HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/17/2007, PH 1 - PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY'S SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS TO INCLUDE AIRSPACE SUBDIVISIONS (TA/ER 7 council Meeuv6De
j acenaa Report n
CITY O F SAN LUIS O B I S P O
FROM: John Mandeville, Community Development Director
Prepared Bye Phil Dunsmore, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE Cars SUBDMSION
REGULATIONS TO INCLUDE AIRSPACE SUBDIVISIONS (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.
Council Agenda Report—T"R 75-07
Citywide amendments 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 isnot 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 atypical condominium project,a
property owner's association would manage the legal provisions and maintenance of the shared
building:
Council Agenda Report—TA/ER 75-07
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 for a 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 bean 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,
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"Creati`ng 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.
j;:-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.
G:\CD-PLkN\Pdunsmom\Text AmendmentASuMvisiou Ordi=ceUune 2007 Edits\TA 75-07 Council rpt(07-03-07).doc
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, California, 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.
Resolution No. 5483-07
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 Commissioner 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 in, Secretary
Planning Commission
.111 '7
11'7
\, 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 were no comments made from the public.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
%Qtwiide. TAand 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 re mm ing the Commission adopt the resolution which
recommends that the City Council ove 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.
Draft Planning Commission Mrites
Attachment 2
June 13, 2007
Page 2
Co7motion!
fir questioned the possibility or need of employee incentives.
On Com Carpenter to adopt the resolution recommending that the City
Council a rove a Ne a i 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 backyardspace
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.
Draft Planning Commission Minutes
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 com 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 up 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'concems 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 em 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. f /Q
Attachment 3
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT ITEM# Z
BY: Philip Dunsmore, Associate Planner (781-7522) MEETING DATE: June 13, 2007
FROM: Doug Davidson, Deputy Director-Development Review
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).
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 applicatid&fequirements-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 form 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
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 convened
are being created as part of the new project, and that low- or moderate-income persons
will not be displaced by the proposed conversion..
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"Und 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\Sutidivision OrdinanceUune 2007 Edits\TA 75-07 PC rpt(6-13-07).DOC
��a
VOL 2 ISSUE 7 TEN DOLLARS
July 2006
LAND DEVELOPMENT ;r _ www.LwWDevet•pntenepatq,egtR
- Attachment 4
.. Perspective. -
- _
DEPARTv1FN F I PLAN NG AND 20NING
I By Man Rowe
Creating Airspace Subdivisions
Segregating a building's uses can make the parts worth more than the whole.
When the owners of Mary's Plaza decided to ry and an office investor likely is only inter- While the Mary's Plaza property is all under
sell their four-acre retail/commerciallhotel 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 took an approach that is growing in Although it might be easy to package the future. The airspace subdivision approach
favor in mixed-use developments.They sub- commercial and retail together, the three basically brings more investor interest and
divided the retaillcommerciallhotel property uses combined lessened the price the prop- more competition to the property, 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 flexibility 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-story office tower or the selling a property, an airspace subdivision
approach to subdividing property can 349,109 square foot retail portion. In par- offers building owners the opportunity, to
enhancethe value, and thus the marketabili- titular,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 lessen
investment, it is also a business with a very some of the loan burden. From a city's point
ding Value different cash flow operation from com- of view, the sale of commercial parcels with-
In airspace, or three-dimensional subdivi- mercial/retail 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 lou. Essentially a The office/retail was sold to one owner in from increased property values.
building is sliced up along its vertical height. March 2005. Interesting enough, that owner
Each three-dimensional lot may be bought, then bought the hotel a couple of months Adder! Flexibility
sold, and financed just like a conventional later,but at a much higher price. By spinning Another significant advantage of an airspace
lot. off the hotel as a separate use, the sellers subdivision is added flexibility in terms of the
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 tual owner bid for the hotel against four is governed. For example, in a
70s, is an excellent illustration of an air- other bidders and ended up paying full mar- residential/retail building the retail can
space subdivision increasing project value. ket 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 er's association with regard to miles and regu-
diswunt 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-
. f -ice
Repnn,ed with permission'^cr, Lara Deve'opmenr Today t,�2006
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 Californias 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 - -
instance, a homeowner's association does not want to incur the cost 'bout the auzbor Mau Rowe it a vice president with Psmnas.
of staffing a hotel loading dock 24 hours a day.
Valuable In adaptive Reuse
P gaining popularity in the ada five reuse
Airspace subdivisions are ini❑ p
projects that are a major trend in Los Angeles as older commercial
areas of the city are being revitalized and transformed into urban res-
idential neighborhoods. ii `tea
11
1100 Wilshire, a 36-story office building located just west of down- N`'-
town, is a case in point. Vacant for 17 years, the underutilized com-
mercial structure is being remodeled to house 267 condos on 22
floors with 22,000 square feet of commercial floor area on I 6 I I i
9 the lobby
and mezzanine levels for neighborhood, serving retail and restaurant 1
uses. Separate airspace lots will facilitate independent financing i 1 { ;P,
and/or sale of the residential and commercial components of the proj-
ect,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
rime, Psomas has prepared dozens of airspace subdivision maps for i i I i 0 1 1 11 1
approval in the Los Angeles region.Today the City of Los Angeles is
very Familiar and quire comfortable with airspace subdivisions and
their complex mapping requirements. The approach also has been I 1 ,•. fsi I
Used in other large cities. LI1 r
Yet this is still largely a big city 1
ier Ho - ,�/ nc tact nr .•.�, .
phenomenon and a new and _
unfamiliar concept For smaller
cines. The Towers on Capitol E— °)'""°1=
Mall in Sacramento (CA) is `OT 3- at
I
breaking new ground for Chls LOT I-m""'k Awn .40P I 1
I
city of less than two milllOR res- ,urs-tin.,w.,x(C.aAra/mouxC m.ut � I
idents, both literally and figura- .o, .. l i
1 I 1
Lively. The state cap¢ol Is colt-
nessing its first airspace subdivi- L,,,_WTM nil _ ?,"''',, "
r• . . I I^.
cion with the construction of C� w,e-am+ I 7."
�` I .
two separate 58-story luxury w,,o arca n..w1 >
,
�'-7—, - )(o... �� �'', .� I
towers in the heart of the city.
The 765 luxury condos, a
60,000 square-foot high-end restaurandretail component, a state-of-
the art fitness cenrer/spa and a 276-room InrerConfinental Hotel and I
Resort have each been subdivided for separate ownership. EAST ISOMFrnic vFW
www.psomas.com
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, which require 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.
Addendum to Negative L,.-.aration for the Citys Subdivision Regulatiu, 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, specifically:
a. The project changes do not result in new or more severe
— - - - - --- ---- - -
- - environmental-impacts.- __ - - --- — -
b. The circumstances under which the project is undertaken will
Attachment 5
Addendum to Negative L_,aration for the City's Subdivision Regulata, s-
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-PLAN\PdunsmoreWext Amendments\Subdivision OrdinanceUune 2007 Edits\Addendum to Negative
Declarabon.doc
Attachment 5
IIIIIIIIIIIIIII� IIcity of sAn luis 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 Lui's 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)
rt 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 5Tu0Y ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIIlST 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
MUM p � G1
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
15673(a)). ..
CITY OF SAN.Luis O8tspo 3 _ INIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLsT 2005
v
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 g
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 IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant" impact(s) or"potentially
significant unless mitigated" impact(s) on the environment, but at least one effect (1) has been
adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (2) has
been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached
sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the
effects that remain to be addressed
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
because all potentially significant effects (1) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR
or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (2) have been avoided
or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR of NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions
or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the ro osed project,nothing further is required.
Signature Date
Ronald Whisenand
Deputy Community Development Director For:John.Mandeville,
Printed Name Community Development Director
CITY OF SAN.Luis OBISPO 4 INMAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2005
y
- 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.
CITY OF SAN.Luis CBISPO 5 INITIAL STuDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECIQIsr 2005
t Attach
issues, Discussion and Supporting-..4ormation Sources Sources Poten„ .: Potentially Less Than No
Subdivision Regulations TA 153-04 Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER # 153 04 Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
IncoMorated
1.AESTHETICS. Would the project:
a} FTave g substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista., X-1
b) Substantiallydamage scenic resources,including,bat not limited r—X
to,trees,tack outcroppings,open space,and historic buildings .:
within a local or state scenic highway?
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or qualify pf 3
'the site and its strrtiund'rngs?.
.gid) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which vYoutd r ;X
adyersel ;,effect day,or ni ttime 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 the project:-
a)
ro'eM:a) Cbnvert Prince Farmland,Unique Farmland,crr IPirmland of X:
11
Statewide Importance(F,annland),as shown ou the maps
puar=tr t to theFarmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of .
the California Itesonrces Agency;p non-agricultural use?
b) Cgnfliet with existing aaoning for agricultural,use or aX—
Wllliamson Atct coruracf?-
2r) "tri vrA ve ether charrges in the existing enviiranent which,-due to,
their location or naturei-could result in conversion of Farmland
t4 roti-a eultural 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 the prQiect.
a) Violate any air quality standard or ctn bibute substantially to an, X
existing Or projected air quality violation?
b) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air x-
guality plaO
Crry OF SAN Luis Osispo 6 INITIAL STUDY ENviRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 20005 //__
/'off a
- Attachment 5
Issues, Discussion and Supportit,y ,,dormation Sources Sources Potea,.n„y PotentiallyI. T= No
Subdivision Regulations TA 153-04 Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER# 153-04 Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pbllutant
concentrations?
d) Create objecfiotiable odors affecting.a snbstantlal number of r
in't tum-Witively considerable net mcre
e) Resultw of by. cr teria _X
pGUuWat for vd&h the prolectregion is ndfi_attainment;untler.an'`
applicable federal or state ambient air,quality standard
(inpludiiag releasing emissions ikhic'h exceed quialrtative ",
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 ATOM, 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 the ro'eck
} . IXave s substaagal adverse effect,either ectIy or indae.ky or t_ :
tltrougli hab#dlaj dificatiotis,on any.spectesVenti5ed a"_s"a
anddate sensive or special status species irf luo$l or iegtdnal_
b glatrs,Poficies.'0r regulatiogs;or by the Ca tfooriateat
-offish,acid 4rauie or U 5-Dish and Wildlife SiMte
OaW a-substarmal adverse kX t
A.r._ 'otii st�uve nttiralcotttmu�t3r ldentiAedaftrc7 sit zegional
pLusego' cies;ortons>ortiy-ttieC7alif7iratisl7epaiineit
ofl+fsh nail Gat€te*U1.S and�Pdd*Se�.ce?
C) Cor6ict*lith*Local policies of ordinA#ces,p41eGti3ag X
_ biolo s�sb}ureas,siiGh'as a�reeprese�rada3 cyo :-,
ordinance(e g:Heirltage Trees-V`
} YnterfcKe substanfialIq tvitti the movetneatt of A4y native fesident _g�r
or migratory fisli or,vrldlife species or with eijibl shed native"
resident or r}n%grafinq wiIdtife corridors,}tritppede the itse of .
Svildrfe nursery sites?.
=" ..to nlfwt with4he P-omsions of-an adopted hak#iEat Ct e>vafibn •' -X__
Y " Flail,Nabi rai Ctiauiuunity'Qonservatien P14,or-b.1her kiproved
local,regional,or state habitat conservation plazt'i
JD. - 'FIave a substantial aavetse effedt ori Feder wl piotecied,
Wei as-defined-in Section 404-of the Clem Rater A4
(including,but n6t limited 10,marshes,veinal pools,etc.) .
through difect removal,filling;hydrologioil i iterruptioii,or
othermeans°t
Evaluation
The Citywide amendments to the Subdivision regulations is not anticipated to impact biological resources since no chane to
CrrY OF SAN Luis Osispo 7 - INrnAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKusT 2005
I _.=-).7
Attachment Issues, Discussion and Supportii q, „.dormation Sources Sources Potenua,Y Potentially Less Than No
Subdivision Regulations TA 153-04 Significant Significant Significant 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) Caste a substantial adverse change in the significance of a u
historic resource?(See CEQA Guidelines 15064.5)
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an F7
archaeological resource?(See,CEQA Guidelines 15064-5)
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource
or site or unique geologic feature? —
d) Disturb any human remains;including those interred outside of F X�
formal cemeteries? i
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 Pian 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 theproject:
-a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? kx-
b) Use tion-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient
manner?
c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource
that would be of value to the region and the residents of the
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.
CITY OF SAN Luis OBISPO 8 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2005�}
p �O
Attachment 5
Issues, Discussion and Supportit., „dormation Sources Sources PoteL..niiy 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 SOILS. Would theproject:
aj Easpose people or str., tares to potentia's,�tris aittial adverse ''
effects,mcludtn nsk ss;
g' . anlpry Qr cleafhwolNm
Rupture o£a known eartfiqualseatr delit>eAted
',most ecentA,]4uik--hl loFarthggakavault,z.,-wm 14p
issued by,the Stat6(3eolog st for aiea+•or basad vn-6thdr
substantial evidenceof-ifa qw- auiq,
1I.`Strong seismic gcou}i shaking?'
10'Seigmic-related ground failure:includutg liqu6*600
i�=I„dbdsfidgs or-mudt�ods+s� •�.: ,�
3b 'RAettnlCaaoSttbstantials9rasrosidDhrie#ossoftbsorl '
' B Xocated OD's geo1ogto-unifbrf tftatas uttslable,oY _
Wb*bcbma�ii
esfable as f utt of the p rajd-c1 and pbteiLi4l j
lvs*yin on or tiff site landslides;lateral spreading,art sidetit e; _.
"Zicjeefaetion,ortxllapse� ., . •.
d) .Be 1sc�eated on expanstvesoits deli ae8 enable I8 1 of the '
r"'>h form B;vildi ig Code(19�4J cxeating skibstantla7 risks•to llle -'
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 pinnject:
Se ilrzf
- hoh {
t t)ilitgb;€fre routweusetE°an'polct�c iGspoSalod21us "
law
a•so figantl azaFcl,3c f���tSblic tit tTie�mtr4nipant �
Wob-glt irisonably foa516�1tpsand acoicleilt t oitdttions" .
'°it_Yolv3pg_terdleasel£hazaztlousrnateials"xmo:fhe
VfF(ty,,,�e�,�f
y� -
116 hazardous emir§ton's onandle fia 5r8ous briacntel� ;,`•:
hazardous materials;snbstan�c�e)s(,-pr*gW watli�cite-quarter• ' .;
s: •' lues j(Or P!V� 0'W- Ycho
df xpose people of strictures l0exutkng"sducapsF ofbazsz ttsp X'
r`emi`ssi9zts tar haiaidpus or actifelyhazaraus Diatenals, w:
substances,of waste? a
ej elocaYedonasite which isutciudd&bhu `hstofhazar<ious',
ruatet i4s;sites compiled pursuant io GQvaiiffient Code Section
096"-and,.ss.aresd[L-itwould meat sigatifit;aitt hazard to.:
l c.or the enyironment? a '
f)1 l igc a ptQT-7
ject located`cvtthtti{esti attpbI t laud use flan,or•withih
omllbsdfa ublicz rt;.wduld•the ' b'eet,cess tzn safe-y
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPo 9 INITIAL STUDY ENvtRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2005
..a
Attachment 5
Issues, Discussion and Supporting,,,rormation Sources Sources Potenhaiiy Potentiallyless Than No
Subdivision Regulations TA 153-04 Significant Significant Significant impact
ER# 153-04 Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
-fiazard for the,pegple residing or working in.the pxoject aiea?.
g). main Unplementation"oi,or physically interfere witb,the
�dQpteaupmergency sespcgse`,plan or em08eiicy0a6»atlon
Iai3ni
-b) Expose people or stint tures•to a significant iisit of lose,infury� 4 L
pr death,,iuvttiving..v ldt4d'htcs;including where w ldlands;si e .
djagent to urbanized'areas tr.whereresiderifs'*e-intermixed ,
wittt_�Yi7dlan3s� � v ;W
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), 'folate.aiEp•water }uafit..taudarc7s-or vaste harge
ye s
`Substaatially deplete groundvWr SdPp4e6or>itterfece . '_. aT
stYbs nt y c ffi grounavwd ge such thil*iN td be
~a netA,_k it'd a9tufex iroiu vz^ rtng of tfie ld l
.F;; MuddWA, i•Uble level(e g. 1 he proilnBEi t sue of extsttifg,
3 L'nearby-Wellsrwotilil drop to a revel xvhi h Keit t i t' i° s
X eicist dig lander for whichiprmits have beeant '
c ;M treate vt-cdrttribiite rtiitpff ,.water vviiic>i woo d cif fhe', X
Y.
capdatystfsxtsftng or pldMed sPorin water a$e systems air '<
provideadlitionai sta»sces ofxunofl into
Wagehaters
4 T Ay PIx— ,
�t r ';(tnoludin�,�itt riot f ed4cr,:"svdtl8niis ri
4 n
} sPy ;p"�µ Fs�streams,�oYs,'lakes,esthariesftdleas;3ray"s::
}r'sttbstaritislter•tiie egg PayAte DO0 r
' ; —
`area
�inrl ymaa�rQier �iiC1L��v�aiTtt#estiltinsubstah 61 bn'Or,�
t- k.��i1iW1��QFAjw�r��f�tG, , � i r r�.yg:i-��'r i c'o5� r �•i
. 3bstanaalTy alfer t eau6tug rirainagedttetdiif tpe b3Ye`ar —=X-
_M2
{_
dpea m mannero (ch 1t oirt result in sdbtn "tib
�. P�+cehou'sang'aYtt�it?ai00-year flopd�h�zard�ategasm�pi�ddrt ; ,'X
i`
4iV6c*j IFIdpdflaza tu iarx_or tpo4ln eradBeU&
<
'or otliei'floO-hazaja
�- place V40 s40b yeas 1*4 bazaid area stcuFIres W
hrcfi' g J
would impe 'eoi re4iectIl4od
h}=. € �pojeot . -X_ihipanan
. .:groctttd or.sulface wttters? - .; '
i)]' ?Gyill the proldet-altet-ground water or st faoe water quality,
tem attve,dissolygd_g. en,;or_turbidit ?
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
�_� CITY OF SAN Luis OBISPO 10 1NmAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2005
Attachment 5
Issues, Discussion and Supporting.. .rormation Sources Sources Poterihauy'_J Potentially Less Than No
Subdivision Regulations TA 153-04 Significant significant significant Impact
ER# 153-04 Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incortiorated
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:
Conflict with appligaii a]anti u>se pian, policy
'or regiQl6n:of `X
-an ^agenpy wtthqurikUctiou over the project. adopted for'this.
puMose-of avoiding-or m tigarmg an envii�nn en heftec
Physica2lydtndeanetFtab2tredcotbiivnity? _g7
o} Conflict Alt anyapplicabl4habiut cotservati01n J§t t Qr#q" X
•Comnptuli cbn�e�ati_bn Taus?� '� ..
Evaluation - -
Adoption of the guidelines willcomplement 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 in:
tt) _ xPosure of peoRle; or geflaragon toy"tui<hc epfaTjle'ttojse
levels as defined b, 'el a`L Obi General
EIement;;w genu norselevels iri excess ofstan_dards
estatilis'hed m theNbYseOiditipm
`ASttbstaatialYe yrPei?t>�c,nrger.panertminc easeyi4 l XJ
A
i .azrlbtent notseIeue s 1 e j)Aject het cnr above levels ex�s 3
withouuf 1hi project?
, stYre Afperssih4 tq r g eraffoa f fr idige9#S�eflo
r xibrton-or granim�tiboknenbirsb level§7- `
_ I~flz avro,}ect to-*W' Vdaliu- an aupo"mitud use pla*, ,, r
tpvt3 it�es[c( pti$I rt�r publirf nse auporva6�firtd '
:proJeiexpos�pedinoiw4rlut3g:aeprojeceareaDi ''
_.i=gcessiv_�nousergt�ela'� �� _ '
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 the ro'ect:
'a) Fndttce su6stanttal"po,-ul40#growth�in an area,, either dibect"ly,? X;
- (for example by' "sing new-homes -or-bustnt
indirectly (foi'exampte;-tTtrough extension",of roads ri `otlieF
infrastructur )?
t7 pisplace substantialnut _b� . •of existing +housing'or•people X-
necessitating the't,cotartIctiou. ofiep]acecnent hou itig
•elsepvitere? .
=J CITY OF SAN Luis OBISPO 11 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2005
Attachment 5
Issues, Discussion and Supporting ..dormation Sources Sources Potenua,q 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} •Fire protection? I kX-11
b) Police protection? X
c} Schools? -X
d) Parks? _X_
e) Roads and other transportation infrastructure?. -X
f) Other public facilities? rX
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:
.) •Ti(ciease the use i f existing neightaorhood or regional parks or
other recreational fkalties such that subetardal physical
deteria ratidn of the facility would;ctccur or bdaccelerated? .
b) Include recreational facilities or require the epnstnid ion or' -X-
exjxinsion of recreational facilities,which might li "an adyeise
h icl effeot4athe
euvirOrnitT_ _
Evaluation
The new subdivision regulations will require development applications to supply parkland or pay in-lieu fees (QURVIBY 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 the ro'ect:
a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to theJ
existing traffic load and capacity of the street system?
b) Exceed,either individually or cumulatively,-a level of service X
standard established by the county congestion management,
agency for designated roads and highways?
c) Substantially increase'hazards due to design features(e.g.sharp 1—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..dorrnation Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than o
Subdivision Regulations TA 153-04 Significant Significant Significant impact
ER # 153-04 Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Inc orated
:d) Result`in inadegaate emergency access? - -
e) Result in jnadegaate parking-capacity onsiteor offsite?, :.
f) Conflict with adopted;policies supporting altei*trpe _X
trahsportation(e g.bus turnouts,.bicycle racks)?`
gj Conflict with ttie with SaAuis Pbispo-C-Wnty Airport.Land
-U, Istan.resuiting in sr#bstarttial safety zisks+fam:hazaris,Heise,"
pr_a�an a ain:air:traf€te ,attetin�'?
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) ccedwaste9¢aterYreattneutzegiuceuissbfheapplicable X
Regional Water.Quality Control Board?
ls) Require ar resttTt ut4e.consttvction or=Vansion of ttaw waiter,1V ; X_
i s ireaEritents `w2ter treagent orateyuahty;b0jttoj„Oi storm,-,
:-dirainagetk8ilde ,i#ie cotiatraic6on df wlttett c rise
•.Slgrt.C]tV1TOi1tIICAY81•C�fECtB� iy 'rA ,
c� avc salt tent wafer suppSesravailatlle to serve thetro�ect L, XJ,
freer existm eptiitlementg'ana resources,or ase:Pd and
r*wpes need
�''a'are4 ed
xl) 12esuit is a detergtlatron 1?yme wastewater treatptentp°rgvider, X
�avhrcltervesotinaserefinetrpJecttliafxra5: 0ale:
.'. capaoitytosetvrttheprctrjeet'aprojecteddemai7Tiradtlifonto '.
a tlteprovitder'& xlftatco,*—pent? - `;_
E Be served
� by.a landfill c�ttr`stYfGerenhg�rnfittrc;i�2gabrt)�a X-
acaommcjdafethe Bees st Gdl dl*. disposal 'tom _
lyt feat,Vied Isical§tatunil ae atiot[S ',
reI$tedto.saltaStey
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.quatityof the
environment,s4fistaa0ally redgce.the.habitat of a•fish or wildlf fe
species;Cause a fi*.()r wiliilifepopulation to drop below-self-
sustaining levy ls;threaten to eliminate a pliant of animal',`
common tyWTeducp-1 a number or restrict therm bf a raze or
endangered plant or aftimat or eliminate important exam les of .
'the major periodi of Calif
orniahistory of xe6 s_ :3_--
CITY OF SAN LUIS Oerspo 13 - INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHEOKusT 2005
Attachment 5
Issues, Discussion and Supporting e,:dormation Sources Sources Potennu " Potentially Less Ttian No
Subdivision Regulations TA 153-04 significant Significant Significant Impact
ER # 153-04 Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
N/A
•r ^r.,•rra"ac �nx rm wr.-•. v,cap t r.u. ro-yr
Dprohaye}mpact' a[arindivtdu teclbu�tr
atluel const era
" 3` �constdt "
e7ncremen e=a;`ro ectc eco
vie ed�, gj�CES
Tit ilae%n f cs tsaTtd fhe a .
t a61e^
1
N/A - -
'a�.
al;�aH,ver�e,� tngs;�e�1it erdu r`
MiuYr+.rY.wiL
N/A
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 14 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2065
1'- Attachment 5
18.EARLIER ANALYSES.
f3a;tier analysis may be used where,pursuant to thZ ,tteringti;program 1$IR,fli c)tlrer.CEQAgrocess,one or snore effects liaaie
been:adequawly analyzed in an earlier ElR or Negative l laratigq..Section t5063`(c)�(3) (D). In flus case a discussraki '
<.
a. :�rlierani. . Sis�se�.-'•.Idenh eat'iier;a�af"msaii�staTe;�ieref�e�aieav 'b�_e_for�vletry�._;. _. � !` _
N/A
:b� _Ir�tpactS adegnateig addressed Idet df wt7tc eett f em therdtio*reehealtlrst`were tthSn.tlie�cza�g ifancfade uatey
aru'tlyze in as WUer docu nent puisunt to,#piiieab9e.legai's dari7s-and state yvhether such effects were addre&sed fi y
;riliti ation'.measteres_basedmtheearlieranal'ss_,:
_ A
N/A
Mitwgatiori meastire5:. For effects'thatare "Lesssthangficatit vs5%hh lltitig2tton,Ineorporated;" describe the mitigati5n
measures which were incorporated ohrefined Ecom Qts earkier document and:the extent to which,thesaddress sitems #
,
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 Pian 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:
httpJ/www.consrv.ca.gov/dlrp/FNEvIP/
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 Land Use Plan
25. San Luis Obispo Community Design Guidelines
26. 1997 Uniform Buildinp 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 file: Proposed new draft of the City's Subdivision Regulations.
� -ate
Attachment 3
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 SUBDMSION 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
"Aiispace Subdivisions". Airspace-subdivisions will"lienefit botfi-private development
and local jurisdictions by allowing the individual ownership boundaries (real lot lines) to
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
^} Attachment 6
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\Pduusmom\Text AmendmentslSubdivision Ordbmce\June 2007 EditsU)mft ord. LDOC
Attachment 6
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 for a 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
Mans that are part of a Planned Development-Zoning application or are part 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 filed for rezoning or prezoning the land which will
be processed concurrently with the vesting tentative map. If a planned
development (PD1 is
required, said peFm the PD shall be processed prior to or concurrently with the
vesting tentative map.
Attachment 6
6 V1414 fife pmven6en plan and4gr- neise analysis wiM suggested mi*a6en
, geeffletges,
eemlianee
r J JJ Y
,
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. The City shall deny su6h a ivesting tentative map if the City
tele map 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 shed! deny a ves4iag tentafive map applisaien if Ar-ehkee4wW Review appre
has net been granted fer-the* . 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
anytime periodsVithin-which the City is legally required to act on the vesting tentative
subdivision map application.
�j --yo
i
AttachmP,nt 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 Map 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, Airsoace Subdivisions
differ from Common interest Subdivisions in that they do not share interest in a common
area within the may boundaries. Instead, airspace subdivisions divide property ownership
into three-dimensional spaces, often stacked uyon 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 spaee: There shall be provided in each project of five or more
� - 7
Attachment 6
units a minimum of one hundred square feet of qualifying open space per unif 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 a separate 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, coverage, height and
setbacks.
5. Location of easements to allow all lots to access the public 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 rights 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. Parkins h9uirements, inclusionary housin quirements 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 pumoses of the building code zoning code and General Plan
policies. Property development 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 �r-isk-wiNbe
shall remain at affordablesates.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 thePurboses of these regulations is the three-dimensional
subdivision of a commercial zoned property. Because there are no common areas an
p
airspace subdivision is not a condominium project forurposes 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.