4. A summary of this ordinance, together with the names of Council members voting for and against, shall be published at least five (5) days prior to its final passage, in the Telegram-Tribune, a newspaper published and circulated in this City. This ordinance shall go into effect at the expiration of thirty(30) days after its final passage. INTRODUCED on the 3rd day of July, 2007, AND FINALLY ADOPTED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo on the _ day of , 2007, on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES` ABSENT: Mayor David F. Romero ,=.2,-3 7 Attachment G Ordinance No.(2007Series) TA/ER 75-07 Subdivision Regulations Page 3 ATTEST: City Clerk Audrey Hooper APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Attorney Jonathan Lowell GACD-PLAN\Pdunsmore\Text Amendments\Subdivision Ordinance\June 2007 Edits\Draft ord. LDOC a—ago Attachment 8 Exhibit A Legislative Draft June 2007 Subdivision Regulations (Underlined text is new, strikethrough is proposed to be deleted.) 16.08.040 Subdivisions Creating Five or More Parcels, Lot Line Adjustments Involving Five or More Parcels: Tentative Map and Final Map Unless exempt under Section 16.02.050 or qualified for processing pursuant to Section 16.08.040 below, a tentative or vesting tentative and final map are required for all subdivisions creating five (5) or more parcels, Lot Line Adjustments involving five or more parcels, residential condominiums and townhouses with five or more units, stock cooperative apartment units, a community apartment project containing five (5) or more parcels or an airspace subdivision containing five (5) or more parcels. A final map is utilized as the recording instrument fora subdivision involving five or more parcels. 16.10.020 Tentative Map: Form and Contents Unless exempted by the Community Development Director, T-the tentative map shall be prepared by, or under the direction of, a licensed land surveyor or a State registered civil engineer authorized to practice land surveying. The map shall consist of one or more sheets, all of equal size. The scale of the map shall be one (1) inch equals one hundred (100) feet or larger (not to be in metric unless conversion units are noted on the map for each dimension). If necessary to provide the proper scale, more than one sheet may be used, but the relation of the several sheets shall be clearly shown on each. 16.12.020 Application Procedures and Requirements 1. A statement that Architectural Review approval has been granted, or a complete application for Architectural Review approval and plans have been filed which will be concurrently processed with the vesting tentative map for all buildings to be constructed on lots within the boundary of the vesting tentative map. Tentative Maps that are pan of a Planned Development Zoning application or are pan of a Specific Plan are exempt from this requirement. 2. A statement that the vesting tentative map is consistent with the current zoning, or that an application has been fled for rezoning or prezoning the land which will be processed concurrently with the vesting tentative map. If a planned development (� is required, said 19eFmf the PD shall be processed prior to or concurrently with the vesting tentative map. , ,m-2 39 Attachment 6 4, Memfi�y the dintensiens (in scale) and pr-epesed use of all buildings ;e b-9 , number- of lanes, level of sefviee, and Feeemmended pavemen; seegens in vw` rL:UL , with fhe Qy'. r,, fi. 1. ,..t c.. ,, G. :aa:«, . . 10.-Aft—studies er- lnfern wlen deemed meeessar-y by--Me 1,:_. ter- fe eiwkHae 16.12.025 Development Inconsistent with Zoning- Conditional Approval Whenever a subdivider files a vesting tentative map for a subdivision whose intended development is inconsistent with the zoning in existence at that time, that inconsistency shall be noted on the map. V City The e ..hall de eh ..t:. tentativefflap if the Cit. City L finds the vesting. tentative to be stent with the of the .t ef �Y > tentative faap- If a change in the zoning or issuance of a planned development rezoning, or use permit is obtained, the approved or conditionally approved vesting tentative map shall confer the vested right to proceed with the development in substantial compliance with the change in the zoning,P.D. or Use Permit.and the map as approved. 16.12.030 Failure to Obtain Architectural Review Approval The City shall deny a N,estiag-tenta4A,e Fnap appheatien if Ai-7ehkeetufal Review appr-evai has set been 0— Unless exempted-as described in 16.12.020 B.1 above, approval of a vesting tentative map is contingent upon architectural review approval of the site improvements and all structures within the boundaries of the map. If the subdivider filed a complete application for Design Review approval concurrently with filing the vesting tentative map application and final action has not been taken on the Architectural Review application, the subdivider may request that the City defer action on the vesting tentative map application until after final action has been taken on the Architectural Review application, provided that the subdivider agrees to an extension of any time periods within which the City is legally required to act on the vesting tentative subdivision map application. 02-yo Attachm,ent 6 16.12.040 Approval of Vesting Tentative Map Approval of a vesting tentative map shall not be granted until after the project has received approval from the Architectural Review Commission unless exempted as described in 16.12.020 B.1 above. Nor shall approval of the vesting tentative map be granted unless the review body first determines that the intended development of the subdivision is consistent with the zoning regulations applicable to the property, in addition to all other required findings for approval of tentative maps as outlined in Section 16.10.110. 16.12.045 Development Rights A. When a vesting tentative map is approved or conditionally approved, that approval confers a vested right to proceed with the development in compliance with the ordinances, policies, and standards (excluding fees) in effect at the time the tentative map is approved. Consistent with Subdivision Man Act Section 66474.2, the effective date of the vesting rights shall be the date the vesting map application is deemed complete. B. Notwithstanding (A) above, the review body may condition or require an amendment to the map or disapprove a permit, approval, extension or entitlement, if one of the following applies: 1. Failure to do so will put the residents of the subdivision and/or the immediate community in a condition dangerous to their health or safety. 2. Action is required to comply with State or Federal law. 16.17.010 Purpose and Applicability As further described in the definitions section, Chapter 16.26,035, Airspace Subdivisions differ from Common Interest Subdivisions in that they do not share interest in a common area within the may boundaries Instead, airspace subdivisions divideyroygM ownership into three-dimensional spaces, often stacked upon one another. Airspace condominiums in residential zoning districts are not included in this category and are instead regulated by the Common Interest Subdivision standards described above and in Sections 16.17.020 and 16.17.030. Airspace Subdivisions are not allowed within residential zoning districts and are intended to serve mixed use, multi-story buildings within all commercial zoning districts. 16.17.030 Property Improvement Standards for Common Interest Subdivisions A. Common open space. There shall be provided in each project of five or more C;' 7 -- - ' Attachment 6 units a minimum of one hundred square feet of qualifying open space per unit for projects in the R-3 or R-4 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 provided on a balcony or elevated deck, and must be located outside the street yard required by zoning regulations. Common open space need not be located with each unit. 16.017.040 Application Requirements for Airspace Subdivisions In addition to application submittal requirements for Tentative Maps provided in Chapter 16.10, the following additional information is required in order to complete an application submittal: A. The tentative map shall provide a cross-sectional drawing showing how the proposed building or buildings are to be divided into ownership boundaries. B. Airspace subdivisions are subject to the City's Architectural Review process and require aseparate application for Architectural Review. The information required for the architectural review application can be found on the City checklist for architectural review applications and is available at the Community Development Counter. In summary, a development plan that includes_ the following information will be required: 1. A site plan with proposed building footprints with property boundaries. All dimensions shall be clearly labeled. 2. Proposed building elevations with dimensions and floor plans. 3. Parking stalls, driveways and associated public improvements shall be provided and clearly dimensioned in accordance with the City's Parking and Driveway Standards. 4. A list of property statistics, including any proposed exceptions, shall be provided on the plans. The statistics shall include a list of property development standards such as floor area ratio, covera e, height, and setbacks. 5. Location of easements to allow all lots to accessthepublic right of way. 6. Any other information deemed necessary by the Community Development Director 16.17.050 Property Improvement Standards for Airspace Subdivisions A. All tentative maps creating airspace lots, as defined by Chapter 16.26.035 shall be required to incorporate a deed restriction which ensures the following 1. Air space lots shall have access to appropriate public rigbts of way by means of one or more easements or other entitlements to use in a form satisfactory to the Public Works Director, and Chief Building Official. 2. Parking requirements, inclusionary housing requirements Building Code Attachment o requirements, all other applicable property development standards required by the Zoning Regulations, and any other technical code requirements affecting the development of the property, shall be determined for the air space lots as if all lots in the air space subdivision were merged into the same lot. B. Individual buildings that are subdivided by an airspace map shall be reviewed as a single building for purposes of the building code, zoning code, and General Plan policies. Propertdevelopment evelopment standards including, but.not limited to density, lot coverage, floor area ratio,parking, height, and setbacks shall be calculated as if the.subdivided building were within one lot. 16.17.060 Required Findings for Condominium Conversions A. That: (1) Any existing deed-restricted A affordable housing units at � k ��o shall remain at affordable rates for the remainder of the recorded agreement or(2) an equivalent number of new units comparable in affordability and amenities to those being converted are being created as part of the new project; and that low- or moderate-income persons will not be displaced by the proposed conversion. 16.26.035 Airspace Subdivision An Airspace Subdivision for the purposes of these regulations is the three-dimensional subdivision of a commercial zoned property. Because there are no common areas, an airspace_subdivision is not a condominium project for purposes of the Subdivision Map Act. Legal agreements recorded.with the subdivision define how the lots and uses will function once individual components are sold. Air space lots are defined as a division of the space above or below a lot, or partially above and below a lot, having finite width, length, and upper and lower elevations, occupied by a building or portion thereof. An air space lot shall have access to appropriate public rights-of-way by means of one or more easements. Minimum lot sizes, lot dimensions, and lot area_requirements shall not apply to airspace lots. Parking requirements, setback requirements, building density, floor area ratio, and associated property development standards shall apply and shall be determined as if all lots, buildings or structures in the airspace_ subdivision were merged into the same lot. 7� RED FILE Page I of 1 MEETING AGENDA riECEIVED DATE ITEM #� Hooper, Audrey JUL 0 3 2007 From: Sheryl Flores[sherylf@pshhc.org] Sent Tuesday, July 03, 20071:07 PM To: Hooper,Audrey Subject Tonight's City Council Meeting Item#2 Proposed Amendments to the City's Subdivision....Airspace Subdivisions Please share the following comments with the Council. The proposed revisions to the City's regulations to allow Airspace Subdivisions will greatly enhance the opportunity to develop affordable housing in mixed use zones. Staff and Council are familiar with Villas at Higuera, our 28 unit apartment complex with commercial space in construction on South Higuera Street In order to provide affordable housing,a developer has to secure financing in the form of grants and/or below market loans and investments. These funders are generally only interested in providing funding for housing, not commercial development The proposed ordinance would allow the different uses,commercial and affordable housing to be financed separately. Sheryl Flores Housing Development Director Peoples'Self-Help Housing 3533 Empleo Street San Luis Obispo CA 93401 805.783.4465 805.544.1901 (fax) attentlon: Any views epressed in this message are Unciae of the ird'ividual sender,owept where the message states otherwise and the sada is authorized to state dm to be the views of arty mch entity.The hConratcin contained in this message and or attafimarts is rote ded only for the person or afty to which it is addressed and may corntab cordidardal and/or privileged material.If you received tns in error,please contact the sander and deiete the rrwmial from arty system and destroy any mples. COUNCIL X CDD DIR CAO �i FIN DIR ACAO Fn FIRE CHIEF 19PATTORNEY W PW DIR EKLERWRIG J�POLICE CHF ❑ DEPPT'HHEADS B2 REC DIR F UTIL DIR 3o�E 9 HR DIR 7/3/2007