HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/17/2007, PH 2 - TENTATIVE TRACT MAP PROPOSAL FOR A TEN-UNIT RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM DEVELOPMENT (625 TORO STREET, T Council M<elinyDate
1117147
Age,n6A 12EpoRt Item Numbn
CITY O F SAN LUIS O B I S P O
FROM: John Mandeville, Community Development Director 1P.> 4 on
Prepared By: Jaime Hill, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: TENTATIVE TRACT MAP PROPOSAL FOR A TEN-UNIT RESIDENTIAL
CONDOMINIUM DEVELOPMENT (625 TORO STREET,TR/ER-176-05).
CAO RECOMMENDATION
As recommended by the Planning Commission, adopt a resolution approving a tentative tract
map and Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impact for a ten-unit residential
condominium development located at 625 Toro Street (TR/ER 176-05).
DISCUSSION
Background
The City has received an application to construct a residential condominium project at 625 Toro
Street, between Highway 101 and Walnut Street. The applicant intends to demolish the existing
motel on the site in order to construct the new units and site improvements. Residential
condominium projects with five or more units require approval of a tract map, which requires
review by both the Planning Commission and City Council for compliance with Subdivision
Standards and Condominium Regulations. The Architectural Review Commission (ARC)
reviewed and approved layout and design of this project on March 5, 2007, with refinements
noted in the conditions of approval (Attachment 3). On June 27, 2007, the Planning Commission
reviewed the project and recommended approval of the subdivision map and environmental
document to the City Council (Attachments 4 and 5).
Data Summary
Address: 625 Toro Street
Applicant/Property Owner: Namaji Enterprise
Representative: Ernie Kim
Zoning: R-4 (High-Density Residential)
General Plan: High-Density Residential
Environmental Status: A Mitigated Negative Declaration was recommended by the
Community Development Director on June 6, 2007.
Site Description
The 19,600 square foot site has an irregular shape and is bordered by both Toro Street and
Highway 101. The project is surrounded by residential development of similar density;
residential land to the south, west, and.northeast of the project site is zoned for High Density (R-
1 �
Council Agenda Report
TR/ER 176-05 (625 Toro Street)
Page 2
4) development, and residential land to the east of the project site is zoned for Medium-High (R-
3) development. The project site is on the northern edge of the Downtown Planning Area and
one-half block north of the Mill Street Historic District. Highway 101 travel lanes are located
approximately 68 feet from the rear property line of the project site, and northbound off-ramps
are located at the site's northeast corner. Dense shrubs and trees on the Cal-trans property
occupy the space between the property line and the highway. The site slopes down hill
approximately 15 feet from Toro Street towards Highway 101.
Proiect Description
The project is a condominium subdivision of an existing 0.45 acre site. The project includes 2
one-bedroom units and 8 two-bedroom.units for a total of 10 dwellings. The homes would have
a townhouse configuration with attached two-car garages. Including the garages, the homes have
two levels and a maximum height of 31 feet. Private open space is provided through a
combination of decks and balconies, with most of the units having ground level yards.
Recreation space is provided in the form of a turf and patio area with fixed seating The project
site is presently developed with a small motel, known as the El Toro Motel. Project plans
indicate that all improvements associated with the motel would be demolished. One of the two
palms and all of the eucalyptus trees on the site will be removed as part of the site
redevelopment. All tree removals are noted on the demolition plan.
Due to the site's proximity to Highway 101 and the on/off ramps, both a noise study and traffic
analysis were prepared to look at potential impacts of the development and on the future
residents. The noise study identified the site as being subject to excessive traffic noise levels, and
provided recommendations for construction techniques to reduce noise levels from Highway 101.
The traffic study prepared for the project evaluated the design of the entry into the project, and
impacts on the flow of traffic off of the highway exit. This study recommended that the on-street
parking along the site's frontage, north of the project driveway be removed to improve sight
distance for vehicles exiting the freeway. The report also recommended that portions of the dense
vegetation on Cal Trans property along the inner curve of the off-ramp that obscures traffic
visibility be removed. An exhibit prepared by Pults & Associates identifies the area that is
required to remain free of dense vegetation to improve traffic safety(Attachment 2).
Evaluation
The Planning Commission has considered each of the project's issue areas prior to making a
recommendation of approval on the subdivision and mitigated negative declaration of
environmental impact to the City Council. The Planning Commission found the subdivision and
residential development project to be consistent with General Plan Policy and in compliance with
the Subdivision Regulations, and therefore recommended approval of the project, with conditions
and code requirements. A complete review of the issue areas summarized below can be found in
the Planning Commission Staff Report, Attachment 5.
.�,= 2
Council Agenda Report
TR/ER 176-05 (625 Toro Street)
Page 3
1. General Plan
The site's High Density Residential land use designation is intended to provide housing
opportunities for smaller households desiring little private open space and to provide various
types of group housing. Consistent with several General Plan Land Use and Housing Element
policies, this plan proposes to replace a non-conforming commercial use (motel) with smaller
housing units in close proximity to public services, job centers, and transit. As discussed in the
Planning Commission staff report, the project was found to be consistent with Land Use Element
Land Use Element Goal 29 and 31, Land Use Element Policy 2.2.12 and 2.4.8, and Housing
Element Policy 3.13.1. These policies relate to neighborhood compatibility and residential
project objectives.
Land Use Element policy 2.4.8 was fundamental to the redesign and layout of this project. It
reads, "High Density residential should be primarily attached dwellings in two- or three-story
buildings, with common outdoor areas and very compact private outdoor spaces." The initial
design submitted for this project was seven primarily detached units. This design did not take
advantage of the site's R-4 zoning and resulted in an inefficient use of space. Under the guidance
of this Land Use Element policy, staff worked with the applicant for an attached housing product
more suited to higher density locations. The proposal for 10 townhouse-style dwellings is a
better project with its higher density and smaller units because it carries out this Land Use
Element policy and Housing Element policies encouraging infill and "affordable-by-design".
Furthermore, the project is compatible to the density and attached development pattern of the
nearby Courtyards on Walnut condominium project.
2. Compliance with R4 Zone Development Standards and Subdivision Regulations
The project is in compliance with the City's property development standards, including
subdivision design, density, setbacks and parking. The allowed density in the R-4 district is 24
units per acre. This property is 0.45 acres, which allows for 10.8 density units, with 9.32 density
units proposed. The project is designed with the buildings at the perimeter of the site and
oriented to the interior courtyard. A single 20-foot wide driveway provides access to the site,
approximately 5 feet south of the existing motel driveway. Private open space is provided with a
combination of ground level yards and balconies. Each unit includes two levels, with an attached
two-car garage. Through a combination of ground level yard space and decking the amount of
private, common and total open spaces, and recreational areas comply with that required to meet
the Subdivision Regulations. Required lockable storage has been included within the garage of
each unit, consistent with standards for the provision of lockable storage outside the units
themselves
The Toro Street elevation includes walks and private entrances to the three units fronting the
street. There are no individual driveways to the units that front on Toro Street. This quality is
strongly emphasized through the building design and landscaping plan, creating a classic
streetscape view that is not dominated by driveways and parked cars. The front yards include
multiple street trees and annual hedges to provide a transition between the sidewalk and the units.
Sheet PC-4 of the architectural plans include Toro Street elevations.
i
� 1
Council Agenda Report
TR/ER 176-05 (625 Toro Street)
Page 4
Environmental Review
The Planning Commission has recommended a mitigated negative declaration for the project.
The recommendation and initial study are attached to this staff report (Attachment 4). Staff
identified potentially significant effects of the project in the areas of noise and traffic. Many of
the project's potential impacts are addressed by existing ordinances, such as the City's policies
regarding drainage and trash &recycling collection.
Noise The Initial Study identifies potentially significant impacts from highway noise. An
acoustical analysis was prepared for the project and the recommendations of the analysis have
been incorporated into the project design. The units on the north and northwest side of the
property, combined with sound walls along this edge of the project site, act as a noise barrier for
the proposed outdoor use areas. In addition, specific building practices are recommended for
noise reduction, which are required to be implemented as part of the development.
Implementation of the recommendations contained in the analysis are sufficient to mitigate
potential impacts to less than significant levels.
Traffic Potentially significant traffic impacts were identified relative to hazards from vehicles
queuing on Toro Street as vehicles turn into the project site. The present traffic volume on Toro
Street from vehicles exiting Highway 101 en route to Santa Rosa Street is substantial. At times
the traffic is backed up to the off-ramp. However, accounting for the existing motel on the site,
the additional trips generated by the residential development would result in a minimal increase
in the number of net new vehicle trips, which would not degrade the existing operations of Toro
Street. Additionally, the proposed driveway will be located 5 feet south of the existing motel
driveway, which despite not meeting the required stopping distance, is an improvement over
existing conditions. Based on existing sight limitations and available site frontage, the driveway
is in the best possible location. In order to improve the site distance to the greatest extent
possible, parking along the project frontage to the north will be eliminated, and vegetation
limited to low growing plants.
Next Steps
Tract maps are a two-step process made up of a tentative map and a final map. The applicant
must satisfactorily complete all conditions of the tentative map before City consideration of the
final map. Final maps are brought back to the Council for action on the Consent Calendar.
CONCURRENCES
The project proposal was routed to various City departments and other interested agencies such
as the Air Pollution Control District and Cal Trans. Comments received have been incorporated
as conditions of approval where necessary.
� 1
Council Agenda Report
TR/ER 176-05 (625 Toro Street)
Page 5
FISCAL IMPACT
When the General Plan was prepared, it was accompanied by a fiscal impact analysis, which
found that overall the General Plan was fiscally balanced. Accordingly, since the proposed
project is consistent with the General Plan, it has a neutral fiscal impact.
ALTERNATIVES
1. Continue review of the proposed subdivision with specific direction to the applicant.
2. Approve a resolution recommending that the City Council deny the proposed subdivision,
based on findings of inconsistency with the Subdivision Regulations and/or General Plan
Policies as specified by the City Council.
Attachments:
Attachment 1: Vicinity Map
Attachment 2: Reduced Size Development Plans
Attachment 3: ARC meeting update and follow-up letter
Attachment 4: Initial Study of Environmental Impact
Attachment 5: Planning Commission Resolution, meeting update, and agenda report
Attachment 6:. Draft Resolution approving a negative declaration and tentative map
GNHMSubdivision\176-05 TR-ER(625 Toro)Terra del Toro\Council Rpt 176-05.doc
z=s
File No . 176-0
Attachment 2
dYNg �FF2 M
.s jail oil m D
R
T EV,, T
pA F9q Gr o
r- KM r
0 §lpj 0
o m N
a r. _
jail
9 s V
M
1 �J J
" $ g
cn
o c P
u z
_ =
3� lil
-m P�
z I - m 00
I Qz N m
A
r
gQ� �~ Y� m
o m
a oD / �
TORO STREET
N IN
3fi3fififiln § !i 6 g
$m gni
Q`naaa � - ,$ya 9v9gg- ppF F F s F° £a FE Fs frE Fa�4E �F? qq2 Eap- 0
C^^ �A- �e 9a qv 4 F 2 d J N R Z6 RR S d5� °6 * z• pdp �tl L
a4'4' A=� q uR Ne sq qD � �. ���4 �� 8$�� A�$�s��d�$95�a -��C� !r..^ ,,,. p-0 fR
f L q tq �i< 4aP A� It 999 !_ p�.Yy
aT• X VV pz�Z 5�Re3'•! Y lI
RimaAN3q
.aX A AV A A. ELM' yY KyaS d838 � y$�°
, �� q y�y q yyq g tlyy � p yyN � g pNq $ A AA. � 4 4 � d• �vo.� a
.A
q ne yu
V !
ILII
9 D M> �j TORO STREET TOWNHOM �`� I
n s 9 , g - .s O R� ERNM KIM ARCHITECT
5�n A 10 UNIT DEVELOPMENT gc ', ' ! Tsf SANTA ROSA SLTM 310
A Z N 625 TORO STREET � � • i' lid! SAN[,Vt50BL5P0 G 9fy01
SAN LUIS OBISPO. CA °+,qua.+�
APN:001-207-038 �! ros.wuiv T>a. W.9BO.ani PAJ(
mm
Attachment 2
I
z� AaIf
d
PHU
a 119
it
o
7:2
v` •� SSS�y�` - _ g'�
ISE
Ef
y gg■�Rup -�r--�- �
s vvgat
{
a
P Y
fill a Rs _ a a a $
8 ?m � R
m gg
b �m >
S $s r
v n m $t Z E SF
>>~ a p gg Y F 3F
AI
o.....RolsCb'biPfF W.yYdI=.F,x.�Psr.m.
Attach ent 2
Lat.
L
pe
T
>
T
T
7 A
T 53
* At.
10,4
rte.
Imy
`711
---------------------(�--
----------
jr0R0 STREEr
-
zf T---.
7 7- ------- - -
---- -- -------------- __ _=_____ _________________- -- -----------
sx- Ap.
9
NNPU � m
54- ao i ?; 2 822 22222x222222 y ea
, ly �
RAU;
W,
61
er:,
fix;in
PIZ 3 F 2 2 8 9 z F=
p 51
l. R"
PERRYNARAN REVISIONS
21n S.manar.sort 112 w w
PRELDMVARYs�nnwpLAN —
ME�15 NEW CONSIR=:M —
SM LUIS WISM.G.
Attachment 2,
1 4Z
Nmm'mt mv'x 0 q w '\ JOJ
aw 1
6 L 1. \ ,• / ami a � � '\
€ r a.
1 8 '�
--------------
_
—m1},
1 a �AN� LY�Ou 4t Ou—ruG� Va
STFEET
-------------
\® —
r
I .
e 4 }
n�Y^�uy..�- vet_rynw m�.ry_w�w•—�.r—igsrv—�Mr—�n�q�yi....._
-w—c—.•—.p—m—t�m�a—w
i I
¢ Iw10,1
�' $ � Ny din •�o ...yE LS� ,. 3 ., 3 3
2 3a s €§gtagF „Eas g°
'e 8 985; C£93� W2 H 4^0,,.9
1 �Ffi R=R• ig
€¢ s
SpaRxTRda a i
•w7H3 � n 3�-`'q, ';9�3£a aa2°g � a $ F � � � g�p�o a � $
-
� a�
i �gA€gtay mo.�¢nla.o�ww-s„w:llw,v o.um_mw,,,w_m,cr,,,,-wwwc PERRYNARAN REVISIONS
w..w.
O �C4y�jq�E�v$ �c• �w�1f� :,a x exa�wvr.swrz I,x 'wni wma�.o- � .m.s.. w"
/q
y rKvq. em roa»o /`/
i93 PRELIM WARYGRADWG PLM a wl m ��g9ii y g NEW fANSiMLL1�ON •-,p
��i�Qi.YG4i ww.acwrtica.com azs ro"o 5i1¢ET
s.N wls oels"o u
omsw wvewanawuoru..ysl.ecr�W.wmma.e®
Attachment' 2
n
m
„ z
b T $1 111 f
a
4
n
z�
D o,
D
zC�^ u
m ¢a
c
< N A �
m _. m
zz
^ s R
C ha4
.;
z z
n
z $ "
3
D
.9
TORO STREET
R TM
TORO STREET TOWNHOM ^� •seTogERNIE KIM ARCHITECT
A 10 UNIT DEVELOP
� MENT 755 SANTA ROSA SUM 310
N 625 TDRO SRtEET 3AN c � a Jt j LULS Own G 9N01
SAN LUIS OBISPO. CA
... APN:00 1-207-038 il� nosauin A?52V x
Attachment 2
c -
z
m
I
zq
--------------------
N 0 ..
R.
00
s
v P
@FP
� � 1
o ^
� 2 L
z P
v:
e
I
-3
H � e¢¢CeI nCb
I � Fii V
S � 0
5
-
6 a e TORO STREET TOWNHOM ERNIE KIM ARCHITECT
p z A 10 UNIT DEVELOPMENT t 41
4
y Z 755 SANTA ROSA SURE 310
025 TORO STREET' u . �j
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA s'.
: ryu SAPI LUIS ORI�O a n0401P h
APN:001-207-03B
n at 'I� ros.ui�un rte. wtwo.nu rAx
IDwm�mvnQvawm
Attachment' 2
0 0
II i III
L
G
m
t
z
� 8 I
� I
1 I
N I I
po
A
a
O
S G
Z
N
T
I
I
I �
I
I I
_ __ --- Li
$
-1 ,y
p Lon
00
a
0
x
sl I I p a� TORO STREET TOWNHOM ,�'�^ +oERNIE KIM ARCHITECT
z A 10 UNIT DEVELOPMENT gc "� i-i'
A
;p ' ? 755SANTAROSASA 310
N 025 TORO STREET SANLll6OHSPO G 91WI9AN LUIS OBISPO, CA •O++y°++''
APN:001-207-038 W.�uIuM ms.wo.nss Pwx
Attachment 2
f
— 4
®
IN R
I �
ED6
i
III
-
w 2
z -
Cn
3,_. 00
o0o
C'
r3 -
Z
f
El
DJ
,� AP
e m €a TORO STREET TOWNHOM ,�A°
a o s. ERIdIE KIM ARCHITECT
a A 10 UNIT DEVELOPMENT ��
7A SUISOBI AS A 9WI
0 825 TORO STREET '0 3 ^+F � SAN LUIS OBISPO G 7N01 `
8 w SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA +y�a�� 11
!- APN:001-207-038 1 tm,«utxm, ms.woAtarAx
wwmo .mr
1
- Attachment 2
V$
V
7
,III III �
0 >
®❑ J,'�, � � Illd'"IIS � o00 >
® A - e
B ®Idlll
3
LI,LLI,i
—
I
�
E9
VIII it ooS fPIIIIIV: III IIII iI
z
T
25
EM
' I I
- III�IIIlll g , o II�IIj;� �
Full _
TORO STREET TdWNHOM °
a g ;u 1 ERNE KIM ARCHITECT
(� y A 10 UNIT DEVELOPMENT s c 4 NI
�, 025 TORO STREET a i I!• A SANTAROSAS AR j
0 �4;! SAN LUIS OHLSPO G 9N01 /
" N SAN LOIS OBISPO, CA *xl�,•jo ��
APN:001-207-090 II 16tu1]IL T6L 01.%O.nff PAX
\ \� Attachment }
� § 2
\ § p ; MT&/' [ �
) \ vX x @ §
§ 2 } /
; p . -
: $
\ \ ( \
2
m `
e
\ cn
2
/ \
) ) j
§ . §
| � / }
� | N !
! _ .
: \ \ k
\ _
, §
| (DO
|
TORO STREET
{ � /
| |
e "e $
�
� j \ � ■ | � | § TORO STREET z+Nx 9 . ERN3 K c
2 ` A e UNIT ev»m9 ( \ � � 755 SANTA RGS
| SAN L
UIS OBISPO, CA
A ___ma_
AM Attachment I-
0
>
z
N
NOOMO'00*E 88.53'R Gan mwert Ga.o \ �°pp� \'_ "'
IX
L
0
—17
Attachment 3 i -.ALLVV.°'
�I�h�1l�ll�lll�����8� �IQIIIIIIIIII �` 'Cl O SAn Wi. S OBISPO.
Community Development Department• 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218
March 8, 2007
Namaji Enterprise
1533-A South Broadway
Santa Maria, CA 93454
SUBJECT: ARC 176-05: 625 Toro Street
10-unit residential condominium development
Dear Applicant::
The Architectural Review Commission, at its meeting of March 5, 2007, granted final
approval to your project, based on the following findings, and subject to the following
conditions and code requirements:
Findings
1. As conditioned, the proposed project will not be detrimental to the health, safety and
welfare of persons living or working at the site or in the vicinity because the project
and associated site improvements conform to standard property development
requirements.
2. With the incorporation of the noise mitigation package recommended by the noise
study prepared by David Lord, PhD, on September 18, 2006, noise levels in the
outdoor use areas and inside the dwellings will comply with General Plan noise
standards for residential uses.
3. The project is appropriate for the site and consistent with the Community Design
Guidelines policies. The design of the residential units is compatible with adjacent
development, and will provide additional housing close to the downtown and existing
services.
4. With the inclusion of project conditions, the proposed project will comply with all
property development standards established for the High Residential (R-4) zone.
Conditions
1. The final project design and construction drawings shall be in substantial
compliance with the project plans as amended and approved by the ARC. A
separate full-size sheet shall be included in working drawings submitted for a
EThe 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.
ARC 176-05 Attachment 3
Page 2
building permit that list all conditions, and code requirements of project approval as
Sheet No. 2. Reference should be made in the margin of listed items as to where in
plans requirements are addressed. Any change to approved design, colors,
materials, landscaping or other conditions of approval must be approved by the
Director of Architectural Review Commission, as deemed appropriate. If Planning
Commission and City Council review of the tract map and environmental review
result in significant changes to project plans, then specific project components may
need to return to the ARC.
2. The common trash enclosure shall be finished with concrete plaster, color-coated to
coordinate with other improvements.
3. Trash and recycling service shall be provided for with a single "split bin" that will be
serviced on-site. Requests to change the manner of garbage service shall be
submitted to the Utilities Department for their review and approval. Final design of
the trash enclosure shall meet the requirements of the San Luis Garbage Company
for a single 3 yard bin. The dimensions of the enclosure shall be at a minimum 10'
1" wide by 7'2" deep.. Final drawing shall include design details such as metal doors
hung on free-standing gate posts, rather than attached to the masonry. Upon
request, the City's Conservation Coordinator can help resolve these issues by
providing the additional design details that will ensure durability and proper service
of the enclosure.
4. Construction documents shall indicate location; type, and luminance in foot candles,
height and shielding of any proposed outdoor lighting, including those in the parking
area.
5. The final design of the motor court shall include decorative pavers or stamped
colored concrete.
6. The pavement design for the parking lot shall be designed to accommodate an H-20
load due to the need for garbage truck access.
7. The driveway entrance to the project off of Toro St shall be a street type entrance 20
feet in width minimum and a curb return radius of 20 feet minimum.
8. The proposed Toro Street sidewalk shall terminate with a "no pedestrian:" barricade
at the onsite sidewalk to Unit 9.
9. With submittal of working drawings, the applicant shall include a revised landscape
plan that includes a tree planting plan consistent with the "overall project site plan".
The revised landscape plan shall also include a more detailed planting palate;
suggested plantings include various flowering trees, such as Western Redbud,
Washington Hawthorne or Goldenrain trees.
ARC 176.05
_ J Attachment 3
Page 3
10.The dense vegetation along the project frontage to the north, within the Cal Trans
right-of-way to the extent shown on the street frontage landscape exhibit
(Attachment 1), shall be removed, and replaced with low-growing plants. The
landscape plan submitted with construction documents shall include evidence of an
approved State-encroachment permit and planting plan for this area.
11.Landscaping shall be installed consistently with the approved plan, to the
satisfaction of the Community Development Department. Substitute of different plant
varieties, which are equivalent in size and drought tolerance, to planting types
indicated on the approved plans may be allowed subject to availability and approval
of the Community Development Department.
12.Final design details of the sound walls along the northwest property line shall be
included in construction documents submitted for building permits and include all the
information necessary to determine their compliance with the sound attenuation
requirements of the noise study. The walls along the highway corridor shall be
stained in a color to complement the natural vegetation.
13.Ficus pumila; or a similar climbing vine shall be planted at the base of the sound
walls..
14.Construction documents shall incorporate all of the noise mitigation measures
recommended by the noise study prepared by David Lord, PhD, on September 18,
2006, on file with the Community Development Department under file ER 176-05.
15.Construction documents shall incorporate all of the traffic and safety mitigation
measures recommended by the traffic analysis prepared by Penfield & Smith, on
June 15, 2005, on file with the Community Development Department under file ER
176-05. An exhibit prepared by the project traffic engineer using the landscape
planting plan as a base showing the sight distance triangle that.shall be maintained
to provide adequate visibility at the driveway exit.
16.The project shall provide long and short-term bicycle parking consistent with the
provisions of Section 17.18.060 of the Municipal Code and the City s Community
Design Guidelines. Inverted "U" or "Peak" (peakracks.com) bicycle racks may be
used for short-term parking. Long-term parking shall be located in such a way as to .
not necessitate the lifting of a bicycle into its parking space and does not encroach
into a vehicle parking space.
17.0n-street parking shall be prohibited on the project's Toro Street frontage. The
method (ie. signage or striping) for prohibiting on-street parking shall be reviewed
and approved by the Public Works Director prior to installation.
18.Required street trees shall be located so they do not block the line of sight for
motorists exiting the driveway.
;1=20
Attachment 3
ARC 176.05
Page 4
19.For projects of this size, the fire sprinklers are typically fed from a single dedicated
fire service lateral, which is not shown on the plans. The fire service lateral shall
include a USC approved backflow prevention device appropriate for the proposed
use. The backflow preventer shall be located as close to the public right-of-way as
possible, in direct alignment with the connection to the public water main. The
backflow preventer can be located no further than 25 feet from the right-of-way line
Without prior written approval of the Utilities Engineer. The preventer shall be
screened using a combination of paint color and landscaping to the approval of the
Community Development Director.
20.Building plans shall show any on-site fire hydrants. If the fire service will support
one or more fire hydrants, the USC approved backflow preventer shall also include
detector capabilities (double detector check assembly). The FDC may be located
behind the backflow prevention assembly, in accordance with manufacturer's
recommendations. The location and orientation of the FDC shall be approved by
the Fre Department.
21.The existing sewer lateral shall be repaired or replaced as part of the overall project.
Please refer to previous comments that identify the specific defects with the line.
22.Working drawings shall include gutter and downspout details.
23.Consider varied colors for window trim (not all white) to complement building colors..
Code Requirements
The following code requirements are included for information purposes only. They
serve to give the applicant a general idea of other City requirements that will apply to
the project. This is not intended to be an exhaustive list as other requirements may be
identified during the plan check process.
Buildino
1. One-Hour Fire-Resistive construction required throughout.
2. The ground floor of at least one unit not one of the 2 units which only have a
garage on the ground floor) will have to be fully accessible per CBC 1102A.3.1 &
Division 4 of Chapter 11A.
Public Works
3. An encroachment permit will be required from the Public Works Department for any
work or construction staging in the public right-of-way or for any alterations or
connections to any public sewer, water, or storm drain systems
Attachment 3
ARC 176-05
Page 5
4.. A traffic control plan and/or pedestrian control plan shall be approved prior to
encroachment permit issuance for work in the public right-of-way.
5. The parking lot design shall comply with the parking and driveway standards and
Engineering Standard Section 2010.E.7. All parking spaces must be designed so
that vehicles can enter in one maneuver. Furthermore, all spaces shall be designed
so that vehicles can exit to the adjoining street in a forward direction in not more
than two maneuvers.
6. Show the location of the proposed mail receptacles or mail box unit (MBU) to the
satisfaction of the Post Master and the City Engineer. Provide a mailbox unit or
multiple units to serve all dwelling units in this development as required by the Post
Master. MBU's shall not be located within the public right-of-way or public sidewalk
area unless specifically approved by the. City Engineer. Contact the Post Master at
543-2605 to establish any recommendations regarding the number, size, location,
and placement for any MBU's.
7. The existing sewer lateral shall be televised and approved for reuse. A gravity
sewer for the new unit is required where available unless otherwise approved by the
Building Official. It may be prudent to abandon the existing lateral in favor of a new,
shared lateral located along the low side of the property to sere the existing and
new dwellings if necessary.
8. The subdivision grading plan submittal shall show and note compliance with
Engineering Standard 1010.6 for Storm Water Quality Management. This code
requirement is applicable to new or redeveloped sites where the total area of
imperious surfaces is more than 10,000 square feet. Water quality management is
required for the runoff from uncovered parking and driveway areas. An upgrade to
the existing facilities and improvements is required. Include analysis showing that
the proposed water quality design is able to treat runoff from the prescribed storm
event. The report shall show treatment for runoff for 28% of the 2-year storm event
or from a 1724-hour storm event. Include by-pass structures or systems
accordingly. Provide a separate conveyance system to keep roof drainage from
draining through the parking lot if feasible.
9. Show the location of any drainage improvements located within the public right-of-
way. Show and reference sidewalk underdrains per city standard #3415 (3" cast
iron pipe, CIP) and note permit requirements if applicable..
10. All elevations must be based on a City Bench Mark and noted per City datum
elevations. The plans shall note the benchmark number, location and elevation.
Include a clear description of the benchmark referenced on the plans. The plans
shall clarify whether the NGVD 29 or NAVD 88 datum is being used. The Flood
Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) is based on the NGVD 29. The building plans shall
include topographical information prepared by a licensed surveyor or engineer.
Attachment 3
ARC 176-05
Page 6
11. One 15-gallon street tree may be required for each 35 lineal feet of frontage. The
City Arborist shall approve the tree species, planting requirements, and whether the
street trees shall be planted in tree wells in the sidewalk area or behind the back of
walk in the front yard. Contact City Arborist Ron Combs at 781-7023 for specific
questions or requirements and to evaluate any existing trees.
12. Where tree protection measures are required, they shall be implemented to the
satisfaction of the City Arborist prior to commencing with any demolition, trenching,
or construction. The City Arborist shall approve any safety pruning or the cutting of
substantial roots. Contact the City Arborist at 781-7023 at least 48 hours prior to
construction in areas where tree protection and inspection is required. Include this
note on all plans and specs pertaining to the scope of work for this project if
applicable.
Utilities
13. One of the water meter manifolds shows six water meters being served by a single
2" water service. This would be allowed only with the use of 3/4" water meters.
Typically, residential units are served by 1" water meters, which may be a
requirement if the fire sprinklers are to be fed through the domestic water meters.
As mentioned in the paragraph above, it is not clear from the plans whether this is
the intent or if a dedicated fire service will be provided. In either case, better water
service can be provided to the future owners/residents of these units by providing
another 2" water service, such that no manifold serves more than 4 water meters.
14. By ordinance, the applicant is required to prepare a recycling plan for approval by
the City to address the recycling of construction waste. The recycling plan shall be
submitted to the Building Department with the building plans. The City's
Conservation Coordinator can provide some guidance in the preparation of an
appropriate recycling plan.
Cal Trans
15. Cal Trans. As recommended by the Traffic Analysis, dated July 15, 2005, the
dense vegetation along the project frontage to the north shall be removed and
replaced with low growing plants. Removing the overgrown vegetation in the State's
Right of Way and replanting with a low-growing pallet will require an encroachment
permit from the Department of Transportation District 5 Permits Office. The
applicant will be required to apply for and secure an encroachment permit prior to
the issuance of construction permits.
;z;-z3
Attachment 3
ARC 176.05
Page 7
The decision of the Commission is final unless appealed to the City Council within 10
days of the action. Any person aggrieved by the decision may file an appeal. Appeal
forms are available in the City Clerk's office, or on the City's website (www.slocity.org).
The fee for filing an appeal is $100.00, and must accompany the appeal documentation.
While the City's water allocation regulations are in effect, the Architectural Review
Commission's approval expires after three years if construction has not started, unless
the Commission designated a different time period. On request, the Community
Development Director may grant a single one-year extension.
If you have questions, please contact Jaime Hill at 781-7165.
Sincerely,
Pamela Ricci, AICP
Senior Planner
cc: Enclosure (map)
County of SLO Assessor's Office
Ernie Kim
755 Santa Rosa, Suite 310
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Ranjit Patel
625 Toro Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-2828
• .'- ,_ �' Attechm
ent 3
ARC Minutes � `� -
March 5, 2007
Page 4
.COMMISSION COMMENTS:.
Commission discussion focused on light levels for the canopy, and questioned the
different colors on the columns of the canopy.
Commr. Lopes noted that the additional canopy lights are not necessary or consistent
with the Community Design Guidelines for service stations. He felt the LED lighting was
particularly inappropriate given the context of the site.
On motion by Commr. Lopes to grant approval of the modified canopy design based on
findings and subiect to conditions recommended by staff. 'incjuding a condition
prohibiting the proposed LED lights. Seconded by Commr. Palazzo.
AYES: Commrs. Howard, Root, Boudreau, Hopkins, Lopes, Palazzo
NOES: None
RECUSED: Commr. Wilhelm
ABSENT: None
The motion passed on a vote of 6:0.
5. 625 Toro Street. ARC 176-05; Review of a 10-unit residential condominium
development; R-4 zone; Namaji Enterprise, applicant. (Jaime Hill)
Assistant Planner Phil Dunsmore presented the staff report, recommending final
approval, based on findings, and subject to conditions and code requirements.
Ernie Kim, Architect, applicant's representative, reviewed the proposed changes, noting
he is the second architectural firm to handle this project.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
There were no comments made from the public.
COMMISSION COMMENTS:
Discussion focused on the proposed location and design of needed sound walls and the
possible shifting of the trash enclosure. The Commission stressed that as much of the
existing landscaping along the Highway 101 corridor should be retained, and modified
Condition No.10 to clarify the extent of the site area where vegetation may need to be
cleared and replaced with low-growing plants to protect sight distance..
Commr. Boudreau questioned the vegetation on the plans there are proposed be
removed. It was explained that the plans were incorrect; the vegetation would not be
removed.
Commr. Lopes had questions regarding the landscaping, basic design elements and
lighting, and suggested the applicant consider the trim color matching the wall color on
each unit.
Commr. Wilhelm reviewed the various design elements.
Attachment 3
ARC Minutes
March 5, 2007
Page 5
Commr. Howard suggested a brown roof instead of charcoal or black.
On motion by Commr. Root to grant final approval based on findings, subiect to
conditions and code requirements, with conditions added regarding gutters and
downspouts and window trim colors.. Seconded by Commr._Wilhelm..__
AYES: Commrs. Wilhelm, Howard, Root, Boudreau, Hopkins & Lopes
NOES: None
RECUSED: Commr. Palazzo
ABSENT: None
The motion passed on a vote of 6:0.
6. Staff
A. Agenda Forecast
Pam Ricci gave an agenda forecast of upcoming projects.
7. Commission:
A. Minutes of February 20, 2007
The minutes of February 20, 2007 were approved as presented.
B. Recent Project Review— Lessons Learned
The ARC reviewed information and photos provided by staff of the installed South
Street sound wall, which was a Caltrans project. The ARC was displeased with the
appearance of the wall and voiced disappointment that their direction was not followed
in terms of how materials were used. They asked staff to draft a letter outlining their
concerns to send to Caltrans.
ADJOURNMENT:
With no further business the meeting adjourned at 8:30 p.m. to the regular meeting of
the ARC scheduled for March 19, 2007, at 5:00 p.m., in the Council Hearing Room of
City Hall, 990 Palm Street.
Respectfully submitted by
Jill Francis
Recording Secretary
Approved by the Architectural Review Commission on April 2, 2007.Eft`fit h Alo—�
Diane R. Stuart, CM ,ZIr
Management Assistant
Attachment 3
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT ITEM#5
BY: Jaime Hill, Associate Planner(781-7165) d MEETING DATE: March 5, 2007
FROM: Pamela Ricci, Senior Planner
FILE NUMBER: ARC 176-05
PROJECT ADDRESS: 625 Toro Street
SUBJECT: Review of building designs and site improvements for a proposed 10-unit
condominium development on the north side of Toro Street, and adjacent to the northbound
Highway 10 off-ramp.
SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION
Grant final approval to the project, based on findings,. and subject to conditions and code
requirements.
BACKGROUND
Situation
The applicant is proposing to demolish the El Toro Motel, located at 625 Toro Street, in order to
redevelop the site with ten new residential units. In addition to architectural review, other
entitlements requested include a tentative map approval for a ten-unit condominium subdivision
and environmental review, which will require review by both the Planning Commission and City
Council for compliance with the Subdivision Regulations and the City's Condominium
standards.
The project was reviewed by the ARC on March 20, 2006 and was continued with specific
direction (Attachment 6 — follow-up letter & minutes). The current site plan has retained an
internal motor court style configuration with residential units around the perimeter. However,
revised plans have changes fairly significantly with the number of units increased from 7 to 10
and more of the units attached to one another, especially on the northwest side of the project.
The applicant is now seeking final approval of the project design. Following the ARC's review,
the project will be forwarded on to the Planning Commission and the City Council, who will
take the final action on the environmental review and Tentative Tract Map for the project. The
project would not return to the ARC unless significant changes to the design occurred based on
the outcome of the environmental and tract map review.
Data Summary
Address: 625 Toro Street
Applicant/Property Owner: Namaji Enterprise
Representative: Ernie Kim, Architect
Zoning: R-4 (High Density Residential Zone)
General Plan: High-Density Residential
—2 7
5-(
r �
Attachment 3
ARC 176-05 (625 Toro Street)
Page 2
Environmental Status: An initial study of environmental review is being prepared
by the Community Development Department and will be available for review by the Planning
Commission and City Council at a later date.
Site Description
The five sided, 0.41-acre project site is located on the west side of Toro Street between Walnut
Street and Highway 101. The site slopes down hill approximately 15 feet from Toro Street
towards Highway 101. The property contains an existing motel, parking, landscaping, and
various other site improvements. Properties to the west, south, and east are developed with multi-
family residential units. The existing motel is proposed to be demolished. Highway 101 travel
lanes are located approximately 68 feet from the rear property line of the project site, and
northbound off-ramps are located at the site's northeast corner. Dense shrubs and trees on the
Cal-trans property occupy the space between the property line and the highway. One of the two
palms, all of the eucalyptus trees on the site, and the dense vegetation on Cal Trans property, will
be removed as part of the site redevelopment. Additionally, the on-street parking along the site's
frontage, south of the project driveway, will be eliminated to improve sight distance to the north,
for vehicles exiting the freeway (Traffic Study, Attachment 4).
Project Description
The project includes the demolition of existing structures associated with the motel facilities and
construction of a new 10-unit air-space condominium project. The existing motel was built in
two phases, with six units constructed in 1959, and an additional six units constructed four years
later in 1963. The new project includes 2 one-bedroom units and 8 two-bedroom units, for a total
of 10 dwellings. The building that wraps the northeast corner of the site contains six dwellings,
and a second building along the southern property line houses the remaining four units. Two
parking spaces for each unit are within attached garages, with two unenclosed guest parking
spaces located at the rear of the site. A single 20-foot wide driveway provides access to the site,
approximately 5 feet south of the existing motel driveway. Garbage and recycling collection will
be accommodated in a common enclosure, located adjacent to the guest parking spaces. The
proposed buildings conform to City standards for maximum height, setbacks, and parking and
driving standards.
Consistent with condominium development standards for the High Density Residential zone (R-
4), both private and common open spaces are provided with ground-level yards and a decks;
private yards are generally to the rear of the units (Unit 10 will have an upper level deck) and
the required common open space and recreation area is located at the southwest corner of the
site. The design of the buildings incorporates a variety of traditional details such as bay
windows, roof vents, shuttered windows, and exposed rafter tails. Other architectural elements
include architectural composition roofing, painted wood fascia and rafters, painted doors and
window trim. Building elevations will be cement plaster in a variety of muted tones, with white
trim being a common feature on all of the elevations to visually unify them.
sa
f
Att
achment 3
ARC 176-05 (625 Toro Street)
Page 3
EVALUATION
The project was initially scheduled for conceptual review on March 20, 2006 in order that the
applicant could receive feedback from the ARC. The agenda report prepared for that meeting
indicated that the project was inconsistent with the General Plan, due to the earlier design which
had primarily detached dwellings with large private outdoor spaces and small common areas.
The detached layout of the units created notable deficiencies in the design, such as the size and
orientation of the common open spaces, the solar exposure, and the ability to provide separate
paths for vehicles and people. The ARC provided the applicant and staff with specific direction
on expected changes with the review of a revised project. In staff's opinion, the applicant has
responded to direction and improved the project significantly in terms of scale, neighborhood
compatibility and General Plan conformity. The nine items that the ARC provided direction on
are highlighted in Section 1 below followed by staff's analysis on the applicant's response.
Because the project has changed significantly since the ARC's conceptual review, the revised
project was reviewed again for consistency with the General Plan, the Community Design
Guidelines, and Property Development Standards established by the Zoning Regulations.
Section 5 discusses site specific issues raised in the initial study.
1. Previous Review
The ARC hearing resulted in the following nine directional items, each of which is followed by
staff analysis of the applicant's response to ARC direction.
1. Modify the site plan and building designs to provide a greater number of smaller
additional units, consolidating development along the edge of the property for noise
attenuation.
Staff's analysis: The project has been modified to include ten units within two structures (earlier
plans included seven units in five structures). The larger of the two buildings wraps the north-
east corner of the site and holds six dwellings. A second, slightly smaller building along the
southern property line holds the remaining four dwellings. The units are reasonably sized, with
the two one-bedroom units including approximately 888 square feet of habitable space, and the
eight two-bedroom units being slightly larger than 1,200 square feet each.
2. Provide enclosures for the individual trash receptacles in locations which are convenient
to the individual units.
Staffs analysis: At the direction of San Luis Garbage, trash collection will be accommodated
for with a single "split-bin" for garbage and recycling. Because of the size of the enclosure trash
collection will be required twice weekly for the site. The enclosure was sited to meet the
collection agency's needs for access and maneuvering so that collection could occur on-site. The
enclosure is sited along the west property line, between the guest parking spaces and Unit 5.The
applicant has proposed to use split face concrete block with metal gates. Because of the
enclosure's prominent location on the site, staff has recommended Condition No. 2 that it be
covered in cement plaster to coordinate with the other buildings o? the site.
5-3
Q7), Attachment 3
01
= �
ARC 176-05 (625 Toro Street)
Page 4
3. Include a defined path that allows pedestrian access to all units separate from (or
adjacent to) the driveway in the site plan. Consider a 5-foot wide row of pavers or
decorative stamped concrete at the edge of the asphalt driveway to indicate a separate path
for pedestrians.
Staff's analysis: The project now includes direct pedestrian access to the three units fronting
Toro Street (Units 1, 9 and 10). Pedestrians visiting the remaining units would walk up the
vehicle driveway. Because of the orientation of the units and parking spaces it would not be
possible with the proposed layout to provide a separate pedestrian path, or even demarcate a path
within the driveway without creating a false sense of security. However, it may still be desirable
to incorporate pavers or decorative stamped concrete at the edge of the driveway to provide
aesthetic relief. Staff has recommended Condition No. 5 requiring that one of these treatments be
used to beautify the motor court.
4.Provide detail drawings/mformation of site furniture and building details.
Staff's analysis: Elevation sheet PC-4 includes details of the wood trellis and picnic bench
located in the common open space area, as well as the type of fencing that is proposed for the
perimeter of the site and between units. No other site furniture is now proposed.
5. Indicate location, type, and luminance in foot candles, height and shielding of any
proposed outdoor lighting, including those in the parking area. Lighting at the entrances,
exits and parking area is desirable for safety of residents and guests to the site. However,
no lighting should produce an illumination level greater than one foot-candle and it should
be directed downward to avoid spilling onto adjacent properties.
Staff's analysis: Although no information has been provided regarding the lighting, the
reconfigured project presents fewer opportunities for conflict with neighboring properties. The
project now meets both height and yard setback requirements, and typical residential lighting
plans would not create illumination level greater than one foot-candle. Staff has recommended
Condition No.4 that information about the lighting be included in construction documents.
6. The applicant shall provide long and short-term bicycle parking consistent with the
provisions of Section 17.08.060 of the Municipal Code and the City's Community Design
Guidelines. Inverted "U" or "Peak" (peakracks.com) bicycle racks may be used for short-
term parking. Long-term parking shall be located in such a way as to not necessitate the
lifting of a bicycle into its parking space.
Staff's analysis: The garages beneath the units have been widened slightly to provide adequate
area for long-term bike parking. Plans also indicate that a bicycle rack for six bicycle spaces will
be provided in the southwest corner of the site, adjacent to the common recreation area. Because
no detail of the bicycle parking has been provided, staff has recommended Condition No. 16 to
insure that an acceptable type of rack is used.
7. Required street. trees shall be located so that they do not block the line of sight for
motorists exiting the driveway.
,Z -3 0
5--4
1 i _
Attachment 3
ARC 176-05 (625 Toro Street)
Page 5
Staff's analysis: The landscape plan shows street trees set back from the back of sidewalk 10
feet to ensure that they do not block the line of sight for either those exiting the site or traveling
down Toro Street.
8. Palm trees are not on the City's Master Street Tree List. The landscape plan shall be
revised to include additional qualifying street trees.
Staff's analysis: The revised landscape does not refer to specific tree types, but only states that
there will be three 15-gallon City approved street trees. The landscape plans are very schematic
at this time, and are inconsistent with the overall project site plan. According to the landscape
plan, the only other trees used elsewhere on the site are Coast Live Oaks in the common areas;
yet the overall site plan shows four street trees, a different planting pattern for the common area,
and a tree in the rear yard of each unit. Staff finds the tree-planting plan of the overall project
site plan to be far more robust, and appropriate for the site. Although the planting of native tree
varieties is always encouraged, Coast Live Oaks may not be the most appropriate variety in a
small landscape area. Given the limited space and need to preserve sight lines, tree varieties such
as Western Redbud, Washington Hawthorne or Goldenrain tree would provide color and
ornamentation, while have an appropriate head-level branching pattern. Staff has recommended
Condition No. 9 that the final landscape plan include trees as shown on the overall site plan. The
ARC should discuss the types of trees which would be most appropriate for the street frontage,
common area, and rear yards.
9. Explore ways to retain as much shrubbery vegetation outside the setback area as
possible and review the 3-foot high wall for site distance issues.
Staff's analysis: The traffic analysis prepared for the project (Attachment 4) recommends that
the dense vegetation along the project frontage to the north be replaced with low growing plants.
Cal Trans, who owns the property to the north, has indicated that they will allow replanting of
the area with a low-growing plant pallete. A note has been added to the code requirement
section, alerting the applicant to the Cal Trans encroachment permit requirements. The 3-foot
high wall that was shown along the street frontage with the original design has been eliminated.
2. General Plan and Community Design Guidelines
The project site is designated as "High-Density Residential" in the General Plan Land Use
Element (LUE) map, and zone R-4. Both the General Plan Land Use and Housing Elements
contain several policies that apply to the project. Community Design Guidelines Chapter 5.3
and 5.4 provide specific guidance for infill development and for multi-family and clustered
housing design. The ARC should utilize these chapters to evaluate the project. These policies
address the scale and design of infill residential development to assure that new development is
compatible with existing development.
The project site is surrounded by a mixture of single-family dwellings and multi-family, multi-
story apartments and condominiums. The mass and density of the proposed project is similar to
adjacent development and complies with the Housing Element, (LUE) Policy 7.2.1, and other
property development standards. The proposed two-story buildings will also be of similar height
5-5
t r
Attachment 3
ARC 176-05 (625 Toro Street)
Page 6
and scale as the older units in the area, which are primarily one- and two-story. The most
comparable development in the area in terms of tenure and scale is the recently completed
Walnut Street Condos, which include three-story structures falling just below the 35-foot height
maximum. As called for in LUE Policy 2.4.8, the development includes attached dwellings in
two-story buildings, with common outdoor areas and very compact private outdoor spaces.
3. Zoning Re tilations
Table 1: Project Statistics and Code Requirements
MOP NO .i_.. .•P,„.� i'p �® ®VIJL" { m'YGi"n�' +�ti'f4t IiM
u1h1T1AinY Vs.
Yards
• Street Side 15' 15'
• Other 5'-10' 5'-10'
Building Height 35 Feet Up to 31 Feet
Max. Lot Coverage 60% 41%
Parking -
• 8 2-bdr units 16 spaces 16 spaces
• 2 1-bdr units 3 spaces 4 spaces
• Guest 2 spaces (1 per 5 units) 2 spaces
Total= 21 spaces Total =22 Spaces
Density Site Area (19,600)/43,560 * 24= 8 2-bdrs=8.00 units
10.80 Maximum Density 2 1-bdrs = 1.32 units
Total =9.32 Units proposed
The project complies with all of the City's property development standards, including the
parking and driveway standards. A maneuvering and access plan was submitted to staff to
evaluate the ability of vehicles to negotiate entry and exit of parking spaces. Staff concluded
that all of the parking spaces meet City requirements for maneuvering.
4. Municipal Code Ch. 17.82.140: Condominium Improvement Standards
The City's Municipal Code contains provisions for the development of new condominiums.
Consistent with the General Plan, Zoning Regulations and the Community Design Guidelines,
these provisions contain standards for common and private open space, recreation amenities and
storage. Unlike rental apartment projects, which are open to discretion on the size and placement
of open space areas, the condominium standards have specific guidelines that must be
incorporated into ownership condominium projects. As stated in the regulations "The City has
determined that condominiums differ from apartments in some respects and, for the benefit of
public health, safety and welfare, such projects should be treated differently from apartments."
In general, the regulations require 100 square feet of private open space and 100 square feet of
common open space for each unit. Additionally the regulations require that projects in the R-4
5-b
/ 1 _
Attachment 3
ARC 176-05 (625 Toro Street)
Page 7
zone have a combined total of at least 400 hundred square feet of combined private and common
open space per unit and at least 40 square feet per unit of indoor or outdoor common recreation
facility area. Storage must also be provided, and with each unit including at least 200 hundred
.cubic feet of enclosed, weatherproof and lockable private storage space, exclusive of cabinets
and closets within the unit or space needed for vehicle parking.
This project meets the private open space standards through a combination of private yard areas
and balconies. A common open space/recreation area is provided at the southwest corner of the
site. Project plans are somewhat inconsistent, in that the floor plan for Unit 10, the only unit
without a ground level yard space, includes a deck off the bedroom for the required open space
area; this deck is missing from the corresponding elevation. The applicant has provided a revised
elevation of this unit, showing how the building will appear with the balcony (Attachment 3).
Each unit also contains storage areas in the garages that generally comply with the minimum
storage requirements of 200 cubic feet.
5. Environmental.Review
The Community Department is preparing an initial study for the project. Following the ARC's
review, the Planning Commission will review the environmental document and make a
recommendation to the City Council. Staff identified potentially significant effects of the project
in the areas of noise and traffic, the mitigation of which will somewhat effect the design of the
project_ Other potential impacts of the project are addressed by existing ordinances. The
following is a discussion of these issues as they relate to design elements of the project.
Noise
Due to the proximity of the site to Highway 101, there are potentially significant impacts from
highway noise. An updated acoustical analysis was prepared for the revised project and the
recommendations of the analysis will be incorporated into the project design. The northwest
facing units, combined with sound walls to the north of these units, act as a noise barrier for the
remainder of the site.
To attenuate the noise levels in the outdoor areas on the noise-exposed north side of the
development, the study recommends that a solid 8-foot high wall separate the yard area from the
freeway (noise source). In addition, specific building practices are recommended for noise
reduction within the northwest facing units, which are required to be implemented as part of the
development. The recommended noise walls are 3 — 4 feet lower than those recently developed
with the Walnut Street Condominiums to the west. It does not appear that the walls would be
visible at all from the highway. No detailed wall design has been submitted at this time, but staff
has recommended Condition No. 12 that the walls be treated with the same stucco finish as the
homes so that they blend well until the landscaping is established. Staff also recommends
Condition No. 13 that a trailing vine such as Ficus pumila be planted at the base of the wall,
which will effectively cover the wall with greenery over time.
Traffic
Also due to proximity of the site to Highway 101 and the on/off ramps, there are potentially
,is —33
s-7
r i
} Attachment 3
ARC 176-05 (625 Toro Street)
Page 8
significant impacts on traffic and circulation safety. A traffic analysis was prepared for the.
project and the recommendations of the analysis will be incorporated into the project design. The
present traffic volume on Toro Street from vehicles entering and exiting Highway 101 is
significant. The potential hazard would occur if vehicles were to queue behind a vehicle turning
into the development, or if improvements impeded the sight line from the project driveway.. In
order to improve the sight distance to the greatest extent possible, it is recommended that the
dense vegetation along the project frontage to the north be limited to low growing plants. All
frontage landscape should be maintained regularly to maintain available sight lines. It was also
recommended that the on-street parking that is currently permitted along the project frontage,
south of the driveway, be eliminated to improve the sight distance around the Toro/Walnut
intersection. This would eliminate 1 to 2 on-street parking spaces, which is not anticipated to
significantly impact the existing parking demand in the area.
Cultural Resources
Despite its age, the motel is not considered a master list or contributing historic resource, and the
buildings do not appear to meet the City's criteria for inclusion in the Inventory of Historic
Resources, as discussed in the Initial Study. The project was not reviewed by the City's Cultural
Heritage Committee because it is not located inside a historic district, and does not involve
impacts to buildings that are potentially significant historic resources.
CONCURRENCES
The project plans were routed to all City Departments for review and appropriate outside
agencies for review. Cal Trans has reviewed the project, and found the proposed improvements
to State owned property to be acceptable. Comments have been communicated to the applicant
as appropriate, and will result in conditions of approval or code requirements of the proposed
tentative map.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Continue review of the project. Direction should be given to the applicant regarding desired
information or needed revisions to plans.
2. Deny the project. Action denying the application must include the basis for denial.
RECOIVIIVIENDATION:
Grant final approval to the project, based on findings and subject to conditions of approval and
code requirements.
Findings:
1. As conditioned, the proposed project will not be detrimental to the health, safety and welfare of
persons living or working at the site or in the vicinity because the project and associated site
improvements conform to standard property development requirements.
Attachment 3
ARC 176-05 (625 Toro Street)
Page 9
2. With the incorporation of the noise mitigation package recommended by the noise study
prepared by David Lord, PhD, on September 18, 2006, noise levels in the outdoor use areas
and inside the dwellings will comply with General Plan noise standards for residential uses.
3. The project is appropriate for the site and consistent with the Community Design Guidelines
policies. The design of the residential units is compatible with adjacent development, and
will provide additional housing close to the downtown and existing services.
4. With the inclusion of project conditions, the proposed project will comply with all property
development standards established for the High Residential (R-4)zone.
Conditions:
1. The final project design and construction drawings shall be in substantial compliance with
the project plans as amended and approved by the ARC. A separate full-size sheet shall be
included in working drawings submitted for a building permit that list all conditions, and
code requirements of project approval as Sheet No. 2. Reference should be made in the
margin of listed items as to where in plans requirements are addressed. Any change to
approved design, colors, materials, landscaping or other conditions of approval must be
approved by the Director of Architectural Review Commission, as deemed appropriate. If
Planning Commission and City Council review of the tract map and environmental review
result in significant changes to project plans, then specific project components may need to
return to the ARC.
2. The common trash enclosure shall be finished with concrete plaster, color-coated to
coordinate with other improvements.
3.. Trash and recycling service shall be provided for with a single "split bin" that will be
serviced on-site. Requests to change the manner of garbage service shall be submitted to the
Utilities Department for their review and approval. Final design of the trash enclosure shall
meet the requirements of the San Luis Garbage Company for a single 3 yard bin. The
dimensions of the enclosure shall be at a minimum 10' 1" wide by 7'2" deep. Final drawing
shall include design details such as metal doors hung on free-standing gate posts, rather than
attached to the masonry. Upon request, the City's Conservation Coordinator can help resolve
these issues by providing the additional design details that will ensure durability and proper
service of the enclosure.
4. Construction documents shall indicate location, type, and luminance in foot candles, height
and shielding of any proposed outdoor lighting, including those in the parking area.
5. The final design of the motor court shall include decorative pavers or stamped colored
concrete.
6. The pavement design for the parking lot shall be designed to accommodate an H-20 load due
to the need for garbage truck access.
s�
Attachment 3
ARC 176-05 (625 Toro Street)
Page 10
7. The driveway entrance to the project off of Toro St shall be a street type entrance 20 feet in
width minimum and a curb return radius of 20 feet minimum.
8. The proposed Toro Street sidewalk shall terminate with a "no pedestrian:" barricade at the
onsite sidewalk to Unit 9.
9. With submittal of working drawings, the applicant shall include a revised landscape plan that
includes a tree planting plan consistent with the "overall project site plan". The revised
landscape plan shall also include a more detailed planting palate; suggested plantings include
various flowering trees, such as Western Redbud, Washington Hawthorne or Goldenrain
trees.
10. The dense vegetation along the project frontage to the north, within the Cal Trans right-of-
way, shall be removed, and replaced with low-growing plants. The landscape plan submitted
with construction documents shall include evidence of an approved State-encroachment
permit and planting plan for this area.
11. Landscaping shall be installed consistently with the approved plan, to the satisfaction of the
Community Development Department. Substitute of different plant varieties, which are
equivalent in size and drought tolerance, to planting types indicated on the approved plans
may be allowed subject to availability and approval of the Community Development
Department.
12. Final design details of the sound walls along the northwest property line shall be included in
construction documents submitted for building permits. The walls shall be treated with the
same stucco finish as the homes.
13.Ficus pumila, or a similar climbing vine shall be planted at the base of the sound walls.
14. Construction documents shall incorporate all of the noise mitigation measures recommended
by the noise study prepared by David Lord, PhD, on September 18, 2006, on file with the
Community Development Department under file ER 176-05.
15. Construction documents shall incorporate all of the traffic and safety mitigation measures
recommended by the traffic analysis prepared by Penfield & Smith, on June 15, 2005, on file
with the Community Development Department under file ER 176-05. An exhibit prepared by
the project traffic engineer using the landscape planting plan as a base showing the sight
distance triangle that shall be maintained to provide adequate visibility at the driveway exit.
16. The project shall provide long and short-term bicycle parking consistent with the provisions
of Section 17.18.060 of the Municipal Code and the City's Community Design Guidelines.
Inverted "U" or "Peak" (peakracks.com) bicycle racks may be used for short-term parking.
Long-term parking shall be located in such a way as to not necessitate the lifting of a bicycle
into its parking space and does not encroach into a vehicle parking space..
s-ro
Attachment 3
ARC 176-05 (625 Toro Street)
Page 11
17. On-street parking shall be prohibited on the project's Toro Street frontage. The method (ie.
signage or striping) for prohibiting on-street parking shall be reviewed and approved by the
Public Works Director prior to installation.
18. Required street trees shall be located so they do not block the line of sight for motorists
exiting the driveway.
19.For projects of this size, the fire sprinklers are typically fed from a single dedicated fire
service lateral, which is not shown on the plans. The fire service lateral shall include a USC
approved backflow prevention device appropriate for the proposed use. The backflow
preventer shall be located as close to the public right-of-way as possible, in direct alignment
with the connection to the public water main. The backflow preventer can be located no
further than 25 feet from the right-of-way line without prior written approval of the Utilities
Engineer. The preventer shall be screened using a combination of paint color and
landscaping to the approval of the Community Development Director.
20. Building plans shall show any on-site fire hydrants. If the fire service will support one or
more fire hydrants, the USC approved backflow preventer shall also include detector
capabilities (double detector check assembly). The FDC may be located behind the backflow
prevention assembly, in accordance with manufacturer's recommendations. The location and
orientation of the FDC shall be approved by the Fire Department.
21. The existing sewer lateral shall be repaired or replaced as part of the overall project. Please
refer to previous comments that identify the specific defects with the line.
Code Requirements:
The project must comply with all following Code Requirements. This following list is intended to
give notice of requirements that will apply to the project. It is not intended to be an exhaustive
list as other requirements may be identified during the building permit plan check process.
BuildingDepartment
1. One-Hour Fire-Resistive construction required throughout.
2. The ground floor of at least one unit not one of the 2 units which only have a garage on the
ground floor) will have to be fully accessible per CBC 1102A.3.1 & Division 4 of Chapter
11 A.
Public Works Department
3. An encroachment permit will be required from the Public Works Department for any work or
construction staging in the public right-of-way or for any alterations or connections to any
public sewer, water, or storm drain systems
4. A traffic control plan and/or pedestrian control plan shall be approved prior to encroachment
permit issuance for work in the public right-of-way.
2-3 7
s-1
[ t
Attachment 3
ARC 176-05 (625 Toro Street)
Page 12
5. The parking lot design shall comply with the parking and driveway standards and
Engineering Standard Section 2010.E.7. All parking spaces must be designed so that
vehicles can enter in one maneuver. Furthermore, all spaces shall be designed so that
vehicles can exit to the adjoining street in a forward direction in not more than two
maneuvers.
6. Show the location of the proposed mail receptacles or mail box unit (MMU) to the
satisfaction of the Post Master and the City Engineer. Provide a mailbox unit or multiple
units to serve all dwelling units in this development as required by the Post Master. MBU's
shall not be located within the public right-of-way or public sidewalk area unless specifically
approved by the City Engineer. Contact the Post Master at 543-2605 to establish any
recommendations regarding the number, size, location, and placement for any MBU's.
7. The existing sewer lateral shall be televised and approved for reuse. A gravity sewer for the
new unit is required where available unless otherwise approved by the Building Official. It
may be prudent to abandon the existing lateral in favor of a new, shared lateral located along
the low side of the property to serve the existing and new dwellings if necessary.
8. The subdivision grading plan submittal shall show and note compliance with Engineering
Standard 1010.13 for Storm Water Quality Management. This code requirement is applicable
to new or redeveloped sites where the total area of impervious surfaces is more than 10,000
square feet. Water quality management is required for the runoff from uncovered parking
and driveway areas. An upgrade to the existing facilities and improvements is required.
Include analysis showing that the proposed water quality design is able to treat runoff from
the prescribed storm event. The report shall show treatment for runoff for 28% of the 2-year
storm event or from a I'724-hour storm event. Include by-pass structures or systems
accordingly. Provide a separate conveyance system to keep roof drainage from draining
through the parking lot if feasible.
9. Show the location of any drainage improvements located within the public right-of-way.
Show and reference sidewalk underdrains per city standard #3415 (3" cast iron pipe, CIP)
and note permit requirements if applicable.
10. All elevations must be based on a City Bench Mark and noted per City datum elevations.
The plans shall note the benchmark number, location and elevation. Include a clear
description of the benchmark referenced on the plans. The plans shall clarify whether the
NGVD 29 or NAVD 88 datum is being used. The Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) is
based on the NGVD 29. The building plans shall include topographical information prepared
by a licensed surveyor or engineer.
11. One 15-gallon street tree may be required for each 35 lineal feet of frontage. The City
Arborist shall approve the tree species, planting requirements, and whether the street trees
shall be planted in tree wells in the sidewalk area or behind the back of walk in the front
yard. Contact City Arborist Ron Combs at 781-7023 for specific questions or requirements
and to evaluate any existing trees.
S-«
Attachment 3
ARC 176-05 (625 Toro Street)
Page 13
12. Where tree protection measures are required, they shall be implemented to the satisfaction of
the City Arborist prior to commencing with any demolition, trenching, or construction. The
City Arborist shall approve any safety pruning or the cutting of substantial roots. Contact the
City Arborist at 781-7023 at least 48 hours prior to construction in areas where tree
protection and inspection is required. Include this note on all plans and specs pertaining to
the scope of work for this project if applicable.
Utilities Department
13. One of the water meter manifolds shows six water meters being served by a single 2" water
service. This would be allowed only with the use of 3/a" water meters. Typically, residential
units are served by 1" water meters, which may be a requirement if the fire sprinklers are to
be fed through the domestic water meters. As mentioned in the paragraph above, it is not
clear from the plans whether this is the intent or if a dedicated fire service will be provided.
In either case, better water service can be provided to the future owners/residents of these
units by providing another 2" water service, such that no manifold serves more than 4 water
meters.
14. By ordinance, the applicant is required to prepare a recycling plan for approval by the City
to address the recycling of construction waste. The recycling plan shall be submitted to the
Building Department with the building plans. The City's Conservation Coordinator can
provide some guidance in the preparation of an appropriate recycling plan.
Cal Trans
15. Cal Trans. As recommended by the Traffic Analysis, dated July 15, 2005, the dense
vegetation along the project frontage to the north shall be removed and replaced with low
growing plants. Removing the overgrown vegetation in the State's Right of Way and
replanting with a low-growing pallet will require an encroachment permit from the
Department of Transportation District 5 Permits Office. The applicant will be required to
apply for and.secure an encroachment permit prior to the issuance of construction permits.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment 1: Vicinity map
Attachment 2: Reduced scale project plans
Attachment 3: Revised Elevation of Unit 3
Attachment 4: Traffic.Analysis prepared by Penfield & Smith, dated June 15, 2005
Attachment 5: Noise Study prepared by David Lord, dated September 18, 2006
Attachment 6: March 20, 2006 ARC follow-up letter, minutes and prior site plan
Enclosed: Full-size project plans
Available at meeting: Color and materials exhibit
GAMIIWRCU76-05(625 Toro)Tierra del ToroWRC 176-05 rpt(03-I9-07).doc
5-t3
Attachment 4
►�����►IlflBii�IIIIIIIII� n►���li�ilii��j ��
city
Of SAn WIS OBISPO
Community Development Department• 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218
INITIAL STUDY
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
For ER# 176-05
1. Project Title: Residential Condominium Development
2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of San Luis Obispo
919 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Jaime Hill, Associate Planner
(805) 781-7165
4. Project Location: 625 Toro Street, City of San Luis Obispo, south of the Highway 101
northbound exit at Toro Street)
5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address:
Applicant: Namaji Enterprise
4160 La Posada
San Luis Obispo, Ca 93401
Representative: Ernie Kim
755 Santa Rosa, Suite 310
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
6. General Plan Designation: High Density Residential
7. Zoning: R-4(High Density Residential)
8. Description of the Project:
The project is a condominium subdivision of 10 residential units on a 19,600 square foot (0.45
acre) site. The project includes 8 two-bedroom units and 2 one-bedroom units, for a total of 10
dwellings. The ten units are divided amongst two buildings. Parking for the project includes an
attached two-car garage for each unit, and two uncovered guest parking spaces. Private open
space is provided primarily with ground level yards, with one unit having a second level balcony.
Common open space and recreation area is provided in a central location and is outfitted with a
bench and trellis. The project site is presently developed with The El Toro Inn, a small motel.
EThe City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services, programs and activities.
�` Telecommunications Device for the Deaf(865)781-7410.
Attachment 4
Project plans indicate that the motel and all improvements will be demolished. The project also
includes a proposal to remove one to two on-street parking spaces along the project frontage.
9. Surrounding Land Uses and Settings:
The project is bordered by residential development and Highway 101, which is located north of
the project site. The highway travel lanes are located approximately 68 feet from the rear
property line of the project site, and northbound ramps are located at the site's northeast corner.
Dense shrubs and trees occupy the space between the property line and the highway. Trees on the
site include palm and eucalyptus; one of the two palms and all of the eucalyptus will be removed
from the site. The site slopes down from the southeast corner approximately 15 feet to the
northwest property comer.
10. Project Entitlements Requested:
The applicant has granted final approval of project site plan and building designs by the
Architectural Review Commission on March 5, 2007. The applicant is now seeking approval of a
tentative tract map for the airspace condominium subdivision of the units.
11. Other public agencies whose approval is required:
Required traffic mitigation that needs to be performed in the State's Right-of-Way will require
issuance of an encroachment permit from Department of Transportation District 5 Permit office.
Attachment 4
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 --X-- Transportation&Traffic
Biological Resources Land Use and Planning Utilities and Service
Systems
Cultural Resources —X-- Noise Mandatory Findings of
Si 'fican$c5e
FW
Energy and Mineral Population and Housing k s
Resourcesgw
FISH AND GAME FEES
There is no evidence before the Department that the project will have any potential adverse effects on fish
--X— and wildlife resources or the habitat upon which the wildlife depends. As such, the project qualifies for a
de minimis waiver with regards to the filing of Fish and Game Fees.
The project has potential to impact fish and wildlife resources and shall be subject to the payment of Fish
and Game fees pursuant to Section 711.4 of the California Fish and Game Code. This initial study has been
circulated to the California Department of Fish and Game for review and comment.
STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
This environmental document must be submitted to the State Clearinghouse for review by one or more
State agencies (e.g. Cal Trans, California Department of Fish and Game, Department of Housing and
Community Development). The public review period shall not be less than 30 days (CEQA Guidelines
15073(a)).
� -%yz
Attachment 4
DETERMINATION:
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and
a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, --X--
there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been
made, or the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet(s) have been added and
agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be
prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment; and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant'' impacts) or "potentially
significant unless mitigated" impact(s) on the environment, but at least one effect (1) has been
adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (2) has
been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached
sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the
effects that remain to be addressed
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
because all potentially significant effects (1) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR
or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (2) have been avoided
or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR of NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions
or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.
Signature Date
Doug Davidson,Deputy Director of Community Development For:John Mandeville,
Printed Name Community Development Director
;z- y3
Attachment 4
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.
z = 7Y
Attachment 4
Issues, Discussion and Supportuinformation Sources Sources Potr, - y Potentially Less Than No
Significant significant significant Impact
ER# 176-05 Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
I.AESTHETICS. Would theproject:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? 2,27 --X_
b) Substantially damage scenic resources,including,but not limited 9,27 _X_
to,trees,rock outcroppings,open space,and historic buildings
within a local or state scenic highway?
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of 26,27 __X__
the site and its surroundings?
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would 26 —X—
adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
Evaluation
a), b), c), d) The project site is not located in the area of a scenic vista or a local or state scenic highway. The project
involves redevelopment of a single parcel substantially surrounded by urban development. The proposed development is
designed within the property development standards of the Zoning Regulations and no height,coverage or parking exceptions
are required. Noise attenuation walls along the north west property line, fronting Highway 101 will exceed the six-feet
generally considered appropriate and allowed at a property line. However,due to the high speed of traffic along the highway
and existing dense vegetation, these walls will only be minimally visible. No additional light or glare is anticipated from the
land division.
Conclusion: No impacts have been identified relating to aesthetics. The City's Architectural Review Commission routinely
reviews new development projects to insure a high level of architectural integrity and aesthetic quality,and on March 5,2007
granted approval of the site layout and building design. No further mitigation is required.
2.AGRICULTURE RESOURCES. Would theproject:
a) Convert Prime Farmland,Unique Farmland,or Farmland of 20 _X_
Statewide Importance(Farmland),as shown on the maps
pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program.of
the California Resources Agency,to.non-agricultural use?
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a 1,9 _X__
Williamson Act contract?
c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which,due to 9,27
their location or nature,could result in conversion of Farmland
to non-agricultural use?
Evaluation
a), b), c) The site is designated as Urban Land by the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California
Resources Agency, is zoned for residential use, and is located within the Downtown Planning Area. The project site is not
considered prime farmland nor is it under Williamson Act contract. The project is an in-fill development that will not result
in changes that could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural uses.
Conclusion: The project will not have any impact on agricultural resources.
3. AIR QUALITY. Would theproject:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air 1,9, _X_
quality plan? 21,22
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an
existing or projected air quality violation?
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria
pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an
4mkcable federal or state ambient air quality standard__ _
Attachment 4
Issues, Discussion and Supportiriy information Sources Sources Pote<.Ay Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER# 176-05 Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
(including releasing emissions which exceed qualitative
thresholds for ozone precursors)?
4) . Expose-sensitive receptors to substantial.pollutant 28 --X_
concentrations?
e) Create objectionable odors affectinga substantial number of 27 --X_
people?
Evaluation
a) b)c) e) San Luis Obispo County is a non-attainment area for the State PMuo(fine particulate matter 10 microns or less in
diameter) air quality standards. State law requires that emissions of non-attainment pollutants and their precursors be reduced
by at least 5% per year until the standards are attained. The 1998 Clean Air Plan (CAP) for San Luis Obispo County was
developed and adopted by the Air Pollution Control District(APCD)to meet that requirement.The CAP is a comprehensive
planning document designed to reduce emissions from traditional industrial and commercial sources, as well as from motor
vehicle use. Land Use Element Policy 1.18.2 states that the City will help the APCD implement the Clean Air Plan.
Provisions of the adopted Building Code which are intended to reduce dust from construction will apply to this project.
d) No objectionable odors will emanate from the project.
Conclusion:The project will not have any impact on air quality.
4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would theproject:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect,efther.directly or through 5 --X
J, habitat modifications,on any species identified as a candidate,
sensitive,or special status species in local or'regional plans,
r policies,or regulations,or by the California Department of Fish
and Game or U.S.Fish and Wildlife-Service? .
b) Have a substantial adverse:effect,on any-ripanan habitat or 5,9 --X--
.othersensitive natural community idwified in local.onregional
plans;policies;or regulations,or by the California Department
of Fish and Game.or U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service?
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected weilandi 5,9 _X_
as defined in Section 404 of the Clean Wafer Act(including;but
not limited to,marsh,vernal pool,coashd,etp.)Jbipough direst.
removal,filling,hydrological interruption,or other means?
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of ray native resident 5 _X_
or migratory fish or wildlife species yr with established native
resident or migratory wildlifeboindors,or'impede the use of
native wildlife nursery sites?
e) ,Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting 5,26 _X__
biological resources,such as a tree preservation policy or
ordinance?
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted habitat Conservation 5 --X--
Plan,Natural Community Conservation Plan,or other approved
local,regional,or state habitat conservationplan?
Evaluation
a), b) According the Natural Diversity Database of the California Department of Fish and Game, there are no species
identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the
California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on or near the project site, nor is riparian habitat
or other sensitive natural community identified.
Attachment 4
Issues, Discussion and Supportir,y information Sources sources Pote,._.:Jy Potentially LessTvaa xo
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER# 176-05 Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
c) One of the two palms and all of the eucalyptus on the site, and the dense vegetation on Cal Trans property, will be
removed as part of the site redevelopment. However, this vegetation does not provide habitat for any sensitive natural
community. Additionally,the redevelopment of the site will result in a net increase of trees and landscaping.
d) The property is completely surrounded by urban development and the redevelopment of the property will not interfere
with the movement of any wildlife species or migratory wildlife corridor.
e) The proposed project will not conflict with any local policy protecting biological resources nor any adopted habitat
conservation plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation
plan.
f) The site is not near any natural waterway and will therefore have no adverse effect on Federally protected wetlands.
Conclusion:The project will not have any impact on biological resources.
5.CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would theproject:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a 26, 12
historic resource resource as defined in CEQA Guidelines§15064.5.
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an 13,
archaeological resource resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines 14, 15
§15064.5)
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource 5, 13, _X__
or site or unique geologic feature? 14, 15
d) Disturb any human remains,including those interred outside of 15 —X--
formal cemeteries?
Evaluation
a) The project site is presently developed with the EI Toro Inn,a motel that is less fifty years old. Staff has evaluated the
potential historic significance of the existing structures and does not believe that any of the structures represent historic
resources. Historic resources are evaluated based on a number of criteria including, style, design, age, architect,
environmental design continuity,history-person,history-event and history-context as described in the Historical Preservation
Program Guidelines. One of the motel structures was constructed in 1959, with the second of the two buildings be added
shortly thereafter, in 1963. None of the structures proposed for demolition are good examples of a particular architectural
style. They are simple single story non-descript buildings, with eclectic design features. The neighborhood is part of the
Hathway Tract and developed at a time when the City was growing due to the influence of the Railroad.
In the event that the buildings are not demolished within two years,the project would become subject to the City's Building
Demolition Code for structures over 50 years old. This includes specific provisions to encourage the conservation of older
structures in the City. The requirements of the code include a 90-day "cool-off'period during which the buildings proposed
for demolition would be advertised as available for relocation, and photo and historic documentation of structures. The City
then keeps the documentation in the Community Development Department Library for future research. With these code
requirements in place,no further mitigation is necessary.
b) The City's Archeological Resource Preservation Guidelines require preliminary archeological studies for properties that
are considered sensitive sites. The project site does not meet the criteria for sensitive site designation because it is more than
200 feet away from the City's major creeks and known archeological sites. The site is also outside of a historical district and
the property is not on the City's Inventory of Historic Resources. These factors indicate that the project will have no impact
on archeological resources.
c), d) The project site does not contain any known paleontological or geological resources and is not within an area where
burials are likely to be encountered,as indicated by the City's Burial Sensitivity Map,on file in the Community Development
4 — / 7
Attachment 4
Issues, Discussion and Supporting information Sources Sources pore. y Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER# 176 05 Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
Department.
Conclusion:The project will not have any impact on cultural resources.
6. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would theproject:
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse 7,8,
effects,including including risk of loss,injury or death involving: 9,23
I. Rupture of a known earthquake fault,as delineated on the _X_
most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map
issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other
substantial evidence of a known fault?Refer to Division of
Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.
11. Strong seismic ground shaking? —X—
III. Seismic-related ground failure,including liquefaction? _X__
IV- Landslides? _X_
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? 19,26 _X_
c) Be located on a geologic twit or soil that is unstable,or that 7,8,wouldbecomebecome unstable as a result of the project,and potentially 9,23
result in on or off site landslide,lateral spreading,subsidence,
liquefaction or collapse?
d) Be located on expansive soil,as defined in Table 18-1-B of the 7,8, _X
Uniform Building Code(1994),creating substantial risks to life 9,23
or property?
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic 8 _X
tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers
are not available for the disposal of waste water?
Evaluation
a), c) San Luis Obispo County, including the City of San Luis Obispo, is located within the Coast Range Geomorphic
Province, which extends along the coastline from central California into Oregon. This region is characterized by extensive
folding, faulting, and fracturing of variable intensity. In general, the folds and faults of this province comprise the
pronounced northwest trending ridge-valley system of the central and northern coast of California.
Under the Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone Act, the State Geologist is required to delineate appropriately wide special
studies zones to encompass all potentially and recently-active fault traces deemed sufficiently active and well-defined as to
constitute a potential hazard to structures from surface faulting or fault creep. In San Luis Obispo County,the special Studies
Zone includes the San Andreas and Los Osos faults. The edge of this study area extends to the westerly city limit line, near
Los Osos Valley Road. According to a recently conducted geology study (source 16), the closest mapped active fault is the
Los Osos Fault, which runs in a northwest direction and is about one mile from the City's westerly boundary. Because
portions of this fault have displaced sediments within a geologically recent time (the last 10,000 years), portions of the Los
Osos fault are considered "active". Other active faults in the region include: the San Andreas,located about 30 miles to the
northeast, the Nacimiento, located approximately 12 miles to the northeast, and the San Simeon-Hosgri fault zone, located
approximately 12 miles to the west.
Although there are no fault lines on the project site or within close proximity, the site is located in an area of"High Seismic
Hazards,"specifically Seismic Zone 4,which means that future buildings constructed on the site will most likely be subjected
to excessive ground shaking in the event of an earthquake. New structures must be designed in compliance with seismic
design criteria established in the California Building Code for Seismic Zone 4. To minimize this potential impact, the
Uniform Building Code and City Codes require new structures to be built to resist such shaking or to remain standing in an
earthquake.
b),d),e)The project will not result in the loss of topsoil as most of the site will be covered by impervious surfaces or planted
Z,w
r'1rtQt�I III IVI Il T
Issues, Discussion and Supportin5 Information Sources Sources Pote,:.7ty Potentinuy Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER# 176-05 Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
with vegetation. The soils engineering report includes specific recommendations to insure that foundations are designed to
withstand settlement.City sewers will be utilized for the disposal of waste water.
Conclusion: Future development will be required to comply with the Uniform Building Codes and City Codes which require
new structures to be built to resist such shaking or to remain standing in an earthquake, and proper documentation of soil
characteristics for designing structurally sound buildings. The Building Division of the Community Development Department
routinely reviews project for their compliance with the recommendations of the soils engineering report for the site. No
further mitigation is required.
7. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. World the Pro'ect:
.a) . Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment 26 __X_
through the routine use,transport or disposalof hazardous
materials?
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment 26 __X_
through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions
involving the release of hazardous materials into the
environment?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely 9,26 _X_
hazardous materials,substances,or waste within one-quarter
mile of an existing or proposed school?
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous 9
materials sites sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section
65962.5 and,as a result,would it create a significant hazard to
the public or the environment?
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or,where 9, 18 --X--
sueh a plan has not been adopted,within two miles of a public
airport or public use airport,would the project result in a safety
hazard for people residing or working in the project area?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip,would the 9, 18 projectresultresult in a safety hazard for people residing or working
in the project area?
g) .Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted 7,26 —X—
.emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of lose,injury, 5,9, __X__
or death involving wildland fires,including where wildlands are 26
adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed
with wildlands?
Evaluation
a) The project does not involve the routine use,transport,or disposal of hazardous materials.
b),c),d)The redevelopment of the site will not result in the release of hazardous materials into the environment.
e) The project site is not included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code§ 65962.5.
f) The project site is more than two miles north of the San Luis Obispo County Airport,outside the Airport Land Use Plan
Area.
g) The project has been reviewed by the Fire Marshall and will not conflict with any emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan.
h) The Safety Element of the General Plan identifies the site as having a low potential for impacts from wildland fires.
z -y9
Attachment 4
Issues, Discussion and SuppoiUi�, , information Sources sources Pote... ay Potentially less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER# 176-05 Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
Conclusion: The project will not involve any impacts with respect to hazards or hazardous materials.
& HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the roject:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge 6,8 _X_
requirements?
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere 6,8 __X_
substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would
be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local
groundwater table level(e.g.the production rate of pre-existing
nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support
existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been
meted)? "
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or 8,26 _X_
area,including through the alteration of the course of a stream or
river,in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or.
siltation on or off site?
A) Substantially alter the existingdrainage pattern of the site or 8,26 __X__
area,including through the alteration of the course ofa stretim or
river,or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface
runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on or offsite?
e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the 8,26 __X__
capacity of existing or planned stone water drainage systems or
provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?
Otherwise substantiallydegrade water quality? 6,8
g) Place Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on 9,24 —X--
a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map
or other flood hazard delineation map?
h) Place within a 100-year flood Hazard area structures which 9,24 _X_
would impede or redirect flood flows?
i) Expose people or structures to significant risk of loss,injury or 9,27
death involving flooding,including flooding as a result of the
failure of a levee or dam?
) Inundation by seiche,tsunami,or mudflow? 27 _X_
Evaluation
a), b,) f)The project will not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. The residential units will
be served by the City's sewer system and run-off is required to be directed to an approved point of disposal, in this case a
storm drain. The project will be served with water by the City's Utilities Department and will not use or otherwise deplete
groundwater resources or negatively effect water quality.
c), d), e) Development of the site will increase the amount of impervious surfaces on the site and affect the absorption rate,
drainage patterns and the amount and rate of surface runoff. To assure that potential drainage impacts are minimized to a
level of insignificance, the development has been designed to meet all applicable City codes, including City grading and
drainage standards. The drainage system report and analysis prepared for the project has been reviewed by the City's Public
Works Department and determined to adequately address site drainage and run-off.
g), h), i) The project site is beyond the boundaries of areas subject to inundation from flood waters in 500-year or 100-year
storms. As documented by the drainage system analysis prepared for the project, and reviewed by the City's Public Works
Department, the project has been designed in compliance with the City's Waterways Management Plan, thereby eliminating
potential impacts.
Attachment 4
Issues, Discussion and Supporting information Sources Sources pow y Potentially Inas Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER# 176-05 Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
Conclusion:No impacts have been identified with respect to water quality or hydrology.
9. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would theproject:
a) Physically divide an established community? 1,26 --X—
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy,or regulation 1,8 --X—
of an agency with jurisdiction over the project adopted
(including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan,
local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the
purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural 5,27 X--
community conservationplan?
Evaluation
a) The General Plan Land Use Map designates the site High Density Residential. The land use designation is described as
"primarily dwellings in two-or three-story buildings,with common outdoor areas and very compact private outdoor spaces".
The project site is zoned R-4(High Density Residential)with a maximum allowable density of 24 units per net acre,or 10.87
for this 0.45 acre site. The project has been designed with a density equivalent of 10.32 density units. The ten units are
dispersed between two buildings,and each unit is provided with a private entrance,garage,and outdoor space.
b) The project site includes one land parcel on a 0.45 acre site. The project will be served by existing streets and will be
bordered by other residential uses and Highway 101. The project will not physically divide an established community.
c) The project will not conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plans or natural community conservation plans.
Conclusion
The project will be developed with the type of improvements anticipated by the General Plan and Zoning Regulations and will
not create any impacts to land use and planning.
10. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the ro'ect:
a) Result in the lossof availability of a known mineral resource 5
that would would be of value to the region and the Tesidents.of the
state?
b) Result in the loss of availibtlity of a locally-important mineral 5 —X—
resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan,
ificplan or other land use Ian?
Evaluation
a),b)There are no known mineral resources in the vicinity that are locally important or would be of value to the region or to
the residents of the State.
Conclusion: The project will not involve any impacts on mineral resources.
11.NOISE. Would the projta:t resWt in:
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of 3, 10, —X--
standards established in the local general plan or noise 28
ordinance,or applicable standards of other agencies?
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne 3, 10, —X—
vibration or groundborne noise levels? 28
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the 3, 10 X--
_project vicinity above levels existing without.the r—iect? 26
—jr/
Attachment 4
Issues, Discussion and Supportir,y information Sources sources Pote_ _11y Potentially Locss Tban No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER# 176-05 Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
In orated
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise 3, 10, _X_
levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the 26
project?
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan,or where 3, 18, _X_
such a plan has not been adopted,within two miles of a public 10,28
airport or public use airport,would the project expose people
residing or working in the projectarea to excessive noise levels?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip,would the 27 —X—
project expose people residing or working in the project area to
excessive noise levels?
Evaluation
a) The General Plan requires that indoor spaces in residential projects have a maximum noise exposure level of 45 dBA and
outdoor activity areas have a noise exposure level not exceeding 60dBA. The railroad and major roadways are studied in the
Noise Element, and expected noise levels at City build-out have been established. The Noise Element maps show that the
project site is not impacted by noise levels from the railroad tracks. However,transportation related noise levels associated
with Highway 101 well above the 65 dBA level extend across most of the property. The proposed residential development
will require some noise level reduction to insure General Plan consistency.
Using Figure 2 of the Noise Element, staff determined that a noise study for the project is required. A noise study was
prepared by David Lord,Ph.D.in June of 2005 and submitted with the planning application. The day-night noise level,LDN,
was measured and calculated at 75 dBA at the northern property line and less than 75 dBA to the south across the rest of the
property. The mitigation measures recommended in the Noise Study are listed below. These mitigation measures are
sufficient to mitigate any potential impacts from surrounding noise sources.
b) During construction, there will be a temporary increase in ambient noise levels. This type of noise is regulated by the
City's Noise Ordinance, which regulates times of construction and maximum noise levels that may be generated. If noise
levels exceed the Noise Ordinance thresholds,the property owner would be subject to possible citations.
c), d) The project will not expose people to the generation of excessive groumdborne noise levels or vibration. The project
outside the Airport Land Use Plan area
e),f) The project is more than two miles from all airports and private airstrips.
Mitigation Measures:
1. The following construction methods shall be employed to achieve a Noise Level Reduction (NLR) of 15 dBA for
transportation related noise sources for the patio and deck front construction for north-facing elevations:
a. Patios and decks on the north side shall have a vertical,solid wall.
b. Any patio wall shall be six-feet high with reference to ground floor finished floor elevation.
c. Any front-edge deck walls at second and third story shall be three feet high with reference to finish floor elevation.
d. The construction of the patio and deck walls shall have a minimum 3/4 inch solid thickness,sealed with resilient caulk at
all edges and joints.If glazing is used,the glazing shall be laminated glass.
e. Floor drains facing the noise source shall have a 90 degree bend incorporated in their design, with one opening facing
away from the traffic noise source.
2. The following construction methods shall be employed to achieve a Noise Level Reduction (NLR) of 30 dBA for
transportation related noise sources for the building construction of the north-facing elevations:
a. Vents and roof penetrations: Soffit vents, eave vents, dormer vents and other wall and roof penetrations shall be
2 -.sz.
Attachment 4
Issues,Discussion and Supporting information Sources Sources POML__ty Potentially Lesslban No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER # 176-05 Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
located on the walls and roofs facing away from the noise source(located on the west,east and south sides)wherever
possible.Kitchen and bathroom fans on north walls shall require remote venting to other elevations.
b. Walls: The north-facing walls of habitable spaces on all floors of dwelling units nearest the noise source shall have a
wall construction with an S.T.C. (Sound Transmission Class) rating of 35 or greater. For instance,stucco exterior or
equivalent, with 30 pound felt on 5/8 sheathing, on 2"x 6"stud walls with minimum R-19 batt insulation, a layer of
sound deadening board, and a layer of 5/8"gypsum board mounted on resilient channels,or a single interior layer of
"Quietrock," will provide an S.T.C. rating of 35 or greater with the following details: Construction of the wall must
include the liberal use of non-hardening caulking at all construction joints, including the deader and footer
construction and the edges and comers of de y wall where gypsum board meets ceiling,intersecting walls and floor.
c. Acoustic Leaks: Common acoustic leaks, such as electrical outlets, pipes, vents, ducts, flues and other breaks in the
integrity of the wall, ceiling or roof insulation and construction on the north side of the dwellings nearest
transportation noise source shall receive special attention during construction. All construction openings and joints
through the gypsum board on north-facing walls shall be insulated, sealed and caulked with expanding foam and a
resilient, non-hardening caulking material, as appropriate. All such openings and joints shall be airtight to maintain
sound isolation.
d. Windows: To meet the interior LDN 45 DbA requirements, windows for habitable spaces on all floors of affected
elevations facing the noise source shall be of double-glazed construction with one light of laminated glass, and
installed in accordance with the recommendations of the manufacturer.The windows shall be frilly gasketed, with an
S.T.C. rating of 37 or better, as determined in testing by an accredited acoustical laboratory. An example that meets
this requirement is Milgard Quiet Line windows with laminated glass.
e. Doors: More than 90%of all exterior noise comes in through windows and doors.To meet the interior LDN 45 DbA
requirements,doors facing the noise source shall be solid core with sound dampening and full gasketed,sealed jambs
and grouted frames, with an overall S.T.C. rating of 37 or better,as determined in testing by an accredited acoustical
laboratory.Soundproof door assemblies are offered by several suppliers.
Conclusion
The project proposes to place new residential residences in an area that is subject to noise levels in excess of City standards
for residential development. As a result, mitigation measures are recommended to insure compliance with the General Plan
and Noise Ordinance standards.
12. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would theproject:
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area,either directly 1,4
(for example,example, by proposing new homes or businesses) or
indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other
infrastructure)?
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing,necessitating 26,27 —X—
the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
c) 26,27 28,29 Evaluation
a),a), b), c) The population added by this project is within the General Plan's projection and will not induce substantial growth
in the area or result in population exceeding local and regional growth projections. The project site is substantially
surrounded by urban development and the development of the site represents an in-fill development opportunity. This type of
development is encouraged because it can take advantage of existing facilities for water,sewer,storm drainage,transportation
and parks. The project site is developed with a motel and will not displace permanent residents.
Conclusion: The population growth created by the project is considered to be less than significant since the development is
on an existing residentially zoned parcel of land and development of the project site has been accounted for in the population
estimates contained in the City's General Plan.The project will not have any impacts on population or housing.
13.PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the
Attachment 4
Issues, Discussion and Supporting information Sources Sources Pote6._ Ay Potentially Lass Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER# 176-05 Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities,the construction of which could cause s4pocant
environmental impacts,in order to maintain acceptable service ratios,response times or other performance
objectives for any of the pubUc services:
a) Fire protection? 8,26 --X_
b) Police protection? __X_
C) Schools? _X_
d) Parks? _X_
e) Other public facilities? __X__
Evaluation
a), b), f) As an infill site, adequate public services (fire, police, other public facilities) are available to service the property.
Project plans have been reviewed by all effected City Departments,and their comments and input have been incorporated into
either plan revisions or project conditions. Development must comply with applicable City codes and State regulations and
building permits will be issued to insure consistency with these requirements.
c) The school districts in the state are separate governing bodies with authority to collect fees to finance school construction
and parcel acquisition. Section 65955 of the Government Code prohibits the City from denying a subdivision or collecting
any fees beyond those required by the school district itself,to mitigate effects of inadequate school facilities. Any effect that
the additional children will have on school facilities will be mitigated in whole or in part by the districts per square foot fees,
charged at the time of building permit issuance for each residence.
d) Park in-lieu fees are required to be paid as part of the subdivision to insure that City residents have adequate access to park
facilities as required by the Parks and Recreation Element of the General Plan.
e) The project site is served by a local collector street. Toro Street is used heavily by vehicles traveling to and from the
Highway 1/101 interchange at Walnut Street. The additional vehicle travel generated by this project is expected to have an
insignificant impact on this road.
Conclusion: The project will not have any impact on public services.
14.RECREATION. Would theproject:
a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood or regional parks or 8,26 _7{_
other recreational facilities such that substantial physical
deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
b) Include recreational facilities or require the construction or _X__
expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse
physical effect on the environment?
Evaluation
a) Residents of the project will likely use Santa Rosa Park and Mitchell Park recreation facilities for their park and recreation
needs. The project will add incrementally to the demand for parks and other recreational facilities. However,given the size
of the project and the expected number of residents, no significant recreational impacts are expected to occur with
development of this site. Additionally, park in lieu fees will be required to be paid to the City to help finance additional park
space,maintenance or equipment in the vicinity. These fees are set at a level to offset the effect of the additional demand.
b) The project does not include the construction of recreational facilities beyond small open space areas, a small garden
space and a picnic area. The construction of these facilities will not have an adverse physical effect on the environment
because of their small scale.
Conclusion: Park and recreation facility demand will increase incrementally with the development of the project. Park-in-
Attachment 4
Issues, Discussion and Supporting information Sources Sources PoteL y Potentially I Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER# 176-05 Issues unless Lmpact
Mitigation
Incorporated
lieu fees are set at a level considered to be sufficient to offset the effects of the additional demand for park facilities. No
further mitigation is required.
15. TRANSPORTATIONfMAFFIC. Would theproject:
a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the 29 _X_
existing traffic load and capacity of the street system(i.e.,result
in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips,the
volume to capacity ratio on roads,or congestion at
intersections)?
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) Result in a change in air traffic patterns,including either an _X_
increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in
substantial safety risks?
d) Substantially increase hazards due to design features(e.g.,sharp 26,29 --X--
curves or dangerous intersections)or incompatible uses(e.g.
farm equipment)?
e) Result in inadequate emergency access? 26 __X__
f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? 26,29 _X_
g) Conflict with adopted policies,plans,or programs supporting 2,26 —X--
alternative transportation(e.g.bus turnouts,bicycle racks)?
Evaluation
a), Due to the site's proximity to the Highway 101 northbound ramps and the high volumes of traffic that pass the site,staff
determined that a traffic study for the project was required. A traffic analysis was prepared by Penfield&Smith in June 2005
and submitted with the planning application for the project. Accounting for the existing motel on the site, it was determined
that the additional trips generated by the residential development would result in a minimal increase in the number of net new
vehicle trips,which would not degrade the existing operations of Toro Street.
b) Due to the proximity of the site to the northbound ramps, sight distance is limited between vehicles enteringlexiting the
site and vehicles exiting the Highway 101 northbound off-ramp. The required stopping sight distance between the project
driveway and southbound traffic on Toro Street for the posted speed of 25 miles per hour is 150 feet.The proposed driveway
does not meet the required stopping distance, however the new driveway will be located 5 feet south of the existing motel
driveway, which is an improvement over existing conditions. Based on existing sight limitations and available site frontage,
the driveway is in the best possible location. However, the Traffic Analysis does include recommended measures for
maximizing the site distance to the greatest extent possible. The mitigation measures recommended in the Traffic Analysis
distance are listed below. These mitigation measures are sufficient to mitigate any potential impacts on traffic safety resulting
from the redevelopment of the site.
c) The project is not within the Airport Land Use Plan area, therefore, there is no conflict with the Plan that would result in
substantial safety risks from hazards,noise or a change in air traffic patterns.
d) The project entrance has been designed with a "street approach" rather than a standard driveway approach, to allow
vehicles to begin their turning maneuvering into the site earlier,thereby reducing impacts to the flow of traffic on Toro Street.
f) The project complies with the Fire Department's requirements for emergency access.
f) Application of City parking standards to the redevelopment ensures that the new dwellings are adequately parked. The
project includes 22 spaces (10 two-bedroom units at 2-spaces per unit, 2 one-bedroom units at 1.5-spaces per unit, and 2
guest parking space), in compliance with City standards. The elimination of street parking along the project frontage would
eliminate I to 2 parking spaces,which is not anticipated to impact the existing parking demand along this street.
2'5:�r
Attachment 4
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potential y Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER # 176 05 Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
g) The project does not conflict with alternative transportation policies in that the project does not impede any existing or
proposed bike baths,transit stops,etc.
Mitigation Measures:
3. In order to improve the site distance to the greatest extent possible, vegetation along the project frontage to the north
shall be limited to low growing plants.
4. The frontage landscaping shall be maintained regularly to preserve available site lines.
5. On-street parking along the project frontage,north and south of the project driveway shall be eliminated.
Conclusion:The project proposes to place new residential residences in an area that is subject to relatively high traffic
volumes and substandard stopping site distances.The proposed redevelopment of the site will add only a minor number of
new trips,and the design of the new project entry will be an improvement over the existing condition. Mitigation measures
are recommended to insure compliance with the General Plan and to improve site distance and safety conditions.
16.UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would theproject:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable 6,8, __X_
Regional Water Quality Control Board? 26
b) Require or result in the construction or expansion of new water 6, 8 _X_
or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing 26
facilities,the construction of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water 6, 8, _X_
drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities,the 26
construction of which could cause significant environmental .
effects?
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project 6,8,
from existing existing entitlements and resources,or are new and 26
expanded entitlements needed?
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider 6,8, —X
which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate 26
capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to
the provider's existing commitment?
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to 26,27 __X__
accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs?
g) Comply with federal,state,and local statutes and regulations 26,27 —X—
related to solid waster
Evaluation:
a), b) This project has been reviewed by the Utilities Department staff. Comments note that the project is subject to water
impact fees which were adopted to ensure that new development pays its fair share of the cost of constructing the water
supply,treatment and distribution facilities that will be necessary to serve it.
c) The City Water&Wastewater Management Element projects the City water needs at its ultimate build-out of 56,000
people.The project site is included in the anticipated build-out,because it was in the Urban Reserve at the time the element
was adopted. Each unit in the subdivision will have an annual water usage estimated at.21 acre feet. For the total project,the
annual water usage is estimated at 1.47 acre feet(.21*7 units). The 2001 Water Resources Report indicates that there is
currently 142 acre feet of water available to allocate to in-fill development(development within the 1994 City Limits).
Another 142 acre feet is available for allocation to the City's expansion areas.
Attachment 4
Issues, Discussion and Supportit,, information Sources sources porn- Ay potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER# 176-05 Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
d) The City wastewater treatment plant has adequate capacity to serve this development.The existing sewers in the vicinity
have sufficient capacity to serve the development. The developer will be required to construct private sewer facilities to
convey wastewater to the nearest public sewer. The on-site sewer facilities will be required to be constructed according to the
standards in the Uniform Plumbing Code. Subdivision improvement plans and building plans will be checked for compliance
with UPC standards. Impact fees are collected at the time building permits are issued to pay for capacity at the City's Water
Reclamation Facility. The fees are set at a level intended to offset the potential impacts of each new residential unit in the
project.
e),f),g)Background research for the Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989(AB939)shows that Californians dispose of
roughly 2,500 pounds of waste per month. Over 90%of this waste goes to landfills,posing a threat to groundwater,air
quality,and public health. Cold Canyon landfill is projected to reach its capacity by 2018. The Act requires each city and
county in California to reduce the flow of materials to landfills by 50%(from 1989 levels)by 2000. To help reduce the waste
stream generated by this project,consistent with the City's Source Reduction and Recycling Element,recycling facilities must
be accommodated on the project site and a solid waste reduction plan for recycling discarded construction materials should be
submitted with the building permit application.The project will include a common facility for both interior and exterior
recycling to reduce the waste stream generated by the project consistent with the Source Reduction and Recycling Element.
Conclusion: No impacts have been identified relative to water service or supply,wastewater service or capacity at the Water
Reclamation Facility,storm drainage,or solid waste disposal.
17.MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the _X_
environment,substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife
species,cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-
sustaining levels,threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
community,reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of
the major periods of California history or prehistory?
As indicated in the Table on Page 3, the project has the potential to have adverse impacts related to noise and transportation
&traffic,if mitigation measures are not incorporated.Five mitigation measures related to noise attenuation and transportation
and traffic safety have been recommended.
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited,but
cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable"
means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable
when viewed in connection with the effects of the past projects,
the effects of other current projects,and the effects of probable
future ro'ects)
The impacts identified in this initial study are specific to this project and would not be categorized as c ulatively significant.
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause _X__
substantial adverse effects on human beings,either directly or
indirectly?
As indicated in the Table on Page 3, the project has the potential to have adverse impacts on humans related to noise and
transportation&traffic,if mitigation measures are not incorporated.Five mitigation measures related to noise attenuation and
transportation and traffic safety have been recommended.
18.EARLIER ANALYSES.
Earlier analysis may be used where,pursuant to the tiering,program EIR, or other CEQA process,one or more effects have
been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration. Section 15063 (c) (3) (D). In this case a discussion
should identify the following items:
a) Earlier analysis used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review.
The San Luis Obispo Land Use Plan Element update and Final EIR can be found at the City of San Luis Obispo Community
z -.f7
Attachment 4
Issues, Discussion and Supportin;'Information Sources Sources Poic_.<dy Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER# 176-05 Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
In orated
Develo went Department at 919 Palm Street,San Luis Obispo,California.
b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately
analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards,and state whether such effects were addressed by
mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
Not applicable.
c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated,"describe the mitigation
measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific
conditions of the project.
Not applicable.
19. SOURCE REFERENCES.
1. City of SLO General Plan Land Use Element,August 2004
2. City of SLO General Plan Circulation Element,November 1994
3. City of SLO General Plan Noise Element,May 1996
4. City of SLO General Plan Housing Element,March 2004
5. City of SLO General Plan Conservation and Open Space ElementApril 2006
6. City of SLO Water and Wastewater Management Element,February 1987
7. City of SLO Safety Element,July 2000
8. City of San Luis Obispo Municipal Code
9. City of San Luis Obispo,Land Use Inventory Database
10. City of San Luis Obispo Noise Guidebook,May 1996
11_ City of SLO Waterways Management Plan
12. City of San Luis Obispo,Historic Resource Preservation Guidelines,on file in the Community Development
Department
13. City of San Luis Obispo,Archaeological Resource Preservation Guidelines,on file in the Community
Development Department
14. City of San Luis Obispo,Historic Site Ma
15. City of San Luis Obispo Burial Sensitivity Ma
16. City of SLO Source Reduction and Recycling Element,on file in the Utilities Department
17. City of San Luis Obispo Community Design Guidelines
18. San Luis Obispo County Land Use Plan
19. USDA,Natural Resources Conservation Service,Soil Survey of San Luis Obispo County
20. Website of the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency:
h ://www.consrv.ca. ov/d AFhIMP/
21. Clean Air Plan for San Luis Obispo County,Air Pollution Control District,2001
22. CEQA Air Quality Handbook,Air Pollution Control District,2003
23. San Luis Obispo Quadrangle Map,prepared by the State Geologist in compliance with the Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning Act,effective January 1, 1990
24. Flood Insurance Rate Ma (Community Panel 0603100005 C)dated July 7, 1981
25. 2001 Utriform Building Code
26. Project Plans
27. Staff Knowledge
28. Noise Assessment,David Lord,Ph.D.,dated June 13,2005
29. Traffic Study,Penfield&Smith,dated June 15,2005
-w rr
Attachment 4
Issues, Discussion and Supporting information Sources Sources Ptite,._,fly Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER# 176-05 Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
REQUIRED MITIGATION AND MONITORING PROGRAMS
I. Mitigation:The following construction methods shall be employed to achieve a Noise Level Reduction(NLR)of 15 dBA
for transportation related noise sources for the patio and deck front construction for north-facing elevations:
a. Patios and decks on the north side shall have a vertical,solid wall.
b. Any patio wall shall be six-feet high with reference to ground floor finished floor elevation.
c. Any from-edge deck walls at second and third story shall be three feet high with reference to finish floor elevation.
d. The construction of the patio and deck walls shall have a minimum 3/4 inch solid thickness,sealed with resilient caulk at
all edges and joints. If glazing is used,the glazing shall be laminated glass.
e. Floor drains facing the noise source shall have a 90 degree bend incorporated in their design,with one opening facing
away from the traffic noise source.
• Monitoring Program: Compliance with this requirement shall be monitored through the review of detailed plans
submitted for building permits primarily by the Community Development Department staff.
2. Mitigation:The following construction methods shall be employed to achieve a Noise Level Reduction(NLR)of 30 dBA
for transportation related noise sources for the building construction of the north-facing elevations:
a. Vents and roof penetrations: Soffit vents, eave vents, dormer vents and other wall and roof penetrations shall be
located on the walls and roofs facing away from the noise source(located on the west,east and south sides)wherever
possible. Kitchen and bathroom fans on north walls shall require remote venting to other elevations.
b. Walls: The north-facing walls of habitable spaces on all floors of dwelling units nearest the noise source shall have a
wall construction with an S.T.C. (Sound Transmission Class) rating of 35 or greater. For instance,stucco exterior or
equivalent, with 30 pound felt on 5/8 sheathing,on 2"x 6"stud walls with minimum R-19 batt insulation, a layer of
sound deadening board, and a layer of 5/8" gypsum board mounted on resilient channels,or a single interior layer of
"Quietrock," will provide an S.T.C. rating of 35 or greater with the following details: Construction of the wall must
include the liberal use of non-hardening caulking at all construction joints, including the deader and footer
construction and the edges and comers of de y wall where gypsum board meets ceiling,intersecting walls and floor.
c. Acoustic Leaks: Common acoustic leaks, such as electrical outlets, pipes, vents, ducts, flues and other breaks in the
integrity of the wall, ceiling or roof insulation and construction on the north side of the dwellings nearest
transportation noise source shall receive special attention during construction. All construction openings and joints
through the gypsum board on north-facing walls shall be insulated, sealed and caulked with expanding foam and a
resilient, non-hardening caulking material, as appropriate. All such openings and joints shall be airtight to maintain
sound isolation.
d. Windows: To meet the interior LDN 45 DbA requirements, windows for habitable spaces on all floors of affected
elevations facing the noise source shall be of double-glazed construction with one light of laminated glass, and
installed in accordance with the recommendations of the manufacturer.The windows shall be fully gasketed, with an
S.T.C. rating of 37 or better, as determined in testing by an accredited acoustical laboratory. An example that meets
this requirement is Milgard Quiet Line windows with laminated glass.
e. Doors: More than 90%of all exterior noise comes in through windows and doors. To meet the interior LDN 45 DbA
requirements,doors facing the noise source shall be solid core with sound dampening and full gasketed, sealed jambs
and grouted frames, with an overall S.T.C. rating of 37 or better, as determined in testing by an accredited acoustical
laboratory.Soundproof door assemblies are offered by several suppliers.
• Monitoring Program: Compliance with this requirement shall be monitored through the review of detailed plans
submitted for building permits primarily by the Community Development Department staff.
3. Mitigation: In order to improve the site distance to the greatest extent possible,vegetation along the project frontage to
the north shall be limited to low growing plants.
Attachment 4
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentmay' Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER # 176-05 Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
• Monitoring Program: Compliance with this requirement shall be monitored through the review of detailed landscape
plans submitted for building permits primarily by the Community Development Department staff.
4. Mitigation:The frontage landscaping shall be maintained regularly to preserve available site lines.
• Monitoring Program: The CC&R's for the project shall state that the ongoing maintenance of the site's landscaping be
the responsibility and obligation of the Homeowners Association or their designee.
5. Mitigation: On-street parking along the project frontage,north and south of the project driveway shall be eliminated.
• Monitoring Program:Compliance with this requirement shall be monitored through the review of detailed plans
submitted for building permits and/or encroachment permits primarily by the Public Works Department staff.
Z -66
Attachment 5
DRAFT
SAN LUIS OBISPO
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
June 27, 2007
June 27, 2007 Wednesday 7: p.m.
ROLL CALL:
Present: Commissioners Dan Carpenter, Andrea Miller, John Ashbaugh, Amanda
Brodie, Diana Gould-Wells, Vice-Chairperson Charles Stevenson and
Chairperson Carlyn Christianson
Absent: None
Staff: Community Development Director John Mandeville, Deputy Community
Development Directors Doug Davidson and Kim Murry, Associate Planner
Michael Codron, 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 June 13, 2007. Accept or amend.
The minutes of June 13, 2007, were approved as amended.
PUBLIC COMMENT:
There were no comments made from the public.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
1. 625 Toro Street. TR and ER 176-05: Review of a 10-unit residential condominium
development and environmental review; R-4 zone; Namaji Enterprise, applicant.
(Jaime Hill)
Deputy Director Doug Davidson presented the staff report recommending approval of
the tentative map and Mitigated Negative Declaration to the City Council, based on
findings and subject to conditions of approval. Staff pointed out the project is
affordable by design, meets City standards, and no exceptions are needed.
Ernie Kim, Architect, applicant's representative, discussed the changes to the project,
as well as red curbing, vegetation removal, and the size of the driveway.
2 — Ca/
Draft Planning Commission Minutes
Attachment
Meeting of June 27, 2007
Page 2
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
Gary Fowler, SLO, would like to see vegetation growing on the sound wall to prevent
graffiti.
There were no further comments made from the public.
COMMISSION COMMENTS:
Commr. Carpenter questioned the dimensions of the driveway.
Commr. Gould-Wells asked staff to explain the location necessity of the driveway.
Commr. Christianson discussed the height of the sound wall.
Commr. Stevenson expressed support for the increased density in the revised project.
On motion by Commissioner Stevenson to recommend approval of the tentative map
and Mitigated Negative Declaration to the City Council, based on findings and subject to
conditions of approval. Seconded by Commissioner Carpenter.
AYES: Commrs. Brodie, Ashbaugh, Stevenson, Christianson, Miller, Gould-Wells,
and Carpenter
NOES: None
RECUSED: None
ABSENT: None
The motion carried on a 7:0 vote.
Attachment 3
RESOLUTION NO. 5484-07
A RESOLUTION OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION
RECOMMENDING APPROVAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF NEGATIVE
DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTATL IMPACT AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP FOR
10 RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM UNITS FOR PROPERTY AT 625 TORO STREET;
TR and ER 176-05 (TRACT 2784)
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 27, 2007, for the purpose of considering application TR and ER 176-05, a request to allow a
ten-unit residential airspace condominium subdivision; and
WHEREAS, said public hearing was for the purpose of formulating and forwarding
recommendations to the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo regarding the project; and
WHEREAS, notices of said public hearing were made at the time and in the manner
required by law; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed and considered the Negative
Declaration of environmental impact for the project; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has duly considered all evidence, including the
testimony of the applicant, interested parties, and the evaluation and recommendations by staff,
presented at said hearing.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of
San Luis Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. Findings.
1. The proposed tentative tract map is consistent with the General Plan because the subdivision
will provide for residential development consistent with the High Density Residential Zone.
2. As conditioned, the design and improvement of the proposed subdivision is consistent with
the General Plan because each dwelling has access to compact, private open space area and
adequate common open space and recreation areas, and the development will occur as part of
the neighborhood pattern anticipated for the high density residential zone.
3. The site is physically suited for the proposed type of development because it is an in-fill site
surrounded by similar developments, and will replace an existing non-conforming use.
4. As conditioned, the site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development
because the site is within an existing City block, services are available to serve the
development, and utilities have been designed to serve the site per City standards.
5. The design of the subdivision, or the type of improvements, is not likely to cause substantial
environmental damage or substantially and unavoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat
;2 =G3
PC Resolution No. 5484-07 Attachment 5
TR and ER 176-05 (625 Toro St.)
Page 2
because the site does not have any creeks or other potentially significant habitat areas for fish
or wildlife.
6. The design of the subdivision, or type of improvements, is not likely to cause serious public
health problems because the type of improvements are residential and development will be
designed to meet existing building and safety codes.
7. The design of the subdivision, or the type of improvements, will not conflict with easements,
acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, property within the proposed
subdivision because no such easements exist.
8. A Negative Declaration was prepared by the Community Development Department on June
6, 2007. The Planning Commission finds and determines that the project's Mitigated
Negative Declaration adequately identifies and evaluates the potential impacts associated
with this project and where impacts are potentially significant, mitigation measures are
provided to reduce these impacts to less than significant levels.
SECTION 2. Action.
The Commission hereby recommends approval of the tentative tract map for ten residential units
and adoption of said Mitigated Negative Declaration (TR and ER 176-05), with the following
mitigation measures and monitoring program, and with incorporation of the following project
conditions:
1. The final design of the project, lot lines, and subdivision improvements shall be consistent
with the Architectural Review Commission plan approval of March 5, 2007, and
incorporating all conditions upon that approval, and mitigation measures included in
Negative Declaration(ER 176-01).
2. Applicant shall pay the Inclusionary Housing in-lieu fee prior to issuance of building permits.
3. The final map shall indicate common and private open space yards and the CC&R's shall
describe maintenance of all common areas.
4. Long term bicycle storage shall be supplied for each unit, to the approval of the Community
Development Director.
5. The applicant shall pay Park In-Lieu Fees prior to recordation of the Final Map, consistent
with SLO Municipal Code Section 16.40.080.
6. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66474.9(b), the subdivider shall defend, indemnify
and hold harmless the City and/or its agents, officers and employees from any claim, action
or proceeding against the City and/or its agents, officers or employees to attack, set aside,
void or annul, the approval by the City of this subdivision, and all actions relating thereto,
including but not limited to environmental review.
7. The final map shall be revised to reflect a minimum driveway width of 20 feet consistent
with the ARC approval. —�
PC Resolution No. 5484-07 Attachment
TR and ER 176-05(625 Toro St.)
Page 3
8. Subdivider shall prepare conditions, covenants, and restrictions (CC&R's) to be approved by
the Community Development Director and City Attorney prior to final map approval.
CC&R's shall contain the following provisions:
a. Creation of a homeowners' association to enforce the CC&R's and provide for
professional, perpetual maintenance of all common areas including private driveways,
drainage, on-site sewer facilities, parking lot areas, walls and fences, lighting, and
landscaping.
b. Grant to the City the right to maintain common areas if the homeowners' association
fails to perform, and to assess the homeowners' association for expenses incurred, and
the right of the city to inspect the site at mutually agreed times to assure conditions of
CC&R's and final map are being met.
c. No parking except in approved, designated spaces.
d. Grant to the city the right to tow away vehicles on a complaint basis which are parked
in unauthorized places.
e. No outdoor storage of boats, campers, motorhomes, or trailers nor long-term storage
of inoperable vehicles.
f. No outdoor storage by individual units except in designated storage areas.
g. No change in City-required provisions of the CC&R's without prior City Council
approval.
h. Homeowners' association shall file with the City Clerk the names and addresses of all
officers of the homeowners' association within 15 days of any change in officers of
the association.
i. Provision of appropriate "no parking" signs and red-curbing along interior roadways
as required by the City Fire Department.
j. CC&R's shall not prohibit location of solar clothes drying facilities in private yards
which are substantially screened from view.
k. All garages must be available for parking a vehicle at all times, to be enforced by the
homeowners association and the City.
I. No change in City-required provisions for trash collection without prior Community
Development Director approval.
m. No rooms other than those designated as bedrooms may be used as sleeping rooms.
r 1r
PC Resolution No. 5484-07 Attachment 5
TR and ER 176-05 (625 Toro St.)
Page 4
Code requirements:
The following code requirements are included for information purposes only. They serve to give
the applicant a general idea of other City requirements that will apply to the project. This is not
intended to be an exhaustive list as other requirements may be identified during the plan check
process.
1. Traffic impact fees shall be paid for this development prior to building permit issuance.
Credit for removal of the existing buildings will be applied based on the use and/or areas of
the existing development. Credit will only be applied to permanent, lawfully existing
structures.
2. Park in-lieu fees shall be paid prior to map recordation.
3. Impact fee credit may be available for the demolition of existing structures.
4. Complete frontage improvements will be required as a condition of the subdivision. The
improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the engineering standards in effect at
the time of encroachment permit issuance. Any sections of damaged or displaced curb, gutter
& sidewalk or driveway approach shall be repaired or replaced to the satisfaction of the
Public Works Director.
5. The subdivision grading plan submittal shall show and note compliance with Engineering
Standard 1010.13 for Storm Water Quality Management. This code requirement is applicable
to new or redeveloped sites where the total area of impervious surfaces is more than 10,000
square feet. Water quality management is required for the runoff from uncovered parking
and driveway areas. An upgrade to the existing facilities and improvements is required.
Include analysis showing that the proposed water quality design is able to treat runoff from
the prescribed storm event. The report shall show treatment for runoff for 28% of the 2-year
storm event or from a 1'/24-hour storm event. Include by-pass structures or systems
accordingly. Provide a separate conveyance system to keep roof drainage from draining
through the parking lot if feasible.
6. The subdivision grading and building plan submittal shall include a complete grading,
drainage and erosion control plan. The grading plan shall show existing structures and
grades located within 15' of the property lines and/or building pad in accordance with the
grading ordinance. The plan shall include all existing and proposed grades, finish floor
elevations, and spot elevations to depict the site drainage. The plan shall include all existing
and proposed drainage devices and systems. The plan shall consider historic offsite drainage
tributary to this property that may need to be conveyed along with the improved on-site
drainage. The erosion control plan shall be prepared per city standards and in accordance
with the Waterways Management Plan Drainage Design Manual, recognized BMP's, and the
California Stormwater Quality Association BMP Handbook.
PC Resolution No. 5484-07 Attachment 5
TR and ER 176-05 (625 Toro St.)
Page 5
On motion by Vice-Chair Stevenson, seconded by Commissioner Carpenter, and on the
following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Carpenter, Miller, Ashbaugh, Brodie, Gould-Wells, Stevenson,
and Christianson
NOES: None
RECUSED: None
ABSENT: None
The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 27`h day of June, 2007.
Doug Davidsoh, Slyecretary
Planning Commission
Attachment a
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT ITEM# 1
BY: Jaime Hill, Associate Planner(781-7165) li- MEETING DATE: June 27, 2007
FROM: Doug Davidson, Deputy Director-Development Review
FILE NUMBER: TR,ER 176-05
PROJECT ADDRESS: 625 Toro
SUBJECT: Review of a proposed 10-unit condominium subdivision and Mitigated Negative
Declaration.
SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION
Recommend approval of the proposed tentative map and Mitigated Negative Declaration to the
City Council based on findings and subject to conditions of approval.
BACKGROUND
Situation
The City has received an application to subdivide a 0.45 acre site for a 10-unit condominium
project. The project site is in the High Density Residential Zone (R-4) and is presently
developed with the El Toro Motel. The proposed development consists of 1 and 2-bedroom
townhouse units, each with an attached two-car garage. The projects' layout and design was
approved by the Architectural Review Commission (ARC) on March 5, 2007, with refinements
noted in the conditions of approval. The project is also subject to environmental review, and an
Initial Study of Environmental Impact and Mitigated Negative Declaration have been prepared.
The Planning Commission is being asked to make a recommendation on the proposed
subdivision and environmental document to the City Council..
Data.Summary
Address: 625 Toro
Applicant/Property Owner: Namaji Enterprise
Representative: Ernie Kim
Zoning: R-4(High-Density Residential)
General Plan: High-Density Residential
Environmental Status: A Mitigated Negative Declaration was recommended by the
Community Development Director on June 6, 2007.
Attachment 5
TR,ER 176-05 (625 Toro)
Page 2
Site Description
The 19,600 square foot site has an irregular shape and is bordered by both Toro Street and
Highway 101. The project is surrounded by residential development of similar density;
Residential land to the south, west, and northeast of the project site is zoned for High Density(R-
4) development. Residential land to the east of the project site is zoned for Medium-High (R-3)
development. The project site is on the northern edge of the Downtown Planning Area. The site
is one-half block north of the Mill Street.Historic District. Highway 101 travel lanes are located
approximately 68 feet from the rear property line of the project site, and northbound off-ramps
are located at the site's northeast comer. Dense shrubs and trees on the Cal-trans property
occupy the space between the property line and the highway. The site slopes down hill
approximately 15 feet from Toro Street towards Highway 101.
Proiect Description
The project is a condominium subdivision of an existing 0.45 acre site. The project includes 2
one-bedroom units and 8 two-bedroom units for a total of 10 dwellings. The homes would have
a townhouse configuration with attached two-car garages. Including the garages, the homes have
two levels and a maximum height of 31 feet. Private open space is provided through a
combination of decks and balconies, with many of the units having ground level yards.
Recreation space is provided in the form of a turf and patio area. The project site is presently
developed with a small motel, known as the El Toro Motel. Project plans indicate that all
improvements associated with the motel would be demolished. One of the two palms, all of the
eucalyptus trees on the site, and the dense vegetation on Cal Trans property, will be removed as
part of the site redevelopment. All tree removals are noted on the demolition plan. A noise
study has been prepared for the project, which includes recommendations for construction
techniques to reduce noise levels from Highway 101. A traffic study has also been prepared for
the project, evaluating the design of the entry into the project and impacts on the flow of traffic
off of the highway exit. Additionally, the on-street parking along the site's frontage, south of the
project driveway, will be eliminated to improve sight distance to the north, for vehicles exiting
the freeway.
EVALUATION
The following evaluation is intended to provide a framework for the Planning Commission to
discuss the project. Staff has evaluated the project with respect to consistency with the City's
General Plan and with all of the development related codes, including the Zoning Regulations
and Subdivision Regulations. The Planning Commission should consider each of the following
issue areas prior to making a recommendation on the subdivision and Mitigated Negative
Declaration.
�J Attachment 5
TR,ER 176-05 (625 Toro)
Page 3
1. General Plan Consistency
In order to approve the proposed subdivision, the City Council must find that the project is
consistent with the General Plan.. The following is an analysis of General Plan policies that
pertain to the proposed development. Staff's analysis is provided in italics.
Land Use Element Goal 29) Maintain existing neighborhoods and assure that new
development occurs as part of a neighborhood pattern.
The project entails replacing a legal non-conforming motel with housing that is similar in
density and orientation to surrounding developments. Adjacent projects include a range of
development types and this project will fit in well with the existing pattern.
Land Use Element Goal 31) Grow gradually outward from its historic center until its
ultimate boundaries are reached,maintaining a compact urban form.
The project helps the City achieve this goal by developing the project site near the maximum
allowable density. The site is within the Downtown Planning Area and represent an infill
development opportunity.
Land Use Element Policy 2.2.12: Residential Project Objectives - Residential projects should
provide:
A)Privacy,for occupants and neighbors of the project;
Each unit of the project has either private ground-level yards at the rear of the units or decks
that open up to the courtyard area, but that are deep enough to insure privacy. Decks looking
out over adjacent properties are minimized.
B) Adequate usable outdoor area, sheltered from noise and prevailing winds, and oriented
to receive light and sunshine; C) Use of natural ventilation, sunlight, and shade to make
indoor and outdoor spaces comfortable with minimum mechanical support; D) Pleasant
views from and toward the project;
The common open space area at the southwestern corner of the site includes seating and
landscape amenities and will have good southern solar exposure. This area, as well as the
private yards, will be shielded from wind and highway noise by the proposed sound barrier
fencing. The project will provide pleasant views out and in, particularly at the Toro Street
elevation.
E) Security and safety; F) Separate paths for vehicles and for people, and bike paths along
' f \J �►merrt
E
TR, ER 176-05 (625 Toro)
Page 4
collector streets;
The driveway is 20 feet wide, which will allow ample width for cars to easily pass one another
while entering and exiting the site. Direct pedestrian access from Toro Street will be provided to
the units fronting the street. Pedestrians going to the rear units will use the driveway.
G)Adequate parking and storage space;
Each unit has an attached two-car garage, with storage areas that generally comply with the
minimum storage requirements of 200 cubic feet..
H)Noise and visual separation from adjacent roads and commercial uses.
The project site is subject to excessive noise levels from the adjacent highway. The project has
been designed to shield the highway noise through a combination of building orientation and
noise barriers. A noise study prepared for the project recommended several construction
techniques to diminish noise levels, which have been incorporated into mitigation measures.
I) Design elements that facilitate neighborhood interaction, such as front porches, front
yards along streets,and entryways facing public walkways.
The courtyard design, with a central turf and patio area, offers the potential for unique and
lively atmosphere within the project site. The orientation of the buildings on Toro Street, with
entries and front yards, will provide a pleasant environment for pedestrians.
J) Buffers from hazardous materials transport routes, as recommended by the City Fire
Department.
The City Fire Marshall has reviewed the proposed project for compliance with this standard and
raised no concerns.
Land Use Element Policy 2.4.8: High-Density Residential—Development should be primarily
attached dwellings in two or three-story buildings, with common outdoor areas and very compact
private outdoor spaces. Other uses which are supportive of and compatible with these dwellings,
such as group housing, parks, schools, and churches may be permitted. Such development is
appropriate near the college campus, the downtown core, and major concentrations of
employment.
The project includes two story townhouse style dwellings, with compact private outdoor spaces.
Common areas are also relatively compact, but meet the standards contained in the Zoning
Regulations. The project site is within the Downtown Planning Area, making alternative
Attachment 5
TR,ER 176-05 (625 Toro)
Page 5
transportation a viable option for the residents of the project.
Housing Element Policy 3.13.1: Character, Size, Density and Quality — Within established
neighborhoods, new residential development shall be of a character, size, density, and quality
that preserves the neighborhood character and maintains the quality of life for existing and future
residents.
The project is developed at an appropriate size and density for the R4 zone. The project site is
surrounded by other R-2 and R-3 properties, with the closest R-2 property across Walnut Street.
The quality and character of the project are defined by the replacement of a non-conforming
commercial use (motel) with housing that is similar in scale to surround development, and the
building design and landscaping treatment in the front yards areas. The project is a high
quality, and will enhance and add life to the existing neighborhood character.
2. Subdivision Design and Property Development Standards
The following is an overall evaluation of the project with respect to the City's conventional
property development standards, including subdivision design, density, setbacks and parking. In
addition to Chapter 17.16 of the Zoning Regulations (Property Development Standards), this
project is subject to the requirements contained in Chapter 16.17 of the Subdivisions (Common
Interest Subdivisions and Condominium Conversions).
Subdivision Design
The subdivision is designed with the buildings at the perimeter oriented to the interior courtyard.
A single 20-foot wide driveway provides access to the site, approximately 5 feet south of the
existing motel driveway. Private open space in this project is provided with a combination of
ground level yards and balconies. Each unit includes two levels, with an attached two-car
garage.
The proposed private drive allows for two-way traffic to the private garages and two designated
guest parking spaces. As conditioned by the Architectural Review Commission, the motor court
will include areas of colored and stamped concrete, brick, inter-locking pavers or other materials.
The driveway entrance to the project will be a street type entrance.
The site slopes down hill approximately 15 feet from Toro Street towards Highway 101. Building
and Planning staff have reviewed the plan and found it to be consistent with the City's Parking
and Driveway Standards. The motor court includes adequate turnaround areas to allow vehicles
to exit the site in a forward direction with only two maneuvers. A small patio and turf area is
shown on the plans, and will include amenities such as a small bench and shade trellis.
Attachment 5
TR, ER 176-05 (625 Toro)
Page 6
The Toro Street elevation includes walks and private entrances to the three units fronting the
street. There are no individual driveways to the units that front on Toro Street. This quality is
strongly emphasized through the building design and landscaping plan, creating a classic
streetscape view that is not dominated by driveways and parked cars. The front yards include
multiple street trees and annual hedges to provide a transition between the sidewalk and the units.
Sheet PC-4 of the architectural plans include Toro Street elevations.
Densi
The proposed project meets the density standards provided in the Zoning Regulations. In the R-4
(High-Density) residential zone, the maximum number of dwelling units per acre is 24. The
following table summarizes the density unit value of the project.
PROJECT DENSITY
.o �ize
2•'�Y '�vrt. �. a"a,,,,r�ar a. x- t'd a,a• ' # ti a4;: 's M +M' ryST"!
.r' 7"��VC 21I ' T`e
.45 acres or 19,600 ft.2 .45 x 24 = 2 lbdr * 0.66 units = 1.32 units
10.8 density units 8 2bdr * 1.00 units = 8.00 units
Total =9.32 units
Setbacks
In the R-4 zone, the required street yard is 15 feet and other yards have a dimension of 5 to 10
feet depending on building height. A detailed review of the architectural plans indicates that the
project meets all City setback standards.
Parking
The total parking requirement for the project is 21 vehicle parking spaces, based on the following
breakdown. Each two-bedroom unit in the project requires 2 parking spaces, and the one-
bedroom units require 1.5 parking spaces each, or 3 spaces. Each of the units are provided with a
two-car garage. 1.6 guest parking spaces (rounded up to 2) are required at the rate of 1 per every
5 dwellings. The current site plan includes 22 vehicle parking spaces, one more than the total
required. The tentative tract map incorrectly shows three guest parking spaces, where there are
only two. As depicted on the approved architectural plans, the northernmost area, adjacent to
Unit 5, is the location of the required common trash enclosure. A condition of approval has been
recommended to insure that the final design is consistent with layout and details provided with
the architectural plans.
Z ,73
Attachment 5
TR,ER 176-05 (625 Toro)
Page 7
Common and Private Open Space
Common open space, private open space and recreation space are required to be provided by the
City's Development Standards for Common Interest Subdivisions (Chapter 16.17.030 of the
Subdivision Regulations). This project meets these standards through a combination of decks,
balconies, private yard areas, common open space area at the southwest comer of the site. The
open space areas are shown on sheet PC-1.1 of the architectural plans (Attachment 2).
3. Environmental Review
The Community Development Director has recommended a Mitigated Negative Declaration for
the project. The recommendation and initial study are attached to this staff report (Attachment
4). Staff identified potentially significant effects of the project in the areas of noise and traffic.
Many of the project's potential impacts are addressed by existing ordinances, such as the City's
policies regarding drainage and trash &recycling collection.
Noise
The Initial Study identifies potentially significant impacts from highway noise. An acoustical
analysis was prepared for the project and the recommendations of the analysis have been
incorporated into the project design. The units on the north and northwest side of the property,
combined with sound walls along this edge of the project site, act as a noise barrier for the
proposed outdoor use areas. In addition, specific building practices are recommended for noise
reduction, which are required to be implemented as part of the development. Implementation of
the recommendations contained in the analysis are sufficient to mitigate potential impacts to less
than significant levels.
Traffic
Potentially significant traffic impacts were identified relative to hazards from vehicles queuing
on Toro Street as vehicles turn into the project site. The present traffic volume on Toro Street
from vehicles exiting Highway 101 en route to Santa Rosa Street is substantial. At times the
traffic is backed up to the off-ramp. However, accounting for the existing motel on the site, the
additional trips generated by the residential development would result in a minimal increase in
the number of net new vehicle trips, which would not degrade the existing operations of Toro
Street. Additionally, the proposed driveway will be located 5 feet south of the existing motel
driveway, which despite not meeting the required stopping distance, is an improvement over
existing conditions. Based on existing sight limitations and available site frontage, the driveway
is in the best possible location. In order to improve the site distance to the greatest extent
possible, parking along the project frontage to the north will be eliminated, and vegetation
limited to low growing plants.
2 '�y
Aftac�iment 5
TR,ER 176-05 (625 Toro)
Page 8
REFERRALS AND PUBLIC COMMENT
The project proposal was routed to various City departments and other interested agencies such
as the Air Pollution Control District and Cal Trans. Comments received have been incorporated
as conditions of approval where necessary.
ALTERNATIVES
1. Continue the item. An action to continue the item should include a detailed list of additional
information or project modifications required.
2. Recommend denial of the project to the City Council. Action denying the application should
include the basis for denial. If the condominium map is denied, then the applicant could still
potentially develop the site with an apartment project.
Attachments:
Attachment 1: Vicinity Map
Attachment 2: Reduced Size Development Plan
Attachment 3: ARC Follow-Up, Minutes and Staff Report
Attachment 4: Initial Study of Environmental Impact and Mitigated Negative Declaration
Attachment 5: Draft Planning Commission Resolution with findings and conditions as
recommended by staff
G:VMl1\Subdivision\176-05 TR-ER(625 Taro)Tetra del Toro\176-05 TR(625 Toro).DOC
z 1s
Attachment G
RESOLUTION NO. ####-07
A RESOLUTION OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO CITY COUNCIL APPROVING A
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT FOR A TEN-UNIT CONDOMINIUM DEVELOPMENT
LOCATED AT 625 TORO STREET (TRIER 176-05)
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public
hearing in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on
June 27, 2007 pursuant to an application filed by Namaji Enterprise, property owners, and
recommended approval of the subdivision map to the City Council; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo has considered testimony of
the applicant, interested parties, and evaluation and recommendations by staff, and
WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the draft Negative Declaration of
environmental impact as prepared by staff;
BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of San Luis Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. Findings.
I. The proposed tentative tract map is consistent with the General Plan because the subdivision
will provide for residential development consistent with the High Density Residential Zone.
2. As conditioned, the design and improvement of the proposed subdivision is consistent with
the General Plan because each dwelling has access to compact, private open space area and
adequate common open space and recreation areas, and the development will occur as part of
the neighborhood pattern anticipated for the high density residential zone.
3. The site is physically suited for the proposed type of development because it is an in-fill site
surrounded by similar developments, and will replace an existing non-conforming use.
4. As conditioned, the site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development
because the site is within an existing City block, services are available to serve the
development, and utilities have been designed to serve the site per City standards..
5. The design of the subdivision, or the type of improvements, is not likely to cause substantial
environmental damage or substantially and unavoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat
because the site does not have any creeks or other potentially significant Habitat areas for fish
or wildlife.
6. The design of the subdivision, or type of improvements, is not likely to cause serious public
health problems because the type of improvements are residential and development will be
designed to meet existing building and safety codes.
7. The design of the subdivision, or the type of improvements, will not conflict with easements, J
.�GY
Attachment
Resolution No.#tl##-07
625 Toro Street 176-07
Page 2
acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, property within the proposed
subdivision because no such easements exist.
8. A Negative Declaration was prepared by the Community Development Department on June
6, 2007, and found to be adequate by the Planning Commission on June 2.7, 2007. The City
Council finds and determines that the project's Mitigated Negative Declaration adequately
identifies and evaluates the potential impacts associated with this project and where impacts
are potentially significant, mitigation measures are provided to reduce these impacts to less
than significant levels.
SECTION 2. Action.
The Council hereby approves the tentative tract map for a ten-unit residential condominium
development and adoption of said Mitigated Negative Declaration (TR/ER 176-05), with the
following mitigation measures and monitoring program, and with incorporation of the following
project conditions:
1. The final design of the project, lot lines, and subdivision improvements shall be consistent
with the Architectural Review Commission plan approval of March 5, 2007, and
incorporating all conditions upon that approval, and mitigation measures included in
Negative Declaration (ER 176-01).
2. Applicant shall pay the Inclusionary Housing in-lieu fee prior to issuance of building permits.
3. The final map shall indicate common and private open space yards and the CC&R's shall
describe maintenance of all common areas.
4. Long term bicycle storage shall be supplied for each unit, to the approval of the Community
Development Director.
5. The applicant shall pay Park In-Lieu Fees prior to recordation of the Final Map, consistent
with SLO Municipal Code Section 16.40.080.
6. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66474.9(b), the subdivider shall defend, indemnify
and hold harmless the City and/or its agents, officers and employees from any claim, action
or proceeding against the City and/or its agents, officers or employees to attack, set aside,
void or annul, the approval by the City of this subdivision, and all actions relating thereto,
including but not limited to environmental review.
7. The final map shall be revised to reflect a minimum driveway width of 20 feet consistent
with the ARC approval.
8. Subdivider shall prepare conditions, covenants, and restrictions (CC&R's) to be approved by
the Community Development Director and City Attorney prior to final map approval.
CC&R's shall contain the following provisions:
Resolution No. 07 �._J Attachment u
625 Toro Street 176-07
Page 3
a. Creation of a homeowners' association to enforce the CC&R's and provide for
professional, perpetual maintenance of all common areas including private driveways,
drainage, on-site sewer facilities, parking lot areas, walls and fences, lighting, and
landscaping.
b. Grant to the City the right to maintain common areas if the homeowners' association
fails to perform, and to assess the homeowners' association for expenses incurred, and
the right of the city to inspect the site at mutually agreed times to assure conditions of
CC&R's and final map are being met.
c. No parking except in approved, designated spaces.
d. Grant to the city the right to tow away vehicles on a complaint basis which are parked
in unauthorized places.
e. No outdoor storage of boats, campers, motorhomes, or trailers nor long-term storage
of inoperable vehicles.
f. No outdoor storage by individual units except in designated storage areas.
g. No change in City-required provisions of the CC&R's without prior City Council
approval.
h. Homeowners' association shall file with the City Clerk the names and addresses of all
officers of the homeowners' association within 15 days of any change in officers of
the association.
i. Provision of appropriate "no parking" signs and red-curbing along interior roadways
as required by the City Fire Department.
j. CC&R's shall not prohibit location of solar clothes drying facilities in private yards
which are substantially screened from view.
k. All garages must be available for parking a vehicle at all times, to be enforced by the
homeowners association and the City.
1. No change in City-required provisions for trash collection without prior Community
Development Director approval.
m. No rooms other than those designated as bedrooms may be used as sleeping rooms.
Code requirements:
The following code requirements are included for information purposes only. They serve to give
the applicant a general idea of other City requirements that will apply to the project. This is not
�d
Attachment 3
Resolution No.###1#-07
625 Toro Street 176-07
Page 4
intended to be an exhaustive list as other requirements may be identified during the plan check
process.
1. Traffic impact fees shall be paid for this development prior to building permit issuance.
Credit for removal of the existing buildings will be applied based on the use and/or areas of
the existing development. Credit will only be applied to permanent, lawfully existing
structures.
2. Park in-lieu fees shall be paid prior to map recordation.
I Impact fee credit may be available for the demolition of existing structures.
4. Complete frontage improvements will be required as a condition of the subdivision. The
improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the engineering standards in effect at
the time of encroachment permit issuance. Any sections of damaged or displaced curb, gutter
& sidewalk or driveway approach shall be repaired or replaced to the satisfaction of the
Public Works Director.
5. The subdivision grading plan submittal shall show and note compliance with Engineering
Standard 1010.B for Storm Water Quality Management. This code requirement is applicable
to new or redeveloped sites where the total area of impervious surfaces is more than 10,000
square feet. Water quality management is required for the runoff from uncovered parking
and driveway areas. An upgrade to the existing facilities and improvements is required.
Include analysis showing that the proposed water quality design is able to treat runoff from
the prescribed storm event. The report shall show treatment for runoff for 28% of the 2-year
storm event or from a 1"/24-hour storm event. Include by-pass structures or systems
accordingly. Provide a separate conveyance system to keep roof drainage from draining
through the parking lot if feasible.
6. The subdivision grading and building plan submittal shall include a complete grading,
drainage and erosion control plan. The grading plan shall show existing structures and grades
located within 15' of the property lines and/or building pad in accordance with the grading
ordinance. The plan shall include all existing and proposed grades, finish floor elevations,
and spot elevations to depict the site drainage. The plan shall include all existing and
proposed drainage devices and systems. The plan shall consider historic offsite drainage
tributary to this property that may need to be conveyed along with the improved on-site
drainage. The erosion control plan shall be prepared per city standards and in accordance
with the Waterways Management Plan Drainage Design Manual, recognized BMP's, and the
California Stormwater Quality Association BMP Handbook.
=7�
Resolution No:#1###k 07 �� Attachment v
625 Toro Street 176-07
Page 5
On motion by , seconded by , and on
the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this day of , 2007.
Mayor David F. Romero
ATTEST:
Audrey Hooper, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
an Lowell, City Attorney
GNHUSubdivision\176-05 TR-ER(625 Toro)Tena del Toro\Council Reso 1-06.doc
' O D