Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/22/2008, PH1 - TENTATIVE TRACT MAP PROPOSAL FOR A 12-UNIT CONDOMINIUM DEVELOPMENT (225 NORTH CHORRO STREET, TR/ER counciL Meeting DateL Aj1 j ac Enaa RepoRt it.Number pjf C I TY OF SAN L U IS O B I S P O FROM: John Mandeville,Community Development Direc r IM Prepared By: Brian Leveille,Associate Planner SUBJECT: TENTATIVE TRACT MAP PROPOSAL FOR A 12-UNIT CONDOMINIUM DEVELOPMENT(225 NORTH CHORRO STREET,TR/ER 135-07). CAO RECOMMENDATION As recommended by the Planning Commission, adopt a resolution approving a tentative tract map and Negative Declaration of environmental impact for a 12-unit condominium development located at 225 North Chorro Street (TR/ER 135-07). DISCUSSION Situation/Previous Review The City has received an application to construct a new condominium project at 225 North Chorro Street. The Architectural Review Commission (ARC) originally approved the project design on December 3, 2007. On December 12, 2007, the Planning Commission (PC) reviewed the proposed project and unanimously recommended approval of the subdivision map and environmental document to the City Council (Attachments 3, 4, and 5). Condominium projects with 5 or more units require approval of a tract map, which requires review by both the Planning Commission and City Council for compliance with the Subdivision Regulations and the City's Condominium Regulations. Now, the applicants are seeking final approval of the tentative subdivision map by the City Council. Data Summary Address: 225 North Chorro Street Applicant: Tim and Mary Riley Representative: Truitt Vance Zoning: R-4 (High-Density Residential Zone) General Plan: High-Density Residential Environmental Status: An initial study of environmental review has been prepared for the project and staff has determined that the project will result in less than significant impacts (Attachment 7). Site Description The project site is a vacant 21,854 square-foot lot (.50 acre) located on the west side of North Chorro Street approximately 300 feet north of Foothill Boulevard (Attachment 1). It is generally surrounded by multi-family development also zoned R-4. Along the southwest portion of the project site, the project is adjacent to the Cork and Bottle Liquor and Deli business, zoned C-N (Neighborhood Commercial). The project site is in an area where many students reside since the ` J Council Agenda Report TR 135-07 (225 North Chorro Street) Page 2 area is in close proximity to the Highland Drive entrance to Cal Poly. Project Description The applicant is proposing to construct twelve airspace residential condominium units within two buildings of six units each. All of the proposed units contain two bedrooms and range in size from 1,287 square feet to 1,384 square feet. The seven floor plan layouts (A-G) are substantially similar in configuration with a lower floor two-car garage with laundry facilities, an entry level floor with living room, kitchen facilities and one bath, and a second floor with two bedrooms and two baths. The building design theme is modeled to resemble an Italian Villa with use of smooth trowled stucco siding, tile roofing, low-pitched roofs, exposed wood rafters, and wood knee braces. 1r 1 O — volt U1 r CC 1 1 (4ET ELEVATION View from N. Chorro Street(east elevation) The site plan design has a courtyard-type configuration with a central landscaped common area between the buildings. The common recreation area is located at the rear of the site. Circulation and parking are located along the perimeter of the site with a one-way driveway providing access to lower level garage parking for each unit and guest parking at the rear of the property. Vehicles would enter the site at the south end of the property following the one-way drive to exit at the driveway on the north end of the property. Pedestrian access to the site is from a separate pathway and stairs from North Chorro Street. Evaluation The Planning Commission has considered each of the project's issue areas prior to making a recommendation of approval on the subdivision and Negative Declaration to the City Council. The Planning Commission found the subdivision to be consistent with General Plan Policy and in compliance with the Subdivision Regulations, and therefore recommended approval of the project as proposed. A more thorough review of the issue areas summarized below is in the Planning Commission report (Attachment 5). Ir—'Z Council Agenda Report TR 135-07 (225 North Chorro Street) Page 3 1. General Plan The site's High-Density Residential land use designation is designed for multi-family developments with compact outdoor spaces. Adjacent properties throughout this neighborhood are developed with similar high-density residential developments. Consistent with General Plan Land Use and Housing Element policies, this project proposes to utilize an infill site to maximize the property's density and provide a mixture of housing units. As discussed in the Planning Commission staff report, the project was also found to be consistent with Land Use Element Policy 2.2.10 and Housing Element Policy 3.13.1. These policies relate to neighborhood compatibility. 2. Compliance with R4 Zone Development Standards The project requires two minor exceptions from development standards. Portions of the combined wall and fence height exceed six feet at the rear of the property and the applicant is requesting approval to allow the trash and recycling facilities within the required street yard setback. The exception to locate the trash and recycling facilities in the street yard has been reviewed and approved with site plan review by the ARC, and the fence height exception was supported for follow up action by the Community Development Director. Otherwise, the project is in compliance with R-4 .property development standards in terms of height, coverage, yards and density. Staff has reviewed the cover page of the applicant's plan set that provides site planning statistics and verified on the plans that all other aspects of the project are in compliance. 3. Subdivision Regulations The project is proposed to be developed as an airspace condominium project. Each unit will be eligible for private ownership while the driveway and other common areas would be commonly owned and managed by a homeowners association. The Subdivision Regulations regulate condominium developments and require specific standards for common, private and total open space. The analysis provided in the Planning Commission report (Attachment 5) describes how the project complies with the regulations. Environmental Review The Planning Commission has recommended a Negative Declaration of environmental impact for the project. The initial study is included as Attachment 8. Next Steps Tract maps are a two-step process made up of a tentative map and a final map. The applicant must satisfactorily complete all conditions of the tentative map before City consideration of the final map. Final maps are brought back to the Council for action on the Consent Calendar. /_J Council Agenda Report TR 135-07 (225 North Chorro Street) Page 4 CONCURRENCES The Public Works and Fire Department have reviewed the project and found the proposed project and driveway access to be acceptable. The grading and drainage plan has been conceptually approved by the Public Works Department. The Utilities Department also finds the proposed project acceptable and approves of the location and design of the trash and recycling enclosure. FISCAL IMPACT When the General Plan was prepared, it was accompanied by a fiscal impact analysis, which found that overall the General Plan was fiscally balanced. Accordingly, since the proposed project is consistent with the General Plan, it has a neutral fiscal impact. ALTERNATIVES 1. Continue review of the proposed subdivision with specific direction to the applicant and staff. 2. Approve a resolution recommending that the City Council deny the proposed subdivision, based on findings of inconsistency with the Subdivision Regulations and/or General Plan Policies as specified by the City Council. Attachments: Attachment 1: Vicinity Map Attachment 2: Reduced Size Development Plans Attachment 3: Planning Commission Resolution Attachment 4: Planning Commission meeting minutes Attachment 5: Planning Commission staff report Attachment 6: ARC meeting minutes Attachment 7: ARC approval letter Attachment 8: Initial Study of Environmental Impact Attachment 9: Draft City Council Resolution approving subdivision map with findings and conditions as recommended by staff. G:\CD-PLAN\bleveille\Subdivisions\TR-ER 135-07(225 N.Chorro)\TR and ER 135-07 Council Report.doc e m$$s� !U oivj May %4 o Ssb " °ai�� R 3 egyg � € e�a�go: €aaegmR me �P F� sRg ' =cep w + �$k9mo0 8� 8E S.-�Hi min'<< C A�=£_"6' n N xe ma°,o4 �o ^.mFa $s,n: ..... m W. €no la. a$€ "T g4" a: N ma y °S Cal _° a B p o� dewg �s -; $ = � �nn is ; � ogg �sFs° t oe o J'gq �9 Fro @� ��g€�° x 3�;� ° � " # 4 H Z A $ =u 4 PH >I :ogaa; ".:am'n e00000 ul r $ q.65g" a m :08° aam' S -a ^'o -m 4. S .- zo 88 Bo'm3 8nmR 8°0^ $ 3 iso' osis ss: sss gsY° •s£ ss� ss R°s°s° b a Sgooa �Se; g $ .�� 8� �eg =deg asa a x� b�` 3 is F @@€9N� e" HAM'. ;€�s 7� s-�$ "g�=4 �_�� a .$R��� s a� '�i ' a�gE�� EF$ ` ° R O abN$' " mnn° :mmj o - I— Sn 2 Z°e�1 § � 8°® a 8R4 moe H_ 8�� C fi� z4" ¢R48m ''$ snips°se" 8° ? � s^° cg :P $ p'€ g - 5"v6sg �Ra 9 '�8�: ?g" T ^�� "° z� q HAAAA ii 2�z`% A �^6 8��g"g x... y €y a I��R° a /V R YY 8a 6R ,m 8 b C " $ aR a 0a'a" U 8 $ § % _ a 5db- pm�1 �.n8 o§ y r a F-9 S r38? m O g -S 4m7"r $ 8 - R_ mT xe9k 9g =4'4" t $'vemm} e • a5g`s ;e" q$8F by $m 8$$---A-,9 " "$° r $ 't n oG^' mm �" 6 84 �VA P F k"a$$$a°" § as a r _ t" " R _ ^� _ � 4 x T k€BRn yCc 'z8-per > a>._ la2i CS*^� R.�� `-Bns�F� � O 'B' 4­1-min� . mCi fl %RC °;R<N^h .moo F q s.no a x F .� •Agoa� ^$" J" "�° ° =w'�Q Rs S.-, Caoaao 'e `m^ P a oCE��n•3 "i$ s�m: mF � b$ n a.."c,^°b ££ $ moo g8bxo £d§CoZ °$ i ,8° n3 gd,E'j o bsB RQ =pias 3eeeoe o: £!."uC[ ^£ �8` $ _ gm� -B�" � a£I""m �9 " tpjp %y �' rrt €i m °si. 00£ R?g °�"& $" 8 °"`g"> 4g3 $888 mn z ^d9:C < R Nza 33 5 Pj o5m LS g :;° d�^ E': s"pct 'o= s.�b' 'A ° �"°2 n." M m k5ax f ��m o- t°c 'g .�o "smRmaiFoEz 1 �3 gBm� X06£. em,g�Om .n° £$°R ? .6" "a. ona a: � ` u, " ��ea�'a� 2 "�Rm4m g.°_ m^ > mmo8•m° n m<m "8c m"y`r< 6 "333 p n:�. - o 1, gga=��A Q s N Mo q: >mC 2 3"Gk c °sm^ ^c R^R 5> .,¢ �" cn SFR-z 6Ep>=" >R ma�,4 hm°k" g"p°� R=E"=3 e8 F"a. 96m�"es o :gm`: B�E° Rym$^° go„ "a'`= �i 2'a ^ o $$ g D c g W°mP gs'gs ee$ zgEmFg N.n .„ Fsa F ;•� ” _ lug" mE«c�s'"ss °, m4_ °$ '_'_• z;;4 Ry:'3;:::= agy°::�� io"" - _ ;cc"o y";�� § E€ Rm^���:§ EsseRy>a:'x` § v VJ R:ie"tRi i•$c999�� bR^:8Re99R: Cbz L.R'o6$�$$u �s`R wE:$BJ � mFS Sg9S9�� �R, >R���� i$'R:°R$RRR�' ?. { m mmm= ;`F.€mGxww• o=€�"R^-���• @ ��'��• �€ " °��a�• o€F•' e���2. m fin W. °`rEB�a��� " ;g8^amm^m, a^^-mmmm; `v8�ammmm- " �8^rmmmm- e8�amm;m3 y C ^y©>no8a :F yma.ps8 ^aag wmo p g c yo a�8^ea^p gno:R- 'ffiZ yom^��A000�: .oP"8-aza5 m O 8 ssos .1€ g,°.�� .£.n8n .£.n° :gym 88E8 f a 9 M.E ^. Boa "5= ^$ s"on0000r . '8.: °a oo $88° ao"o:" ➢4888 °c�^ R88 a°O.° 5P8>Sg noo^° 5$$SSg a°o.°"6$$$8_ a nos Aam" bm� "" y "mmm5 r BmR b$ 8£bg " nw.: :, m 5 8'ma. A� °: i�:£"......a aao£"'xm z o $E �. m aF'.,S$n=,R; 'c8� en r;�sCg$$=; cn�eM'" Qa^F8 $=` A c8$ �`#= m ^_i$vFL�_ .> 4:n�" s€A� 3ej g.'imr xr'= im m� _?'g.mm 7m q6i^>a � "a'a.m� Milo'>a' a �p-•5^__p.� � �& $- n' rrxa rr°� en 9m' yo. srrs p. �n� rr-P. 8.. F:m' e o T °EEaBE 4nP"a" gdE g4k$a EE 4o�gu 8EE �i o � Bea ,$„ 80? V ?_$V ?„ s'm$ v_�?P s3:s 7 save e m s�"s"s 'ae s= �$ k. F $' $OP 1zt 8P$ 0.Y $ "^$P$ mtf $ F^+SO L'n YbY' S^8$P §5!Y op l J "na$n 'go _s�aP p rGNNrrrrr rnnitiitii Ca ° - i D k as E': � w »x ns"n 'M�aR sE. § ugg� . gma m �cmu: sc �T €e°�°z "s�yi P : �8�; ^3 ha � �a'��'Paa^a y S" u a"a` ' 1 '£_ �, nesaF Gm^ $�A�M °°fiR $$q g$.o c 77,:=888 � �$a° gpa mai u- "yz� '°3� gg�'yvnnv R x°-��^£m5 v3LE m fia n 4 .'E 88 ..a:S R£ 8°g 8 p ao �., 8» x r, ° e��: K m°s o a Ea"M P3�'gg�ma2 :"s 9 O B a n o9 WA , E" .. " '£ � F � °'"°en��'_ t WySc;'' F 2 _ a7 o ma $ A � gSSS` x cxtC aSs'm T ary m rs _ /y as $a H g R b Y a DDDDo.D o I ((�^^}\� Ashley&Vance 6 $ pY u V�� s SAN LVA• '•k I \ �in design - EN GIN EE RIN G..IN C. i V ° 225 North Charro Street ¢¢ NN [ MO ; 6 4 i San Luis Obispo, California .pg 1232 Safford a omem, San a x 4p °. n Wis Obispo,f7193i05 °"'I°0511B1'0095 (/J� ' y i pF www.^s^byvarc'..wm hzlmSl.BLY09. i 3 (805)459.6099 i� FrLa,--h ent 3g ' i'a A ?�"u Sg98�3��3¢'� N `fNl55` r�!' �.w.WR°.mm ....WJS•� r+arts'oPw r g °� a - pp- , �H_ rt (D - N /.j , • y< I f - a 3 r < N 5 _ _ •t• iNL A J o •Y�y v\ I" I �•� �N e n w I .� I � Y O , k G B � ` 1 I� I J Y • I r `1 r I f i 1 i , I I'.. � I lid I - x ..... _._.:_.. ------------- ---------- NORTH -..._..NORTH CHORRO STREET - d e � N]S�5'Ip'W 31 WIfa' . � fi :DDDDD � •9 ., } 'C.) � Villa San Luis `s ". � ^ � V Yr A0111 811Ce •'l, ENGINE E NING,INC. _ s Tentative Tract 2954 a C t l € 225 North Chorro Street !, ur1./4.i /! San Luis Obispo,California - w� �n° t? �N.+rt 000000000 C)C ID L4 CL ra to m V 000 0 0 j • 4 i Eis AA L xg AA is 4 Q z Tip -0 qj A6 0 ............... NORTH CHORRO STM >>>>> f Villa San Luis fthlevaVance Tentative Tract 2954 225 North Chorm Street San Luis Obispo,California 9r0Lnd,:,=M= k� Attachment --7 --- ---------------- 7-- 6\ F 4 71 NORTH CHORROSTREET Villa San Luis �/74/�AshlevAnce ENGINE E RING.INC. Tentative Tract 2954 1-10 J, 225 North Chorro Street 2 San Luis Obispo,California Attachment 2 m 1 m I fl n 3 � _I F _i = T O N A G C f ! � 1 1 Ry I —4— ti , .n I 1 1 1 o I e 1 1 { 1 C 1 Y I 1 1 I 1 � � I 1 I 1 1 ' P 1 Y � 1'n 4 I _ 1 I • � a i i 1 I i 1 I � If _ 1 I i i _.I i I If II I 1 i I I 1• P 1 I i 1J 1 S I I I P I I n i I I , iEi {DDDDD �(7 e 9 Villa_ San Luis III Ashfewftnee m RB UID ENGIXEf NIM GING. s I p a Tentative Traet 2954 �yUID f {q 225 North Chorco Street grp d 0,=i1�a a G s 9 San Luis Obispo.Califomiam»„yllt_II`irx =� Attachment 2 �! | sc | ~ A* \ / ! \ . - - r . � §V + � ; s « | » ^ I §u ® � \ . ! ! ® � � I !� E . - Si ---- ---------- ----- �------ � co�s .� | � ! | � s� L ` \� 04m deegn �M fy V N e I (� ; { � | | 225 L 2 34 . :: � _ . . | ! ! ! (905)m_ -__ :«_. /�� Attachment 2 'sl. ♦ 0 M 4y V A A 7) ------------------•-------•••-----"'••"------- ................ ---- CHORRID STREET Ashl ey&Vance 46Y VR-LA SAN Luis I Q �/In design ENGINEERING,INC. 225 North Chorro Strool � San Luis Obispo, California 1232 Santini Skjovit Sin Ws Obispo 0193405 (805)459-60H ... ........ Attachment 2 4�0L8 ,r. $E)E s y 9 yn� I s D m 3 rn M z0 —i—i I 5® I c� o` a r O q Z z n \ _� 5 I I 0 5 I iss K ON za A Z=g t- A �i i cpm i` — — — — -- ___ _______ CHORRO STREET — pno;n0 vNFz+e �=gay ` DDD©DI AFw Ashey&Vance p 3 E . a ENGINEERING,INC. VSA 'SAN LVA' f ¢ g in design 7 R 225 North Cherie Street 9 i- ! San Luis Obispo, California ,j WsoN Sreet0son Ol93105 ...a..�.w.'e.m,. y In T2n rmloeotNta.eut.®massr 6 i (905)459.6099 A 1 .I 2 CC V r!l I '��1 ibe4 .b I 9+ 10 C s ' a: m 1, d s� pR\ ri o0 M r — ------Lz ¢6 O \ R .._. S;' iza• �zzz-P; 's_'1-' Ba:nz�zz.� o 9990 F.9�gg [ p9y9e99e e9y9 yae sgggaee SS��k ]y9836�C6ti� P Sa i:E� ax! io?Jim!12 7 Hccap yyySy.£• itl!":tl ?�4tl5 Pi '-4X2899444 U ._______..— _____ RY S0'S� iFw' 8Qet�SFS�dx i6ee� yz CHORRO STREET � ; as __;;_ ;� ,:: e;s;? S ` DDDDD ° %Ashl ewVance 4n 1q9 ENGINE ERING.INC. g=g i 9 e vasa SAN Luis I (0 in design i F ° 7 225 North Chorro Stroat �d 1272 9a0ola 9met 3 San Luis Obispo. Calif or nia d u..r sy n wis n Rt X.Obisy97405 mlensl .oms - 8 E = (1105)459.6099 � �• ••msl wl /(/� SIN RIGUNN :. '0000 \ \ \\ N IMPEZ \:\\��r ■�1 ��1 MINE rME 22S North Chorro "roo' rt. .� . - . INEERIIIGIIC San Luis Obispo, Cal ilo nia �: J1232 Stafford. me It Attachi I N DD ; �\ ( N D D a A 70 r D D ~ r D D Z r C) Z r G1 Ln 1 m = m : m S m m D A ., .\ I m D .Z) V a = �� A J V ED Z m '\ ., m Z r r a It • :O r r- 0 a Z p m rp �,` �� Z p D m o G) m o G) M m • M m c Z _ c z c `>In c �, Z y m 0 J -i In N A Z I 3 �. sy. �\ �. nk D r m D m m I A N \ m z y D• :� m tJ lit CHORRO STREET I ` DDD�D a ((/�((/�^\}}v�� AshleyWance Vu-LA SAN WtsOml l\(Jl Join design EN GI N.E ERIN G,INC. ! \`TYJ/rJl\�//P 3 yy{ 2 225 North Chorro StrnotdF 6San Luis Obispo, California12323.11.d 4mm ,�„oisis yu.��w�:oo�spo.Us34os ,.mmt $ i a ......�..,..mmm mn..,.m.. GO A e e (805)459.6099 Attachment ? a ca v r 9 All SS 4 y +F[ r 61 I a- ftj I a m� �a Cf1 15 —a �n \ =m --- — -- -------- ` "1 , d, °IE - O ------------------- -' CHORRO STREET Nk 8 9iv I ` � DDDDD f t € Ashley&Vance • € V�� SAN LV�J oENGINE E.RING,INC. y s pp 9 'tI 04in design yq L 1 1 �j 3' 225 North Chorro Strout Ji b E q p d Sun Luis Obispo, California 1232 R.ftm 9ruM �€ 91 p ..,,,+' SanL is Obispo.0193405 �mmG�ss �� v+Irsl•n.oms L ...�•r•gwne.mm m mill mm• x (805)459.600 � Attachment IN It CHORRO STREET AshleyWance 225 North Chorro Street ((Oin design 6' T San Luis Obispo, California 1232 Staffora Sheet g (805)459-6099 n, - Attachm lant 2 i Seo GA 4 V e I � � _______________-------.____------------------------------__________________-_. CHORRO STREET i ggeDDD©DI I Ashley&Vance D a ¢ 6 e VILLA SAN LUIS �� `° ! ((loin design ENG INEERIN G,INC. S "���/l N N p ^ � 3� 225 North Chorro Strertt ! �y CJ 7 L R d San Luis Obispo, California .f t2323artaa 9rnet ' N G b d} 6„,,,,C y,n Itis Obispo.0193005 y.any L95 0 .....vuw+.••. n.mu alma (805)059•G099 Attachment � I I J (\ A .ur s m I � I .y :N ® / A i y CHORRO STREET t � aDDDDD' . .i.i.wmywAu.rmshley&,vVarennun,wuyc�.e ourme ENGINGNC.VH-LA SANLM in design 225 North Chorro Stroot 04; San Luis Obispo, California t2129aeom 9mn 5ahlus00,.0193405 Ma (805)4596099 a. v+ e _ Attachment 2 T tiV m _ . N A n 2 ` 0 z i° n m z' � A ; n C N D —I C n x o O N N 5 rnz �c n a z im yo CC. 0mom DN v� NO xm �z m rN mm m` Z> Zr°, m2 mm Oz A rO D2 ;z' �> 0� A; Z1Z_n mn m2rji Zm �m z- D� A� �A �r mo Z z Z rz OD fA*12 Nm Z� Co m 'C nZ mC N n m Nz �� om =� z z O N Z= N r Z m D ; 12 m _ m c D AZ C ;. O , COE)a C,t 0 mm m C C W Z t c �C m m O O n C) O O n m m D m m '� O-Z_I C C O o o o r r m m 2 zO Z A m 0 C m D O D ; Z m Zm Zymm �N➢�O;<O ZZ�r'*,t,''O�SV NmN Or z OnW�lpmlCjO Nr*DOD OyDNyn`S ; ;zz O�omw m >;nzNz wnZcnE oz NZ ,c ; rCzmrwm �=mC; Km�mmN Z < 1 -Z z➢zm<rrr5;Z1 D�r+I1ACV�O ,m„D OrO CCm°, D z �:i ti ZNZrio�m�'C S;mez m0$;Z Z m N x mc OV1�0r OP Nti R. m rz�omD N 'C:!g m DO m0 G'I D+,mr D SNmN ND mm mm C7m-� C N C m.Tl C N < sym m� GZim L zo DA N Ny O r! O O m m Xi N Xi y� O I�. 000 o C 00 o o m �nnm zZ C D V p = D D m O N M c A r o z z ; n n 0 < o n ---- c C 0 v = ; n a m om >A CHORRO ST. OHO;N(m�>0>.o 0 Crm, rrrDSrmy1111 r;SO _0�mm mzm=m�A�m; m<;<;<rN]�n K ® poLLL r m s r77 zVCmX - NO2 NNZm ` 0 _,x-- O00"Wtimmzzr5r0S,FFF y ec' 5 R z z�mx'6m�ZCFti mm> O<.A f Z A P cA�' Z .Ny2�N Df mNOWCmO mEw m N 6 eE° ¢k 333333§.�= z ZOZC m Como m< p NOOIOn zm Ofr°6OD 0 d �' m Cmm� m C y .i PI AI r Vl D k Z T O $ �� p un ttDDDDD ' p ,. ° . °n. Bag 481-0aD5 Villa San Luis °;> `°' °°'3 46'-0084 B ! 225 North Chorro Street t 0 6679 Moro Ra. 1 Sa Ata•c ..Co 93422 • L San Luis Obispo,California i 1—.21C n ;� advance Engineering Attachment 2 '0 IRS ::9 T MFF19 I EE ' j RD Ila ;$o t P Tx "k 4% 0 zIq h -4 1 of -EN 1PIP ;p'— OZ Ashley&Vance E N G IN E E III N G,INC. VU-LA SA14 UM 01 (#4in design 225 North Chorro St,..t San Luis Obispo, California 1232 Staffora Strom F..us.Ob,spo.M 93405 (805)459-6M .............--....... Attachme't ? it goffhQ ®�� ;5 �+ o � E Ez Y e s sE E b °nAa d of£ # k kbb 5,t je$ a^aa MANN,g_a a $$$$5 x all $4GLCCo .. §g &$�_&i3ZO a egg C�c° 9�i Uup at aS $pia5 �]] ] ` >DDDD 9 " 6AshleyWance g g Poa E Q § e �/n 6 e `SAN LUIS I in design ENGINEERING.INC: F p A 225 North Chorro Strout Y� SRN b f [ San Luis Obspo, California 1232 Sta9om Strom D0 [ _ aKA S.n Ws Obispo,l'A93405 Mtamlwlnoes /�' ra lwl9 Nl�mw i 3 e (805)459.6099 LQAttachinent 2 ;c iB .0 R FF9 0 M, 'qRan4j;Aa 0' gg H 0 H! Al p Pau Ashl ey&Vance Vu-LA SAN Luis ENGIN E ERING INC. 225 North Chor ro Street 14 (#@;in design San Luis Obispo, California 1232 R.floni st.ix z Eon W,s Obispo.03 93405 (805)459.6M F A P:p 0 0 0 ft'qI m tt....U. 0 CSX FA'y Ash[ey&Vance VLLA ��in design E N G I N E E R I N G,I N C. 225 North SAN LUIS Chor r o St r out San Luis Obispo, Cal it or nia 1232 9.11. :r DJ A Son Ws Oh,Vo.01933115 (fI05)459.GD99 AttaVhmet 2 ,t ao �< t O €s fn I �I d� If � 'Y6 1 s I $ Y m U=7, 0 o ; . n 0, o 5-Ni i �y I F no LLLFFF r no om,, pp gg g gg �Rm� pp g gg gg �� •'_• P€ Yb E� H¢ %� Hf 6� i �i—� Ri BE Yc 3 A� 9� R� �....,�_-._....._. t i t DDDDD Ashley&Vance 2� e P 3 3 VIS E e SAN LUIS € e I in design ENGIN EERING.INC. n s Nn .225 North Chorro Stroot 0 i , i d C San Luis Obispo,Cal ilor nia 12329aaupU Etna Son WsOol po,OnB7i05 (805)459-6099 i. Iry 29 1[ =i i ME L8 -� �_�; moi . toglimil fflam N111 C- ; -� I. SIIIn 11 .. ClCIf J8� 9a. e■+ill�! _: s 7—Z SM D j — P�Sf♦ ' R• • • 225 North Chorro Stroot San Luis Obmpo, California San Us Obispo.M 9U05J (805)459-6099 y Attachment 2 I I i I Iul i OI O e e. v 0 _J ®I A rn 0 T 1111W 4 �S b 20 0 t o t, F; j o o o o �- Z i � � DDDDD pr '' „ *4in A3hley&Vance P; 8 yy ° V�A .SAN Lus' o dENGINE E RING,INC. design 225 North Chorro Street San Luis Obispo,California C 1232 Stafford 3mm qG�a %nbis Obi,¢0193405 (005)459.6089 Attachmem 2 PROPEM UNE 3 FENCE & § � ƒ 2 ,§ ! ; SZ ' ! !| \\ /l \ __._._ § ; ( |B § [\ , } ) ] in is ' ( OX\ /\ PROPERWLME Arm | . . r»\> § . l , ' ; ! � AsN ey V n e � ! ! | VR-LA SAN Lus 4@ deign41W ENGINEERING.INC. mpo, wm_ w_, _ ,_ I - --- �� Allach rit 2 ?a ! $ . ) � � # } . \ \ \ If if it p- if I # ir if if it $ . { \ ]3 if it � $ � \ } : M M so an 0 2! z >> Ashley&Vance I VD-LA SAN LLBS E N GIN E E RI N G.1 NC. (#4;in design ]� | � | North CharroooI San Lum 0115,0, C811101nit, 1232 St.flara 3� �an W�Ob,�.(A 9U05 0 6 (805)459-6099 Attachment 3 RESOLUTION NO. 5494-07 A RESOLUTION OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A CONDOMINIUM TRACT MAP FOR 12 RESIDENTIAL UNITS TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR PROPERTY AT 225 NORTH CHORRO STREET TR/ER 135-07 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the Gity of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on December 12, 2007, pursuant to an application filed by Tim and Mary Ann Riley, applicant; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo has considered testimony of the applicant, interested parties, and evaluation and recommendations by staff; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has considered the draft Negative Declaration of environmental impact as prepared by staff; BE IT RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. Findings. 1. The design of the tentative tract map is consistent with the General Plan because the proposed subdivision respects existing site constraints, will incrementally add to the City's residential housing inventory, result in condominium units that meet density standards, and will be consistent with the density and development limits established by the High Density Residential District. 2. The site is physically suited for the proposed type of development allowed in the R-4 zones since the site is generally flat, surrounded by existing high density residential development and close to parks, schools and transit services. 3. The design of the subdivision will not conflict with easements for access through (or use of property within)the proposed subdivision. 4. The design of the tentative tract map and proposed improvements are not likely to cause serious health problems, substantial environmental damage or substantially and unavoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat because the site does not have any creeks or other potentially significant habitat areas for fish and wildlife. The site is surrounded by urban development and has been previously developed with multi-family residential units. 5. A Negative Declaration was prepared by the Community Development Department on November 14, 2007. The Planning Commission finds and determines that the project's Negative Declaration adequately addresses the potential significant environmental impacts of the proposed project. /—�/ Resolution No.5494-07 • Attad; ment 3 225 North Chorro Street Page 2 SECTION 2. Action. The Commission hereby recommends approval of the Tentative Tract Map for 12 residential units and adoption of said Negative Declaration (TR/ER 135-07), with incorporation of the following conditions: Conditions: 1. The applicant shall construct the project so as.10 substantially conform to plans stamped with Community Development Department approval and incorporate conditions listed herein. Any change to approved design, colors, materials, landscaping or other conditions of approval must be approved by the Community Development Director and may at the discretion of the Director, have to be referred back to the Architectural Review Commission. 2. Final building plan sets released to the builder/contractor shall contain clear and legible notes that no changes (even for minor exterior details) from building plan sets shall occur without prior permission from Brian Leveille, City of San Luis Obispo, staff Planner, or the Community Development Director, as required. 3. Construction plan sets shall include conditions of approval from all project approvals (ARC/MS 135-07) for contractor/builder reference. 4. All ducts, meters, air conditioning equipment and all other mechanical equipment, whether on the ground, on the structure or elsewhere, shall be screened from public view with materials architecturally compatible with the main structure. Public view includes the existing views from all public streets and sidewalks. Gas and electric meters, electric transformers, and large water piping systems (backflow prevention devices) shall be completely screened from public view with approved architectural features and/or landscape plantings and/or placed on the interior of the structure. 5. Backflow prevention devices, fire department connections or other similar devices that are not shown on the plans approved by the Architectural Review Commission shall be approved by the Planning Department prior to placement on the site. If located within the street yard, such devices shall be screened by landscape walls or landscape shrubs and painted a flat green color. 6. The Hydrology Report shall further address the drainage to be discharged to the westerly property line. Although the amount of run-off in the design storms has been reduced, there appears to.be an existing problem with silt draining onto the adjacent property. The drainage plan should consider the possibility of relocating the westerly parking lot drainageinlet to allow the open space lawn area to provide the maximum opportunity to accept drainage and sediment. The applicant should also notify the neighboring property owner of his intention to continue to discharge water through a weir in the retaining wall. �-3z Resolution No.5494-07 Attactiment 3 225 North Chorro Street Page 3 " 7. The subdivider shall dedicate a 6' wide public utility easement and a 10' wide street tree easement across the frontage of each lot. Said easements shall be adjacent to and contiguous with all public right-of-way lines bordering each lot. 8. Long term bicycle parking spaces in the garage shall include a device for securing bicycle against the wall. A 9. New oak trees shall be planted at a replacement rate of 5:1 at an off-site location to be approved by the Natural Resources Manager. Iz1 addition to replacement trees, at least one of the required street trees planted for the project shall be a Coast Live Oak. 10. Construction plans shall be modified to provide three full size guest parking spaces. 11. The subdivider shall prepare conditions, covenants, and restrictions (CC&R's) to be approved by the Community Development Director and the City Attorney prior to final map approval. CC&R's shall contain the following provisions: a. Creation of a homeowners' association to enforce the CC&R's and provide for professional, perpetual maintenance of all common areas including private driveways, drainage, on-site sewer facilities, parking lot areas, walls and fences, lighting, and landscaping. b. Grant to the city the right to maintain common areas if the homeowners' association fails to perform, and to assess the homeowners' association for expenses incurred, and the right of the city to inspect the site at mutually agreed times to assure conditions of CC&R's and final map are being met. c. No parking except in approved, designated spaces. d. Grant to the city the right to tow away vehicles on a complaint basis which are parked in unauthorized places. e. No outdoor storage of boats, campers, motorhomes, or trailers nor long-term storage of inoperable vehicles. f. No outdoor storage by individual units except in designated storage areas. g. No change in City-required provisions of the CC&R's without prior City Attorney approval. h. Homeowners' association shall file with the City Clerk the names and addresses of all offic6-rs of the homeowners' association within 15 days of any change in officers of the association. i. Provision of appropriate "no parking" signs and red-curbing along interior roadways as required by the City Fire Department. Attachment 3 Resolution No.5494-07 225 North Chorro Street Page 4 j. CC&R's shall not prohibit location of solar clothes drying facilities in private yards which are substantially screened from view. 11. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66474.9(b), the subdivider shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City and/or its agents, officers and employees from any claim, action or proceeding against the City and/or its agents, officers or employees to attack, set aside, void or annul, the approval by the City of this subdivision, and all actions relating thereto, including but not limited to environmental review. On motion by Commr. Stevenson, seconded by Commr. Ashbaugh, and on the following roll call vote: AYES: Commrs. Stevenson, Multari, Gould-Wells, Ashbaugh, Carpenter, and Chairperson Christianson NOES: None REFRAIN: None ABSENT: Brodie The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this day of December 12, 2007. Doug Davidson, Secretary Planning Commission �3y Attachment 4 DRAFT SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES December 12, 2007 ROLL CALL: Present: Commissioners Dan Carpenter, Michael Multari, Diana Gould-Wells, John Ashbaugh, Vice-Chairperson Charles Stevenson and Chairperson Carlyn Christianson Absent: Commr. Amanda Brodie Staff: Deputy Community Development Director Doug Davidson, Associate Planner Brian Leveille ACCEPTANCE OF AGENDA: Commissioners or staff may modify the order of items. The agenda was accepted as written. MINUTES: Minutes of November 14, 2007. Approve or amend. The minutes of November 14, 2007 were approved as amended. PUBLIC COMMENT: There were no public comments. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1. 663, 671 & 677 Osos Street. MS and ER 146-07 (SLOMS 07-137); Consideration of a tentative parcel map to create three lots from one with exceptions to lot area and width requirements, and environmental review-, R-3 zone; Steven Frank, applicant. (Brian Leveille) This item was continued to a date uncertain, without discussion, to allow additional time for staff and the applicant to resolve project issues. 2. 225 No. Chorro Street. TR and ER 135-07: Consideration of a vesting tentative tract map to create 12 airspace residential condominiums from one lot, and environmental review; R-4 zone; Tim and Mary Ann Riley, applicants. (Brian Leveille) Associate Planner Brian Leveille presented the staff report, recommending adoption of a resolution recommending that the City Council approve the vesting condominium tract map and negative declaration of environmental impact. Truitt Vance, applicant's representative, answered questions of the Commission regarding parking, decks, common area, and the trash enclosure, and discussed project grading and proposed tree removal. 1_J15 Attachment 4 Draft Planning Commission Mmutes December 12,2007 Page 2 Corey Goodwin, project designer, also addressed questions of trash pick-up, turning radius, and the ability of trucks to access the site. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Steve Del Martini, San Luis Obispo, spoke in support of the project, describing it as a good example of infill housing. Mary Riley, applicant, discussed the project and concerns with trash pickup. COMMISSION COMMENTS: The Commission discussed whether there was adequate clearance for vehicles under second level decks and if there is adequate space for vehicle maneuvering. Commr. Stevenson discussed the size and placement of the trash enclosure, questioned if the common open space area requirement was adequate, suggested adding features such as benches, and commented on parking counts as it relates to required vehicle and motorcycle parking. Commr.. Carpenter questioned the bicycle parking language in the resolution and suggested the plans be labeled specifically for bicycle parking. Commr. Ashbaugh questioned the second level decks and whether adequate clearance was provided; questioned the open space requirements; and asked if the shading on the plans was accurate. Commr. Gould-Wells asked if the driveway aisles and back-up space was adequate for vehicles, and stressed that condition 6 relating to drainage, must be enforced. Commr. Multari asked how the project would comply with the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance and supported the project as a good example of an R-4 project. On motion by Commissioner Stevenson to recommend the City Council approve the vesting tentative tract map provided conditions of approval were modified to convert one motorcycle parking space into a V guest parking space, and approval of the negative declaration.. Seconded by Commr. Ashbaugh.. The motion carried on a 6:0 vote. COMMENT AND DISCUSSION: 3. Staff A, Agenda Forecast Deputy Director Doug Davidson gave an agenda forecast of upcoming projects. /—?1z Draft Planning Commission A'nmutes Attachment 4 December 12, 2007 Page 3 4. Commission ADJOURNMENT With no further business before the commission, the meeting adjourned at 8:00 p.m, to the regular meeting of the Planning Commission scheduled for Wednesday January 9, 2008 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street. Respectfully submitted by Doug Davidson Recording Secretary Approved by the Planning Commission on Diane R. Stuart, CM Management Assistant ��37 Attachment 5 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT ITEM # 2 BY: Brian Leveille, Associate Planner(781-7166 MEETING DATE: December 12, 2007 FROM: Doug Davidson, Deputy Director of Community Development p FILE NUMBER: TR/ER 135-07 PROJECT ADDRESS: 225 North Chorro Street SUBJECT: Review of a proposed tract map to allow a new 12-unit condominium subdivision located on North Chorro Street between Highland Drive and Foothill Boulevard. RECOMMENDATION Adopt a resolution recommending approval of the condominium tract map and Negative Declaration to the City Council. BACKGROUND Situation The applicant is proposing to develop the ' r vacant lot with a new 12-unit residential condominium project. Condominium �� �'- projects with 5 or more units require approval of a tract map, which requires review by both the Planning Commissionand City Council for compliance with the Subdivision Regulations and the City's Condominium Regulations. The Architectural Review Commission ; reviewed the project for conformance Interior courtyard view with the Community Design Guidelines on December 3, 2007, and granted approval of the building architecture and site design, contingent upon approval of the tract map. Data Summary Address: 225 North Chorro Street Applicant: Tim and Mary Riley Representative: Truitt Vance Zoning: R4 (High-Density Residential Zone) General Plan: High-Density Residential Environmental Status: A Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact was recommended by 1-jr Attachment 5 TR/ER 135-07 (225 N. Chorro) Page 2 the Director of Community Development on November 14, 2007 (Attachment 5). Site Description The project site is a vacant 21,854 square-foot lot (.50 acre) located on the west side of North Chorro Street approximately 300 feet north of Foothill Boulevard. It is generally surrounded by multi-family development also zoned R-4. Along the southwest portion of the project site, the project is adjacent to the Cork and Bottle Liquor and Deli business, zoned C-N (Neighborhood Commercial). The project site is in an area where many students reside since the area is in close proximity to the Highland Drive entrance to Cal Poly. Proiect Description The applicant is proposing to construct twelve airspace residential condominium units within two buildings of six units each. All of the proposed units contain two bedrooms and range in size from 1,287 square feet to 1,384 square feet. The floor plan layouts (A-G) are substantially similar in configuration with a lower floor two-car garage with laundry facilities, an entry level floor with living room, kitchen facilities and one bath, and a second floor with two bedrooms and two baths. The building design theme is modeled to resemble an Italian Villa with use of smooth trowled stucco siding, tile roofing, low-pitched roofs, exposed wood rafters, and wood knee braces. utn v vV p�Yal..vi J.y A a omcuu omt u�c ' ..Ww'Twm"'T•.aw EAW ELEVAMIJ rnem HM View from N. Chorro Street(east elevation) .M The site plan design has a courtyard-type configuration with a central landscaped common area between the buildings. The common recreation area is located at the rear of the site. Circulation and parking are located along the perimeter of the site with a one-way driveway providing access to lower level garage parking for each unit and guest parking at the rear of the property. Vehicles Attachment 5 TR/ER 135-07 (225 N. Chorro) Page 3 would enter the site at the south end of the property following the one-way drive to exit at the driveway on the north end of the property. Pedestrian access to the site is from a separate pathway and stairs from North Chorro Street. EVALUATION 1. General Plan . The following paragraphs evaluate the proposed project for consistency with applicable General Plan Policies. General Plan Policy is in italics followed by staff's response. LU2.2.10: Compatible Development Housing built within an existing neighborhood should be in scale and in character with that neighborhood. All multifamily development and large group-living facilities should be compatible with any nearby, lower density development. Staffs Anal As discussed below in Community Design Guidelines analysis, surrounding structures do not set a particularly unique or quality design aesthetic. The proposed project is not in conflict with the surrounding development pattern and does create a higher standard architecturally for the neighborhood. Density in the neighborhood is similar to the proposed project. LU 2.4.8.High Density Residential High Density Residential development should be primarily attached dwellings in two- or three-story buildings, with common outdoor areas and very compact private outdoor spaces. Other uses which are supportive and compatible with these dwellings such as group housing, parks, schools, and churches may be permitted. Such development is appropriate near employment centers and major public facilities. Staffs Analysis: The project is designated as "High Density Residential" on the General Plan Land Use Element (LUE) map. The project is consistent with LU 2.4.8 since it proposes two buildings with attached units. All the units are two-story units with a lower level garage and contain very compact private outdoor spaces provided by porches on the interior court yard and second-story decks. General Plan HE Policy 7.2.1: "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. " Staffs Analysis: The project site is surrounded by high density multi-family, multi-story apartments and condominiums. The height, mass, and density of the proposed project is compatible to adjacent development and complies with Housing Element Policy 7.2.1. Attachment 5 TR/ER 135-07 (225 N. Chorro) Page 4 2. Subdivision Regulations The City's Municipal Code contains provisions for the development of new condominiums. Consistent with the General Plan and the Community Design Guidelines, these provisions contain standards for common and private open space, recreation amenities and storage. Unlike a rental apartment project, which are open to discretion on the size and placement of open space areas, the condominium standards have specific guidelines that must be incorporated into ownership condominium projects. As quoted in Section 16.17.010 of the regulations, the City does "recognize that ownership units differfrom rental apartments and,for the benefit ofpublic health, safety and welfare, such projects should be treated differently from apartments. " In general, the regulations for condo projects in the R-4 zone require 100 square feet of private open space and 100 square feet of common open space for each unit. Additionally the regulations require that projects in the R-4 zone have a combined total of at least four hundred square feet of both private and common open space per unit. Common recreation facilities are required in the R-4 zone for projects of five or more units. Storage must also be included for each unit and shall include at least two hundred cubic feet of enclosed, weatherproof and lockable private storage space, exclusive of cabinets and closets within the unit. Staff's Analysis: Private Open Space: The proposed project provides 2,072 square feet and meets the private open space requirement of 100 square feet per unit. Private open space requirements are met by providing lower level porch space and upper level decks (the applicant's open space plan is shown in plan set sheet CA-1.4). Common Open Space: The proposed project includes approximately 2,751 square feet of common open space and does meet the 1,200 square foot minimum. Common open space is provided in the courtyard area between units at the rear of the site. Combined "Total' open space: The project meets the total open space requirement of 4,800 square feet (12x400 sq. ft./unit). The project provides a total of 4,823 square feet with 2,751 square feet of common open space and 2,072 square feet of private open space. Common Recreation Facilities: The project is required to provide a minimum of 20-square feet per unit of common indoor recreation facilities, or forty square feet per unit of improved outdoor recreation facilities. This requirement is met with the provision of 918 square feet of recreation facility area. Common recreation facilities include amenities such as a built-in barbeque, picnic table, and common use garden. Storage: Lockable storage areas are provided within the garage area of each unit.. Attachment 5 TR/ER 135-07 (225 N. Chorro) Page 5 ]Laundry: Minimum requirements for laundry facilities are to provide laundry area within each unit, or in common laundry space. Washers and dryers are provided in the garage level of each unit. The project meets laundry requirements. 3. Property Development Standards The project requires two minor exceptions from development standards. Portions of the combined wall and fence height exceed six feet at the rear of the property and the applicant is requesting approval to allow the trash and recycling facilities within the required street yard setback. The exception to locate the trash and recycling facilities in the street yard has been reviewed and approved with site plan review by the ARC, and the fence height exception was supported for follow up action by the Community Development Director. Otherwise, the project is in compliance with R-4 property development standards in terms of height, coverage, yards and density. Staff has reviewed the cover page of the applicant's plan set that provides site planning statistics and verified on the plans that all other aspects of the project are in compliance. Fence height exception: Approximately 73 lineal feet of the combined wall and _ fence height would exceed six feet in height (see sheet C-2.0). The increased fence/wall height is necessary because the rear of the site needs to be built upt somewhat with fill material to obtain the T proper fall to accommodate drainage , 1 Staff is in support of the fence height exception since the exception is minimal (T-1" at highest point) and the increased - height would not negatively impact perspective view along south elevation adjacent properties. Staff did not include the description of the needed fence height exception in the notices and legal ads; therefore, separate noticing will be undertaken for action by the Community Development Director. Trash and Recycling: The trash and recycling enclosures are proposed to be located adjacent to the front property line where vehicles exit the site. The applicant's design provides a trellis to screen the trash storage areas from upper stories of adjacent structures. The side of the enclosure faces the street and is screened behind a landscape planter. The placement and design of the trash and recycling enclosure is consistent with the Community Design Guidelines and was supported by the ARC. 4. Landscaping& Tree Removals The landscape plan includes a variety of trees, shrubs, and groundcover for the common areas. Attachment 5 TR/ER 135-07 (225 N. Chorro) Page 6 The landscape plan appears sufficient to enhance the appearance of the project and soften the visual impact of buildings. The proposed project also includes the removal of three Coast Live Oak trees with diameters of 12, 16, and 17-inches. The Municipal Code provides for approval of tree removals by the Architectural Review Commission in association with development plans. As recommended by the City Arborist, the ARC approved the tree removals with the requirement of a 5:1 compensatory planting at an off-site location to be approved by the City Natural Resources Manager. At lease one of the required street trees must also be a Coast Live Oak. Summary The Architectural Review Commission has reviewed the design details of the development site and the architecture of the proposed units and found that the project is appropriate and consistent with the Community Design Guidelines. The responsibility of the Planning Commission and City Council is to review the subdivision map requirements and the applicable General Plan Policies and open space standards. ALTERNATIVES 1. Continue the item. An action to continue the item should include a detailed list of additional information or project modifications required. 2. Recommend denial of the project to the City Council. Action denying the application should include the basis for denial. ATTACHMENTS Attachment 1: Vicinity map Attachment 2: Reduced scale project plans Attachment 3: ARC Report Attachment 4: Draft Initial Study of Environmental Review Attachment 5: Resolution recommending approval of the tract map to City Council Enclosed: Full-size project plans. G:/bleveille/subdivision/TR 135-07 (225 N. Chorro) �- y3 Draft ARC Minutes '��� AttaChmtm. tt 6 December 3, 2007 Page 2 AYES: Commrs. Howard, Root, Boudreau, Palazzo, Kambitsis NOES: None RECUSED: None ABSENT: Commrs. Hopkins, Wilhelm The motion passed on a 5:0 vote. 2. 225 No. Chorro Street. ARC 135-07; Review of a new 12-unit residential development; R-4 zone; Tim and Mary Ann Riley, applicants. (Brian Leveille) Associate Planner Brian Leveille presented the staff report recommending final approval, based on findings and subject to conditions and code requirements. Truitt Vance, applicant's representative, noted: that the courtyard design provides a nice amenity for the residents; that the angled siting of the buildings and stepped landscaping in the street yard softens the streetscape elevations of the project; and that grading might be modified to minimize the need for fence height exceptions. Corey Goodwin, project designer, explained how the angled site plan helps to maximize views of the surrounding peaks and that the trash enclosure was oriented to the north where it would be less visible to passing motorists. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Wedad Nelson, San Luis Obispo, a neighbor of the project, voiced concern with the project in terms of increased traffic and attracting students. There were no further comments from the public. COMMISSION COMMENTS: The Commission liked the site design with a central courtyard and perimeter driveways. They also appreciated the angled orientation of the units in terms of maximizing views and creating more interest and articulation to the long building facades. Commr. Boudreau appreciated the raised paeo design and felt that it created a unique sense of place. Commr. Root supported the use of pervious pavers in the courtyard and driveway if they could be efficiently installed. Commr. Howard initially voiced concerns regarding the orientation of the bedroom and living room spaces in units facing the driveway instead of the courtyard, but understood the applicant's explanation that the main living spaces were oriented to take advantage of the view corridors to the Morros. yy Draft ARC Minutes Attachment 6 December 3,2007 Page 3 On a motion by Commr. Palazzo to -grant final approval of the project, based on findings, and subject to conditions and code requirements. Seconded by Commr. Howard. AYES: Commrs. Howard, Root, Boudreau, Palazzo, and Kambitsis NOES: None RECUSED: None ABSENT: Commrs. Hopkins and Wilhelm The motion carried on a 5-0 vote. 3. 956 Monterey Street. ARC 131-06; Review of new mixed-use building; C-D-H zone; Copeland Properties, applicant. (Pam Ricci) Commr. Howard recused herself because of a potential conflict of interest. Senior Planner Pam Ricci presented the staff report, recommending final approval, based on findings and subject to conditions and code requirements. She noted that the Cultural Heritage Committee reviewed the design and recommended approval, and explained the need for a sign exception and a change to the condition regarding parking. Mark Rawson, applicant's representative, discussed the width of the proposed sidewalk and loss of parking. A colors and materials board was presented for review. PUBLIC COMMENTS: There were no comments from the public. COMMISSION COMMENTS: The Commission was supportive of the building architecture and detailing and felt that it took good advantage of the long, narrow corner site. They offered a compromise solution to the requirement of widening the sidewalk along Morro Street. In order to retain some on-street parking and the existing under sidewalk storm drain structure, they suggested that that the sidewalk could remain narrower near the street intersection. Commr. Boudreau agreed with proposed conditions that window, door and other building details would return to staff, and suggested a compromise with the partial widening of the Morro Street sidewalk while keeping some on- street parking. Commr. Kambitsis expressed concern with the depth of the cornices at the roof level. On a motion by Commr. Root to grant final approval to the project based on findings and subiect to conditions and code requirements. Seconded by Commr. Palazzo. AYES: Commrs. Root, Boudreau, Palazzo, and Kambitsis ��S Attachment 7 �III��hI�IIIIII�II�����������1 I�Ipllllllllll� cityO S�►1'11�,11S OBISW Community Development Department• 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 December 13, 2007 Tim and Mary Ann Riley P.O. Box 3217 San Luis Obispo, CA 93409 SUBJECT: ARC 135-07: 225 N. Chorro. Review of proposed twelve unit multi-family residential project Dear Mr. Mrs. Riley: The Architectural Review Commission, at its meeting of December 3, 2007, granted final approval to your project, based on the following findings, and subject to the following conditions and code requirements: Findings 1. The proposed project is consistent with the High-Density Residential General Plan map designation for this property since it proposes attached high density residential units with very compact outdoor spaces. 2. The project is consistent with other residential buildings in the vicinity and provides for a superior quality design that will complement the neighborhood. The proposed scale and design of the buildings will be compatible to the site and neighborhood since they are similar in overall height and massing to existing buildings within the immediate vicinity. 3. As conditioned, the project is consistent with the Community Design Guidelines policies for high density residential development as discussed in the December 3, 2007 staff report. 4. If substantive changes are made with review by the Planning Commission and City Council of the required tract map and environmental review, then the project may be required to return to the ARC. 5. The location of the trash enclosure in the street yard is supported by the ARC for this project because of the configuration of the site plan, the high density character of the neighborhood, and the effective use of planter and landscape screening. The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services, programs and activities. / 7LO L Telecommunications Device for the Deaf(805)781.7410. Attachment 7 ARC 135-07 Page 2 6. In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act, a Notice of Intent (NO[) to adopt a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact has been approved by the Director of Community Development and the Negative Declaration will be reviewed by the Planning Commission and City Council for final action. Conditions 1. The applicant shall construct the project so as to substantially conform to plans stamped with Community Development Department approval and incorporate conditions listed herein. Any change to approved design, colors, materials, landscaping or other conditions of approval must be approved by the Community Development Director and may at the discretion of the Director, have to be referred back to the Architectural Review Commission. 2. Final building plan sets released to the builder/contractor shall contain clear and legible notes that no changes (even for minor exterior details) from building plan sets shall occur without prior permission from Brian Leveille, City of San Luis Obispo, staff Planner, or the Community Development Director, as required. 3. Construction plan sets shall include conditions of approval from all project approvals (ARC/MS 135-07) for contractor/builder reference. 4. All ducts, meters, air conditioning equipment and all other mechanical equipment, whether on the ground, on the structure or elsewhere, shall be screened from public view with materials architecturally compatible with the main structure. Public view includes the existing views from all public streets and sidewalks. Gas and electric meters, electric transformers, and large water piping systems (backflow prevention devices) shall be completely screened from public view with approved architectural features and/or landscape plantings and/or placed on the interior of the structure. 5. Backflow prevention devices, fire department connections or other similar devices that are not shown on the plans approved by the Architectural Review Commission shall be approved by the Planning Department prior to placement on the site. If located within the street yard, such devices shall be screened by landscape walls or landscape shrubs and painted a flat green color. 6. The Hydrology Report shall further address the drainage to be discharged to the westerly property line: Although the amount of run-off in the design storms has been reduced, there appears to be an existing problem with silt draining onto the adjacent property. The drainage plan should consider the possibility of relocating the westerly parking lot drainage inlet to allow the open space lawn area to provide the maximum opportunity to accept drainage and sediment. The applicant should also notify the neighboring property owner of his intention to continue to discharge water through a weir in the retaining wall. /-y7 -=y ARC 135-07 Attachment 7 Page 3 7. The subdivider shall dedicate a 6' wide public utility easement and a 10' wide street tree easement across the frontage of each lot. Said easements shall be adjacent to and contiguous with all public right-of-way lines bordering each lot. 8. Long term bicycle parking spaces in garage shall include a device for securing bicycle against the wall. If device is lot labeled for bicycle use, the space shall be designated with paint or signage so they can remain available for bicycle parking. The decision of the Commission is final unless.appealed to the City Council within 10 days of the action. Any person aggrieved by the decision may file an appeal. Appeal forms are available in the City Clerk's office, or on the City's website (www.slocity.org). The fee for filing an appeal is $100.00, and must accompany the appeal documentation. While the City's water allocation regulations are in effect, the Architectural Review Commission's approval expires after three years if construction has not started, unless the Commission designated a different time period. On request, the Community Development Director may grant a single one-year extension. If you have questions, please contact Brian Leveille at 781-7166. Sincerely, J�_)47tz/ %LCi Pamela Ricci, AICP Senior Planner cc: County of SLO Assessor's Office Truitt Vance 6679 Morro Road Atascadero, CA 93422 SLO City Housing Authority P.O. Box 3217 San Luis Obispo, CA 93403 r �-yam Attachment 8 hill�l � C1Of�� - NI�IIiII D II WISty san OBISPO Community Development Department• 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM For ER 135-07 1. Project Title: Villa San Luis 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of San Luis Obispo 919 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Brian Leveille, Associate Planner (805) 781-7166 4. Project Location: 225 North Chorro Street, City of San Luis Obispo (west side of North Chorro Street, north of Murray Street) 5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Applicant: Tim and Mary Ann Riley P.O. Box 3217 San Luis Obispo, CA 93403 Representative: Truitt Vance 6679 Morro Road, Atascadero, CA 93422 6. General Plan Designation: High Density Residential 7. Zoning: R-4 (High Density Residential) 8. Description of the Project: The 21,854 square-foot (0.50-acre) site is located on the west side of North Chorro Street north of Foothill Boulevard. The project site is currently undeveloped with several trees proposed for removal. Trees on the site include multiple ornamental species which will be removed, and two Coast Live Oaks with diameters of 12-inches and 17-inches. Development of the proposed project will include construction of two new buildings with six units each for a total of 12 two- bedroom condominium units with garage and surface parking, and outdoor use areas. Access to the site has been designed with a one-way driveway entering from North Chorro Street to access garage and surface parking for each unit. OThe City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services,programs and activities. Telecommunications Device for the Deaf(805)781-7410. Attachment 8 9. Surrounding Land Uses and Settings: Properties to the west, north and east of the project site are designated as High Density Residential (R4) and are developed with multi-family units. Part of the south property line borders Neighborhood Commercial (C-N) and is developed with a liquor and deli retail business. 10. Project Entitlements Requested: The applicant has requested architectural review and approval of a tentative tract map for the twelve-unit air space residential condominiums. 11. Other public agencies whose approval is required: None 1 j Attachment 8 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a"Potentially Significant Impact"as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. Aesthetics Geology/soils Public Services Agricultural Resources Hazards&Hazardous Recreation_ Materials Air Quality Hydrology/Water Quality Transportation&Traffic Biological Resources Land Use and Planning Utilities and Service Systems Cultural Resources Noise Mandatory Findings of Significance Energy and Mineral Population and Housing Resources FISH AND GAME FEES 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)). Attacfir..nt 8 DETERMINATION: On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and X a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made, or the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet(s) have been added and agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL UVIPACT 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.. 1! 2-47 Signature Date Doug Davidson,Deputy Director,Development Review John Mandeville,Community Development Director Printed Name for Attachment 8 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: 1. A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact' answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the analysis in each section. A "No Impact' answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A"No Impact"answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g. the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants,based on a project-specific screening analysis). 2. All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site,cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. The explanation of each issue should identify the significance criteria or threshold,if any,used to evaluate each question. 3. "Potentially Significant Impact'is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact"entries when the determination is made,an EIR is required. 4. "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section 17, "Earlier Analysis,"may be cross-referenced). 5. Earlier analysis may be used where,pursuant to the tiering,program EIR,or other CEQA process,an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063 (c) (3) (D) of the California Administrators Code. 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 Issues, Discussion and Supportii,y ,oformation Sources Sources Pote,.__.y Potentially t 'L'flt Significant Significant Significant Impact ER # 135-07 Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Page No. 6 Incorporated 1.AESTHETICS. Would theproject: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? 1 X b) Substantially damage scenic resources,including,but not limited 1,2, X to,trees,rock outcroppings,open space,and historic buildings 8,9 within a local or state scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of 9,21 X the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would 19,21 X adversely effect nighttime views in the area? Evaluation a), b), c), d) The project involves redevelopment of a single parcel substantially surrounded by urban development. The project is not in the area of any roads of high or moderate scenic value, as determined by the City's Scenic Roadways Map. The project includes development within the allowable property development standards of the Zoning Regulations. The Architectural Review Commission will review the project and give direction on minor modifications to the project if needed to ensure compliance with City standards. The project site contains no scenic resources, such as significant trees or rock outcroppings. The project will not create a new source of substantial light or glare. Conclusion No impacts have been identified relating to aesthetics. The project is subject to architectural review. The City's Architectural Review Commission routinely reviews new development projects to insure a high level of architectural integrity and aesthetic quality. No mitigation is required. 2.AGRICULTURE RESOURCES. Would theproject: a) Convert Prime Farmland,Unique Farmland,or Farmland of Statewide Importance(Farmland),as shown on the maps 8, 10, X pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of 11 the California Resources Agency,to non-agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use,or a 8 X Williamson Act contract? c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which,due to 9 X their location or nature,could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? Evaluation a),b),c)The site is designated as Urban Land by the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency. The project will not convert prime farmland to any non-agricultural use. The project site is within an urban area and will not conflict with any agricultural zoning or Williamson Act contract. The project is an in-fill development that will not result in changes that could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural ruses. Conclusion The project will not have any impact on agricultural resources. 3. AIR QUALITY. Would theproject: a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an 12, 13 X existing or projected air quality violation? b) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air 12 X quality plan? c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant 21 X concentrations? d) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of 2 j X people? ��y Issues, Discussion and Supportiriy „iformation Sources sources Potn.___y Potentially Les;I A 1.1�_n_� 8 Significant Significant Significant Impact ER# 135-07 Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Page No.7 Incorporated e) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment tinder an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard 21 X (including releasing emissions which exceed qualitative thresholds for ozoneprecursors)? Evaluation a),b),c),e) San Luis Obispo County is a non-attainment area for the State PMto(fine particulate matter 10 microns or less in diameter)air quality standards. State law requires that emissions of non-attainment pollutants and their precursors be reduced by at least 5% per year until the standards are attained. The Clean Air Plan (CAP) for San Luis Obispo County was developed and adopted by the Air Pollution Control District(APCD)to meet that requirement. The CAP is a comprehensive planning document designed to reduce emissions from traditional industrial and commercial sources, as well as from motor vehicle use. Land Use Element Policy 1.18.2 states that the City will help the APCD implement the Clean Air Plan. According to the Air Pollution Control District's(APCD)"CEQA Air Quality Handbook,"land uses that cause the generation of 10 or more pounds per day (PPD) of reactive organic gases,oxides or nitrogen, sulfur dioxide, or fine particulate matter have the potential to affect air quality significantly. A 50-unit apartment complex generates over 10 pounds of these pollutants. Since the site is proposed to be developed with 12 condominium dwellings, the project is of a size that is 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)The project is a residential condominium development and will not create objectionable odors tinder normal circumstances. Conclusion The project does not exceed APCD thresholds and air quality mitigation measures are not required. The City's Grading Ordinance includes dust control measures that will apply to the project. Energy efficiency is a factor that is routinely considered by the City's Architectural Review Commission and conditions of approval may be required to insure that City goals are met with respect to solar orientation,building materials and general methods for conservation. No further mitigation is required. 4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would theproject: a) Have a substantial adverse effect,either directly or indirectly or 1,5,9 X through habitat modifications,on any species identified as a candidate,sensitive,or special status species in local or regional plans,policies,or regulations,or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect,on any riparian habitat or 5,9 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 5,9 biological resources,such as a tree preservation policy or X ordinance(e.g.Heritage Trees)? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native 9 X resident or migratory wildlife corridors,or impede the use of wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted habitat Conservation Plan,Natural Community Conservation Plan,or other approved 5 X local,regional,or state habitat conservation plan? f) Have a substantial adverse effect on Federally protected wetlands as defined in Section 404 of the Clean Water Act Issues, Discussion and Supportitiy ,nformation Sources sources Poll.._=Aty Potentially I.eNho flftvt $ Significant Significant Significant Impact ER # 135-07 Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Pae No. 8 Incorporated (including,but not limited to,marshes,vernal pools,etc.) 5 X through direct removal,filling,hydrological interruption,or other means? Evaluation a), b),c),e), f) The site is not within a riparian corridor and there are no creeks on the property. No endangered,threatened or other protected species have been reported on the project site. There are no local ordinances or habitat conservation plans that affect the property or that identify the site as potential habitat for any protected species of plant or animal. Although several trees are proposed for removal the City's Urban Forester will review the project in accordance with City standards for proposed tree removals and if determined as necessary the landscape plan will be conditioned to provide for adequate replacement plantings to the approval of the Architectural Review Commission. Conclusion The project does not have the potential to impact biological resources. S.CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would theproject: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a 9, 15, X historic resource?(See CEQA Guidelines 150645) 17 b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an 9, 14, X archeological resource?(See CEQA Guidelines 15064.5) c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource 5, 14, X or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains,including those interred outside of 16, 17 X formal cemeteries? 7 Evaluation a) There are no structures to be removed or modified on the site. Additionally, no "Heritage Trees" are located on the property according to Heritage Trees of San Luis Obispo. The potential for a structure to be found historically significant is based on a number of criteria including,style,design,age,architect,environmental design continuity,history-person,history- event and history-context as described in the Historical Preservation Program Guidelines.This property cannot be reasonably be expected to yield information important in prehistory or history. b) The City's Archeological Resource Preservation Guidelines require preliminary archeological studies for properties that are considered sensitive sites. The project site does not meet the criteria for sensitive site designation because it is more than 200 feet away from the City's major creeks and known archeological sites. The site is also outside of a historical district and the property is not on the City's Inventory of Historic Resources. These factors indicate that the project will have no impact on archeological resources. c), d) The project site does not contain any known paleontological or geological resources and is not within an area where burials are likely,as indicated by the City's Burial Sensitivity Map,on file in the Community Development Department. Conclusion No mitigation is required. 6. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the ro'ect: a) Confect with adopted energy conservation plans? 5,21 X b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient 5,21 X manner? c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the 9 X State? Issues, Discussion and Supportir,y,nformation Sources sonrces Pote..=s,tyPotentially d4 a. ; $ S r Significant Significant Significant Impact ER # 135 07 Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated Page No.9 Evaluation a) The project is a residential development consistent with the site's General Plan designation and Zoning,and will not conflict with adopted energy conservation plans or promote the use of non-renewable resources in an inefficient manner. b)Any development on the site must comply with the policies contained in the General Plan Conservation and Open Space Element.The COSE states encourages new development to minimize the use of conventional energy for space heating and cooling,water heating,and illumination by means of proper design and orientation,including the provision and protection of solar exposure. The City implements energy conservation goals through enforcement of the California Energy Code,which establishes energy conservation standards for residential and nonresidential construction. Future development of this site must meet those standards. c)There are no known mineral resources on the project site that would be of value to the region or the State. Conclusion No further mitigation is required beyond compliance with City established energy conservation standards and all applicable State requirements. The City's Development Standards for New Condominium Projects (SLOMC 17.82.110) requires solar water heating to be provided to each unit unless equivalent energy savings can be made through other means. The Architectural Review Commission regularly reviews development projects for compliance with this standard. 7. GEOLOGY AND SOILS Would theproject: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse 4,21 X effects,including risk of loss,injury or death involving: I. Rupture of a known earthquake fault,as delineated in the 18 X most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area,or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? II. Strong seismic ground shaking? 4 X M. Seismic related ground-failure,including liquefaction? 4 X IV. Landslides or mudflows? 4 X b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? 4,21 X c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable,or that 4 X would become unstable as a result of the project,and potentially result in on or off site landslides,lateral spreading,subsidance, liquefaction,or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil,as defined in Table 18-1-B of the4 g Uniform Building Code(1994),creating substantial risks to life or property? Evaluation a) 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 Zones 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 the Los Osos faults.The edge of this study area extends to the westerly city limits 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 `'/ 1 O Issues, Discussion and Supportihy mformation Sources Sources potb._�ey Potentially s fr0 Significant Significant Significant Impact ER# 135-07 Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Pae No. 10 Incorporated 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",which means that future buildings constructed on the site will most likely be subjected to excessive ground shaking in the event of an earthquake. 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 Codes and City Codes require new structures to be built to resist such shaking or to remain standing in an earthquake. b-d) Future development will be required to comply with the Uniform Building Codes and City Codes which require new structures to be built to resist such shaking or to remain standing in an earthquake, and proper documentation of soil characteristics for designing structurally sound buildings. The Building Division of the Community Development Department routinely reviews project for their compliance with the recommendations of the soils engineering report for the site. No further mitigation is required. Conclusion No mitigation is required. & HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the ptro'ect: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment 21 X though the routine use,transport or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment 21 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 21 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 21 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 8 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 8 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) Impar implementation of,or physically interfere with,the 4 X adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of lose,injury, 4 X or death,involving wildland fires,including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residents are intermixed with wildlands? Evaluation a), b), c), d), e) The site does not contain any know hazardous substances and is not located in an area of high risk. As a residential subdivision the project will not emit any hazardous emissions or require handling of hazardous wastes. The site is l$$U@S, Discussion and Supportihy information Sources Sources Pot6L. iy Potentially Less Than •o Significant Significant Significant Impact ER # 135-07 Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated Pae No. 11 not on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. f) The project site is outside of the Airport Land Use Plan area. g) The project has been reviewed by the Fire Marshall and will not conflict with any emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. h) The Safety Element of the General Plan identifies the site as having a low potential for impacts from wildland fires. Conclusion The project will not involve any impacts with respect to hazards or hazardous materials. 9. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the ro'ect: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge 6,20 X requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere 6,21 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(eg.The production rate of preexisting 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 20,21 X capacity of existing or planned storm-water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff. d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or 20,21 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 20,21 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 8 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 8 X would impede or redirect flood flows? h) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? 21 X Evaluation a),b),h) The project will not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. All of the residences will be served by the City's sewer system and run-off is required to be directed to an approved point of disposal,in this case flows discharged onto adjacent properties do not exceed historical flow discharged along the front and back of the lot. The project will be served with water by the City's Utilities Department and will not use or otherwise deplete groundwater resources or negatively effect water quality. c),d)Future development of the site will increase the amount of impervious surfaces on the site and affect the absorption rate, drainage patterns and the amount and rate of surface runoff. To assure that potential drainage impacts are minimized to a level of insignificance, any future development of the site will be required to be designed to meet all applicable City codes, including City grading and drainage standards. Site runoff rates will be slightly increased as a result of this project,however, flows discharged onto adjacent properties and the public right-of-way will not exceed historical flow discharges, and there will be only insignificant differences in the depth of flow along the curbs downstream of the project. e),f)The project site is not within the boundaries of an area subject to inundation from flood waters in a 100-year storm. Issues, Discussion and Supporting information Sources Sources PoteL r y Potentially t 2i Significant Significant Significant Impact ER # 135-07 Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated Pae No. 12 Conclusion No impacts have been identified with respect to water quality or hydrology. Drainage plans have been evaluated for consistency with existing City codes as part of the subdivision and architectural review process. No further mitigation is required. 10. LAND USE AND PLANNING- Would theproject: a) Conflict with applicable Iand 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? 1,2 X c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural 5 X community conservationplans? Evaluation a) The General Plan Land Use Map designates the site High Density Residential. The land use designation is described as "primarily attached dwellings in two-or three-story buildings with common outdoor areas and very compact private outdoor spaces." The project site is zoned R-4(High Density Residential)with a maximum allowable density of 24 units per net acre, or 12 for this 0.50 acre site. The project has been designed with a density equivalent of 12 density units,no more than the maximum density allowed on the site.The twelve units are arranged within two buildings.Each unit is provided with a private entrance,two-car garage,and private yard area. b) The project site includes one land parcel on a 0.50 acre site. The project will be served by existing streets and will be bordered by other residential uses. The project will not physically divide an established community. c) The project will not conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plans or natural community conservation plans. Conclusion The project will be developed with the type of improvements anticipated by the General Plan and Zoning Regulations and will not create any impacts to land use and planning. 11.NOISE. Would the project result in: a) Exposure of people to or generation of"unacceptable"noise levels as defined by the San Lulls Obispo General Plan Noise 3 X Element,or general noise levels in excess of standards established in the Noise Ordinance? b) A substantial temporary,periodic,or permanent increase in 3,21 ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing X without the project? c) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne 21 X vibration or groundborne noise levels? d) For a project located within an airport land use plan,or within S two miles of a public airport or public use airport,would the X project expose people residing or worldng in the project area to excessive noise levels? a)The project site is outside of the measured noise contours for Foothill Blvd. and North Santa Rosa Street, the closest noise sources of significance. Since the project is subject to ambient noise levels at build-out of less than 60 dB Ldn (24-hour day and night average),the potential impact of noise exposure for future residents is considered less than significant. b) During construction, there will be a temporary increase in ambient noise levels. This type of noise is regulated by the City's Noise Ordinance, which regulates times of construction and maximum noise levels that may be generated. If noise levels exceed the Noise Ordinance thresholds,the property owner would be subject to possible citations. Issues, Discussion and Supportirly information Sources Sources Potet.. ay potentially tag . .1?1 ;t Significant Significant Significant Impact ER # 135-07 Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Pae No. 13 Incorporated c),d) The project will not expose people to the generation of excessive groundborne noise levels or vibration. The project is outside of the Airport Land Use Plan area and is not directly in a flight path where occupants would be subject to noise from aircraft operations. Conclusion The location of the project is outside of the areas defined by the Noise Element as subject to excessive noise levels. During construction there will be a temporary increase in ambient noise levels, as controlled by the City Noise Ordinance. No un acts with respect to noise have been identified. 12. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would theproject: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly 1,21 (for example by proposing new homes or businesses) or X indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing or people 1,21 necessitating the construction of replacement housing X elsewhere? Evaluation a), b) The population added by this project is within the General Plan's projection and will not induce substantial growth in the area or result in population exceeding local and regional growth projections. The project site is substantially surrounded by urban development and the development of the site represents an in-fill development opportunity. This type of development is encouraged because it can take advantage of existing facilities for water,sewer,storm drainage,transportation and parks. The project site is currently vacant so there is no potential of displacement. Conclusion The population growth created by the project is considered to be less than significant since the development is on an existing, residentially zoned parcel of land, and development of the project site has been accounted for in the population estimates contained in the City's General Plan. 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? 1,21 X b) Police protection? 1,21 X c) Schools? 1,21 X d) Parks? 1,21 X e) Roads and other transportation infrastructure? 1,21 X f) Other public facilities? 1,21 X Evaluation a)b),d),e), f) No potential impacts have been identified to any public services because of the small scale of the project and its location within an existing residential neighborhood. 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. Issues, Discussion and Supporting information Sources sources PoteL._.,,y Potentially LesAta i Iwai, Significant Significant Significant Impact ER # 135-07 Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated Pae No. 14 Conclusion The project has been routed to City Departments for review and comments on the proposal. As part of each routing, the reviewing department is required to certify that serving the project will not result in a deficiency to any City facility or resource. All reviewing departments have indicated their ability to serve this project. 14.RECREATION. Would theproject: a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood or regional parks or 21 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 21 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 and the expected number of residents, no significant recreational impacts are expected to occur with development of this site. Park Land In-Lieu fees will be collected,with credit given for the existing lot,to insure adequate provision of park facilities for the new residents of the project,per existing City policy. b) The project does not include the construction of recreational facilities beyond small private and common open space areas. The construction of these facilities will not have an adverse physical effect on the environment because of their small scale. Conclusion Park and recreation facility demand will increase incrementally,and not significantly,with the development of the project. 15. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would theProject: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the 2,21 X existing traffic load and capacity of the street system? b) Exceed,either individually or cumulatively,a level of service 2,21 X standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads and highways? c) Substantially increase hazards due to design features(e.g.sharp 21 X curves or dangerous intersections)or incompatible uses(e.g. farm equipment)? d) Result in inadequate emergency access? 21 X e) Result in inadequate parking capacity onsite or offsite? 9,21 X f) Conflict with adopted policies supporting alternative 2,21 X transportation(e.g.bus turnouts,bicycle racks)? g) Conflict with the with San Luis Obispo County Airport Land 8 X Use Plan resulting in substantial safety risks from hazards,noise, or a change in air trafficpatterns? Evaluation a),b),c),d) The project will incrementally contribute to an increase in traffic on North Chorro Street and surrounding streets. The City's Transportation Division has indicated that these streets are operating at acceptable levels of service and that they can adequately accommodate the project's anticipated vehicle trips without changing the current level of service. The Fire Marshall has reviewed the private drive configuration proposed for the project and determined that the site can be adequately accessed by emergency vehicles. e) Each dwelling has been provided with two parking spaces as required. No parking will be permitted along the private driveway. On-street parking is fairly constrained due to the proximity to several dense residential developments and the Cal Poly campus. Guest parking spaces are provided to meet the City's code requirement,which will make it more convenient for /—w n Issues, Discussion and Supportirty information Sources Sources Pote,_..,ty potentiallyLEAUMNI�rlIi"aft Significant Significant Significant impact ER # 135-07 Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Pae No. 15 Incorporated guests visiting residents of the project. f) Each unit within the project will includes a two-car garage that will be able to accommodate bicycle storage in addition to parked vehicles. The project will not conflict with alternative transportation policies. e) The project is outside of the Airport Land Use Plan area. Conclusion The project will add incrementally to existing traffic conditions in the City, but the City's Transportation Division has determined that development of the project as proposed will not have an effect on the level of service on adjacent streets. Parking proposed by the project meets Zoning Regulations requirements. No impacts have been identified with respect to transportation and traffic. 16.UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would theproject: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable 6,21 X Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction or expansion of new water 6,21 X treatment,wasterwater treatment,or storm drainage facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project 6,21 X from existing entitlements and resources,or are new and expanded water resources needed? d) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider 6,21 X which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand and addition to the provider's existing commitment? e) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to 6,21 X accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? f) Comply with federal,state,and local statutes and regulations 6,21 X related to solid waste? Evaluation a), b) This project has been reviewed by the Utilities Department staff. Comments note that the project is subject to water impact fees which were adopted to ensure that new development pays its fair share of the cost of constructing the water supply,treatment and distribution facilities that will be necessary to serve it. c) The City Water&Wastewater Management Element projects the City water needs at its ultimate build-out of 56,000 people. The project site ig included in the anticipated build-out,because it was in the Urban Reserve at the time the element was adopted. Each unit in the subdivision will have an annual water usage estimated at.21 acre feet. For the total project,the annual water usage is estimated at 2.1 acre feet(.21*10 units). The 2001 Water Resources Report indicates that there is currently 142 acre feet of water available to allocate to in-fill development(development within the 1994 City Limits). Another 142 acre feet is available for allocation to the City's expansion areas. d) The City wastewater treatment plant has adequate capacity to serve this development. The existing sewers in the vicinity have sufficient capacity to serve the development. The developer will be required to construct private sewer facilities to convey wastewater to the nearest public sewer. The on-site sewer facilities will be required to be constructed according to the standards in the Uniform Plumbing Code. Subdivision improvement plans and building plans will be checked for compliance with UPC standards. Impact fees are collected at the time building permits are issued to pay for capacity at the City's Water Reclamation Facility. The fees are set at a level intended to offset the potential impacts of each new residential unit in the project. Co? '/ . }} Issues, Discussion and Supportir�y-Information Sources Sources Pote,.__.:,ry Potentially Less oai l Significant Significant Significant Impact ER#135 07 Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated Pae No. 16 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.Provision of adequate trash and recycling collection facilities is routinely reviewed by the ARC as part of the determination of consistency with City property development standards. Conclusion No impacts have been identified relative to utilities or service systems. The City has recently adopted a solid waste recycling ordinance to insure recycling of construction debris,which the project will need to comply with.No further mitigation is required. 17.MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the X environment,substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species,cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels,threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community,reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? As indicated in the Table on Page 3,the project does not have the potential to have adverse impacts on any of the issue areas evaluated. 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) No impacts have been identified in this initial study. c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause X substantial adverse effects on human beings,either directly or -indirectly? 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. The San Luis Obispo Land Use Plan Element update and Final EIR can be found at the City of San Luis Obispo Community Development Department at 990 Palm Street,San Luis Obispo,California. b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. Not applicable. C) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific Gt 7 .E.,hkhwC� ant Issues, Discussion and Supportrtr y mforrtiation Sources Sources Pote._.dy Potentially less ln��d➢➢➢ ��FJe' Significant Significant Significant Impact ER# 135-07 Issues Unless lWacf Mitigation Incorporated Page No. 17 Not applicable. 19. SOURCE REFERENCES 1. _ _Ci of SLO General Plan Land Use Element,August 1994 2. City of SLO General Plan Circulation Element,November 1994 3. City of SLO General Plan Noise Element 4. City of SLO General Plan Safety Element 5. City of SLO General Plan Conservation and Open Space Element,April 2006 6. City of SLO Water and Wastewater Element,.July 1996 7. Ci of San Luis Obispo Municipal Code S. City of San Luis-Obispo, Obi o,Land Use Inventory Database 9. Site Visit 10. USDA,Natural Resources Conservation Service,Soil Survey ofSanLuis Obispo County 11. Website of the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency:. http://www.consrv.ca:gov/dirp/FNR61P/ 12. Clean Air Plan for San Luis Obispo County,Air Pollution Control District,2001 13. CEQA Ar Quality Handbook,Air Pollution Control District,2003 14. City of San Luis Obispo,Archaeological Resource Preservation Guidelines,on file in the Community Development Department 15. City of San Luis Obispo,Historic Site Ma 16. City of San Luis Obispo Burial Sensitivity Ma 17. City of San Luis Obispo,Historic Resource Preservation Guidelines,on file in the Community Development Department 18. San Luis Obispo Quadrangle Map,prepared by the State Geologist in compliance with the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act,effective January 1, 1990 19. City of San Luis Obispo Community Design Guidelines 20. Hydrology and Hydraulics Drainage Report,Prepared by Wallace Group-on April 2,2006 21. Project Plans Attachments: 1. Vicinity Map 2. Reduced Scale Tentative Parcel Map Resolution No.##ft 08 - Attachment 9 225 North Chorro Street Page 3 8. Long term bicycle parking spaces in the garage shall include a device for securing bicycle against the wall. 9. New oak trees shall be planted at a replacement rate of 5`.1 at an off-site location to be approved by the Natural Resources Manager. In addition to replacement trees, at least one of the required street trees planted for the project shall be a Coast Live Oak. 10. Construction plans shall be modified to provide three full size guest parking spaces. 11. The subdivider shall prepare conditions, covenants, and restrictions (CC&R's) to be approved by the Community Development Director and the City Attorney prior to final map approval. CC&R's shall contain the following provisions: a. Creation of a homeowners' association to enforce the CC&R's and provide for professional,perpetual maintenance of all common areas including private driveways, drainage, on-site sewer facilities, parking lot areas, walls and fences, lighting, and landscaping. b. Grant to the city the right to maintain common areas if the homeowners' association fails to perform, and to assess the homeowners' association for expenses incurred, and the right of the city to inspect the site at mutually agreed times to assure conditions of CC&R's and final map are being met. c. No parking except in approved, designated spaces. d. Grant to the city the right to tow away vehicles on a complaint basis which are parked in unauthorized places. e. No outdoor storage of boats, campers, motorhomes, or trailers nor long-term storage of inoperable vehicles. f. No outdoor storage by individual units except in designated storage areas. g. No change in City-required provisions of the CC&R's without prior City Attorney approval. h. Homeowners' association shall file with the City Clerk the names and addresses of all officers of the homeowners' association within 15 days of any change in officers of the association. i. Provision of appropriate "no parking" signs and red-curbing along interior roadways as required by the City Fire Department. j. CC&R's shall not prohibit location of solar clothes drying facilities in private yards which are substantially screened from view. k. CC&R's shall include requirements that garage spaces be used for vehicle parking only and shall remain available for occupant vehicle parking and not be used for /1-66 RESOLUTION NO. ####-08 A RESOLUTION OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO CITY COUNCIL APPROVING A CONDOMINIUM TRACT MAP FOR 12 RESIDENTIAL UNITS FOR THE PROPERTY AT 225 NORTH CHORRO STREET TR/ER 135-07 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on December 12, 2007, pursuant to an application filed by Tim and Mary Ann Riley, applicant; and recommended approval of the subdivision map and adoption of the Negative Declaration of environmental impact; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo has considered testimony of the applicant, interested parties, and evaluation and recommendations by staff, and WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the draft Negative Declaration of environmental impact as prepared by staff, BE IT RESOLVED,by the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. The City Council makes the followin figs: 1. The design of the tentative tract map is consistent with the General Plan because the proposed subdivision respects existing site constraints, will incrementally add to the City's residential housing inventory, result in condominium units that meet density standards; and will be consistent with the density and development limits established by the High Density Residential District. 2. The site is physically suited for the proposed type of development allowed in the R-4 zones since the site is generally flat, surrounded by existing high density residential development and close to parks, schools and transit services. 3. The design of the subdivision will not conflict with easements for access through (or use of property within) the proposed subdivision. 4. The design of the tentative tract map and proposed improvements are not likely to cause serious health problems, substantial environmental damage or substantially and unavoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat because the site does not have any creeks or other potentially significant habitat areas for fish and wildlife: The site is surrounded by urban development and has been previously developed with multi-family residential units. 5. A Negative Declaration was prepared by the Community Development Department on November 14, 2007. The City Council finds and determines that the project's Negative Declaration adequately addresses the potential significant environmental impacts of the proposed project. Resolution No.####-08 225 North Chorro Street Page 2 SECTION 2. Action. The City Council hereby adopts the Negative Declaration and approves the Tentative Tract Map for 12 residential units at 225 North Chorro Street subject to the following conditions: Conditions: 1. The applicant shall construct the project so as to substantially conform to plans stamped with Community Development Department approval and incorporate conditions listed herein. Any change to approved design, colors, materials, landscaping or other conditions of approval must be approved by the Community Development Director and may at the discretion of the Director, have to be referred back to the Architectural Review Commission. 2. Final building plan sets released to the builder/contractor shall contain clear and legible notes that no changes (even for minor exterior details) from building plan sets shall occur without prior permission from Brian Leveille, City of San Luis Obispo, staff Planner, or the Community Development Director, as required. 3. Construction plan sets shall include conditions of approval from all project approvals (ARC/MS 135-07) for contractor/builder reference. 4. All ducts, meters, air conditioning equipment and all other mechanical equipment, whether on the ground, on the structure or elsewhere, shall be screened from public view with materials architecturally compatible with the main structure. Public view includes the existing views from all public streets and sidewalks. Gas and electric meters, electric transformers, and large water piping systems (backflow prevention devices) shall be completely screened from public view with approved architectural features and/or landscape plantings and/or placed on the interior of the structure. 5. Backflow prevention devices, fire department connections or other similar devices that are not shown on the plans approved by the Architectural Review Commission shall be approved by the Planning Department prior to placement on the site. If located within the street yard, such devices shall be screened by landscape walls or landscape shrubs and painted a flat green color. 6. The Hydrology Report shall further address the drainage to be discharged to the westerly property line. Although the amount of run-off in the design storms has been reduced, there appears to be an existing problem with silt draining onto the adjacent property. The drainage plan should consider the possibility of relocating the westerly parking lot drainage inlet to allow the open space lawn area to provide the maximum opportunity to accept drainage and sediment. The applicant should also notify the neighboring property owner of his intention to continue to discharge water through a weir in the retaining wall. 7. The subdivider shall dedicate a 6' wide public utility easement and a 10' wide street tree easement across the frontage of each lot. Said easements shall be adjacent to and contiguous with all public right-of-way lines bordering each lot. �' a-r Resolution No.#>##-08 225 North Chorro Street Page 3 8. Long term bicycle parking spaces in the garage shall include a device for securing bicycle against the wall. 9. New oak trees shall be planted at a replacement rate of 5:1 at an off-site location to be approved by the Natural Resources Manager. In addition to replacement trees, at least one of the required street trees planted for the project shall be a Coast Live Oak. 10. Construction plans shall be modified to provide three full size guest parking spaces. 11. The subdivider shall prepare conditions, covenants, and restrictions (CC&R's) to be approved by the Community Development Director and the City Attorney prior to final map approval. CC&R's shall contain the following provisions: a. Creation of a homeowners' association to enforce the CC&R's and provide for professional, perpetual maintenance of all common areas including private driveways, drainage, on-site sewer facilities, parking lot areas, walls and fences, lighting, and landscaping. b. Grant to the city the right to maintain common areas if the homeowners' association fails to perform, and to assess the homeowners' association for expenses incurred, and the right of the city to inspect the site at mutually agreed times to assure conditions of CC&R's and final map are being met. c. No parking except in approved, designated spaces. d. Grant to the city the right to tow away vehicles on a complaint basis which are parked in unauthorized places. e. No outdoor storage of boats, campers, motorhomes, or trailers nor long-term storage of inoperable vehicles. f. No outdoor storage by individual units except in designated storage areas. g. No change in City-required provisions of the CC&R's without prior City Attorney approval. h. Homeowners' association shall file with the City Clerk the names and addresses of all officers of the homeowners' association within 15 days of any change in officers of the association. i. Provision of appropriate "no parking" signs and red-curbing along interior roadways as required by the City Fire Department.. j. CC&R's shall not prohibit location of solar clothes drying facilities in private yards which are substantially screened from view. k. CC&R's shall include requirements that garage spaces be used for vehicle parking only and shall remain available for occupant vehicle parking and not be used for 1-41A 9 Resolution No.##### 08 225 North Chorro Street Page 4 storage or other uses. 11. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66474.9(b), the subdivider shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City and/or its agents, officers and employees from any claim, action or proceeding against the City and/or its agents, officers or employees to attack, set aside, void or annul, the approval by the City of this subdivision, and all actions relating thereto, including but not limited to environmental review. On motion of , seconded by , and on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this day of , 2008. Mayor David F. Romero ATTEST: Audrey Hooper, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Jonathan Lowell, City Attorney G:/blevelle/subdivision/TR 135-07(225 N.Chorro)/CC Reso TR-ER 135-07.doc / � l