Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/20/2007, PH 1 - GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND REZONE FROM MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (R-2-H) TO MEDIUM-HIGH DENSITY RE council hfmd,D.� 11 p o-7 j acEnba Repont lt..N.mh,. CITY O F SAN LUIS O B I S P O FROM: John Mandeville, Community Development Direct r Prepared By: Tyler Corey, Associate Planner SUBJECT: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND REZONE FROM MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (R-2-H) TO MEDIUM-HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (R-3-H) FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 871 ISLAY STREET (GP/R/ER 8-06). CAO RECOMMENDATION As recommended by the Planning Commission: 1. Adopt a resolution approving a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impact (ER 8-06) and amending the General Plan Land Use Element Map to change the land use designation of 871 Islay Street from Medium Density Residential to Medium-High Density Residential. 2. Introduce an ordinance changing the zoning for 871 Islay Street from Medium Density Residential Historic (R-2=H)to Medium-High Density Residential Historic (R-3-H). DISCUSSION Data Summary Addresses: 871 & 879 Islay Street Applicant: Mike McNamara Representative: Ernie Kim Zoning: R-2-H & R-3-H (Medium Density Residential Historic & Medium-High Density Residential Historic) General Plan: Medium Density Residential & Medium-High Density Residential Environmental Status: A Mitigated Negative Declaration was recommended by the Deputy Director on September 13, 2007 (ER 8-06). Final action on the Initial Study will be taken by the City Council. Situation The City has received an application for a General Plan Amendment and Rezoning (GP/R) on a 6,530 square-foot parcel located on the southeast side of Islay Street between Chorro and Morro Streets (Attachment 2). Specifically, the applicant would like to amend 871 Islay Street's land use and zoning designations from Medium Density Residential (R-2-H)to Medium-High Density l — � Council Agenda Report—GP/IUR 8-06 November 20,2007 Page 2 Residential (R-3-H), consistent with 879 Islay Street's designation, to accommodate a four unit residential development and common interest subdivision project involving both properties. The Subdivision Regulations require that new lot lines be contiguous with existing zoning boundaries and have logical patterns. In order to meet these requirements, the proposed four lot common interest subdivision involving both 871 & 879 Islay would need uniform zoning and additional site density. Without the GP/R, the subdivision approach would need to be modified to airspace condominiums or the number of bedrooms proposed within the units would need to be reduced. On September 26, 2007, the Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval of the project to the City Council (Attachment 4). On October 22, 2007 the CHC unanimously recommended approval of the project to the City Council (Attachment 5). Site Description The project site consists of approximately 13,350 square feet located on the southeast side of Islay Street between Chorro and Morro Streets within the Old Town Historic District. 871 Islay Street is vacant and 879 Islay Street is developed with a Contributing historic building, which is situated toward the rear of the property. The surrounding area is primarily residential in character and developed with single-family residences and apartments. Zoning surrounding the site is shown in the attached vicinity map (Attachment 1). Project Description The project is a proposal to amend the land use and zoning designations of 871 Islay Street from Medium-Density Residential (R-2-H) to Medium-High Density Residential (R-3-H), consistent with 879 Islay Street's designation, to accommodate a four unit residential development and common interest subdivision project involving both properties. The project includes relocation and rehabilitation of the historic building, and converting its use from a duplex to a single-family residence, reconstructing the front porch and entry, removing the stairway and landing on the west building elevation, moving the structure approximately 35 closer to Islay Street and adding a 2-car garage and master bedroom at the rear of the house. By converting the building back to a single-family residence, non-original features, including the I" level ramp and 2nd level doorways and balconies would be removed. In addition to modifications to the historic structure, three additional units are proposed, including two 2-bedroom dwellings and one 3-bedroom dwelling. Other components of the project include the development of a common driveway toward the center of the site, common open space areas with enhanced paving, BBQ, fixed seating and trellis feature, installation of landscaping, site grading and installation of utilities and 9 vehicle parking spaces (8 located within individual garages for occupants of the units and one unenclosed guest parking space). The one existing tree on the site will be retained. 1 Council Agenda Report—GP/R/ER 8-06 November 20,2007 Page 3 Planning Commission Action On September 26, 2007, the Planning Commission, on a 5-0 vote (Christianson and Brodie absent) recommended that the City Council approve the project, based on findings and subject to conditions and code requirements (Attachment 4). Prior to the meeting, staff received five letters supporting the project from residents in the neighborhood (Attachment 6). Commission discussion was brief and focused on the need to intensify residential development on vacant and underdeveloped land within the City. One person spoke during the public hearing portion of the meeting. Darren Kraker, 827 Islay, did not support additional development adjacent to his property and had concerns with potential privacy and overlook impacts from the project. The draft Planning Commission hearing minutes are attached (Attachments 7). Cultural Heritage Committee Action On October 22, 2007, the Cultural Heritage Committee (CHC); on a 7-0 vote recommended that the City Council approve the Mitigated Negative Declaration (ER 8-06) and development plan, as proposed (Attachment 5). The CHC found the project architecturally compatible with the Old Town Historic District and consistent with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties. Other than testimony from the project applicant and representative, no further public comment was received. General Plan Consistency The attached Planning Commission staff report includes a complete General Plan analysis for the project (Attachment 8). The Planning Commission found the project consistent with the General Plan for the following reasons: 1) The height, mass, density and architectural style of the project is compatible with adjacent developments. 2) The addition of four residential units will incrementally add to the City's Medium-High Density Residential housing inventory. 3) The proposed site design and unit configuration minimizes privacy and overlook impacts for occupants and neighbors. 4) The project includes the rehabilitation of a Contributing historic resource. Development Potential This application to rezone 871 Islay would increase the residential density value for the project site(871 & 879 Islay) from 4.62 units to 5.52 units. The density of the proposed development is 4.50 units. The additional density afforded by the GP/R would be utilized to accommodate a four lot common interest subdivision consistent with the Subdivision Regulation requirements for the location of new lot lines. As previously mentioned, without the GP/R the subdivision approach would need to be modified to airspace condominiums or the number of bedrooms l � � Council Agenda-Report—GP/R/ER 5-06 November 20,2007 Page 4 within the units would need to be reduced. If Council approves the GP/R, then the residential development plans and subdivision would be reviewed by the Community Development Director for compliance with the Community Design Guidelines and Subdivision Regulations. Compatibility with Surrounding Land Uses The project site is located within an older established residential neighborhood and surrounded by medium-high density, single and multi-family residences and apartments. All surrounding properties are developed with housing and most include multiple units at a comparable density ratio. Therefore, development of the site with four residences (4.50 density units) would be compatible with adjacent uses. No adverse impacts to the surrounding neighborhood are anticipated by the proposed GP/R. Environmental Review The Initial Study of Environmental Impact does not identify any impacts that are considered significant and unavoidable (Attachment 9). The proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration includes mitigation measures to reduce the identified impacts to less than significant levels. Areas where mitigation measures are recommended include air quality and cultural resources. Conclusion The proposed GP/R for 871 Islay seems appropriate at this location because it would allow the two parcel development project to be developed within a single zoning district and provide for a logical R-3-H zone boundary at a mid-block location. The zone change would split the block equally between R-2-H and R-3-H. Although additional dwelling units or bedrooms would not be created with the GP/R, it would facilitate the development of a high-quality infill project that includes the rehabilitation of a Contributing historic resource. 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. The Council may approve the project with modified findings and/or conditions. 2. The Council may deny the project, based on findings of inconsistency with the General Plan as specified by the Council. 3. The Council may continue review of the project, if more information is needed. i — �n Council Agenda Report—GP/R/ER 8-06 November 20,2007 Page 5 Direction should be given to staff and the applicants. ATTACHMENTS 1. Vicinity Map 2. Land use and zoning map 3. Reduced scale project plans 4. Planning Commission Resolution No. 5491-07 5. CHC meeting update 6. Letters received prior to the Planning Commission meeting 7. Draft Planning Commission minutes 8. Planning Commission staff report 9. Initial Study(ER 8-06) 10. Draft Resolution "A" as recommended by the Planning Commission and staff 11. Draft Ordinance as recommended by the Planning Commission and staff 12. Alternative Draft Resolution `B" to deny the proposed project G:\tcorey\CC\GP-R-ER 8-06(McNamam)\GP-R-ER 8-06rpt.doc 1 -� pl, File No. 8mO6 Attachment 2 GP/R 8-06 (871 & 879 Islay Street) , a-- r ' � { ��ygJ�47 j4' �'vr, �'a`e''J• yrs '`P aPm R- -H , ,�<�Lt 7� [", „. p' �r• ��rtc.� C 'G...-. '" '` ii � � hew y,• m ,�"`F� F`� �A�y�m3 J�y�•s r`•.{1� {•i'6`..�ra r ' j” sl„ yk, oda P �ei �, O.f1 . t �C ��.ah x. .?"u't .'�. . tr4✓+ .Y '1 .t4< 'e b u, e{y ,h"•4 "w'`5. � J•l.L.��1{"` f '` f. .. w o � ,.:.'. o r{ 879 Islay (Zoned R-3-H) s i ✓ u ? ,'i Y 1� a�'^° {� 871 Islay (Proposed R-2-H to R-3-H) ��i�x—r, ..,7�.a'�r..� a �r qtr a.;•x,�— a �m moo° �' �e ° ' q,. 9 'rc^vV s z too �.n�yr-. �� s.• �"UVJ- ✓.p5 e �' .2'� ax 4.r•�. •4 if�ad tJ4�1'r, + .�� y a � }.t f� 7 nr�•{:ytr� wss �,% .6' °Y °aF`rn`._,u �! �°. $dd.�� � o, °t Q' ed. t✓a � ` '�d� a*IJP' i b Jt ed ^y- r `P �R,, ,+�•` �f c E yJ $ "to��„� °l°9e^t�sv^'=;, 6 5 s F � v t�`rr �O\ " ~s Y ••" F l�yw'..-. T a. f{i�{�G r ,'C' � �, 4 � ;1•AG n y�r }Y �9 c " a � tc d�Nat{. p'�ugg '1 ti�4 's'-••y"hRY� �s{eex 1 �Rr,2 ` \'tom i t '��'m..K��'S`i+'C'.lE�1'�.•^e.F•P. jam•°'4 j 5''Mtm: R y. j ' .-t�F" r (: 7 fYYs- "�•`ta� ° ••yy %%axr��'� ^y �.4C`>'} ,� { N}. �.. �i�,, t d �+f,S a} '�3 4 ei ri i��,i'Yy4,.,,�,`•7 't;�' .0.w:�'J�r Y2. JI•.✓.s�G:.._eiii •il w. �k» .-�-5.-.. 'L'-•S �� .'L.u34Y l��i.^'.'`�..lu�� Y Attachment 3 I _____________ yT___________-_ . U 0 t iv I r U $ A Y I S I IN co rr � .<a .._...._.. � y U P .^y.. 1 Y a cz I I C � I a . 1 I I I I I 1 -� I Attachment 3 awmrmem mmr h . - YJ 'OdSTHO SIf17 NYS tOht6 YJ 06tfl06817 NYfi - L93&LS AY751 U9 mw T48 ' msarulsLaawsysoaysxrsssi i y�Ix 3 S a Ni 0 H x v T S I U C b 9 3Mn as tle€ IM I F Fes 4§e #� # # ## 3 k. ell V l ::# S@q p 4d 3 i $p tJpW, p pS aiSe Sy S d d d d e ® pp I A a B. d 3 iso C [/] 694 f441f4 ! F Ed A d i g 7 pd hpp. bA pAp Aqb pq i aAa Q 11 gel 8'. :3= al 11 b g d p p p 0o O i � oo Cc a4 O a Rim d 1 � c2S -�al9�pi}ii s:s i ae d h est% f via 554_ :t �Etg� ri�'vl o {�i6�{pe� e, iF ; •! ga"9 P.a_i �a ;Si: 1{u feaiTes v s ! i•ii i� pna . d a i{ Vlti �451T! !i eigss. 3Isi 3.EECp 1;i+{{! {5 • 3 ipeli ti an uaoml__ 1 6fe$ts ! 3F.tF{ bge �iFa 8 {d9b: !f " 78a ia% a 8f TS� ;7 'is �8 ;F iJill ' �.ya%.7 FF 7tt i 5•i S!Z 6! 9ieI5a l3 6f5H §a! fLUZ a ai% M as 5i ad < a e .. e Y • r a a F z a � U_ � R chment 3 Y� 'OdSIHO MnSIf11 NYS IlIE6 z 0abffiOWvvM 18fl$JS AY751 BGB UNY TLS ilESl!lIY JBSSES YS08 Y1NY6 ffl �jd JD3j 3wv YAUX MNdE[ S ISI 0 H I S I LL A v I S I ROD g$� I ilii Cl) Am EF f r°a nun° I °+F I I ,Ps` .4 €g I ! B I I z/Z S+ I I Sd Ua6 I e I 1 $i: d p °i airai t �a I I ss i I I I I us 1 N I I O pQ O 0� I a i yy e U 1 N I 1 d B¢ . 9 I I Si i @3 z I I 31 cam° I� I °\ � E✓ z lid H I I - I I � Fit ° F � sr pp h \� 2 p I I e 7I s I a u: u: I a a 1 r s N N ti F�F N N N I I I I I I e; 4Q -- ----------------- ------------------------3---- l �f vv a,o�o msvo MW �SM� a . � J�a8�"V Ta ' Attachment 3 Q,rUMMIMMIvx" JZ13j M,dv M �g S Ni 0 H A 'I S I 2 LaJ dei d: z: , j 4 i}il li3 € T9' E e t 00 - o eQ a n nC12s ,,e i e — t_} 4 a-}x t w Eis I g Ftpp ' Oct �i5 g' 6 aF� i9� 0 b a u LN d x~ x §� r.• r}. rn rw o rJ Q c d 2 ® z 0 U r}. z o a xm. F x ® t U C k ,< r Egg � k c !pp i S � b O ! t a k _ t 6I L ; -Lf .e wax a oa A-K Attachment 3 vo 'oas>ao SMI NYS � I tom VO oaflaosrmx" �� assays arm scs ON 149 - occauos>attsys yj"sssc ,a � � Vux31RH3 S9NI0H AV 'ISI �t fill . { f! 1 6 I I z I I _ o I I y I I o I I F I II I I � I I I I I I I I I I I I I o I i - I I I i co I I I I I I to z -- 03 I €P I I W I I I w I I I I I I ® z o F w ® � w O to 5 C D 0 ® CJ I I I I I ( _ fa. VO 'OdSMO SMI crus MM vo Ods== " ---r aTVILS .R1SI 649 UV 149 - Attachment 3 d1C>=JZM=V=.«"4 S a w 0 H V 'I S I .toaimxv NIX MM ' O ati �i � E !s Z 1� f iS rn td ; li+f a' Jill wf gt f I ! ita a€€# Ei � j m� fill kt 8a 8i I uu Fa r—� 6 i d d v,6 1$4A C19y0��1, � 4 71 - L-J YK YS KAY c I I h f A p aw a ' z R L e R 5 1 i I I1 144-4 O a O f a O C2 • I r . — $y^, IIIL ..-u IIIIII` w 6 " '°�° �" " Attachment 3 WKS n OdFAH MM NW '� 488}IJ.6 ArM 649 (M 149 A1r9un9,a •wmvuvv9m J,03 UV VEX �t1ZI3 S W O H 1C rI S I r� 3a: WW I I a I II I I i I I I I I I I c CID c I I I ♦n p I � o � � W s � v ® II N m O I ® 3 N W F X 1 I I I I I I I I I � x ' r I II I I it �1 F1 -14 wjau mV3 'OdSlOO 3I.-TI KVS I&U%li 01MOSMII&M AVISI da RNV' 1!O Attachment 3 01C RMS 131=vsou VINn M 6 iS All! L4 9 i III 17 -JI I�iF VD SIM �j rm �m Attachment J - _ ki ^ s a K O \ A v 7 S I - � } | ! ! | El # � ! 130 � ! � | ( | IS )) ! § ! ! EE _ ( \ I| \ i ! / , Ij G • . § ji: � § § } \ EE im I IE ) / 1 D mom § uE- | § 2 `1 ! EE EE[ to { § j E ui` | {| HIM 2 7 1§| 9 . @ . | © | � w � | ( . § § \ ) | � | � . . | - �� WA='Y Y3 'odslao STM NYS 1� TOK6 Y7 OdSlW SM NYS L3ZaJ5 AVUl OLa "Y TLB -- Attachment 3 O[CaT1115 AMTW YSoa VJK""L z .r.ru��r y�ux iiIART3 S a N 0 H x v 'I S I Lk. . . m A V 7 S I Cs RIO o • s 6 1 ? I .pp60voc 6 C �y6,, °dep Rp 011 ., ,m ? L o >3 I ? Y Q 1 ? a 1 z w o _ o g O p 11 LL H � Y w C\7 1 z 1 6 � 1 d. L U gg L7 P � Z 4 L illl II I Y � N I E E- Cx7 I I o I I I z m r Attachment 4 RESOLUTION NO.5491-07 A RESOLUTION OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF A REQUEST TO AMEND THE LAND USE ELEMENT MAP AND ZONING MAP FROM MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (R-2-H) TO MEDIUM-HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (R-3-H),AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR PROPERTIES LOCATED AT 871 & 879 ISLAY STREET (GP/R/ER 8-06) WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on September 26, 2007, for the purpose of considering GP/R/ER 8-06, a request to amend the City's Land Use Element map and Zoning map designations from Medium Density Residential (R-2-H) to Medium-High Density Residential (R-3-H); 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 Mitigated 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. Based upon all the evidence, the Commission makes the following findings in support of the General Plan amendment and rezoning of the site: 1. The proposed General Plan amendment and rezoning (GP/R) is consistent with General Plan for the following reasons: 1)The height, mass, density and architectural style of the project is compatible with adjacent developments; 2) The addition of four residential units will incrementally add to the City's Medium-High Density Residential housing inventory;3) The proposed site design and unit configuration minimizes privacy and overlook impacts for occupants and neighbors; and 4) The project includes the rehabilitation of a Contributing historic resource. 2. The GP/R will allow the proposed two parcel project to be developed within a single zoning district and provide for a logical R-3-H zone boundary at a mid-block location. 3. A Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared by the Community Development Department on September 13, 2007. The Planning Commission finds and determines that the project's Mitigated Negative Declaration adequately addresses the potential significant environmental impacts of the proposed project. lr [q -�> Attachment 4 Planning Commission Resolution # 5491-07 GP/R and E 8-06 Page 2 Section 2. Environmental Review. The Planning Commission does hereby recommend adoption of the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration. Section 3. Recommendation. The Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council approval of application GP/R/ER 8-06, as shown on attached Exhibit A with incorporation of the following mitigation measures: Air Quality 1. The following mitigation measures will adequately control dust and minimize potential violations for the project. All of these PM mitigation measures must be included on grading and building plans. In addition, the contractor or builder shall designate a person or persons to monitor the dust control program and to order increased watering, as necessary, to prevent transport of dust off site. Their duties shall include holidays and weekend periods when work may not be in progress. The name and telephone of such persons shall be provided to the APCD prior to land use clearance for map recordation and grading. (A) Reduce the amount of the disturbed area where possible. (B) Use water truck or sprinkler systems in sufficient quantities to prevent airborne dust from leaving the site. Increased watering frequency whenever wind speeds exceed 15 mph. Reclaimed (non-potable) water shall be used whenever possible. (C) All dirt stock-pile areas should be sprayed daily as needed. (D) Permanent dust control measures identified in the approved project revegetation and landscape plans shall be implemented as soon as possible following completion of any soil disturbing activities. (E) All disturbed soil areas not subject to revegetation shall be stabilized using approved chemical soil binders, jute netting, or other methods approved in advance by the APCD. (F) Vehicle speed for all vehicles shall not exceed_ 15 mph on any unpaved surface at the site. (G) In the event that the excavation of materials will take place in close proximity of asphalt, street sweepers shall be used at the end of each day if soil material is carried onto adjacent paved roads. (H) All trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials are to be covered or should maintain at least two feet of freeboard (minimum vertical distance between top of load and top of trailer) in accordance with CVC section 23114. l — � l Attachment 4 Planning Commission Resolution# 5491-07 GP/R and E 8-06 Page 3 (1) Exposed ground areas that are planned to be reworked at dates greater than one month after initial grading should be sown with a fast-germinating native grass seed and watered until vegetation is established. (J) Plant shade trees along southern exposures of buildings to reduce summer cooling needs as well as planting .trees on both sides of the roads to reduce the reflective radiating heat of asphalt roads. (K) Install wheel washers where vehicles enter and exit unpaved roads onto streets, or wash off trucks and equipment leaving the site. (L) Sweep streets at the end of each day if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent paved roads. Water sweepers with reclaimed water should be used where feasible. 2. Under the State Air Resources Board Air Toxics Control Measure (ATCM) for Construction, Grading; Quarrying, and Surface Mining Operations, the applicant must comply with the following dust mitigation measures outlined in the Asbestos ATCM for Construction, Grading, Quarrying, and Surface Mining Operations. All of these Asbestos mitigation measures must be included on grading and building plans. The APCD monitors State air quality requirements and will be routed plans that are submitted for building permits for the project to insure compliance with all standards and requirements. APCD also responds in the field during construction on a complaint basis. M) Construction vehicle speed at the work site must be limited to fifteen (15) miles per hour or less; N) Prior to any ground disturbance, sufficient water must be applied to the area to be disturbed to prevent visible emissions from crossing the property line; O) Areas to be graded or excavated must be kept adequately wetted to prevent visible emissions from crossing the property line; P) Storage piles must be kept adequately wetted, treated with a chemical dust suppressant, or covered when material is not being added to or removed from the pile; Q) Equipment must be washed down before moving from the property onto a paved public road; and R) Visible track-out on the paved public road must be cleaned using wet sweeping or a HEPA filter equipped vacuum device within twenty-four(24) hours. ➢ Monitoring Program; Construction phase air quality mitigation measures are monitored by the Air Pollution Control District (APCD), through a complaint based enforcement system. The requirements listed above are noted on the project plans and the City Building Inspector and Public Works Inspector for the project are instructed to contact APCD in the event of a l � � Y r Q Attachment 4 Planning Commission Resolution# 5491-07 GP/R and E 8-06 Page 4 probable violation. Members of the public can also call APCD if they are concerned about dust or other emissions from a construction site. Cultural Resources 3. The Contributing historic building shall be incorporated into the project consistent with the Secretary of Interior Standards for Rehabilitation and Conservation & Open Space Policy 3.3.4, and shall not be demolished or relocated off-site. 4. The proposed addition at the rear of the Contributing structure shall be consistent with the building's architectural details and materials, including siding material, window style and trim and roof pitch and materials. 5. No changes to the size, location, material or architectural style of the existing windows on the Islay Street (North Building Elevation) shall be made. Any new or replacement windows on the building, including the proposed addition, shall be in-kind wood frame double-hung windows. 6. The building's existing narrow wood clapboard horizontal siding material shall be maintained. The addition proposed at the rear of the structure shall have matching narrow wood clapboard horizontal siding material. Any replacement siding material on the building shall be in-kind narrow wood clapboard horizontal siding. 7. The new gable end detail proposed on the existing building and addition on the north and south elevations shall be removed. ➢ Monitoring Program: Project plans submitted for Architectural Review and building permits will be reviewed for compliance with these requirements by Community Development Department staff. On motion by Commissioner Ashbaugh, seconded by Commissioner Gould-Wells, and on the following roll call vote: AYES: Ashbaugh, Gould-Wells, Carpenter, Multari, Stevenson NOES: REFRAIN: ABSENT: Christianson, Brodie The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 26"' day of September 2007. I)Ag'6avidlon, Secretary Planning Commission by: 1 ^�1 Attachment 5 Meeting Update San Luis Obispo Cultural Heritage Committee October 22, 2007 Monday 5:30 p.m. ROLL CALL: Committee Members, Chuck Crotser, Lynne Landwehr, John Fowler, Dean Miller, Elise Wheeler, Vice Chair Robert Pavlik and Chairperson Barbara Breska. All members were present. STAFF: Pam Ricci and Jeff Hook, Senior Planners PUBLIC COMMENT: David Brodie, 873 Chorro Street, expressed concerns that there was a 'prevailing attitude" that historic buildings don't matter. He stated that historic buildings enhance the City's economy by promoting tourism, and added that by its actions, the CHC can underscore the value of historic preservation with the public and the City Council. Luther Bertrando, 267 Foothill Boulevard, said that the Historical Preservation Program Guidelines needed to include a definition of the term"historic district." MINUTES: The minutes of the August 274' and September 24t7, 2007 regular meetings were approved on a 7:0 vote. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: 1. 871 and 87.9 Islay Street ARCMI and ER 8-06; Proposed rehabilitation of a contributing historic building and construction of 3 new dwelling units in the R-2-H and R-3-H zones in the Old Town Historic District; R-2-H zone; Mike McNamara, applicant. (Tyler Corey) Jeff Hook presented the staff report and described the project. Architect Ernie Kim and property owner Mike McNamara explained the project and noted that the rehabilitated house will be on a raised foundation in its new location on the lot, the three new houses will be on a slightly raised slab foundation. During the public hearing, Paula Carr asked for information on the building that had been demolished to accommodate this project. The architect noted that the single-story, 400-500 square foot house was an outbuilding and was not historically listed. Mr. Hook noted that the CHC had reviewed and supported the demolition request at a public meeting in 2006. CHC members supported the project and agreed with the staff recommendation action as outlined in the staff report. On a motion by Committee member Crotser, seconded by Committee member Fowler, the Committee voted 7-0 to recommend approval of the Initial Study (ER 8-06) and development plan (ARC MI 8-06), finding that the proposed construction is _ Attachment 5 CHC Meeting Update, October 22, 2007 Page 2 architecturally compatible with the Old Town Historic District and consistent with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for :the Treatment of Historic Properties and referred the project to the Community Development Director for action on the architectural review application, with these measures being incorporated into the project: A. The Contributing historic building shall be incorporated into the project consistent with the Secretary of interior Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties, and with Conservation and Open Space Policy 3.3.4, and shall not be demolished or relocated off-site. B. The proposed addition at the rear of the Contributing structure shall be consistent with the building's architectural details and materials, including siding material, window style and trim and roof pitch and materials. C. No changes to the size, location, material or architectural style of the existing windows on the Islay Street (North Building Elevation) shall be made. Any new or replacement windows on the building, including the proposed addition, shall be matching wood frame double-hung windows. D. The building's existing narrow wood clapboard horizontal siding material shall be maintained. The addition proposed at the rear of the structure shall have matching narrow wood clapboard horizontal siding material. Any replacement siding material on the building shall match the original wood clapboard horizontal siding. E. The new gable end detail proposed on the existing building and addition on the north and south elevations shall be removed. owing the conclusion of discussion of Item No. 1, Committee member Fowler rec himself due to a potential conflict of interest. 2. 840 842 848 868 870 & 886 Monterey-Street 984 & 986 Chorro Street 955 Morro Str and.847 & 877 Palm Street. ARC 69-05 Review of Chinatown mixed-use project d the Cultural Resources section of the project's Environmental Impact R ; C-D-H zone; SCO Chintatown LLC, applicant. (Pam Ricci) Pam Ricci presented the staff report and g a slide presentation outlining the project scope and character, including land uses, hist . roperties and access points. She also summarized project changes made since the Co "ttee's last review of the project in January 2007. Architect Mark Rawson gave a detaile a presentation, describing the project details and explaining the design changes they'd to give the project a more unique and distinctive architectural character to reflect the .natown Historic District. ® The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services,programs activities. Please contact the City Clerk or staff liaison prior to the meeting if you require assistance. i -a3 Attachment S Carly Kleiman 1258 B Buchon Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 September 26, 2007 City of San Luis Obispo Mr. Tyler Corey Planning Department 919 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Re: 871 Islay Street, San Luis Obispo - Zone Change Dear Mr. Corey: I am writing this letter in support of changing the zoning for 871 Islay Street to Medium-High Density Residential Historic (R-3-H). I believe it will make the neighborhood look much better. Sincerely, 1 ` r Carly Kinan (510)387-5014 Attachment S September 21,2007 City of San Luis Obispo Planning Department Attn:Tyler Corey 919 Palm Street San Luis Obispo_CA 93441 Re:Endorsing Zone Change at 871 Islay SOeet,Son Lois Obispo Dear Mr. Corey: 1 fully support an ordinance changing the zoning for 871 [slay Street from Medium Density Residential Historic(R-2-H)to Medium-High Density Residential Histmic(R-3- M. As a historical homeowner for properties located at 1620 Morro through 954 Leff Street,i understand the importance preserving historical homes and contributing to overall better development oftlne neighborhood. 1f you have any questions,please do not hesitate to contact me at(661)252-2409. Sincerely, n j C 1 Clem&Paula Cox Historical Homeowners Ouagfino Attachment S RG September 24, 2007 Tyler Corey City of San Luis Obispo 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, Ca 93401 Re: Project at 871 —879 Islay Street Dear Tyler: I am involved with the re-construction of the historic home located at the corner of Islay and Chorro Streets. In addition to the rebuilding of the structure we are working on plans for the addition of a garage and apartment on the Islay side of the property. The above referenced project is located across the street and approximately 75 yards to the east of our project. I have reviewed the staff report and agree with you that it would be logical to develop the project under a single zoning designation. In addition the inclusion of the additional housing and design seem to fit the neighborhood as well as fills the need for added housing in close proximity to downtown. I support the project as submitted and hope the Planning Commission agrees. If you have. any further questions please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Matt Quaglino www.cluaglino.com 815 Fiero Lane San Luis Obispo California 93401 P:805.543.0560 F:805.543.0679 — - ' Attachment 0 September 25, 2007 Attn:Tyler Corey City of San Luis Obispo Planning Department 919 Palm Street San Luis Obispo,CA 93401 Re: Zone Change at 871 Islay Street, San Luis Obispo Dear Mr. Corey: This letter is in support of changing the zoning for 871 Islay Street from Medium Density Residential Historic (R-2-H) to Medium-High Density Residential Historic (R-3-H). Having seen the property in its current state,we believe that that projected plans will only better the neighborhood If you have any questions,please do not hesitate to contact us at (805)215-6195. Sincerely, au,6441 e Monica Guevara Residents of San Luis Obispo � � a . t ® ' Attachment 8 September 25, 2007 Tyler Cory City of San Luis Obispo 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Re: 871-879 Islay Street Dear Tyler, I am the current resident of 879 Islay Street. I have review the proposed housing plan for 871-879 Islay Street. The design fits the neighborhood and I support the propose zoning change. Sinc el Carl Severn � - ag Attachment 7 DRAFT SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES September 26, 2007 ROLL CALL: Present: Commissioners John Ashbaugh, Michael Multari, Diana Gould-Wells, Dan Carpenter, and Vice-Chair Charles Stevenson Absent: Commissioners Carlyn Christianson and Amanda Brodie Staff: Deputy Director Doug Davidson, Associate Planners Tyler Corey and Jaime Hill, Natural Resources Manager Neil Havlik, and Recording Secretary Jill Francis ACCEPTANCE OF AGENDA: Commissioners or staff may modify the order of items. The agenda was accepted as written. MINUTES: Minutes of September 12, 2007. Approve or amend. The minutes of September 12, 2007 were approved as submitted. PUBLIC COMMENT: There were no comments made from the public. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1. 871.and 879 Islay Street. GP/R and ER 8-06; Request to amend the general plan map and zoning map from medium-density residential with a Historic overlay zoning (R-2-H) to medium-high density residential with a Historic overlay zoning (R-3-H); Mike McNamara, applicant. (Tyler Corey) Associate Planner Tyler Corey presented the staff report, recommending the Commission adopt the resolution which recommends that the City Council approve the Mitigated Negative Declaration and amend the General Plan Land Use Element map to change the land use designation of 871 Islay Street from Medium Density Residential to Medium-High Density Residential; and rezone the property from R-2-H to R-3-H. Mike McNamara, applicant, described the design features of the project and clarified that the purpose for the request was not to take advantage of additional site density, but rather to accommodate a four lot common-interest subdivision. Ernie Kim, Architect, explained how the project came about and the need for the zone change. Draft Planning Commission h...,utes Attachment 7 September 26, 2007 Page 2 PUBLIC COMMENTS: Darren Kraker, San Luis Obispo, did not support additional development adjacent to his property and expressed concerns with potential privacy and overlook impacts from the project. There were no further comments made from the public. COMMISSION COMMENTS: Comments focused on the need to build on vacant land while meeting the intent of the City's development goals. Commr. Multari asked for clarification of the density that would be allowed if the property were sold in the future. On motion by Commr. Ashbaugh to recommend that the City Council approve the Mitigated Negative Declaration and amend the General Plan Land Use Element map to change the land use designation of 871 Islay Street from Medium Density Residential to Medium-High Density Residential; and rezone the property from R-2-H to R-3-H. Seconded by Commr. Gould-Wells. AYES: Commrs. Carpenter, Multan, Ashbaugh, Gould-Wells, and Stevenson NOES: None RECUSED: None ABSENT: Commrs. Christianson and Brodie The motion carried on a 5:0 vote. Sfi 0 Lawrence Drive. TR, PD and ER 77-07; Request for a Vesting Tentative Tract Ma Planned Development zoning creating 10 residential and 2 open space lots, an ' onmental review; R-1 zone; Total Development Company, applicant. (Jaime Hill) Associate Planner Jaime Hill p ted the staff report, recommending the Commission recommend the City Council appro a vesting tentative tract map and Planned Development rezone, and adopt a Mitiga egative Declaration of Environmental Impact, based on findings, and subject to conditio d code requirements. Michael Coss, applicant, addressed several of the Commissi concerns, explaining that the on-site crusher would be a small machine that would opera approximately 3-5 days and that the easement at the Mitchell Drive extension allo general access currently. 1 - 3 Attachment 8 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT ITEM# 1 BY: Tyler Corey, Associate Planner(781-7169) DATE: September 26, 2007 FROM: Doug Davidson, Deputy Director of Community Developmentp b. FILE NUMBER: GP/R 8-06 PROJECT ADDRESSES: 871 & 879 Islay Street SUBJECT: General Plan Amendment and Rezone for property located on the southeast side of Islay Street between Chorro and Morro Streets. RECOMMENDATION Adopt the attached Planning Commission resolution which recommends that the City Council: 1. Approve a resolution adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration (ER 8-06) and amending the General Plan Land Use Element map to change the land use designation of 871 Islay Street from Medium Density Residential to Medium-High Density Residential. 2. Adopt an ordinance changing the zoning for 871 Islay Street from Medium Density Residential Historic (R-2-H) to Medium-High Density Residential Historic(R-3-H). BACKGROUND Situation The City has received an application for a General Plan Amendment and Rezoning (GP/R) on a 6,530 square-foot parcel located on the southeast side of Islay Street between Chorro and Morro Streets (Attachment 2). Specifically, the applicant would like to amend 871 Islay Street's land use and zoning designations from Medium Density Residential (R-2-H) to Medium-High Density Residential (R-3-H), consistent with 879 Islay Street's designation, to accommodate a four unit residential development and common interest subdivision project involving both properties. The Subdivision Regulations require that new lot lines be contiguous with existing zoning boundaries and have logical patterns. In order to meet these requirements, the proposed four lot common interest subdivision involving both 871 & 879 Islay would need uniform zoning and additional site density. Without the GP/R, the subdivision approach would need to be modified to airspace condominiums or the number of bedrooms proposed within the units would need to be reduced. The Planning Commission reviews general plan/zoning amendments and environmental documents and makes a recommendation to the City Council, which takes a final action on such requests. � � 3 � �1 GP/R 8-06 (McNamara) ) ' Attachment 8 871 & 879 Islay Street Page 2 Data Summary Addresses: 871 & 879 Islay Street Applicant: Mike McNamara Representative: Ernie Kim Zoning: R-2-H & R-3-H (Medium Density Residential Historic & Medium-High Density Residential Historic) General Plan: Medium Density Residential & Medium-High Density Residential Environmental Status: A Mitigated Negative Declaration was recommended by the Deputy Director on September 13, 2007 (ER 8-06). Final action on the Initial Study will be taken by the City Council. Site Description The project site consists of approximately 13,350 square feet located on the southeast side of Islay Street between Chorro and Morro Streets within the Old Town Historic District. 871 Islay Street is vacant and 879 Islay Street is developed with a Contributing historic building, which is situated toward the rear of the property. The surrounding area is primarily residential in character and developed with single-family residences and apartments. Zoning surrounding the site is shown in the attached vicinity map (Attachment 1). Project Description The project is a proposal to amend the land use and zoning designations of 871 Islay Street from Medium-Density Residential (R-2=1-1) to Medium-High Density Residential (R-3-H), consistent with 879 Islay Street's designation, to accommodate a four unit residential development and common interest subdivision project involving both properties. The project includes a remodel and relocation of an existing historic building included on the City's Contributing List of Historic Resources located at 879 Islay Street. Specifically, the building would be remodeled from a duplex to a single-family residence, moved approximately 35 feet closer to Islay Street and a new 2-car garage and master bedroom would be added to the rear of the structure. In addition to modifications to the historic structure, three additional units are proposed, including two 2-bedroom dwellings and one 3-bedroom dwelling. Other components of the project include the development of a common driveway toward the center of the site, common open space areas with enhanced paving, BBQ, fixed seating and trellis feature, installation of landscaping, site grading and installation of utilities and 9 vehicle parking spaces (8 located within individual garages for occupants of the units and one unenclosed guest parking space). The one existing tree on the site will be retained. GP/R 8-06 (McNamara) �► �1� Attachment 8 871 & 879 Islay Street Page 3 EVALUATION General Plan Consistency The General Plan contains several policies that apply to the.project. Those policies are listed below in bold print and stafFs analysis follows in italics. 1. General Plan LUE Policy 2.2.10 states, "Housing built within an existing neighborhood should be in scale and character with that neighborhood." 2. General Plan LUE Policy 2.2.6 (Neighborhood Pattern) states: "All residential development should be integrated with existing neighborhoods." 3. General Plan HE Policy 3.13.1 states: "Within established neighborhoods, new residential development shall be of a character, size, density and quality that preserves the neighborhood character and maintains the quality of life for existing and future residents." Analysis: The project site is surrounded by medium-high density, single and multi family, single and multi-story residences and apartments. The height, mass, density and architectural style of the proposed project is consistent with adjacent developments, and therefore, complies with these General Plan policies. 4. General Plan HE Goal 6 states: "Plan for new housing to meet the full range of community housing needs." Analysis: The project will ultimately provide for the development of 4 residential units, which will incrementally add to the City's Medium-High Density Residential housing inventory. 5. General Plan LUE Policy 2.2.12 states: "Residential projects should provide: A) Privacy, for occupants and neighbors of the project; B) Adequate usable outdoor area, sheltered from noise and prevailing winds, and oriented to receive light and sunshine; 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; E) Security and safety; F) Separate paths for vehicles and for people, and bike paths along collector streets; G) Adequate parking and storage space; 1) Design elements that facilitate neighborhood interaction, such as front porches, front yards along streets,-and entryways facing public walkways." I ^ 33 GP/R 8-06 (McNamara) Attachment 8 871 & 879 Islay Street Page 4 Analvsis: The proposed site layout and unit configuration and outdoor use areas for the project have been designed to minimize privacy and overlook impacts for occupants. Based on existing development, building locations and primary use areas on properties to the east, west and south, the project is not likely to create significant privacy and overlook impacts on adjacent properties. The architectural design of the buildings incorporate a mixture of the predominant colors and materials found in the surrounding neighborhood and complement the Contributing historic building and Old Town Historic District. Front porches and pedestrian walkways have been provided for the two units fronting Islay Street. Parking and storage has been provided consistent with the Parking and Driveway Standards and Subdivision Regulations.. 6. General Plan COSE Policy 3.3.2 states, "Historically or architecturally significant buildings should not be demolished or substantially changed in outward appearance..." 7. General Plan COSE Policy 3.3.4 states, "Changes or additions to historically or architecturally significant buildings should be consistent with the original structure and follow the Secretary of Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Buildings. New buildings in historical districts, or on historically significant sites, should reflect the form, spacing and materials of nearby historic structures. The street appearance of buildings which contribute to a neighborhood's architectural character should be maintained. 8. General Plan HE Policy 3.5.1 states, "Encourage the rehabilitation, remodeling or relocation of sound or rehabitabie housing rather than demolition." Analysis: The site is located in the City's Old Town Historic District and contains a building included on the City's Contributing List of Historic Resources. The building is a 2-story duplex with a Bungaloid architectural style. It has a square building footprint situated on a raised foundation with a low-pitched composition tiled roof, exposed eaves, narrow wood clapboard horizontal siding and flat trimmed double-hung wood windows. The project proposes to rehabilitate the structure by converting its use from a duplex to a single-family residence, reconstruct the front porch and entry, remove the stairway and landing on the west building elevation, move the structure approximately 35 closer to Islay Street and add a 2-car garage and master bedroom addition at the rear. Based on staffs analysis of the building and proposed improvements, the remodel is consistent with these policies and the Secretary of Interior Standards for Rehabilitation with the incorporation of the following mitigation measures: 1. The Contributing historic building shall be incorporated into the project consistent with the Secretary of Interior Standards for Rehabilitation and Conservation & Open Space Policy 3.3.4, and shall not be demolished or relocated off-site. 2. The proposed addition at the rear of the Contributing structure shall be consistent with the building's architectural details and materials, including siding material, window style and trim and roof pitch and materials. 1 � 3� GP/R 8-06 (McNamara) Attachment 8 871 & 879 Islay Street Page 5 3. No changes to the size, location, material or architectural style of the existing windows on the Islay Street (North Building Elevation) shall be made. Any new or replacement windows on the building, including the proposed addition, shall be in-kind wood frame double-hung windows. 4. The building's existing narrow wood clapboard horizontal siding material shall be maintained. The addition proposed at the rear of the structure shall have matching narrow wood clapboard horizontal siding material. Any replacement siding material on the building shall be in-kind narrow wood clapboard horizontal siding. S. The new gable end detail proposed on the existing building and addition on the north and south elevations shall be removed. With incorporation of these mitigation measures, no adverse changes to the building are anticipated, and in fact, would improve the architectural significance and historic fabric of the structure. In addition, moving the building to the front of site will improve its context and visibility. Furthermore, the Cultural Heritage Committee will review the project prior to City Council adoption of the Mitigated Negative Declaration. These mitigation measures are included in the attached Planning Commission resolution (Attachment 6). Development Potential This application to rezone 871 Islay would increase the residential density value for the site from 1.80 units to 2.70 units. However, the applicant is not proposing an increase in the project's density in the form of additional units or bedrooms.. Instead, the additional density afforded by the GP/R would be utilized to accommodate a four lot common interest subdivision consistent with the Subdivision Regulation requirements for the location of new lot lines. As previously mentioned, without the GP/R the subdivision approach would need to be modified to airspace condominiums or the number of bedrooms within the units would need to be reduced. If the GP/R is ultimately approved by the City Council, then the residential development plans and subdivision would be reviewed by the Community Development Director for compliance with the Community Design Guidelines and Subdivision Regulations,. Environmental Review The Initial Study of Environmental Impact does not identify any impacts that are considered significant and unavoidable (Attachment 5). The proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration includes mitigation measures to reduce the identified impacts to less than significant levels. Areas where mitigation measures are recommended include air quality and cultural resources. GP/R 8-06 (McNamara) } Attachment 8 871 & 879 Islay Street Page 6 Conclusion The proposed GP/R for 871 Islay seems appropriate at this location because it would allow the two parcel development project to be developed within a single zoning district and provide for a logical R-3-H zone boundary at a mid-block location. Although additional dwelling units or bedrooms would not be created with the GP/R, it would facilitate the development of a high- quality infill project that includes the rehabilitation of a Contributing historic resource. ALTERNATIVES 1. The Commission may recommend approval of the project with modified findings and/or conditions. 2. The Commission may approve a resolution recommending that the City Council deny the proposed GP/R, based on findings of inconsistency with the General Plan as specified by the Planning Commission. 3. The Commission may continue review of the project, if more information is needed. Direction should be given to staff and the applicants. ATTACHMENTS 1. Vicinity map 2. Land use and zoning map 3. Reduced scale project plans 4. Letter from the applicant's representative dated June 15, 2007 5. Initial Study(ER 8-06) 6. Draft Planning Commission Resolution Attachment 9 IIII��II�III�� I� city of SAn Wis OBISPO II Community Development Department•919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM For ER 8-06 1. Project Title: Islay Homes 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of San Luis Obispo 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Tyler Corey, Associate Planner(805) 781-7169 4. Project Location: 871 & 879 Islay Street 5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Mike McNamara 390 Higuera Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 6. General Plan Designation: Medium Density Residential & Medium-High Density Residential 7. Zoning: R-2-H & R-3-H (Medium Density Residential Historic & Medium-High Density Residential Historic) 8. Description of the Project: General Plan Amendment and Rezone to change the designation of 871 Islay Street from Medium-Density Residential Historic to Medium-High Density Residential Historic, consistent with 879 Islay Street's designation, to accommodate a four unit residential development and common interest subdivision project proposed for the properties. The project includes a remodel and relocation of an existing historic building included on the City's Contributing List of Historic Resources located at 879 Islay Street. Specifically, the building would be remodeled from a duplex to a single-family residence, moved approximately 35 feet closer to Islay Street and anew 2-car garage and master bedroom would be added to the rear of the structure. In addition to modifications to the historic structure, three additional units are proposed, including two 2-bedroom dwellings and one 3-bedroom dwelling. Other components of the project include the development of a common driveway toward the center of the site, common open space areas with enhanced paving, BBQ, fixed seating and trellis feature, installation of landscaping, site grading and installation of utilities and 9 vehicle parking spaces (8 located within individual CITY OF SAN Luis OBispo 1 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHEcKusT 2+007�j �EThe City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services, programs and activities. I V� ` Telecommunications Device for the Deaf(805)781-7410. Attachment 9 garages for occupants of the units and one unenclosed guest parking space). The one existing tree on the site will be retained. 9. Surrounding Land Uses and Settings: The project site consists of approximately 13,350 square feet located on the southeast side of Islay Street between Chorro and Morro Streets within the Old Town Historic District. 871 Islay Street is vacant and 879 Islay Street is developed with a Contributing historic building, which is situated toward the rear of the property. The surrounding area is primarily residential in character and developed with single-family residences and apartments. 10. Project Entitlements Requested: • General Plan (Land Use Map) amendment and rezone • Architectural Review and Cultural Heritage Committee Review of project design • Tentative Parcel Map for a common interest subdivision • Environmental Review 11. Other public agencies whose approval is required: None. CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 2 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2007 Ir3g Attachment 9 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 X Air Quality Hydrology/Water Quality Transportation&Traffic Biological Resources Land Use and Planning Utilities and Service Systems X Cultural Resources Noise Mandatory Findings of Significance e Energy and Mineral Population and Housing Resources FISH AND GAME FEES There is no evidence before the Department that the project will have any potential adverse effects on fish X and wildlife resources or the habitat upon which the wildlife depends. As such, the project qualifies for a de minimis waiver with regards to the filing of Fish and Game Fees. The project has potential to impact fish and wildlife resources and shall be subject to the payment of Fish and Game fees pursuant to Section 711.4 of the California Fish and Game Code. This initial study has been circulated to the California Department of Fish and Game for review and comment. STATE CLEARINGHOUSE This environmental document must be submitted to the State Clearinghouse for review by one or more State agencies (e.g. Cal Trans, California Department of Fish and Game, Department of Housing and Community Development). The public review period shall not be less than 30 days (CEQA Guidelines 15073(a)). CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 3 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2007 Attachment 9 DETERMINATION: On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, X there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made, or the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet(s) have been added and agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY.have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant" impact(s) or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact(s) on the environment, but at least one effect (1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL 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. 213 lo-� Signature Date Doug Davidson,Deputy Director of Community Development For: John Mandeville, Printed Name Community Development Director CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 4 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2007 Attachment 9 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: I. A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the analysis in each.section. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A"No Impact" answer should be explained.where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g. the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis). 2. All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. The explanation of each issue should identify the significance criteria or threshold,if any,used to evaluate each question. 3. "Potentially Significant Impact'is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant. If there are one or more"Potentially Significant Impact"entries when the determination is made,an EIR is required. 4. "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section 17,"Earlier Analysis," may be cross-referenced). 5. Earlier analysis may be used where,pursuant to the tiering,program EIR,or other CEQA process,an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063 (c) (3) (D) of the California Code of Regulations. Earlier analyses are discussed in Section 17 at the end of the checklist. 6. Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g. general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate,include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. 7. Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. In this case,a brief discussion should identify the following: a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on earlier analysis. c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project. CITY OF SAN Luis OBISFO 5 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2007 Attachment 9 J Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources sowces Pi "a,iy Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact ER # 207-05 Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated 1.AESTHETICS. Would theproject: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? X b) Substantially damage scenic resources,including,but not limited X to, trees, rock outcroppings, open space, and historic buildings within a local or state scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of X the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would X adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Evaluation a) The project site is not located within the viewshed of a scenic vista identified in Figure 11 of the Conservation and Open Space Element, Scenic Roadways and Vistas map, including views to and from public places, such as parks,plazas,grounds of civic buildings and publicly accessible open space. b) The project site is not located near a local or state scenic highway identified in Figure 1 I of the Conservation and Open Space Element,Scenic Roadways and Vistas map. c)d)The project site is currently developed with a Contributing historic structure located at 879 Islay Street. Specifically,the building would be rehabilitated from a duplex to a single-family residence,moved approximately 35 feet closer to Islay Street and a new 2-car garage and master bedroom would be added to the rear of the structure. In addition, three additional units are proposed, including two 2-bedroom dwellings and one 3-bedroom dwelling. Site redevelopment is likely to produce negligible aesthetic impacts, and will likely enhance the appearance of the Contributing historic resource and property as viewed from the public right-of-way and adjacent properties. Future site development will require Architectural Review, which will address/mitigate the project's aesthetic impacts,including light/glare,to a less than significant level. Conclusion: Less Than Significant Impact. 2.AGRICULTURE RESOURCES. Would theproject: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of 6, 10 X Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps pursuant to the Farland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency,to non-agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a X Williamson Act contract? c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which,due to X their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use? Evaluation a) b) c) The project site is surrounded by developed properties and public streets. The Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency designates this property as Urban Land. There is no Williamson Act contract in effect on the project site. Development of the site will not contribute to conversion of farmland, and may relieve pressure to develop similar land outside of the City's Urban Reserve Line.No impacts to existing on site or off site agricultural resources are anticipated with development of the project site. Conclusion: No Impact. 3. AIR UALITY. Would theproject: a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an 11, 12 X existing or projected air quality violation? b) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air X quality plan? c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant X Ll CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 6 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2007 f 4c;�- Attachment 9 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potent,a,ry Potentially IessThan No Significant Significant Significant Impact ER # 8-06 Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated concentrations? d) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of X people? e) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria X pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed qualitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? Evaluation a) c) e) San Luis Obispo County is a non-attainment area for the State PMIo (fine particulate matter 10 microns or less in diameter) air quality standard. State law requires that emissions of non-attainment pollutants and their precursors be reduced by at least 5%per year until the standards are attained. The 2001 Clean Air Plan (CAP) for San Luis Obispo Comity 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. Conservation & Open Space Element Program 2.3.2 states that the City will help the APCD implement the Clean Air Plan. Motor vehicles account for about 40% of the precursor emissions responsible for ozone formation, and are also a significant source of PMIo. Thus, a major requirement in the CAP is the implementation of transportation control measures designed to reduce motor vehicle trips and miles traveled by local residents. The project meets many of the goals stated in the CAP because it will provide new homes within the City's Urban Reserve Line and the project site is located in the City's urban center with convenient access to commercial services and transit routes,reducing the need for occupants of the project to rely on vehicles for all of their transportation needs. According to the APCD's "CEQA Air Quality Handbook," land uses that cause the generation of 10 or more pounds per day (PPD) of reactive organic gases, oxides or nitrogen, sulfur dioxide, or fine particulate matter have the potential to affect air quality significantly. Table 1-1 of this document states that 50 residential condominiums generates over 10 pounds of these pollutants. Assuming the site is developed with 4 residential condominiums, future development would be of a size that is well below APCD's air quality significance thresholds. Therefore, the project and resulting development will not generate a significant impact on long-term air quality impacts. d)No objectionable odors will emanate from the project. Conclusion: Less Than Significant Impact. b)Short-term Air Quality Impacts. Evaluation Redevelopment of the site will result in increased levels of fugitive dust associated with construction and grading activities, as well as construction emissions associated with heavy-duty construction equipment. In addition, the project site is located in a Naturally Occurring Asbestos candidate area. Naturally Occurring Asbestos has been identified by the state Air Resources Board as a toxic air contaminant. Serpentine and ultramafic rocks are very common in the state and may contain naturally occurring asbestos. Conclusion: Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated. Mitieation Measures 1. The following mitigation measures will adequately control dust and minimize potential violations for the project. All of these PM mitigation measures must be included on grading and building plans. In addition, the contractor or builder shall CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 7 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2007 t - 45 Attachment 9 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potenna,iy Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant I Impact ER # 8 06 Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated designate a person or persons to monitor the dust control program and to order increased watering, as necessary, to prevent transport of dust off site. Their duties shall include holidays and weekend periods when work may not be in progress. The name and telephone of such persons shall be provided to the APCD prior to land use clearance for map recordation and grading. (A) Reduce the amount of the disturbed area where possible. (B) Use water truck or sprinkler systems in sufficient quantities to prevent airborne dust from leaving the site. Increased watering frequency whenever wind speeds exceed 15 mph. Reclaimed (non-potable) water shall be used whenever possible. (C) All dirt stock-pile areas should be sprayed daily as needed. (D) Permanent dust control measures identified in the approved project revegetation and landscape plans shall be implemented as soon as possible following completion of any soil disturbing activities. (E) All disturbed soil areas not subject to revegetation shall be stabilized using approved chemical soil binders,jute netting,or other methods approved in advance by the APCD. (F) Vehicle speed for all vehicles shall not exceed 15 mph on any unpaved surface at the site. (G) In the event that the excavation of materials will take place in close proximity of asphalt,street sweepers shall be used at the end of each day if soil material is carried onto adjacent paved roads. (H) All trucks hauling dirt, sand,soil, or other loose materials are to be covered or should maintain at least two feet of freeboard(minimum vertical distance between top of load and top of trailer) in accordance with CVC section 23114. (I) Exposed ground areas that are planned to be reworked at dates greater than one month after initial grading should be sown with a fast-germinating native grass seed and watered until vegetation is established. (J) Plant shade trees along southern exposures of buildings to reduce summer cooling needs as well as planting trees on both sides of the roads to reduce the reflective radiating heat of asphalt roads. (K) Install wheel washers where vehicles enter and exit unpaved roads onto streets, or wash off trucks and equipment leaving the site. (L) Sweep streets at the end of each day if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent paved roads. Water sweepers with reclaimed water should be used where feasible. 2. Under the State Air Resources Board Air Toxics Control Measure (ATCM) for Construction, Grading, Quarrying, and Surface Mining Operations, the applicant must comply with the following dust mitigation measures outlined in the Asbestos ATCM for Construction, Grading, Quarrying, and Surface Mining Operations. All of these Asbestos mitigation measures must be included on grading and building plans. The APCD monitors State air quality requirements and will be routed plans that are submitted for building permits for the project to insure compliance with all standards and requirements. APCD also responds in the field during construction on a complaint basis. (M)Construction vehicle speed at the work site must be limited to fifteen(15)miles per hour or less; (N) Prior to any ground disturbance,sufficient water must be applied to the area to be disturbed to prevent visible emissions from crossing the property line; (0) Areas to be graded or excavated must be kept adequately wetted to prevent visible emissions from crossing the property line; (P) Storage piles must be kept adequately wetted,treated with a chemical dust suppressant,or covered when material is not being added to or removed from the pile; (Q) Equipment must be washed down before moving from the property onto a paved public road;and (R) Visible track-out on the paved public road must be cleaned using wet sweeping or a NEPA filter equipped vacuum device within twen -four 24 hours. 4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would theproject: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or indirectly or 6 X through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service? CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 8 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2007 ( r t4"- I Attachment 9 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentr...,y Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact ER # 8-06 Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated b) Have a substantial adverse effect, on any riparian habitat or X other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting X biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance(e.g.Heritage Trees)? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident X or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted habitat Conservation X Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local,regional,or state habitat conservation plan? f) Have a substantial adverse effect on Federally protected X wetlands as defined in Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marshes, vernal pools, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? Evaluation a), b) According to the Natural Diversity Database of the California Department of Fish and Game, there are no species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on or near the project site,nor is riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified. c) The site contains one 36-inch non-native Pepper tree,which is proposed to remain. d) The property is completely surrounded by urban development and the proposed project 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:No Impact. 5.CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would theproject: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a 16-19 X historic resource?(See CEQA Guidelines 15064.5) b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an X archaeological resource?(See CEQA Guidelines 15064.5) c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource X or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of X formal cemeteries? Evaluation b) The project site is not located on or near a known sensitive archeological site. c) There are no known paleontological resources or unique geologic features on the project site. CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPo 9 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2007 1 .-41�- A?tac'hment 9 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potenu...,y Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact ER # 8 06 Issues unless Impact Mitigation Inco orated d) The project site is outside of the areas designated on the City's Burial Sensitivity Map as potential burial sites. Conclusion: Less Than Significant Impact. a)The site is located in the City's Old Town Historic District and contains a building included on the City's Contributing List of Historic Resources. The building is a 2-story duplex with a Bungaloid architectural style. It has a square building footprint situated on a raised foundation with a low-pitched composition tiled roof, exposed eaves, narrow clapboard horizontal siding and flat trimmed double-hung windows. The project proposes to rehabilitate the structure by converting its use from a duplex to a single-family residence, reconstruct the front porch and entry, remove the stairway and landing on the west building elevation, move the structure approximately 35 closer to Islay Street and add a 2-car garage and master bedroom addition at the rear. Based on staff's analysis of the building and proposed improvements, the remodel is consistent with the Secretary of Interior Standards for Rehabilitation and Conservation & Open Space Policy 3.3.4 with the incorporation of mitigation measures. With the incorporation of mitigation measures, no adverse changes to the building are anticipated, and in fact, would improve the architectural significance and historic fabric of the structure. In addition,moving the building to the front of site will improve its context and visibility. Conclusion: Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated. Mitigation Measures: 3. The Contributing historic building shall be incorporated into the project consistent with the Secretary of Interior Standards for Rehabilitation and Conservation&Open Space Policy 3.3.4,and shall not be demolished or relocated off-site. 4. The proposed addition at the rear of the Contributing structure shall be consistent with the building's architectural details and materials, including siding material,window style and trim and roof pitch and materials. 5. No changes to the size,location,material or architectural style of the existing windows on the Islay Street(North Building Elevation)shall be made. Any new or replacement windows on the building,including the proposed addition,shall be in-kind wood frame double-hung windows. 6. The building's existing narrow wood clapboard horizontal siding material shall be maintained. The addition proposed at the rear of the structure shall have matching narrow wood clapboard horizontal siding material. Any replacement siding material on the building shall be in-kind narrow wood clapboard horizontal siding. 7. The new gable end detail proposed on the existing building and addition on the north and south elevations shall be removed. 6. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would theproject: a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? 6, 7 X b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient X manner? c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource X that would be of value to the region and the residents of the State? Evaluation a) b) The project will not conflict with adopted energy conservation plans or promote the use of non-renewable resources in an inefficient manner. Future site development must comply with the policies contained in the Energy chapter of the General Plan's Conservation and Open Space Element(COSE). The City implements energy conservation goals through enforcement of the California Energy Code, which establishes energy conservation standards for residential and nonresidential construction. Future development of this site must meet those standards. The City also implements energy conservation goals through Architectural Review. Project designers are asked to show how a project makes maximum use of passive means of CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 10 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2007( ^ I ^ ` P Attachment 9 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentia,ly Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact ER # 8-06 Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Inco orated reducing conventional energy demand, as opposed to designing a particular image and relying on mechanical systems to maintain comfort. c) There are no known mineral resources on the project site that would be of value to the region or to the residents of the State. Conclusion:No impact. 7. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would theproject: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse 5, 21, effects,including risk of loss,injury or death involving: 24 I. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated in the X most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area,or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Il. Strong seismic ground shaking? X III. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? X IV. Landslides or mudflows? X b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? X c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that X would become unstable as a result of the project,and potentially result in on or off site landslides, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction,or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the X Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? Evaluation 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, 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)Future site development must comply with the standards and requirements contained in the Uniform Building Code(UBC) that address soil erosion and loss of topsoil. Compliance with the UBC will reduce impacts to a less than significant level. CITY OF SAN LUIS Owspo 1 1 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLtsT 2007 x 1 -V) e Attachment 9 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentiany Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact ER # 6-06 Issues Untess Impact Mitigation Inco orated c),d)The Safety Element of the General Plan indicates that the project site has a high potential for liquefaction,which is true for most of the City, and the site contains highly expansive soils as defined in Table 18-I-B of the UBC (2001). Recommendations included in a soils report, which is required to be submitted as part of a building permit application for future site development, are sufficient to mitigate potential hazards from building in these areas. In general, the presence of expansive soils requires additional base for roadways and flat work and deeper footings for building foundations. Conclusion:Less Than Significant Impact. 8. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the pro'ect: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment 5, 7, X through the routine use, transport or disposal of hazardous 23 materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment X through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely X hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Expose people or structures to existing sources of hazardous X emissions or hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances,or waste? e) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous X materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, it would create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? f) For a project located within an airport land use plan, or within X two miles of a public airport,would the project result in a safety hazard for the people residing or working in the project area? g) Impair implementation of, or physically interfere with, the X adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of lose, injury, X or death, involving wildland fres,including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residents are intermixed with wildlands? Evaluation a) The project does not involve the routine use,transport,or disposal of hazardous materials. b),d)The project will not result in the release of hazardous materials into the environment. c) The project is not located within '/< mile of an existing or proposed school, and will not involve hazardous emissions or include handling of hazardous or acutely hazardous materials,substances or waste. e) The project site is not included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code § 65962.5. 0 The project site is approximately 2.5 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 Marshal 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 fres. CITY OF SAN Luis OBISPO 12 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2007 1 -qo i Attachment 9 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources . Sources Potentida"tPotentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Issues Unless Impact ER # 8-06 Mitigation Incorporated Conclusion:No Impact. 9. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would theproject: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge 6, 15, X requirements? 22 b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere 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 for which permits have been granted)? c) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the X capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide additional sources of runoff into surface waters (including, but not limited to, wetlands, riparian areas, ponds, springs,creeks,streams,rivers,lakes,estuaries,tidal areas,bays, ocean,etc.)? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or X area in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation onsite or offsite? e) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or X area in a manner which would result in substantial flooding onsite or offsite? f) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on X a Federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? g) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which X would impede or redirect flood flows? h) Will the project introduce typical storm water pollutants into X ground or surface waters? i) Will the project alter ground water or surface water quality, X temperature,dissolved oxygen,or turbidity? Evaluation a), b) The project will not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. Site redevelopment will be served by the City's sewer and water systems and will not use or otherwise deplete groundwater resources. c), d) h) 1) Physical improvement of the project site will be required to comply with the drainage requirements of the City's Waterways Management Plan. This plan was adopted for the purpose of insuring water quality and proper drainage within the City's watershed. The Waterways Management Plan requires that site development be designed so that post-development site drainage does not exceed pre-development run-off. This can be achieved through a combination of detention and use of pervious surfaces to increase water absorption on-site. Compliance with the requirements of the plan are sufficient to mitigate any potentially significant impacts of the project in the area of water quality and hydrology. Plans submitted for a building permit application will be evaluated by the Public Works Department and must be designed in a manner that is consistent with the requirements of the Waterways Management Plan. e) f), g) The project is located within the 500-year flood zone per the Federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map. However, future structures developed on the property would not impede or redirect flood flows or occur within a 100-year flood hazard area. Conclusion: Less Than Significant Impact. 10. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would theproject: CITY OF SAN LUIS Owspo 13 INITIAL STuOY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2007 ( 10 Attachment 9 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact ER # 8-06 Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Inco orated a) Conflict with applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of 1 X an agency with jurisdiction over the project adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? b) Physically divide an established community? X c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural X community conservationplans? Evaluation a) The proposed project does not conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. The project would change the land use designation of 871 Islay Street from Medium Density Residential Historic to Medium-High Density Residential Historic, consistent with 879 Islay Street's designation, to accommodate a four unit residential development and common interest subdivision project proposed for the properties. The potential impacts of the rezone on the Citywide supply of Medium Density Residential properties would be evaluated by the Planning Commission and City Council with their review of the project. b) c)The project will not physically divide an established community or conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plans. Conclusion: No Impact. 11.NOISE. Would the project result in: a) Exposure of people to or generation of"unacceptable" noise 4, 14, X levels as defined by the San Luis Obispo General Plan Noise 23 Element, or general noise levels in excess of standards established in the Noise Ordinance? b) A substantial temporary, periodic, or permanent increase in X ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? c) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundbome X vibration or groundbome noise levels? d) For a project located within an airport land use plan, or within X two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? Evaluation a) The project will not generate unacceptable noise levels or expose people to noise levels in excess of standards established in the Noise Ordinance. The project site is located outside of any noise contour in the City's Noise Element that would require mitigation. b) Construction of the proposed project will temporarily increase ambient noise levels. This type of noise is regulated by the City's Noise Ordinance, which regulates times of construction and maximum noise levels that may be generated. If noise levels exceed the Noise Ordinance thresholds,the property owner would be subject to possible citations. c)The project will not expose people to the generation of excessive groundbome noise levels or vibration. d) The project site is approximately 2.5 miles north of the San Luis Obispo County Airport, outside the Airport Land Use Plan Area. Conclusion: Less Than Significant Impact. 12. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would theproject: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly I 1 X CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 14 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2007 Attachment 9 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potenna.iy Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact ER # 8-06 Imes Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated (for example by proposing new homes or businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing or people X necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Evaluation a)b) a)b) The population added by this project is within the General Plan's projection and will not induce substantial growth into the area or result in population exceeding local and regional growth projections. The project site is bordered by urban development and the redevelopment of the site represents an in-fill development opportunity. This type of development is encouraged because it can take advantage of existing facilities for water,sewer,storm drainage,transportation and parks. The project site is presently constructed with a duplex, which is proposed to be remodeled to a single-family residence; therefore, substantial numbers of housing or people will not be displaced by the project. Conclusion: Less Than Significant Impact. 13. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision, or need, of new or physically altered government facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services: a) Fire protection? 7 X b) Police protection? X c) Schools? X d) Parks? X e) Roads and other transportation infrastructure? X Other public facilities? X Evaluation a) b) d) e) f) No potential impacts have been identified to any public services because of the scale of the project and its location within a developed portion of the City. Future development must comply with all applicable City Codes and State regulations. c) The school districts in the state are separate governing bodies with authority to collect fees to finance school construction and parcel acquisition. Section 65955 of the Government Code prohibits the City from denying a subdivision or collecting any fees beyond those required by the school district itself,to mitigate effects of inadequate school facilities. Any effect that the additional children will have on school facilities will be mitigated in whole or in part by the districts per square foot fees, charged at the time of building permit issuance for each residence. Conclusion: Less Than Significant Impact. 14.RECREATION. Would theproject: a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood or regional parks or X other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Include recreational facilities or require the construction or X expansion of recreational facilities,which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Evaluation a)The project will add incrementally to the demand for parks and other recreational facilities. However,given the size of the project (4 detached single-family residences) and expected number of residents, no significant recreational impacts are expected to occur with development of the site. Park Land In-Lieu fees will be collected to insure adequate provision of park CITY OF SAN Luis Owspo 15 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2007 [ -<S- I Attachment 9 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potenna,ry' Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact ER # 8-06 Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated facilities for the new residents of the project, per existing City policy. The project site is located near existing recreational facilities such as Mitchell and Emerson Parks. c)The project does not include the construction or expansion of recreational facilities. Conclusion: Less Than Significant Impact 15. TRANSPORTATIONPTRAMC. Would theproject: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the 3, 13, X existing traffic load and capacity of the street system? 23 b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service X standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated mads and highways? c) Substantially increase hazards due to design features (e.g. sharp X curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment)? d) Result in inadequate emergency access? X e) Result in inadequate parking capacity onsite or offsite? X I) Conflict with adopted policies supporting alternative X transportation(e.g.bus turnouts,bicycle racks)? g) Conflict with the with San Luis Obispo County Airport Land X Use Plan resulting in substantial safety risks from hazards,noise, or a chane in air trafficpatterns? Evaluation a)b)c) Islay Street provides access to the project site. The City's General Plan Circulation Element classifies Islay Street as a Local Street. The Element states that Local Streets should have two travel lanes, a maximum Average Daily Traffic (ADT) of 1,500 vehicles, and a maximum speed of 25 miles per hour. The proposed project will not result in changes to these criteria. The Institute of Traffic Engineers Manual estimates that detached single-family residences generate an average of 10 vehicle trips per day. A total of four homes might generate 40 trips per day on average. The Public Works Department has reviewed the project and determined that the existing road system has sufficient unused capacity to accommodate the added vehicular traffic. d)The Fire Marshal has reviewed the project and determined that the site can be adequately accessed by emergency vehicles in its present design. e) The project provides vehicle access from Islay Street and proposes a total of 9 vehicle parking spaces (8 reserved for residents and I for guests),consistent with Zoning Regulation standards. Parking for the residents is located within individual 2-car garages with interior access to each unit. The uncovered guest parking space is conveniently located between two of the units toward the center of the site. f) The project does not conflict with policies supporting alternative transportation. Alternatively, due to the site's location near the City's urban center, it is within reasonable walking distance('/<mile)to shopping,parks and services. g)The project is not within the County's Airport Land Use Plan area for San Luis Obispo Airport. Conclusion: Less Than Significant Impact. 16. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the ro'ect: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable 7,20 X Regional Water Quality Control Board? CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 16 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2007 Attachment 9 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources sources Potenuaiiy Potentially I=Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact ER # 8-06 Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Inco orated b) Require or result in the construction or expansion of new water X treatment, wastewater treatment, water quality control, or storm drainage facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project X from existing entitlements and resources, or are new and expanded water resources needed? d) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, X which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitment? e) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to X accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? f) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations X related to solid waste? Evaluation a), b) The project will allow for development of the site with slightly higher water demands. However, the incremental change is not considered to be significant. This project has been reviewed by the City's Utilities Engineer and no resource/infrastructure deficiencies have been identified. Future site development is subject to water impact fees which were adopted to ensure that new development pays its fair share of the cost of constructing the water supply, treatment and distribution facilities that will be necessary to serve it. c) The City has adopted Water Allocation Regulations to insure that increased water use by new development and land use changes do not jeopardize adequate water service to current and new customers. Section 17.89.030 of the regulations states that a water allocation shall be required to: "obtain a connection to the city water system for a structure or facility not previously connected; change the use of land or buildings, whether or not a construction permit is also required; obtain a construction permit." Compliance with the City standards and State requirements will assure that impacts to water supplies are less than significant. d) The City wastewater treatment plant and existing sewers in the vicinity have sufficient capacity to serve the project site. The developer will be required to construct private sewer facilities to convey wastewater to the nearest public sewer. The on- site sewer facilities will be required to be constructed according to the standards in the Uniform Plumbing Code. Impact fees are collected at the time building permits are issued to pay for capacity at the City's Water Reclamation Facility. The fees are set at a level intended to offset the potential impacts of each new residential unit in the project. e) f) Background research for the Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (AB939) shows that Californians dispose of roughly 2,500 pounds of waste per month. Over 90% of this waste goes to landfills, posing a threat to groundwater, air quality, and public health. Cold Canyon landfill is projected to reach its capacity by 2018. The Act requires each city and county in California to reduce the flow of materials to landfills by 50%(from 1989 levels)by 2000. To help reduce the waste stream generated by this project,consistent with the City's Source Reduction and Recycling Element,recycling facilities must be accommodated on the project site and a solid waste reduction plan for recycling discarded construction materials must be submitted with the building permit application. The project is required by ordinance to include facilities for recycling to reduce the waste stream generated by the project,consistent with the Source Reduction and Recycling Element. Conclusion: Less Than Significant Impact. 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 CITY OF SAN Luis OBispo 17 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2007 1- �3 Attachment 9 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potent<....y Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact ER # 8-06 Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehisto ? Without mitigation, the project could have the potential to have adverse impacts on all of the issue areas checked in the Table on Page 3. b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but X cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of the past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable futureprojects) The impacts identified in this initial study arespecific to this project and would not be categorized as c latively significant. c) Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause X substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? With the incorporation of mitt ation measures,the project will not result in substantial adverse impacts on humans. 18.EARLIER ANALYSES. Earlier analysis may be used where,pursuant to the tiering,program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration. Section 15063 (c) (3) (D). In this case a discussion should identify the following items: a Earlier analysis used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. N/A b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards,and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. N/A c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions of the project. N/A 19. SOURCE REFERENCES. 1. City of SLO General Plan Land Use Element,April 2006 2. City of SLO General Plan Housing Element,April 2006 3. City of SLO General Plan Circulation Element,Aril 2006 4. City of SLO General Plan Noise Element,May 1996 5. City of SLID General Plan Safety Element,July 2000 6. City of SLO General Plan Conservation and Open Space Element,April 2006 7. City of San Luis Obispo Municipal Code 8. City of San Luis Obispo, Land Use Inventory Database 9. USDA,Natural Resources Conservation Service,Soil Survey of San Luis Obispo County 10. Website of the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency: http://www.consrv.ca.gov/dlrp/FMAP/ 11. Clean Air Plan for San Luis Obispo County,Air Pollution Control District,2001 12. CEQA Air Quality Handbook,Air Pollution Control District 2003 13. Institute of Transportation Engineers,Trip Generation Manual,7 Edition,on file in the Community Development Department 14. City of San Luis Obispo Noise Guidebook,May 1996 15. City of SLO Waterways Management Plan 16. City of San Luis Obispo, Historic Resource Preservation Guidelines, on file in the Community Development Department CITY OF SAN Luis OBISPo 18 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2007 1 Attachment 9 Issues, Discussion and Supporting-Information Sources Sources Pote6i._.Sy Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact ER # 8-06 Issues Unless Impact Mitigation incorporated 17. City of San Luis Obispo, Archaeological Resource Preservation Guidelines, on file in the Community Development Department 18. City of San Luis Obispo,Historic Site Ma 19. City of San Luis Obispo Burial Sensitivity Map 20. City of SLO Source Reduction and Recycling Element,on file in the Utilities Department 21. San Luis Obispo Quadrangle Map, prepared by the State Geologist in compliance with the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act,effective January 1, 1990 22. Flood Insurance Rate Ma (Community Panel 0603100005 C dated July 7, 1981 23. San Luis Obispo County ort Land Use Plan 24. 1 2001 Uniform Building Code Attachments: 1. Vicinity map 2. Reduced scale project plans REQUIRED MITIGATION AND MONITORING PROGRAMS Mitigation Measure: Air Quality 1. The following mitigation measures will adequately control dust and minimise potential violations for the project. All of these PM mitigation measures must be included on grading and building plans. In addition, the contractor or builder shall designate a person or persons to monitor the dust control program and to order increased watering, as necessary, to prevent transport of dust off site. Their duties shall include holidays and weekend periods when work may not be in progress. The name and telephone of such persons shall be provided to the APCD prior to land use clearance for map recordation and grading. (A) Reduce the amount of the disturbed area where possible. (B) Use water truck or sprinkler systems in sufficient quantities to prevent airborne dust from leaving the site. Increased watering frequency whenever wind speeds exceed 15 mph. Reclaimed(non-potable) water shall be used whenever possible.. (C) All dirt stock-pile areas should be sprayed daily as needed. (D) Permanent dust control measures identified in the approved project revegetation and landscape plans shall be implemented as soon as possible following completion of any soil disturbing activities. (E) All disturbed soil areas not subject to revegetation shall be stabilized using approved chemical soil binders,jute netting,or other methods approved in advance by the APCD. (F) Vehicle speed for all vehicles shall not exceed 15 mph on any unpaved surface at the site. (G) In the event that the excavation of materials will take place in close proximity of asphalt, street sweepers shall be used at the end of each day if soil material is carried onto adjacent paved roads. (H) All trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials are to be covered or should maintain at least two feet of freeboard(minimum vertical distance between top of load and top of trailer)in accordance with CVC section 23114. (I) Exposed ground areas that are planned to be reworked at dates greater than one month after initial grading should be sown with a fast-germinating native grass seed and watered until vegetation is established. (J) Plant shade trees along southern exposures of buildings to reduce summer cooling needs as well as planting trees on both sides of the roads to reduce the reflective radiating heat of asphalt roads. (K) Install wheel washers where vehicles enter and exit unpaved roads onto streets, or wash off trucks and equipment leaving the site. (L) Sweep streets at the end of each day if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent paved roads. Water sweepers with reclaimed water should be used where feasible. 2. Under the State Air Resources Board Air Toxics Control Measure (ATCM) for Construction, Grading, Quarrying, and Surface Mining Operations, the applicant must comply with the following dust mitigation measures outlined in the CITY OF SAN.Luis Omspo 19 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2007 1 A tachment 9 Issues, Discussion and SupportingInformation Sources Sources Potenhaay Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact ER # 8 06 Issues Unless Impact' Mitigation Incorporated Asbestos ATCM for Construction, Grading,Quarrying,and Surface Mining Operations.All of these Asbestos mitigation measures must be included on grading and building plans. The APCD monitors State air quality requirements and will be routed plans that are submitted for building permits for the project to insure compliance with all standards and requirements. APCD also responds in the field during construction on a complaint basis. (M)Construction vehicle speed at the work site must be limited to fifteen(15)miles per hour or less; (N) Prior to any ground disturbance,sufficient water must be applied to the area.to be disturbed to prevent visible emissions from crossing the property line; (0) Areas to be graded or excavated must be kept adequately wetted to prevent visible emissions from crossing the property line; (P) Storage piles must be kept adequately wetted,treated with a chemical dust suppressant,or covered when material is not being added to or removed from the pile; (Q) Equipment must be washed down before moving from the property onto a paved public road;and (R) Visible track-out on the paved public road must be cleaned using wet sweeping or a HEPA filter equipped vacuum device within twenty-four(24)hours. ➢ Monitoring Program: Construction phase air quality mitigation measures are monitored by the Air Pollution Control District(APCD), through a complaint based enforcement system. The requirements listed above are noted on the project plans and the City Building Inspector and Public Works Inspector for the project are instructed to contact APCD in the event of a probable violation. Members of the public can also call APCD if they are concerned about dust or other emissions from a construction site. Mitigation Measure: Cultural Resources 3. The Contributing historic building shall be incorporated into the project consistent with the Secretary of Interior Standards for Rehabilitation and Conservation&Open Space Policy 3.3.4, and shall not be demolished or relocated off- site. 4. The proposed.addition at the rear of the Contributing structure shall be consistent with the building's architectural details and materials, including siding material,window style and trim and roof pitch and materials. 5. No changes to the size, location, material or architectural style of the existing windows on the Islay Street (North Building Elevation) shall be made. Any new or replacement windows on the building, including the proposed addition, shall be in-kind wood frame double-hung windows. 6. The building's existing narrow wood clapboard horizontal siding material shall be maintained. The addition proposed at the rear of the structure shall have matching narrow wood clapboard horizontal siding material. Any replacement siding material on the building shall be in-kind narrow wood clapboard horizontal siding. 7. The new gable end detail proposed on the existing building and addition on the north and south elevations shall be removed. .� Monitoring Program: Project plans submitted for Architectural Review and,building permits will be reviewed for compliance with these requirements by Community Development Department staff. CITY OF SAN Luis OBISPO 20 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2007 0 - Attachment 10 Draft Resolution"A" RESOLUTION NO. (2007 Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO AMENDING THE LAND USE ELEMENT MAP FROM MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO MEDIUM-HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 871 ISLAY STREET (GP/R/ER 8-06) WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted 'a public hearing in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on September 26, 2007, and recommended approval of the General Plan Land Use Element Map amendment;and WHEREAS, the Cultural Heritage Committee of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing in the Council Hearing Room of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on October 22,. 2007, and recommended approval of the Mitigated Negative Declaration (ER 8-06) and development plan (ARC MI 8-06) involving both 871 & 879 Islay Street; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on November 20, 2007, for the purpose of considering the General Plan Land Use Element Map amendment; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the proposed General Plan Land Use Element Map amendment is consistent with other policies of the General Plan; and WHEREAS, notices of said public hearings were made at the time and in the manner required by law; and WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed and considered the Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impact for the project, as prepared by staff and reviewed by the Planning Commission and Cultural Heritage Committee;and WHEREAS, the Council has duly considered all evidence, including the recommendations of the Planning Commission and Cultural Heritage Committee, testimony of interested parties, and the evaluation and recommendations by staff,presented at said hearing. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: r - Attachment 10 Resolution No. (2007 Series) Page 2 SECTION 1. Findings. Based upon all the evidence, the Council makes the following findings: 1. The proposed General Plan amendment and rezoning (GP/R) is consistent with General Plan for the following reasons: 1) The height, mass, density and architectural style of the project is compatible with adjacent developments; 2) The addition of four residential units will incrementally add to the City's Medium-High Density Residential housing inventory; 3) The proposed site design and unit configuration minimizes privacy and overlook impacts for occupants and neighbors; and 4) The project includes the rehabilitation of a Contributing historic resource. 2. The GP/R will allow the proposed two parcel project to be developed within a single zoning district and provide for a logical R-3-H zone boundary at a mid-block location. 3. A Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared by the Community Development Department on September 13, 2007. The City Council finds and determines that the project's Mitigated Negative Declaration adequately addresses the potential significant environmental impacts of the proposed project. SECTION 2. Environmental Determination. The City Council finds and determines that the project's Mitigated Negative Declaration adequately addresses the potential significant environmental impacts of the proposed project, and reflects the independent judgment of the City Council. The Council hereby adopts said Mitigated Negative Declaration and incorporates the following mitigation measures and monitoring programs into the project: Air Quality 1. The following mitigation measures will adequately control dust and minimize potential violations for the project. All of these PM mitigation measures must be included on grading and building plans. In addition, the contractor or builder shall designate a person or persons to monitor the dust control program and to order increased watering, as necessary, to prevent transport of dust off site. Their duties shall include holidays and weekend periods when work may not be in progress. The name and telephone of such persons shall be provided to the APCD prior to land use clearance for map recordation and grading. (A)Reduce the amount of the disturbed area where possible. (B)Use water truck or sprinkler systems in sufficient quantities to prevent airborne dust from leaving the site. Increased watering frequency whenever wind speeds exceed 15 mph. Reclaimed (non-potable) water shall be used whenever possible. (C)All dirt stock-pile areas should be sprayed daily as needed. (D)Permanent dust control measures identified in the approved project revegetation and landscape plans shall be implemented as soon as possible following completion of any soil disturbing activities. l -� Attachment 10 Resolution No. (2007 Series) Page 3 (E) All disturbed soil areas not subject to revegetation shall be stabilized using approved chemical soil binders,jute netting, or other methods approved in advance by the APCD, (F) Vehicle speed for all vehicles shall not exceed 15 mph on any unpaved surface at the site. (G)In the event that the excavation of materials will take place in close proximity of asphalt, street sweepers shall be used at the end of each day if soil material is carried onto adjacent paved roads. (H)All trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials are to be covered or should maintain at least two feet of freeboard (minimum vertical distance between top of load and top of trailer) in accordance with CVC section 23114. (I) Exposed ground areas that are planned to be reworked at dates greater than one month after initial grading should be sown with a fast-germinating native grass seed and watered until vegetation is established. (J) Plant shade trees along southern exposures of buildings to reduce summer cooling needs as well as planting trees on both sides of the roads to reduce the reflective radiating heat of asphalt roads. (K)Install wheel washers where vehicles enter and exit unpaved roads onto streets, or wash off trucks and equipment leaving the site. (L) Sweep streets at the end of each day if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent paved roads. Water sweepers with reclaimed water should be used where feasible. 2. Under the State Air Resources Board Air Toxics Control Measure (ATOM) for Construction, Grading, Quarrying, and Surface Mining Operations, the applicant must comply with the following dust mitigation measures outlined in the Asbestos ATCM for Construction, Grading, Quarrying, and Surface Mining Operations. All of these Asbestos mitigation measures must be included on grading and building plans. The APCD monitors State air quality requirements and will be routed plans that are submitted for building permits for the project to insure compliance with all standards and requirements. APCD also responds in the field during construction on a complaint basis. M) Construction vehicle speed at the work site must be limited to fifteen (15)miles per hour or less; N) Prior to any ground disturbance, sufficient water must be applied to the area to be disturbed to prevent visible emissions from crossing the property line;. O) Areas to be graded or excavated must be kept adequately wetted to prevent visible emissions from crossing the property line; P) Storage piles must be kept adequately wetted, treated with a chemical dust suppressant, or covered when material is not being added to or removed from the pile; Q) Equipment must be washed down before moving from the property onto a paved public road; and R) Visible track-out on the paved public road must be cleaned using wet sweeping or a HEPA filter equipped vacuum device within twenty-four(24) hours. i Monitoring Program: Construction phase air quality mitigation measures are monitored by the Air Pollution Control District (APCD), through a complaint based enforcement system. Attachment 10 Resolution No. (2007 Series) Page 4 The requirements listed above are noted on the project plans and the City Building Inspector and Public Works Inspector for the project are instructed to contact APCD in the event of a probable violation. Members of the public can also call APCD if they are concerned about dust or other emissions from a construction site. Cultural Resources 3. The Contributing historic building shall be incorporated into the project consistent with the Secretary of Interior Standards for Treatment of Historic Properties, and with Conservation & Open Space Element Policy 3.3.4, and shall not be demolished or relocated off-site. 4. The proposed addition at the rear of the Contributing structure shall be consistent with the building's architectural details and materials, including siding material, window style and trim and roof pitch and materials. 5. No changes to the size, location, material or architectural style of the existing windows on the Islay Street (North Building Elevation) shall be made. Any new or replacement windows on the building, including the proposed addition, shall be matching wood frame double-hung windows. 6. The building's existing narrow wood clapboard horizontal siding material shall be maintained. The addition proposed at the rear of the structure shall have matching narrow wood clapboard horizontal siding material. Any replacement siding material on the building shall match the original wood clapboard horizontal siding. 7. The new gable end detail proposed on the existing building and addition on the north and south elevations shall be removed. ➢ Monitoring Program:Project plans submitted for Architectural Review and building permits will be reviewed for compliance with these requirements by Community Development Department staff. SECTION 3. Action. The Council does hereby approve an amendment to the General Plan Land Use Element Map from Medium Density Residential to Medium-High Density Residential for property located at 871 Islay Street, as shown on Exhibit A. SECTION 4. The Community Development.Director shall cause the amendment to be reflected in documents which are on display in City Hall and which are available for public use. l- CoD _ Attachment 10 Resolution No. (2007 Series) Page 5 On motion of , seconded by , and on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 201h day of November, 2007. Mayor David F. Romero ATTEST: Audrey Hooper, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Lowell, City Attorney L- Lk f — � Attachment 10 Exhibit "A" GP/R 8-06 (871 & 879 Islay Street) O 871 Islay (Proposed Medium `' Density Residential to Medium-High Density Residential) -- - 879 Islay (Medium-High Density Residential) VA y Medium Density t Residential 0 Medium-High Density Residential 0 Attachment 11 ORDINANCE NO. (2007 Series) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO AMENDING THE ZONING MAP FROM MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL HISTORIC(R-2-11) TO MEDIUM-HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL HISTORIC (R-3-H) FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 871 ISLAY STREET (R 8-06) WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on September 26, 2007, and recommended approval of the Zoning Map amendment; and WHEREAS, the Cultural Heritage Committee of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing in the Council Hearing Room of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on October 22, 2007, and recommended approval of the Mitigated Negative Declaration (ER 8-06) and development plan (ARC MI 8-06) involving both 871 & 879 Islay Street; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on November 20, 2007, for the purpose of considering the Zoning Map amendment (R 8-06); and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the proposed revision is consistent with the General Plan, the purposes of the Zoning Regulations, and other applicable City ordinances; and WHEREAS, notices of said public hearings were made at the time and in.the manner required by law; and WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed and considered the Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impact for the project, as prepared by staff and reviewed by the Planning Commission and Cultural Heritage Committee; and BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. The Council does hereby approve an amendment to the Zoning Map from Medium Density Residential Historic (R-2-H) to Medium-High Density Residential Historic (R- 3-H) for property located at 871 Islay Street, as shown on Exhibit A, attached and incorporated herein by reference. SECTION 2. The Community Development Director shall cause the amendment to be reflected in documents which are on display in City Hall and which are available for public use. SECTION 3. A summary of this ordinance, together with the names of Council members voting for and against, shall be published at least five (5) days prior to its final passage, in The Tribune, a newspaper published and circulated in this City. This ordinance shall go into effect at the expiration of thirty(30) days after its final passage. Ordinance No. (2007 Seri(—.1 =� R 8-06 (871 Islay Street) Attachment 11 INTRODUCED on the 201" day of November, 2007, AND FINALLY ADOPTED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo on the day of , 2007, on the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Mayor David F. Romero ATTEST: Audrey Hooper, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Jonathan Lowell, City Attorney Attachment 11 Exhibit "All GP/R 8-06 (871 & 879 Islay Street) f � R- -H �� r 0.7 879 Islay (Zoned R-3-H) r , - 871 Islay (Proposed R-2-H to R-3-H) , `y� r 0 / y rR,2 H; ,� ev clkL �O � IF 0 i '- 9 x `r r1� R'2 C - LO Attachment 12 Draft Resolution `B" RESOLUTION NO. (2007 Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO DENYING A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND REZONE FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 871 ISLAY STREET (GP/R/ER 8-06) WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on September 26, 2007, and.recommended approval of Application GP/R/ER 8-06, a request to amend the City's Land Use Element Map and Zoning Map designations from Medium Density Residential (R-2-H) to Medium-High Density Residential (R-3-H); and WHEREAS, the Cultural Heritage Committee of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing in the Council Hearing Room of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on October 22, 2007, and recommended approval of the Mitigated Negative Declaration (ER 8-06) and development plan (ARC MI 8-06) involving both 871 & 879 Islay Street; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on November 20, 2007, for the purpose of considering Application GP/R/ER 8-06; and WHEREAS, notices of said public hearings were made at the time and in the manner required by law; and WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed and considered the Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impact for the project, as prepared by staff and reviewed by the Planning Commission and Cultural Heritage Committee; and WHEREAS, the Council has duly considered all evidence, including the recommendations of the Planning Commission and Cultural Heritage Committee, testimony of interested parties, and the evaluation and recommendations by staff, presented at said hearing. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. Findings. Based upon all the evidence, the Council makes the following findings: ]Council specifies findings] Lo l0 - - Attachment 1.2 Resolution No. (2007 Series) Page 2 SECTION 2. Denial. The General Plan amendment and Rezone proposed at 871 Islay Street (GP/R/ER 8-06) is hereby denied. On motion of seconded by and on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 20`x' day of November, 2007. Mayor David F. Romero ATTEST: Audrey Hooper, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Jonathan Lowell, City Attorney Page 1 of 1 ®You forwarded this message on 11/16/2007 9:34 AM.. Council, SloCity From: Matt Quaglino [mq@quaglino.coml Sent: Fri 11/16/2007 8:05 AM To: Council, SloCity Cc: F�ECEV E Subject: 871 &879 Islay Street,General Plan amendment Attachments: NQv 1 001 Mayor and City Council Members: gL0 CITY CLERK I am involved in the reconstruction of a historic home on the comer of Islay and Chorro Streets. The property in question is approx. 50 yards to the east on Islay Street. I support the Planning Commissions recommendation of approval. If the project is approved by council and built it will add much needed housing within walking distance to the downtown and greatly improve the property from its current condition. Please contact me with any questions. Thank you for your consideration. Matthew QuaglinoCOUNCI - CDD DIR .D'CAO 21FIN DIR ,CYACAC j?FIRE CHIEF 815 Fiero Lane P'ATTORNEY ' ZPW DIR �YCLERKORIG ZPOLICE CHF San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 LL77 D PT EAD3 Ja AEC DIR fd UTIL DIR 805.543.0560 P HR DIR 805.543.0214 F U.eY"W RED FILE MEETING AGENDA DA t( ITEM #—'-PIU https:Hmai 1.slocity.org/exchange/slocitycounciUInbox/871%20%26%20879%20Islay%20... 11/16/2007 November 15,2007 RECEIVED NOV 19 2001 City Council Members of San Luis Obispo SLO CITY CLERK 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Re:Endorsing Zone Change of 871 Islay Street,San Luis Obispo Dear City Council Members: I would like to express my support for an ordinance changing the zoning for 871 Islay Street from Medium Density Residential Historic (R-2-H)to Medium-High Density Residential Historic(R-3-H). As a historical homeowner for properties located at 1620 Morro through 954 Leff Street,I understand the importance preserving historical homes and contributing to overfill better development of the neighborhood. If you have any questions,please do not hesitate to contact us at(661)252-2409. Sincerely, IQ (Ex g1em& Paula Cox RED FILE Historical Homeowners MEETING AGENDA Lf CDD DIR DA tt a ITEM #,PY FIN DIR FIRE CHIEF PW DIR POLICE CHF LJ REG DIR 1141 UTIL DIR HR DIR 1 I 790 Islay St. Sin Luis Obispo, CA 93401 19 November 2007 [RECEIVED Members of the City Council OV 2 0 2007 City of San Luis Obispo CITY COUNCIL 919 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Re: 871-879 Islay Street, File No. 8-06 Dear Council Members: I fully support the chancing of the zoning for 871 Islay Street from Medium Density Residential Historical to Medium-High Density Historical. As a resident and property owner in this neighborhood since 1973, I understand the importance of preserving historic homes and contributing to the overall better development of the neighborhood and also of the necessity to increase housing stock by increasing density in the inner neighborhoods. I have reviewed the plans of Mr. McNamara's request,and I very much like his sensitivity to the nature of the area and its historical context. I feel that the duplexes and the cul-de-sac are an excellent use of space and that the resulting development will be an asset to the neighborhood and will provide excellent new housing for the City. I hope that you willapprove this project A�p Cao��Y 'COUNCIL TCDD DIP Sin y oi�rs CAO FIN DIP IACAO FIRE CHIEF IT 111 1 (1 ATTORNEY. W DIP fv/IIVII (/ V CLERK/ORIG POLICE CHF SPP ZEADS REC DIP Valerie Endres UTIL DIP 4Ff HR DIP ye e,oso r �c.ER-h RED FILE MEETING AGENDA DATE? ITEM #_�L4_1