HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/16/2008, 2 - GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND REZONE FROM R-3 TO R-4 FOR PROPERTIES AT THE EAST END OF FOOTHILL BOULEV /1
J
council °�
j a8
acEnda 12EpoRt It..Number
CITYOF SAN LUIS OBISPO
FROM: John Mandeville, Community Development Director A.D. -So
Prepared By: Phil Dunmore, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND REZONE FROM R-3 TO R4 FOR
PROPERTIES AT THE EAST END OF FOOTHILL BOULEVARD AND
REVIEW OF A TENTATIVE TRACT MAP TO ALLOW A 16-UNIT
CONDOMINIUM PROJECT AT 1310 FOOTHILL BOULEVARD. (108
THROUGH 190 CRANDALL AND 1304 THROUGH 1476 FOOTHILL;
GP/R/TR/ER 200-07).
CAO RECOMMENDATION
As recommended by the Planning Commission:
1. Adopt a resolution amending the General Plan Land Use Element map to change the land
use designation for the site from Medium-High Density Residential to High-Density
Residential and approving a tentative tract map for 16 condominium units, and adopt the
Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact.
2. Introduce an ordinance changing the zoning from Medium-High Density Residential (R-3)to
High-Density Residential (R-4) for the project site and remaining R-3 properties at the east
end of Foothill Boulevard and the east side of Crandall Avenue.
DISCUSSION
Situation
The applicant would like to demolish the existing structures on the site at 1310 Foothill and
construct a new 16-unit residential condominium project and site improvements (Attachment 2).
The applicants are also seeking a rezoning to change the zoning from R-3 to R-4 to allow the
proposed density. For consistency with the development pattern of the neighborhood, this
application also includes rezoning the remaining R-3 properties on Crandall Avenue and at the
east end of Foothill Boulevard from R-3 to R-4.
The applicant's plans were reviewed on a conceptual basis by the ARC on March 17, 2008
(Attachment 3). Provided the rezone and tract map are approved, the project will be brought
back to the ARC for final review. On August 13, 2008, the Planning Commission recommended
approval of the project including rezoning the surrounding neighborhood, finding it consistent
with General Plan policy to locate high density housing projects in close proximity to the Cal
Poly campus. The Planning Commission staff report (Attachment 6) provides a detailed analysis
of the project's consistency with the General Plan and the Subdivision Regulations.
C "
I
Council Agenda Report -J
GP/R/TR/ER 200-07
Page 2
Data Summary
Address: 108 through 190 Crandall and 1304 through 1476 Foothill
Applicant/Representative: SLO Investments
Zoning: R-3 (Medium-High-Density Residential Zone) (Proposed R-4)
General Plan: Medium-High-Density Residential(Proposed High-Density Residential)
Environmental Status: A Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact was
recommended by the Director of Community Development on February 1, 2008 (Attachment 7).
Site Description
The site description includes the "project site"where the condominium development is proposed
and the surrounding neighborhood that includes the area to be rezoned. The project site is a long,
narrow 0.66-acre property on the north side of Foothill Boulevard east of California Boulevard.
The north side of the property abuts the Cal Poly campus. The existing property contains five
separate buildings that include two 1-bedroom apartments, nine 2-bedroom apartments and two
studios. The neighborhood included in the rezoning includes the east side of Crandall Avenue
and both sides of the east end of Foothill Boulevard including properties accessed by a private
street between Foothill Boulevard and Cal Poly.
Cal Poly Universi R-3 too be Rezoned
City limit R3 to R-4
Project Site
1310.1318 FoothW
O
R-4
pp0
CH1L�
R-4 R-1
Project Description
Requested entitlements include a General Plan Map Amendment and Rezoning from R-3 to R-4
and a tentative tract map to allow a 16-unit condominium project. The project design proposes a
three level attached condominium layout with living spaces built above private garages. Each
unit would have two bedrooms in a living area of approximately 1,471 square feet and a 494
Council Agenda Report
GP/R/TR/ER 200-07
Page 3
square foot garage. The units are attached in groups of four and each of them will have a.small
private rear yard and private, upper level balconies. Small common open space areas are
provided at the rear of the site and between the buildings. A single 25-foot wide driveway
proposed through the center of the site provides vehicular access to all of the units from Foothill
Boulevard. Garbage collection is proposed via trash and recycling enclosures at the front of the
site. Parking for each unit is within enclosed garages with three unenclosed guest parking spaces
at the rear of the site.
A use permit and architectural review was recently approved to allow the property immediately
to the east (at 1320 and 1468 Foothill) to construct a group housing facility. This project is also
relying on the proposed zone change to allow its proposed maximum occupancy. Although the
rezoning includes other adjacent properties, no other development projects are proposed at this
time. Since the other properties involved in the rezoning are already substantially developed with
a variety of residential uses, the change from R-3 to R-4 is not likely to immediately introduce
additional significant development potential. During the Architectural Review Commission and
Planning Commission hearings,no other property owners opposed the proposed zone change.
ARC Review
The project was reviewed on a conceptual basis by the ARC on March 17, 2008. The ARC asked
for project changes to increase the size of the common open space, orient the front units towards
Foothill Boulevard and modify building elevations to add interest and variety. The plans have
already been modified to include the requested changes, however the ARC will not review the
modified plans until the General Plan amendment and tract map has been approved.
Planning Commission Review
The Planning Commission reviewed the project on August 13, 2008,to make a recommendation
to the City Council on the project.. The Planning Commission found the condominium project
and rezoning to High-Density Residential (R-4) appropriate because of the close proximity to
Cal Poly. The discussion focused on connectivity to the campus, and the design of the project in
relation to the neighborhood. On a unanimous vote, the Planning Commission recommended the
Council approve the project(Attachments 4 and 5,PC minutes and resolution).
Summary
The proposed General Plan Amendment and Rezone for the project site and surrounding
properties was supported by the Planning Commission at this location because it would allow for
increased opportunities for affordable housing and group housing uses in very close proximity to
Cal Poly, consistent with General Plan policy(Attachment 6, PC report). For the other properties
included in the rezone but not currently proposed for redevelopment, future plans will be
evaluated for consistency with City property development policies, standards, and neighborhood
compatibility. z
��Z
Council Agenda Report
GP/R/TR/ER 200-07
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. Deny the General Plan amendment, rezoning, and use permit, based on findings of
inconsistency with the General Plan or other policies.
2. Continue the project if additional information is needed,with specific direction given to staff.
Attachments:
1: Vicinity map
2: Reduced scale project plans
3: ARC meeting direction
4: August 13,2008, Planning Commission Minutes
5: August 13, 2008, Planning Commission resolution
6: August 13, 2008, Planning Commission staff report
7: Draft initial study of environmental review(w/o attachments)
8: Ordinance approving the GP/R
9: Resolution approving Tract Map and Mitigated Negative Declaration
Council reading file: Full size project plans
GXD-PLAN\Pdunsmae\Rezoning&GPA's\GPR 200-07(13 10 Foothill)\CC report 9-16-08(200-07).doc
J�
1310 Foothlm
Atachment
i
',
�14
�0 �.I BUILDING 2 BUILDING I
4 3 2 1 �> II
10.�
�T
—, 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
BUB.DING3 _ B ING4-101
IF
777
� I
`I
II �
I
SITE PLAN I
—` PROTECT DATA DIRECTORY
� Ir uuUKclummrCl
GEI_'ML INVO MNNON ePR+uxr/uw'Nv
Cm Ul
417
I m � _ � � I 6R'ON.HRYO�AII! WYMLCSW@
ngnT alomvnmir.Lvn wUocq�MCn9
- Auvuv: ].w wuo.-om.cn rna 1rv1 N]
II * om.� � � 1' ryl nrry o]z unl.aux s�
41M.VV. Pr A]Op16T
ILT[m; .T.rDII SI.CR l.N VS W'JJSI Y(11frtC111L1.
n� un.iVu mr.lo�n ullux.}IN¢L
PROJECT_DFSCRIPI'ION wxwaLc.;w.']umv.ol
MORMLIOCn!¢W IPL'11J144:.MNT IMY:Y uT1A.T0ru
fL\t � APM(I.RNI W0121 M'll]I M1NIQAUµIIMN:IrNRS PG r'µWS.,^J]IA"V
LIM.T:Y Q1511NLaIRmQIMILT{MTMVLL
—+ . 1 INY W:APM:.NU�IpCLVLNR WNIYfV.
u
y>,utA^xKM1nIXC
r DENSITY nlomwP
M.11 ICl]T'MLaIWRI'1!LTTaX fL A.Rr+ll1 .NN WUMUR\U e
VVPB nA7¢ VIRG n(]O¢ IIGI�CUN1 VHIR L]ID/11.42=III WNfKT L'N.r19V/KCMCv
Imslwll]n
q 1 LaCII,pyEGg. uNna'.rt Alamn'r
mnunv:n¢]rWlvrc
-r---- ,qN � nMMr±ixm wurvrz
I Jaen I
I J mLpmN@
_ _ N.<IIIttLR p4MYLW.Pti'
- OPEN SPACE RF'OIBRI:MFNIS Lva]uxm.n.vmP
��.... _ rA von n.cnnwr.
- J
II 4° II m —� IwAWomvsrAc mmil.ml .m']o�.u.LL ��]wa:nwol
'L� h_ RIVATPfNNI:[L ^1q.Jlunil W..Lrwn
Luwnxl wrxuna Lwu.l. PD`�N.L
""•� coLvww ut.pat wo.l .r.
1 « PARKING CALCIMMOM
„„� vWL'smrn]Mm:ry vpnla -'
r.LLLllc nnm�mrvn
.a®N21LJ101 mmalz nno¢ rcmA2alvap ri
FLOOR PLAN n.IND UNITS
(Unita 1.5.12&7(;) rorty.Pnmwvmnovr asmnm
FROPOSM FULVING 1[MCI
I.wnflmN hm µ8T
M1a.1419h� pn'
_ _ MW:e 4,eJ Mnlivmmi IES
k JIk Lw1 MrtII.NY 0.90
0' 1`nm4nlnv msom Fu[
v �� '� .4. I�Im11YkIYnn
�l�i- ') -. In I QYbIFYrnR Ipl
�I I irw Xal lleply JnA
rill ,7� R�r�c�^lavne�w91 ivl
IUW@PLOD¢ IpWf2 np.A
FLOOR PLAN(aD SIREEF FLOOR PLANS(Standard)
FACING UNITS xA�vs-ra
(Units 016) BI)B,o1NG AR FAS SNLTTINO
.4.LIL 1/t.l'.0 ILLWQII(gQ IM11'. AI ](M1l MV6MN HVUlN12T VAJ.1
A®012nNY f.19 if. "_ nLL'ATg3.WV IICIIWN
L�WAI WSY. n.+ 01LipC p[.LMIIAMIInPI.V MN
mru I,Lse u.
r.l vrsm¢roJramxtQACLAw
luua m!u cz ImJwnancsmwcQ uup.vsa nmmvolnv wJ
ca ]¢'nLxLc¢eernus
L.I avamL'u l.wlaurtnx4
E
Campus Point
steven Pu;Bs) t P -
wRCNiTIMECT]¢E ai 1310,1312,1314,1316&1318 Foothill Blvd.San Luis Obispo.Ca v,•,r°
of$
�' • Attachmen 2.
e�j i—wmw - PRO - ..
��I
SECTION/ELEVATION THROUGH SIT$ W
s�ntc t/x-- r-s
.x.
i
.- J ✓•.mak,
REAR ELEVATION
PAIL I,C=1'P
1iujl
FOOTHILL ELFVAnON END UNIT ELEVATION
Units MIG Units A,$,ItA l;i
_ ___
LM
77 �''j I
Unit 5 �p Sla"'UnjuitH
i I °
UNIT 12 ELEVATION&SECTION 1 cunll al SECTION 2
.4A111/F='�P iwlL IIF-1 P
J
Campus Point °=
Steven Pugllsl �� pP-
wPCNI�[CTUPF wl �' - —�
al 1310,1312,1314,1316&I3I9 Foothill Blvd.
San Lu Is Obispo,Cn a„✓
of S
Attachment
. s
., .�..,,,... L b T 90
nE"n 1
zz
I
vfl
z
°
I u.w
�Imvm�alawm,
u N1 E.6TI9iG S101ClllIP.9. 1 m
Z F^\ €� FfAN10R IAN0.iC.1PP'C, �_ '
LOT 91 uEanmm o�ER000`�C�rm 1 � '- Y I
F . I
L { 0 T 9 I2 I '
I I I
i
—--———
...........----------— ---------------......
——�
CRANMALL WAY O
EXISTING SITE/ DEMOLITION PLAN
StA11'1"�1v
EnPo,51.... >e�>a Campus Pointat 1310,]312,1314,1316Nc I318FooIhi116lvd.moo. Sun Luis Obispo,Ca >' ""
Attachmc nt 2
073_341-020
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
orm v aAom
mxnr n sw x es�woo-w am
w°mss°
L LOT 1
r
i I 29,088 S0.Ff.
Am
A' 71.
00 ..C.. ii.0
iy�Fbz m " q� T m m
9 S a Z z
�
S8 aW S E9
ry yy o
L _J Z_ _
C
z z
m
o l
f r
m >
�n _I
4 yp
nm
N
C C mZ
� 7 a
a
a n
z C
lr � Z
m "
' j m '
0
0
I O y y
I � II Q
� i
z gIra c
z 09 a
zu
LLF� a-4mrl.y.�w em4zle•
S EEc'
Bea
q E.FOOTHILL
BLVD
4
052-082-034
SLOMAC
Y
m
MAI m
SIX s 0 < li 0 5 a 272v^—
xe
ggv� m n
ZAE 9 A aca��a� ° C7 +x''a,°k a•r'�"
gg g "a g gg <
Ju
isP
m-m 41 i�aO 3€�0 _8
`d = m Z C o 8 5f � gg� 'M�� GQp y# �5m
R6 y.EEEE 5
all
Ifs,
d < mole' KCODO
� Y mw
RR m C/3a
s m
CAMPUS
yy WAY
co
790
F
I-t V ,
E.
0 El EC
F9§ ( f
01'
gq _
IBJ
.Oi
s d
a841
cn `
O Z s
Z O O r A
8 O � � DZ
OD
6 o CNCO { :'
. , m O
FSI c u0 $ _
O z ci
s cn
/ Attachment 2
m ! - - —
. � \ \� \
<
\k
< y
* \ .
} I
` � $� . , , � , ■
. . �
-
\
%
-
§
k ® k \ - - - ) -
| I§ = � § 7 / 9@
wmC/) cn _
| }
CD m '
ƒ c � � �
00
' m �' |
z N M
�s Rm Attache t 2
4' Ya S9
is
• s: �9
0 o s gni
3 R �n
pig 8 nm t I. �. q
I1 X"
ash , '� i
0 81
s' §� 2 t. u
z
d' 6" ` ^n` r J r 9i
D? _' ,zo^
?- 014 � FOOTHILL BLVD.
_ o
-ma', 83
• y, R� =..-meg .°o __
t o+3 fRn+Ji �p�3
O. p yy p y
3 d
52 S.
r 8 z S 1P71➢' 4p
r
o t `p'Yrre gg Q �a^p .i e e �_ edi
e n0 i �- a sEo it t9� i yo e t
g N
5>
0 € Z
r v
z ,�r N �
n
_ ���IIIIIBIIIIIIIIINIIIIII��, � ofluis
� t �
'IINI ��nlulll�llll ���
city
i
Community Development Department - 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218-
March
3401-3218March 21, 2008
SLO Investments
863 Pacific Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
SUBJECT: ARC 200-07: 1310 Foothill Boulevard
Demolition of existing apartments and a conceptual review of 16 new
two-bedroom residential units
Gentlemen:
The Architectural Review Commission, at its meeting of March 17, 2008, continued
consideration of the project to a date uncertain with direction to incorporate the
following items into the project:
1. Orient the front units toward the street and include entries and front porch areas
that are oriented toward, and accessible from, the sidewalk.
2. Utilize alternative materials such as bricks, pavers, colored concrete, or turf block to
create an attractive driveway for its total extent.
3. Modify building elevations to add variety in color.
4. Modify the orientation and massing on all of the end units of buildings to create
additional interest and diversity in the project design.
5. Consider pursuing a street yard reduction in order to maximize the size of the open
space areas provided in the project.
6. Consolidate and move the trash and recycling enclosure to one side of the property
or the other so that it does not dominate the streetscape of the site. The enclosure
shall be designed so that it does not interfere with walkways leading to front entries
or interfere with the views of the entries from the street.
�� The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services, programs and activities. v ��
Telecommunications Device for the Deaf(805)781-7410.
Attachment
ARC 200-07 -
Page 2 3
If you have any questions, please contact Phil Dunsmore at 781-7522.
Sincerely,
rOC CI
Pam Ricci, AICP
Senior Planner
cc: County of SLO Assessor's Office
C. M. Florence
3427 Miguelito Court
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Draft Planning Commission Mir.- is
August 13, 2008 A t8C11ment 4
Page 2
COMM, SION COMMENTS:
Commr. Multari commended staff on the intent of the ordina ce but had some concerns
about th logic and formatting of the language. He felt the rdinance jumbled together
standa for commercial and residential lighting. Mult i said the language was
confusin and suggested that the Commission consider co tinuing the item to a date
certain f r additional research and formatting. He suggeste that the Commission form
a subcommittee, including himself, to help staff edit the do ument. Multari questioned
design sl andards, operational standards, illumination thresh Ids, and whether to exempt
residential porch lights.
Commr. rodie had similar questions as Multari but also as d about restaurant outdoor
seating nd temporary holiday lighting.
Commr. Christianson said she generally supports the o inance, but has concerns
about tie report's format regarding residential and co mercial regulations. She
discuss the section on the effects of glare on your privat property and exemption for
public fa ilities.
Commr. Carpener appreciated Commr. Multari's comment . He motioned to continue.
Vice-Ch it Ashbaugh discussed how the ordinance wou d address billboard lighting,
and if S O Film Festival's search lights would be prohibit d. He felt the ordinance was
a good ep in the right direction and that enforcement sh uld have a logical format and
be easy o implement.
Chairpe on Stevenson expressed concern about large retail parking lots and if they
could s
it off their center lights sometimes as not nece sary.
On moti n bv Commr. Carpenter, seconded by Commr. rodie to continue the item to a
date ce in 09/27/08 and form a subcommittee conjisting of Commrs. Multari and
Ashbau h.
AYES: Commrs. Carpenter, Brodie, Ashbaugh, C ristianson, Multari, Gould; and
Stevenson
NOES: None
RECO ED: None
ABSE T: None
Th do arried on a 7:0 vote.
2. 108 through 190 Crandall Avenue and 1304 through 1476 Foothill Boulevard.
TR/GP/R 200-07: Vesting Tentative Tract Map and rezoning from medium-high
density residential (R-3) to high-density residential (R-4) to accommodate a new
16-unit project at 1310 Foothill; R-3 zone; SLO Investments, applicant.
(Continued from July 23, 2008, meeting) (Phil Dunsmore).
a-�S
4
�k
{ rk
� 4
� W
Wxa y,
H
M r
,u
�o
wu
r
t 4s ird
i
k �V
& meq,
yr k
09° 5
r�
k' r
AZT 1 21 US w
SAY V
lilt
J
!� �� xre✓z t� � dJ r ��
r
nn t
r
;f
w
ggY
a u4
F �
z
8 i
II,
3 �
E BOOM
EIF
Zoo
TAT
V' 1
v
µ
s .�
Ws`
p � a a
k °ETH P : 'g"2y"1'
n t. W^ � �°-.,. x,-.�� ,,•tri i
r
=
J ,
m
, W J tGe
Y' may,
a IF
-IN fs
ixa...
1
Draft Planning Commission Min_-.s Attachment 4
August 13, 2008
Page 3
Phil Dunsmore, Associate Planner, presented the staff report, recommending the
Commission adopt a resolution recommending approval of the General Plan
amendment and rezone, tentative tract map and Mitigated Negative Declaration to the
City Council.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
Carol Florence, the project applicant, spoke in support of the rezoning and tract map
request.
Mike Peachey, the representative for the "Front Porch" project east of the project site,
spoke in support of the rezoning. He also offered a pedestrian connection to Cal Poly
through their property and said he would work with the applicants.
There were no further comments made from the public.
COMMISSION COMMENTS:
Commr. Christianson confirmed with staff that the project is requesting no exceptions
from City Standards. She questioned the proposed pedestrian access through to Cal
Poly. She also commented on the affordable housing plan and applicability of the
Green Build checklist.
Commr. Brodie questioned the accessible pedestrian path and parking.
Following a brief discussion among the commission that focused on the question of
neighborhood connectivity, Commr. Ashbaugh motioned to recommend approval of the
project to the City Council, seconded by Commr. Christianson. The motion included an
amendment to condition 10 to allow the applicants to provide accessible pedestrian
access upon concurrence with Cal Poly and/or the neighboring property to the east
(Front Porch). The motion passed on a unanimous vote (6-0. Multari stepped down due
to a potential conflict of interest).
On motion by Commr. Ashbaugh, seconded by Commr. Christianson, to recommend
approval of the project to the City Council.
AYES: Commrs. Ashbaugh, Christianson, Brodie, Gould, Carpenter, and
Stevenson
NOES: None
RECUSED: Commr. Multari
ABSENT: None
COMMENT AND DISCUSSION:
3. Staff
Draft Planning Commission Mir, s Attachment 4
August 13, 2008
Page 4
A. Agenda Forecast: Presented by Doug Davidson
5. Commission
ADJOURMENT:
The meeting adjourned at 8:15 p.m.
a-��
Attachment 5
RESOLUTION NO.5507-08
A RESOLUTION OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION
RECOMMENDING APPROVAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF GENERAL PLAN
AMENDMENT AND ZONE CHANGE FROM MEDIUM-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
(R-3) TO HIGH-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (R4),AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT
108 THROUGH 190 CRANDALL AVE.AND 1304 THROUGH 1476 FOOTHILL BLVD.
AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP FOR CONDOMINIUM PURPOSES
AT 1310 FOOTHILL; GP/R/TR/ER 200-07
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
August 13, 2008, pursuant to a proceeding instituted under application GP/R/TR/ER 200-07,
SLO Investments LLC, applicant; and
WHEREAS, said public hearing was for the purpose of formulating and forwarding
recommendations to the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo regarding the General Plan
Amendment, rezoning, tract map, and environmental determination; and
WHEREAS, notices of said public hearing were made at the time and in the manner
required by law; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has duly considered all evidence, including the
testimony of the applicant, interested parties, and the evaluation and recommendations by staff,
presented at said hearing.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has considered the Mitigated Negative
Declaration of Environmental Impact as prepared by staff; and
BE IT RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo as
follows:
SECTION 1. Findings.
A. General Plan and Zoning Map amendments
1. The proposed General Plan Amendment and Rezoning is consistent with General Plan
Land Use and Housing Element policies to locate student housing projects and generally
more affordable housing in close proximity to the campus.
2. The General Plan Amendment and Rezone from Medium-High Density Residential (R-3)
to High-Density Residential (R-4) will allow for density required for the proposed
condominium project at 1310 Foothill and group housing project at 1468 Foothill and
will provide for more viable future redevelopment of other properties to be consistent
with the above General Plan Policies and Land Use Element policy stating that housing
likely to attract faculty or students should be encouraged to locate close to Cal Poly to
reduce commute travel. '� /p'
Resolution No. 5507-08 Attachment 5
Page 2
3. The proposed General Plan Amendment and Rezone will not be detrimental to the health,
safety, and welfare of those living and working in the vicinity since it will not allow
incompatible land uses. The area of the proposed GP/R and project site is already
adjacent to other High-Density zoned properties and is bordered by the Cal Poly campus
to the north.
B. Tract Man
4. The design of the tentative tract map is consistent with the General Plan because the
proposed condominium 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.
5. The site is physically suited for the proposed type of development allowed in the R-4
zones since the site is topographically suitable, surrounded by existing High-Density
Residential development and close to parks, schools, and transit services.
6. The design of the subdivision will not conflict with easements for access through (or use
of property within) the proposed subdivision.
7. A Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared by the Community Development
Department on August 4, 2008. The Planning Commission finds and determines that the
project's Mitigated Negative Declaration adequately addresses the potential significant
environmental impacts of the proposed project.
SECTION 2. Environmental Review. The Planning Commission does hereby
recommend adoption of the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration.
SECTION 3. Recommendation. The Planning Commission does hereby recommend to
the City Council approval of application GP/RfnUER 200-07, as shown on attached Exhibit A
with incorporation of the following mitigation measures:
Mitigation Measures
1. Temporary impacts from the project, including but not limited to excavation and
construction activities, vehicle emissions from heavy-duty equipment and naturally-
occurring asbestos has the potential to create dust and emissions that exceed air quality
standards for temporary and intermediate periods unless the following mitigation
measures are incorporated:
a. Construction vehicle speed at the work site must be limited to fifteen (15) miles per
hour or less;
b. Prior to any ground disturbance, sufficient water must be applied to the area to be
disturbed to prevent visible emissions from crossing the property line;
c. Areas to be graded or excavated must be kept adequately wetted to prevent visible
emissions from crossing the property line;.
C '��
Resolution No. 5507-08 r Attachment 5
Page 3
d. Storage piles must be kept adequately wetted, treated with a chemical dust
suppressant, or covered when material is not being added to or removed from the pile;
e. Equipment must be washed down before moving from the property onto a paved
public road; and
f. Visible track-out on the paved public road must be cleaned using wet sweeping or a
HEPA filter-equipped vacuum device within twenty-four(24) hours.
Conditions
1. The project shall require final review by the Architectural Review Commission (ARC)
which may require minor project amendments to allow the project to be consistent with
the Community Design Guidelines.
2. A completed Green Building checklist shall be submitted prior to final review by the
ARC. The California Build it Green or LEED checklist shall be utilized. A narrative
shall be included to describe how the green building credits will be achieved.
3. An affordable housing agreement consistent with City policies, shall be submitted for
review and approval of the Community Development Director prior to proceeding to the
City Council.
4. The applicant shall pay Park-In-Lieu Fees prior to recordation of the Final Map,
consistent with SLO Municipal Code Section 16.40.080.
5. 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.
6. The subdivider shall dedicate a 6' wide public utility easement and a 10' wide street tree
easement across the frontage of site. Said easements shall be adjacent to and contiguous
with the public right-of-way lines.
7. Complete frontage improvements will be required as a condition of the tract map. The
improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the engineering standards in effect
at the time of encroachment permit issuance.
8. The proposed on-site sewer main will be privately owned and maintained by the
Homeowner's Association.
9. The building plans shall show and note compliance with Engineering Standard 1010.B
for Storm Water Quality Management. This code requirement is applicable to new or
redeveloped sites where the total area of impervious surfaces is more than 10,000 square
feet. Water quality management is required for the runoff from uncovered parking spaces
and driveway areas. Provide calculations showing impervious area.
a-�
Resolution No. 5507-08 Attachment 5
Page 4
10. The proposed access to Campus Way shall be in compliance with ADA standards.
Access should be obtained through the adjacent property to the east.
11. One 15-gallon street tree will be required for each 35 lineal feet of frontage. The City
Arborist shall approve the tree species, planting requirements, and whether the street trees
shall be planted in tree wells in the sidewalk area or behind the back of walk in the tree
easement.
12. Tree removals may require approval by the City Arborist. The plan shall show all
existing and proposed street trees.
13. 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 or 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.
a--tet
Resolution No. 5507-08 Attachment 5
Page 5
Code Requirements
The following code requirements are included for information purposes only. They serve to give
the applicant a general idea of other City requirements that will apply to the project. This is not
intended to be an exhaustive list as other requirements may be identified during the plan check
process.
1. The demolition of the existing structures shall comply with all local, state, and federal
requirements for the demolition of structures.
2. Public improvements required as a condition, code requirement, or mitigation measure
should be shown on the building plans. Said improvements may be completed or a bond
posted for their completion to allow for recordation of the map prior to the completing of
all required and/or proposed improvements.
3. All boundary monuments, lot comers, and centerline intersections, BC's, EC's, etc., shall
be tied to the City's Horizontal Control Network. At least two control points shall be
used and a tabulation of the coordinates shall be submitted with the final map or parcel
map. All coordinates submitted shall be based on the City coordinate system. A 3.5"
diameter computer floppy disk, containing the appropriate data compatible with Autocad
(Digital Interchange Format, DXF) for Geographic Information System (GIS) purposes,
shall be submitted to the City Engineer.
4. The parcel map/final map preparation and monumentation shall be in accordance with the
City's Subdivision Regulations,Engineering Standards, and the Subdivision Map Act.
On motion by Commissioner Ashbaugh, seconded by Commissioner Christianson, and on the
following roll call vote:
AYES: Commrs. Ashbaugh, Christianson, Brodie, Gould, Carpenter, and Stevenson
NOES: None
REFRAIN: Commr. Multari
ABSENT: None
The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 13`h day of August, 2008.
%L
Doug Davidson, Secretary
Planning Commission
0-
Attachment 6
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT ITEM#3
BY: Phil Dunmore, Associate Planner(781-7522) MEETING DATE: August 13, 2008
FROM: Doug Davidson,Deputy Director of Community Development
FILE NUMBER: GP-R/ER/TR 200-07
PROJECT ADDRESS: 108 through 190 Crandall and 1304 through 1476 Foothill
SUBJECT: General Plan Amendment and rezone from R-3 to R-4 for properties at the east end
of Foothill Boulevard and review of a tentative tract map to allow a 16-unit condominium project
at 1310 Foothill Boulevard.
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a resolution recommending approval of the General Plan amendment and rezone, tentative
tract map and Mitigated Negative Declaration to the City Council.
BACKGROUND
Situation
The applicant would like to demolish the existing structures on the site at 1310 Foothill and
construct a new 16-unit residential condominium project and site improvements. In addition to
architectural review, condominium projects require approval of a tract map, which requires
review by both the Planning Commission and City Council for compliance with the Subdivision
Regulations. The applicants are also seeking a rezoning to change the zoning from R-3 to R-4 to
increase the maximum allowed density from 18 to 24 units per acre, therefore allowing 16 two-
bedroom units to be constructed at 1310 Foothill. The Zone change would require City Council
approval and is necessary to support the proposed number of units. For consistency with the
development pattern of the neighborhood, this application also includes rezoning of remaining
R-3 properties on Crandall Avenue and at the East end of Foothill from R-3 to R-4.
The applicant's plans were reviewed on a conceptual basis by the ARC on March 17, 2008. The
ARC asked for relatively minor project amendments such as greater unit variation and increased
usable open space (Attachment 3). Provided the rezone and tract map is approved, the project
will be brought back to the ARC for final approval with project modifications that may be
required from Planning Commission and City Council review and/or previous ARC direction.
Data Summary
Address: 108 through 190 Crandall and 1304 through 1476 Foothill
Applicant/Representative: SLO investments
Zoning: R-3 (Medium-High-Density Residential Zone) (Proposed R4)
a-�-3
1
Attachment 6
GP/R/TR/ER 200-07 (Campus Point)
Page 2
General Plan: Medium-High-Density Residential (Proposed High-Density Residential)
Environmental Status: A Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact was
recommended by the Director of Community Development on February 1, 2008 (Attachment 7).
Site Description
The site description includes the"project site" where the condominium development is proposed
and the surrounding neighborhood that includes the area to be rezoned. The project site is a long,
narrow 0.66-acre property on the north side of Foothill Boulevard east of California Boulevard.
The north side of the property abuts the Cal Poly campus. The existing property contains five
separate buildings that include two 1-bedroom apartments, nine 2-bedroom apartments and two
studios. The existing development encompasses the entire property. The neighborhood included
in the rezoning includes the east side of Crandall Avenue and both sides of the east end of
Foothill Boulevard including properties accessed by a private street between Foothill Boulevard
and Cal Poly. The project area is developed with multi-family residential apartment units and
several single family residences.
Area to be Rezoned
R-3 to R-4
Project Site
1310-1318 Foothill
O
R-4
POOVV#U-
r
R-4 R-1
-1 Fy�G��
Project Description
The project at 1310 Foothill includes the demolition of all existing structures and construction of
a new 16-unit condominium project. Requested entitlements include a General Plan Map
Attachment 6
GP/R/TR/ER 200-07 (Campus Point)
Page 3
Amendment and Rezoning from R-3 to R-4 and a tentative tract map to allow each unit to be
separately owned. The project design proposes a three level attached condominium layout with
living spaces built above private garages. Each unit would have two bedrooms in a living area of
approximately 1,471 square feet and a 494 square foot garage. The units are attached in groups
of four and each of them will have a small private rear yard and private, upper level balconies.
Small common open space areas are provided at the rear of the site and between the buildings. A
single 25-foot wide driveway proposed through the center of the site provides vehicular access to
all of the units from Foothill Boulevard. Garbage collection is proposed via trash and recycling
enclosures at the front of the site. Parking for each unit is within enclosed garages with three
unenclosed guest parking spaces at the rear of the site.
A use permit and architectural review was recently approved to allow the property immediately
to the east (at 1320 and 1468 Foothill) to construct a group housing facility. This project is also
relying on the proposed zone change to allow its proposed maximum occupancy. Although the
rezoning includes other adjacent properties, no other development projects are proposed at this
time. Since the other properties involved in the rezoning are already substantially developed with
a variety of residential uses, the change from R-3 to R-4 is not likely to immediately introduce
additional significant development potential.
ARC Review
The project was reviewed on a conceptual basis by the ARC on March 17, 2008. The ARC asked
for project changes to increase the size of the common open space, orient the front units towards
Foothill Boulevard and modify building elevations to add interest and variety. The ARC minutes
have been included as Attachment 4 and the final ARC meeting actions can be found in
Attachment 5. The plans have already been modified to include the requested changes, however
the ARC will not review the modified plans until the General Plan amendment has been
approved by the City Council.
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.
LUZZ10. 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 Analysis: The proposed condominium project is consistent with the massing of other
larger multi-family structures in the vicinity. However, the immediately adjacent properties are
- J Attachment 6
GP/R/TR/ER 200-07 (Campus Point)
Page 4
currently developed with one and two story structures that are smaller than the proposed
development. The adjacent property to the east has been granted approval to construct a group
housing project that will have a very similar scale to the proposed project. As proposed, the
condominium development complies with the property development standards in both the R-3
and R-4 districts. While the proposed structures are larger than immediately adjacent structures,
the project can still be found to be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood, consistent
with the cited LUE policy.
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.
Staff Analysis: The applicant is pursuing High Density Residential Zoning (R-4) to allow the
project to be developed with 16 housing units. Without the zone change the project would be
limited to 12 units. The adjacent property to the east (1468 Foothill) also desires the R-4 zoning
to be able to develop a group housing project. The concept is consistent with LU 2.4.8 since it
proposes high density housing in close proximity to Cal Poly. Rezoning these properties would
allow future redevelopment proposals to be consistent with General Plan policies'to locate
student housing projects and fraternities and sororities in close proximity to the campus.
The Planning Commission and City Council recently approved an application to rezone the
block to the west from R-3 to R-4 in conjunction with the redevelopment of a group housing
(fraternity) project. This general plan amendment has now been completed and the current
proposal would modify the remaining properties at the east end of Foothill Boulevard from R-3
to R-4.
L U 2.5:Affordable Housing
The City will help to conserve and increase residential opportunities for residents with
very low, low, or moderate incomes. As explained more fully in the Housing Element,
each project should contribute in some way to the conservation or production of
affordable housing, considering the opportunities and limitations for the project.
Staffs Analysis: The project is consistent with this policy since it provides additional residential
opportunities for students in close proximity to the Cal Poly campus. Although the project will
result in the removal of existing units it also provides for the construction of a greater number of
reasonably sized units. The applicants are proposing to pay the in-lieu fees for affordable
housing.
L U 2.7.3:Amenities
Multifamily housing likely to be occupied by students should provide the amenities
- Attachment 6
GP/R/TR/ER 200-07 (Campus Point)
Page 5
which students seek in single-family areas, to provide an attractive alternative.
Staffs Analysis: Since the condominium project requires approval a tract map, the project must
comply with common and private open space requirements. The project meets the minimum
open space standards and provides for common outdoor open spaces, and ample private decks,
patios and small yards for each unit. Due to the close proximity to the university's recreation
center,residents will be able to easily take advantage of campus amenities. The project amenities
are consistent with this policy since it provides kitchen, laundry, media access, bike parking, and
outdoor gathering areas and provides for easy access to university amenities.
L U Z 7.4.Location
Housing likely to attract faculty or students should be encouraged to locate close to
Cal Poly, to reduce commute travel.
Staffs Analysis: The proposed project is consistent with the above policy to reduce commute
travel with its location directly adjacent to the Cal Poly campus. The housing project will be
attractive to both students and faculty due to the location and project design.
2. Property Development Standards
The project is in compliance with both R-3 and R-4 property development standards in terns of
height, coverage,yards and density.
3. Subdivision Regulations
Each of the 16 residential units would be available for separate ownership as an airspace
condominium. The Subdivision Regulations, Chapter 16.17 of the Municipal Code prescribes
specific criteria for condominium projects. Most importantly, the code recognizes that ownership
properties differ from rental apartments and should be treated differently than rental apartments
in terns of property improvement standards and amenities. Therefore, each unit is required to
have appropriate storage, laundry facilities and private open space. Additionally, the overall
project is required to incorporate common open space and recreational amenities. In summary
the breakdown of the project amenities is as follows:
Required Proposed
Private Open Space 100 s.f. per unit 270 s.f. per unit
Common Open Space 1,600 s.f total approx. 2,000
Recreation 640 s.f. 650 s.f.
Storage 200 c.f per unit 300 c.f per unit
Attachment 6
GP/R/TR/ER 200-07 (Campus Point)
Page 6
As proposed, the project complies with the required amenities and other components of the
subdivision regulations. The recreation amenity consists of a barbeque and picnic tables. The
common open space area is primarily a passive use landscape amenity. However, with the close
proximity of university amenities, these features are sufficient and meet the ordinance
requirements.
Summary
The proposed GP/R for the project site and surrounding properties is appropriate because it
would allow for increased opportunities for affordable housing and group housing uses in very
close proximity to Cal Poly, consistent with General Plan policy. Furthermore, the rezoning is
likely to stimulate redevelopment of existing underutilized properties, placing higher density
housing where it is needed most. The proposed condominium development is appropriate for the
site and is compatible to existing and future site development within the vicinity. However, the
Commission may comment on the project design since it will still require a final review by the
ARC if the rezoning and map is approved by the City Council.
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 and applicants project summary
Attachment 3: ARC minutes
Attachment 4: ARC meeting actions
Attachment 5: Draft Initial Study of Environmental Review w/o attachments
Attachment 6: Resolution recommending approval of the project to City Council
Enclosed: Full-size project plans.
GACD-PLAN\Pdunsmore\Rezoning&GPA's\GPR 200-07(13 10 Foothill)\GPA 200-07 PC Staff report(8-13-08).DOC
i��i���IIII�IIII�IIIIIIIIII � city of sAn luis OBIS� Aft h ent 7
IIIIIIiIIII
Community Development Department• 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218
INITIAL STUDY
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
For ER 200-07
1. Project Title: Campus Point
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:
Phil Dunsmore, Associate Planner(805) 781-7522
4. Project Location: 1310 through 1318 Foothill Boulevard(APN: 052-081-002)
(Area to be rezoned includes 108 through 190 Crandall and 1304 through 1476
Foothill)
5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address:
SLO Investments, LLC
Patrick Aurignac
863 Pacific Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
6. General Plan Designation: Medium-Density Residential
7. Zoning: R-3 (Medium-High Density Residential)
S. Description of the Project:
The project includes the demolition of all existing structures and construction of a new 16-unit
condominium project at 1310 through 1318 Foothill. Requested entitlements include a General
Plan Map Amendment and Rezoning from Medium Density Residential (R-3) to High Density
Residential (R-4) which will include other properties in the vicinity including 108 through 190
Crandall and 1304 through 1476 Foothill. The only property under evaluation for development
includes 1310 through 1318 Foothill (APN 052-081-002). On this property, each unit would have
two bedrooms in a living area of approximately 1,471 square feet and a 494 square foot garage.
The units are attached in groups of four and each of them will.have a small private rear yard and
private, upper level balconies. Small common open space areas are provided at the rear of the
site and between the buildings. A single 25-foot wide driveway proposed through the center of
the site provides vehicular access to all of the units from Foothill Boulevard. Garbage collection
is proposed via trash and recycling enclosures at the front of the site. Parking for each unit is
within enclosed garages with three unenclosed guest parking spaces at the rear of the site.
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO I INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2008
OThe City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services, programs and activities. a/
Telecommunications Device for the Deaf(805)781-7410.
Area to be Rezoned a ment 7
R-3 to R-4
Project Site
1310-1318 Foothill
C'I�
O
R-4
t'
FOOSH"`
.� R-4 R-1
O
QO �P�a�pd Fy�Gc�
9. Surrounding Land Uses and Settings:
The long, narrow 0.66-acre project site is located on the north side of Foothill Boulevard east of
California Boulevard. The north side of the property abuts the Cal Poly campus. The existing
property contains five separate buildings that include two 1-bedroom apartments, nine 2-
bedroom apartments and two studios. The existing development encompasses the entire property.
Adjacent properties to the east and west and to the south across the street are developed with
multi-family residential apartment units and several single family residences.
10. Project Entitlements Requested:
• General Plan (Land Use Map) amendment and rezone for the project site and vicinity as
shown on the map above.
• Architectural Review of 16-unit condominium development at 1310 Foothill.
• Condominium tract map to allow subdivision of 16 condominium_ units.
• Environmental Review
11. Other public agencies whose approval is required: None.
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 2 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2008
a-3o
Attachment 7
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least
one impact that is a"Potentially Significant Impact"as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
Aesthetics Geology/Soils Public Services
Agricultural Resources Hazards & Hazardous Recreation
Materials
X Air Quality Hydrology/Water Quality Transportation&Traffic
Biological Resources Land Use and Planning Utilities and Service
Systems
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 minimi s waiver with regards to the filing of Fish and Game Fees.
The project has potential to impact fish and wildlife resources and shall be subject to the payment of Fish
and Game fees pursuant to Section 711.4 of the California Fish and Game Code. This initial study has been
circulated to the California Department of Fish and Game for review and comment.
STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
This environmental document must be submitted to the State Clearinghouse for review by one or more
State agencies (e.g. Cal Trans, California Department of Fish and Game, Department of Housing and
Community Development). The public review period shall not be less than 30 days (CEQA Guidelines
15073(a)).
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 3 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2008
a-3 1
Attachment 7
DETERMINATION:
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and
a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, X
there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been
made, or the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet(s) have been added and
agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be
prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant" impact(s) or "potentially
significant unless mitigated" impact(s) on the environment, but at least one effect (1) has been
adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (2) has
been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached
sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the
effects that remain to be addressed
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
because all potentially significant effects (1) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR
or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (2) have been avoided
or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR of NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions
or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.
Signature Date
Doug Davidson,Deputy Director of Community Development For:John Mandeville,
Printed Name Community Development Director
A- CITY OF SAN Luis OSISPO 4 INMAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2008
a-3�-
Attachment 7
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 EK or other CEQA process,an effect has been
adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063 (c) (3) (D) of the California Code of
Regulations. Earlier analyses are discussed in Section 17 at the end of the checklist.
6. Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential
impacts (e.g. general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should,
where appropriate,include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated.
7. Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted
should be cited in the discussion. In this case,a brief discussion should identify the following:
a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review.
b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and
adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such
effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on earlier analysis.
C) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated,"
describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent
to which they address site-specific conditions for the project.
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 5 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2008
a-33
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentia., Potentially Amtt{{! r pt 7
Significant Significant SigmficanT
E R #200-07 Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Inco ted
I.AESTHETICS. Would theproject:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic-vista? X
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including,but not limited X
to, trees, rock outcroppings, open space, and historic buildings
within a local or state scenic highway?
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of X
the site and its surroundings?
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would X
adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
Evaluation
a-b)Foothill Blvd east of California Blvd is designated as having moderate scenic value in Figure 11 of the Conservation and
Open Space Element(COSE). The project does not block views of hills to the east as seen from the Foothill Blvd roadway
and has been designed to meet standard height requirements for development in the High Density Residential Zone (R11).
Furthermore,the site is already completely developed with multi-family residential structures.Redevelopment of the site with
new residential structures,although they are taller,will not significantly alter the aesthetics of the site.
c-d)The proposed condominium project is consistent with the massing of other larger multi-family structures to the west and
south of the project site. The structures are designed to comply with the R-4 zone maximum height of 35-feet. Although
somewhat larger, the architectural characters of the proposed structures are suited to the character of the neighborhood. The
immediate vicinity is characterized by moderate density apartments and condominiums. The project was conceptually
reviewed by the Architectural Review Commission who supported the massing and architectural character of the proposed
structure. The project will also receive a final review by the Architectural Review Commission to ensure consistency with
General Plan Policy for compatible development and compliance with Community Design Guidelines.
Conclusion: Less Than Significant Impact.
2.AGRICULTURE RESOURCES. Would theproject:
a) Convert Prince Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of 6, 10 X
Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps
pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of
the California Resources Agency,to non-agricultural use?
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a X
Williamson Act contract?
c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which,due to X
their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland
to non-a 'cultural use?
Evaluation
a) b) c) The project site is completely developed with structures and paving and is surrounded by developed properties and
public streets. The Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency designates this property
as Urban Land. There is no Williamson Act contract in effect on the project site. Development of the site will not contribute
to conversion of farmland, and may relieve pressure to develop similar land outside of the City's Urban Reserve Line. No
impacts to existing on site or off site agricultural resources are anticipated with development of the project site.
Conclusion:No Impact.
3. AIR QUALM. Would theproject:
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an 11, 12 X
existing or projected air quality violation?
b) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air X
quality plan?
c) Expose sensitive_ receptors . to substantial pollutant }{
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 6 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2008
a'3�
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources sources Potentiai.,_- Potentially Les ♦ r '
Significant Significant Signi icaCntt I
ER #200-07 Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
concentrations? _
d) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of X
people?
e) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria X
pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an
applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard
(including releasing emissions which exceed qualitative
thresholds for ozone precursors)?
Evaluation
a)b) c) e) San Luis Obispo County is a non-attainment area for the State PM10(fine particulate matter 10 microns or less in
diameter)and Ozone 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 2001 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. Conservation & Open Space Element Program 2.3.2 states that the City will help the APCD
implement the Clean Air Plan.
Motor vehicles account for about 40%of the precursor emissions responsible for ozone formation, and are also a significant
source of PMto. Thus, a major requirement in the CAP is the implementation of transportation control measures designed to
reduce motor vehicle trips and miles traveled by local residents. The project meets many of the goals stated in the CAP
because it will provide infill development of group housing within the City's Urban Reserve Line and the project site is
located in the City's urban center with convenient access to commercial services and transit routes, reducing the need for
occupants of the project to rely on vehicles for all of their transportation needs.The project is also located within 350 yards of
the Crandall Avenue entrance to Cal Poly State University which will reduce or eliminate the need for residents of the project
to make motor vehicle trips on a daily basis.
According to the APCD's"CEQA Air Quality Handbook,"land uses that cause the generation of 10 or more pounds per day
(PPD) of reactive organic gases, oxides or nitrogen, sulfur dioxide, or fine particulate matter(PM 10), or 50 lbs/per day or
more of carbon monoxide(CO)have the potential to affect air quality significantly.Table 1-1 of this document states that it
takes approximately 50 apartment units to generate over 10 pounds of these pollutants. Assuming the site is developed with
the 16 condominium units,the development would be of a size that is well below APCD's air quality significance thresholds.
Therefore,the project and resulting development will not generate significant operational air quality impacts.
In evaluating construction related impacts,the SLO APCD CEQA Air Quality Handbook states the threshold level of grading
activity to generate required mitigation measures is 9,100 cubic yards/day for reactive organic gases(ROG) and 2,000 cubic
yards/day for oxides of nitrogen (NOx). Projects involving grading of an area greater than 4.0 acres require PM10
mitigations. The proposed project grading scope is well below these thresholds since the project site is less than 1.0 acre and
grading is not likely to exceed 2,000 cubic yards/day.
The APCD does not require consultation for potential asbestos dust related impacts unless the project site is over 1.0 acre in
size.
d)No objectionable odors will emanate from the project.
Conclusion:Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated.
Mitigation Measures
1. Temporary impacts from the project, including but not limited to excavation and construction activities and vehicle
emissions from heavy duty equipment have the potential to create dust and emissions that exceed air quality standards
for temporary and intermediate periods unless the following mitigation measures are incorporated:
�! CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 7 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2008
r-
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Intormation Sources Sources Potential;—' Potentially L.e$�p ��� 7
Significant Significant Sign
E R #200-07 Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
a. Construction vehicle speed at the work site must be limited to fifteen(15)miles per hour or less;
b. Prior to any ground disturbance, sufficient water must be applied to the area to be disturbed to prevent
visible emissions from crossing the property line;
c. Areas to be graded or excavated must be kept adequately wetted to prevent visible emissions from crossing
the property line;
d. Storage piles must be kept adequately wetted, treated with a chemical dust suppressant; or covered when
material is not being added to or removed from the pile;
e. Equipment must be washed down before moving from the property onto a paved public road;and
f. Visible track-out on the paved public road must be cleaned using wet sweeping or a HEPA filter equipped
vacuum device within twenty-four(24)hours.
4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would theproject:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or indirectly or 6 X
through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a.
candidate,sensitive,or special status species in local or regional
plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department
of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
b) Have a substantial adverse effect, on any riparian habitat or X
other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional
plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department
of Fish and Game or U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service?
c) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting X
biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or
ordinance(e.g.Heritage Trees)?
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident X
or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native
resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of
wildlife nursery sites?
e) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted habitat Conservation X
Plan,Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved
local,regional,or state habitat conservation plan?
f) Have a substantial adverse effect on Federally protected X
wetlands as defined in Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(including, but not limited to, marshes, vernal pools, etc.)
through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or
other means?
Evaluation
a), b) According to the Natural Diversity Database of the California Department of Fish and Game, there are no species
identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the
California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on or near the project site,nor is riparian habitat
or other sensitive natural comity identified.
c) There are no Heritage trees on the project site and no tree removals are proposed which would conflict with Tree
preservation policies.
d) The property is completely developed and completely surrounded by urban development and the proposed project will not
interfere with the movement of any wildlife species or migratory wildlife corridor.
�� CITY OF SAN Luis OBISPO 8 INITIAL STuOy ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2008
1 �1
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Intormation Sources Sources Potential, Potentially �t 7
Significant Significant ign
E R #200-07 Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
e) The proposed project will not conflict with any local policy protecting biological resources nor any adopted habitat
conservation plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation
plan.
f) The project will have no adverse effect on Federally protected wetlands.
Conclusion:No Impact.
5.CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the,project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a 16-19 X
historic resource?(See CEQA Guidelines 15064.5)
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an X
archaeological resource?(See CEQA Guidelines 15064.5)
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource X
or site or unique geologic feature?
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of X
formal cemeteries?
Evaluation
a)The project site is not a historic resource and is completely developed with multi-family residential apartments that were
constructed around 1960.
b) The project site is not located on or near a known sensitive archeological site.
c) There are no known paleontological resources or unique geologic features on the project site.
d) The project site is outside of the areas designated on the City's Burial Sensitivity Map as potential burial sites.
Conclusion:Less Than Significant Impact.
6. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would theproject:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource 6,7 X
that would be of value to the region and the residents of the
state?
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral X
resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan,
specific plan or other land useplan?
Evaluation
a)b)No known mineral resources are associated with the property and the property has been developed with residential uses
for more than 45 years. No significant grading or excavation is associated with the proejct
Conclusion:No impact.
7. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would theproject:
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse 5, 21,
effects, including risk of loss,injury or death involving: 24
I. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated in the X
most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map
issued by the State Geologist for the area,or based on other
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 9 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2008
�-3�
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potential.,_ ' Potentially an Arent 7
Significant Significant Significant Impact
E R #200-07 Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
substantial evidence of a known fault?
II. Strong seismic ground shaking? X
III. Seismic-related ground failure,including liquefaction? X
IV. Landslides or mudflows? X
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? X
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable; or that X
would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially
result in on or off site landslides, lateral spreading, subsidence,
liquefaction,or collapse?
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the X
Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life
or property?
Evaluation
a), c) San Luis Obispo County, including the City of San Luis Obispo, is located within the Coast Range Geomorphic
Province, which extends along the coastline from central California into Oregon. This region is characterized by extensive
folding, faulting, and fracturing of variable intensity. In general, the folds and faults of this province comprise the
pronounced northwest trending ridge-valley system of the central and northern coast of California.
Under the Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone Act, the State Geologist is required to delineate appropriately wide special
studies zones to encompass all potentially and recently-active fault traces deemed sufficiently active and well-defined as to
constitute a potential hazard to structures from surface faulting or fault creep. In San Luis Obispo County,the special Studies
Zone includes the SanAndreas and Los Osos faults. The edge of this study area extends to the westerly city limit line, near
Los Osos Valley Road. According to a recently conducted geology study, the closest mapped active fault is the Los Osos
Fault, which runs in a northwest direction and is about one mile from the City's westerly boundary. Because portions of this
fault have displaced sediments within a geologically recent time (the last 10,000 years), portions of the Los Osos fault are
considered "active". Other active faults in the region include: the San Andreas, located about 30 miles to the northeast, the
Nacimiento,located approximately 12 miles to the northeast,and the San Simeon-Hosgri fault zone,located approximately 12
miles to the west.
Although there are no fault lines on the project site or within close proximity,the site is located in an area of"High Seismic
Hazards,"specifically Seismic Zone 4,which means that future buildings constructed on the site will most likely be subjected
to excessive ground shaking in the event of an earthquake. New structures must be designed in compliance with seismic
design criteria established in the California Building Code for Seismic Zone 4. To minimize this potential impact, the
Uniform Building Code and City Codes require new structures to be built to resist such shaking.or to remain standing in an
earthquake.
b)Future site development must comply with the standards and requirements contained in the Uniform Building Code(UBC)
that address soil erosion and loss of topsoil. Compliance with the UBC will reduce impacts to a less than significant level.
c), d)The Safety Element of the General Plan indicates that the project site has a high potential for liquefaction,which is true
for most of the City, and the site contains highly expansive soils as defined in Table 18-1-B of the UBC (2001).
Recommendations included in a soils report, which is required to be submitted as part of a building permit application for
future site development, are sufficient to mitigate potential hazards from building in these areas. In general, the presence of
expansive soils requires additional base for roadways and flat work and deeper footings for building foundations.
Conclusion:Less Than Significant impact.
8. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the pro'ect:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment 5, 7, X
through the routine use, transport or disposal of hazardous 23
materials?
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment X
_ through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions
mai CRY OF.SAN LUIS OBtsPo 10 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2008
�-38�
Issues, Discussion and Supporting InTormation Sources Sources Potential.,_ Potentially
Significant Significant Significant Impact
E R #200-07 Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
involving the release of hazardous materials into the
environment?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely X
hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter
mile of an existing or proposed school?
d) Expose people or structures to existing sources of hazardous X
emissions or hazardous or acutely hazardous materials,
substances,or waste?
e) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous X
materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section
65962.5 and, as a result, it would create a significant hazard to
the public or the environment?
f) For a project located within an airport land use plan, or within X
two miles of a public airport,would the project result in a safety
hazard for the people residing or working in the project area?
g) Impair implementation of, or physically interfere with, the X
adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation
plan?
h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of lose, injury, X
or death,involving wildland fires,including where wildlands are
adjacent to urbanized areas or where residents are intermixed
with wildlands?
Evaluation
a) The project does not involve the routine use,transport,or disposal of hazardous materials.
b),d)The project will not result in the release of hazardous materials into the environment.
c) The project is located within a %<mile of California Polytechnic State University. The project will not involve hazardous
emissions or include handling of hazardous or acutely hazardous materials,substances or waste.
e) The project site is not included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code§65962.5.
f) The project site is approximately 2.5 miles north of the San Luis Obispo County Airport,outside the Airport Land Use
Plan Area.
g) The project has been reviewed by the Fire Marshal and will not conflict with any emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan.
h) The Safety Element of the General Plan identifies the site as having a low potential for impacts from wildland fires.
Conclusion:No Impact.
9. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUAUITY. Would theproject:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge 6, 15, X
requirements? 22
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere X
substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be
a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local
groundwater table level(e.g. The production rate of pre-existing
nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support
existing land uses for which permits have been granted)?
CITY OF SAN Luis OBISPo 11 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2008
a-J�
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Intormation Sources sources Potentiall, Potentially Less n Wo
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER #200-07 Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
c) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the X
capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or
provide additional sources of runoff into surface waters
(including, but not limited to, wetlands, riparian areas, ponds,
springs,creeks,.streams,rivers,lakes,estuaries,tidal areas,bays,
ocean,etc.)?
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or X
area in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or
siltation onsite or offsite?
e) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or X
area in a manner which would result in substantial flooding
onsite or offsite?
f) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on X
a Federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map
or other flood hazard delineation map?
g) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which X
would impede or redirect flood flows?
h) Will the project introduce typical storm water pollutants into X
ground or surface waters?
i) Will the project alter ground water or surface water quality, X
temperature,dissolved oxygen,or turbidity?
Evaluation
a), b) The project will not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. Site redevelopment will be
served by the City's sewer and water systems and will not use or otherwise deplete groundwater resources.
c) d) h) i) Physical improvement of the project site will be required to comply with the drainage requirements of the City's
Waterways Management Plan. This plan was adopted for the purpose of insuring water quality and proper drainage within
the City's watershed. The Waterways Management Plan requires that site development be designed so that post-development
site drainage does not exceed pre-development run-off. This can be achieved through a combination of detention and use of
pervious surfaces to increase water absorption on-site. Furthermore, the existing site is already substantially developed with
impervious surfaces including buildings and parking areas. Development of the site will not result in substantial changes to
the current drainage pattern of the site. Compliance with the requirements of the plan are sufficient to mitigate any potentially
significant impacts of the project in the area of water quality and hydrology. Plans submitted for a building permit application
will be evaluated by the Public Works Department and must be designed in a manner that is consistent with the requirements
of the Waterways Management.Plan.
e) f), g) The project site is not located within the 100-year flood zone per the Federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood
Insurance Rate Map.
Conclusion: Less Than Significant Impact.
10. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would theproject:
a) Conflict with applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of I X
an agency with jurisdiction over the project adopted for the
purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
b) Physically divide an established community? X
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural X
community conservation plans?
Evaluation
a) The proposed project does not conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with
jurisdiction over the project adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. The project would
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 12 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2008
a-��
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Intormation Sources Sources Potential,, Potentially (pt®n 7
Significant Significant Significant Impact
E R #200-07 Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Inco orated
change the land use designation of properties at the easterly end of Foothill Blvd and the easterly side of Crandall Ave from
R-3 (Medium Density Residential)to R4(High Density Residential)The proposed rezone from R-3 to R-4 for 1310 Foothill
would allow the proposed 16 unit condominium project. However, no other adjacent properties are proposing development
due to the rezoning at this time. The proposed rezone would not conflict with land use plans or policies adopted for the
purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect.The intent of the rezoning is to increase residential densities within
close proximity to the university campus consistent with the theme of General Plan Policy.
b)c)The project will not physically divide an established community or conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan
or natural community conservation plans.
Conclusion: No Impact.
11.NOISE. Would the project result in:
a) Exposure of people to or generation of"unacceptable" noise 4, 14, X
levels as defined by the San Luis Obispo General Plan Noise 23
Element, or general noise levels in excess of standards
established in the Noise Ordinance?
b) A substantial temporary, periodic, or permanent increase in X
ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing
without the project?
c) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groumdborne X
vibration or groundbome noise levels?
d) For project located within an airport land use plan, or within X
two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the
project expose people residing or working in the project area to
excessive noise levels?
Evaluation
a) The project will not generate unacceptable noise levels or expose people to noise levels in excess of standards established
in the Noise Ordinance. The project site is located outside of any noise contour in the City's Noise Element that would
require mitigation.
b)Construction of the proposed project will temporarily increase ambient noise levels. This type of noise is regulated by the
City's Noise Ordinance, which regulates times of construction and maximum noise levels that may be generated. If noise
levels exceed the Noise Ordinance thresholds, the property owner wound be subject to possible citations. The proposed
condominium development will be reviewed by the Planning Commission and conditions of approval and performance
standards will be required to ensure the condominium development does not generate excessive noise levels which could be a
nuisance to surrounding properties.As proposed,the condominium development is less likely to result in an increase of noise
impacts than the existing 13 unit development that currently exists on site.
c)The project will not expose people to the generation of excessive groundborne noise levels or vibration.
d) The project site is approximately 2.5 miles north of the San Luis Obispo County Airport, outside the Airport Land Use
Plan Area.
Conclusion:Less Than Significant Impact
12. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would theproject:.
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly 1 X
(for example by proposing new homes or businesses) or
indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other
infrastructure)?
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing or people X
necessitating the construction of replacement housing
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 13 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2008
a-qi
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Intormation Sources Sources Potential.,_.. Potentially LNo
Significant Significant Si i M 7
E R #200-07 Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
elsewhere?
Evaluation
a-b) The population added by this project is within the General Plan's projection and will not induce substantial growth into
the area or result in population exceeding local and regional growth projections. The project site is bordered by urban
development and the redevelopment of the site represents an in-fill development opportunity directly adjacent to the
university campus. This type of development is encouraged because it can take advantage of existing facilities for water,
sewer, storm drainage, transportation and parks. The properties proposed for rezoning from Medium High Density(R-3) to
High Density Residential(R-4)are already developed and the rezone would not substantially increase density.
The project site (including other properties involved in the rezoning) is presently constructed with structures used by a
fraternity, sorority, and multi-family housing. The proposed rezone will minimally add to the numbers of dwelling units
and/or residents (for group housing uses); therefore, substantial numbers of housing or people will not be displaced by the
project and substantial population growth would not occur as a result of the proposed project. Although the project will result
in the demolition of 13 apartment units, these will be replaced with 16 2-bedroom condominium units that will likely be
utilized as rental apartment units.
Conclusion: Less Than Significant Impact.
13. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the
provision, or need, of new or physically altered government facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other
performance objectives for any of the public services:
a) Fire protection? 7 X
b) Police protection? X
c) Schools? X
d) Parks? X
e) Roads and other transportation infrastructure? X
Other public facilities? X
Evaluation
a) b) d) e) f) No potential impacts have been identified to any public services because of the scale of the project and its
location within a developed portion of the City. Future development must comply with all applicable City Codes and State
regulations.
c) The school districts in the state are separate governing bodies with authority to collect fees to finance school construction
and parcel acquisition. Section 65955 of the Government Code prohibits the City from denying a subdivision or collecting
any fees beyond those required by the school district itself,to mitigate effects of inadequate school facilities. Any effect that
the additional children will have on school facilities will be mitigated in whole or in part by the districts per square foot fees,
charged at the time of building permit issuance for each residence.
Conclusion: Less Than Significant Impact.
14.RECREATION. Would theproject:
a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood or regional parks or X
other recreational facilities such that substantial physical
deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
b) Include recreational facilities or require the construction or X
expansion of recreational facilities,which might have an adverse
physical effect on the environment?
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPo 14 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2008
a,4a-
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potential., Potentially
Significant Significant Significant Impact'
E R #200 07 Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
Evaluation
a) The project will add incrementally to the demand for parks and other recreational facilities. However, given the project
only increases the number of residential units on site by 3 (where a project is currently proposed),no significant recreational
impacts are expected to occur with development of the site. Other properties to be rezoned are already substantially
developed, therefore no significant additional recreation demands are anticipated. The project site is located. in close
proximity to California Polytechnic State University, so it is anticipated those recreational facilities would be used. The
university contains a significant number of athletic fields, pools and gymnasiums that are open to the public. As discussed
above under Section 12. Population and Housing,the other properties not currently proposed for redevelopment also will not
substantially increase the number of persons allowed per acre(group housing)or the total number of dwelling units allowed.
b)The project does not include the construction or expansion of recreational facilities.
Conclusion: Less Than Significant linpact.
15. TRANSPORTATIONlTRAFFIC. Would theproject:
a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the 3, 13, X
existing traffic load and capacity of the street system? 23
b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service X
standard established by the county congestion management
agency for designated roads and highways?
c) Substantially increase hazards due to design features(e.g. sharp X
curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g.
farm equipment)?
d) Result in inadequate emergency access? X
e) Result in inadequate parking capacity onsite or offsite? X
f) Conflict with adopted policies supporting alternative X
transportation(e.g.bus turnouts,bicycle racks)?
g) Conflict with the with San Luis Obispo County Airport Land X
Use Plan resulting in substantial safety risks from hazards,noise,
or a chane in air trafficpatterns?
Evaluation
a)b) Foothill Blvd provides access to the project site. The City's General Plan Circulation Element classifies Foothill Blvd.
as a Local Street in the area east of California Blvd. The Element states that Local Streets should have two travel lanes, a
maximum Average Daily Traffic(ADT)of 1,500 vehicles,and a maximum speed of 25 miles per hour. The proposed project
will not result in significant changes to these criteria. The Public Works Department has reviewed the project and
determined that no significant improvements other than code required upgrades to street frontages, driveways, sidewalks and
other direct impacted site features will be required.
c) The project has been designed to meet City Engineering Standards for driveway access to the site and the applicant has
provided an exhibit required by the Public Works Department demonstrating there is adequate site distance for vehicles
leaving the site.
d)The Fire Marshal has reviewed the project and determined that the site can be adequately accessed by emergency vehicles
in its present design.
e) The project provides vehicle access from Foothill Boulevard and proposes on-site vehicle parking spaces, consistent with
Zoning Regulation standards.
0 The project does not conflict with policies supporting alternative transportation. Alternatively, due to the site's location
near the City's urban center, it is within reasonable walking distance (Y4 mile) to shopping,parks and services. Furthermore,
the project's proximity to the university will allow direct pedestrian access to the university without requiring additional
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 15 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2008
a^43
1
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Intormation Sources Sources Potentially _ , Potcntially ras L.Atp� t 7
Significant Significant Sigmi can t4�bbta
E R #Z00 07 Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Inco orated
vehicle trips and parking.
g)The project is not within the County's Airport Land Use Plan area for San Luis Obispo Airport.
Conclusion:
Less than significant impacts to TransportationfTraffic are anticipated.
16.UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would theproject:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable 7,.20 X
Regional Water Quality Control Board?
b) Require or result in the construction or expansion of new water X
treatment, wastewater treatment, water quality control, or storm
drainage facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental effects?
c) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project X
from existing entitlements and resources, or are new and
expanded water resources needed?
d) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, X
which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate
capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to
the provider's existing commitment?
e) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to X
accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs?
f) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations X
related to solid waste?
Evaluation
a), b) The project will allow for development of the site with slightly higher water demands. However, the incremental
change is not considered to be significant. This project has been reviewed by the City's Utilities Engineer and no
resource/infrastructure deficiencies have been identified. Future site development is subject to water impact fees which were
adopted to ensure that new development pays its fair share of the cost of constructing the water supply, treatment and
distribution facilities that will be necessary to serve it.
c) The City has adopted Water Allocation Regulations to insure that increased water use by new development and land use
changes do not jeopardize adequate water service to current and new customers. Section 17.89.030 of the regulations states
that a water allocation shall be required to: "obtain a connection to the city water system for a structure or facility not
previously connected; change the use of land or buildings, whether or not a construction permit is also required; obtain a
construction permit." Compliance with the City standards and State requirements will assure that impacts to water supplies
are less than significant.
d) The City wastewater treatment plant and existing sewers in the vicinity have sufficient capacity to serve the project site.
The developer will be required to construct private sewer facilities to convey wastewater to the nearest public sewer. The on-
site sewer facilities will be required to be constructed according to the standards in the Uniform Plumbing Code. Impact fees
are collected at the time building permits are issued to pay for capacity at the City's Water Reclamation Facility. The fees are
set at a level intended to offset the potential impacts of each new residential unit in the project.
e) 0 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
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 16 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2008
a-��
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentiai,, Potentiallys, n 7
Significant Significant Significant Impact
E R #200 07 Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
be accommodated on the project site and a solid waste reduction plan for recycling discarded construction materials must be
submitted with the building permit application. The project is required by ordinance to include facilities for recycling to
reduce the waste stream generated by the project,consistent with the Source Reduction and Recycling Element.
Conclusion: Less Than Si 'ficant Impact.
17.MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the X
environment,substantially reduce the habitat of a,fish or wildlife
species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-
sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of
the major periods of California history or prehistory?
Impacts are less than significant since the project site is already developed, is in an urbanized area and is not a historic
resource.
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but X
cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable"
means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable
when viewed in connection with the effects of the past projects,
the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable
futureprojects)
The impacts identified in this initial study arespecific to this project and would not be categorized as cumulatively significant.
c) Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause X
substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or
indirectly?
With the incorporation of Air quality Mitigation Measure #1, the project will not result insubstantial 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._Identif
y earlier analyses-and state where_they,are available for review.
N/A
b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within thescopeof and adequately
analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards,and state whether such effects were addressed by
mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
N/A
c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the mitigation
measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific
conditions of the project.
N/A
19. SOURCE REFERENCES.
1. City of SLO General Plan Land Use Element,April 2006
2. City of SLO General Plan Housing Element,April 2006
3. City of SLO General Plan Circulation Element,April 2006
4. City of SLO General Plan Noise Element,May 1996
5. City of SLO General Plan Safety Element,July 2000
6. City of SLO General Plan Conservation and Open Space Element,April 2006
7. City of San Luis Obispo Municipal Code
8.
City of San Luis Obispo,Land Use Inventory Database
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 17 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2008
-4J
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially, ,'Potentially tgsF{ ,f ,,jggt 7
Significant Significant S/giltft�dl�t' �tlhre
E R #200 07 Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
9. USDA,Natural Resources Conservation Service,Soil Survey of San Luis Obispo County
10. Website of the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency:
h
://www.consrv.ca.gov/dlrp/FMMP/
11. Clean Air Plan for San Luis Obispo County,Air Pollution Control District,2001
12. CEQA Air Quality Handbook,Air Pollution Control District,2003
13. Institute of Transportation Engineers,Trip Generation Manual, 7th Edition,on file in the Community Development
Department
14. City of San Luis Obispo Noise Guidebook,May 1996
15. City of SLO Waterways Management Plan
16. City of San Luis Obispo, Historic Resource Preservation Guidelines, on file in the Community Development
Department
17. City of San Luis Obispo, Archaeological Resource Preservation Guidelines, on file in the Community
Development Department
18. City of San Luis Obispo,Historic Site Ma
19. City of San Luis Obispo Burial Sensitivity Ma
20. City of SLO Source Reduction and Recycling Element,on file in the Utilities Department
21. San Luis Obispo Quadrangle Map, prepared by the State Geologist in compliance with the Alquist-Priolo
Earth a Fault Zoning Act,effective January 1, 1990
22. Flood Insurance Rate Ma (Community Panel 0603100005 C dated July 7, 1981
23. San Luis Obispo County Airport Land Use Plan
24. 2001 Uniform Building Code
Attachments:
1. Vicinity map
2. Reduced scale project plans
REQUIRED MITIGATION AND MONITORING PROGRAMS
Mitigation Measures:Air Quality
1. Temporary impacts from the project, including but not limited to excavation and construction activities, vehicle
emissions from heavy duty equipment and naturally occurring asbestos has the potential to create dust and emissions
that exceed air quality standards for temporary and intermediate periods unless the following mitigation measures are
incorporated:
a) Construction vehicle speed at the work site must be limited to fifteen(15)miles per hour or less;
b) Prior to any ground disturbance,sufficient water must be applied to the area to be disturbed to prevent
visible emissions from crossing the property line;
c) Areas to be graded or excavated must be kept adequately wetted to prevent visible emissions from
crossing the property line;
d) Storage piles must be kept adequately wetted, treated with a chemical dust suppressant, or covered
when material is not being added to or removed from the pile;
e) Equipment must be washed down before moving from the property onto a paved public road;and
0 Visible track-out on the paved public road must be cleaned using wet sweeping or a NEPA filter
equipped vacuum device within twenty-four(24)hours.
CITY OF SAN Luis OBisPo 18 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2008
A7--q�p
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Inrormation Sources Sources Potentiai.,_ ' Potentially Les 'tldd7
Significant Significant Si i t tl;Vatl
E R #200-07 Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
➢ Monitoring, Program: Construction phase air quality mitigation measures are monitored by the Air Pollution
Control District (APCD), through a complaint based enforcement system The requirements listed above are
noted on the project plans and the City Building Inspector and Public Works Inspector for the project are
instructed to contact APCD in the event of a probable violation. Members of the public can also call APCD if
they are concerned about dust or other emissions from a construction site.
CITY Of SAN LUIS OBISPO 19 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2008
a-41
�' Attachment 8
ORDINANCE NO. XXXX(2008 Series)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
AMENDING THE ZONING MAP FOR THE PROPERTY AT 108 THROUGH 190
CRANDALL AVENUE AND 1304 THROUGH 1476 FOOTHILL
BOULEVARD FROM MEDIUM-HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (R-3) TO
HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (R4); GP/R 200-07
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on August 13, 2008,
and recommended approval of the project; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing
in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on
September 16, 2008, pursuant to a proceeding instituted under application GP/R/TR/ER 200-07,
SLO Investments LLC,applicant; and
WHEREAS,the City Council has considered the draft Mitigated Negative Declaration of
Environmental Impact as prepared by staff and reviewed by the Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, notices of said public hearing were made at the time and in the manner
required by law; and
WHEREAS,the City Council has duly considered all evidence, including the testimony
of the applicant, interested parties, and the evaluation and recommendations by staff, presented at
said hearing.
BE IT ORDAINED,by the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. Findings.
1. The proposed General Plan Amendment and Rezoning is consistent with General Plan
Land Use and Housing Element policies to locate student housing projects, fraternities
and sororities, and generally more affordable housing in close proximity to the campus.
2. The General Plan Amendment and Rezone from Medium-High Density Residential (R-3)
to High-Density Residential (R-4) will allow for density required for the proposed
condominium project and group housing use, and will provide for more viable future
redevelopment of other properties to be consistent with the above General Plan policies
and Land Use Element policy stating that housing likely to attract faculty or students
should be encouraged to locate close to Cal Poly,to reduce commute travel.
3. The proposed General Plan Amendment and Rezone will not be detrimental to the health,
safety and welfare of those living and working in the vicinity since it will not allow
incompatible land uses. The area of the proposed GP/R and project site is already
adjacent to other High-Density zoned properties and is bordered by the Cal Poly campus
to the north.
0.4
Attachment 8
SECTION 2. Action. The Zoning Regulations Map Amendment (GP/R 200-07) is
hereby approved as identified within Exhibit A.
SECTION 3. A summary of this ordinance, together with the names of Council
members voting for and against, shall be published at least five (5) days prior to its final passage,
in the Tribune, a newspaper published and circulated in this City. This ordinance shall go into
effect at the expiration of thirty(30) days after its final passage.
INTRODUCED on the day of 2008, AND FINALLY
ADOPTED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo on the day of
2008, on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Mayor David F. Romero
ATTEST:
City Clerk Audrey Hooper
6;y
attomey
AS TO FO
Jonathan Lowell
GACD-PLAN\Pdunsmo e\R==ing&GPA's\GPR 200-07(13 10 Foothill)\CC Ord 200-07(R).doc
a—tc'
Attachment 8
EXHIBIT A
Area to be Rezoned
R-3 to R-4
Project Site
1310.1318 Foothill
O
R-4
IfF0 �L
v R-4 R-1
s
_ Attachment 9
RESOLUTION NO. XXXX (2008 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO CITY COUNCIL
APPROVING A 16 UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT FOR 1310
FOOTHILL BOULEVARD//A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
OF ENVIRONMENTALrIMPACT,AND AMENDING THE LAND USE
ELEMENT MAP FROM MEDIUM-HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (R-3)
TO HIGH-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL(R4) FOR PROPERTY AT(108
THROUGH 190 CRANDALL AND 1304 THROUGH 1476 FOOTHILL;
GP/R/TR/ER200-07
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on August 13, 2008,
and recommended approval of the project; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing
in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on
September 16, 2008, pursuant to a proceeding instituted under application GP/RITR/ER 200-07,
SLO Investments LLC, applicant; and
WHEREAS, notices of said public hearing were made at the time and in the manner
required by law; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the Mitigated Negative Declaration of
Environmental Impact as prepared by staff and reviewed by the Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has duly considered all evidence, including the testimony
of the applicant, interested parties, and the evaluation and recommendations by staff, presented at
said hearing.
BE IT RESOLVED,by the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. Environmental Determination. The City Council finds and determines that
the project's Mitigated Negative Declaration adequately addresses the potential significant
environmental impacts of the proposed project entitlements in accordance with the California
Environmental Quality Act and the City's Environmental Guidelines, and reflects the independent
judgment of the Council. The Council hereby adopts the Mitigated Negative Declaration
incorporating all of the mitigation measures listed below:
Mitigation Measure
1. Temporary impacts from the project, including but not limited to excavation and
construction activities, vehicle emissions from heavy duty equipment and naturally
occurring asbestos has the potential to create dust and emissions that exceed air quality
standards for temporary and intermediate periods unless the following mitigation
measures are incorporated:
a) Construction vehicle speed at the work site must be limited to fifteen (15)
miles per hour or less;
a-S I
Attachment 9
Resolution No.XXXX(2008 Series)
Page 2
b) Prior to any ground disturbance, sufficient water must be applied to the area to
be disturbed to prevent visible emissions from crossing the property line;
c) Areas to be graded or excavated must be kept adequately wetted to prevent
visible emissions from crossing the property line-,
d) Storage piles must be kept adequately wetted, treated with a chemical dust
suppressant, or covered when material is not being added to or removed from
the pile;
e) Equipment must be washed down before moving from the property onto a
paved public road; and
f) Visible track-out on the paved public road must be cleaned using wet
sweeping or a HEPA filter equipped vacuum device within twenty-four (24)
hours.
➢ Monitoring Proaam: Construction phase air quality mitigation measures are
monitored by the Air Pollution Control District (APCD), through a complaint based
enforcement system. The requirements listed above are noted on the project plans and
the City Building Inspector and Public Works Inspector for the project are instructed to
contact APCD in the event of a probable violation. Members of the public can also
call APCD if they are concerned about dust or other emissions from a construction
site.
SECTION 2. General Plan Amendment Approval & Findings. The General Plan
Amendment included as part of City Application No. GPA 200-07, which amends the Land Use
Element Map from Medium-High Density Residential to High Density Residential for the
properties located at 108 through 190 Crandall and 1304 through 1476 Foothill as shown on the
attached Exhibit A, is hereby approved,based on the following findings:
Findings:
1. The proposed General Plan Amendment and Rezoning is consistent with General Plan
Land Use and Housing Element policies to locate student housing projects and generally
more affordable housing in close proximity to the campus.
2. The General Plan Amendment and Rezone from Medium-High Density Residential (R-3)
to High-Density Residential (R4) will allow for density required for the proposed
condominium project at 1310 Foothill and group housing project at 1468 Foothill, and
will provide for more viable future redevelopment of other properties to be consistent
with the above General Plan Policies and Land Use Element policy stating that housing
likely to attract faculty or students should be encouraged to locate close to Cal Poly, to
reduce commute travel.
3. The proposed General Plan Amendment and Rezone will not be detrimental to the health,
safety and welfare of those living and working in the vicinity since it will not allow
incompatible land uses. The area of the proposed GP/R and project site is already
adjacent to other High-Density Zoned properties and is bordered by the Cal Poly campus
a-s�-
Attachment 9
Resolution No.XXXX(2008 Series)
Page 3
to the north.
SECTION 3. General Plan Amendment Adoption.
1. The Land Use Element Map is hereby amended as shown in Exhibit A.
2. The Community Development Director shall cause the change to be reflected in
documents, which are on display in City Hall and are available for public viewing and
use.
SECTION 4. Tentative Tract Mai) Approval Findings and Conditions. The Tentative
Tract Map to allow 16 condominium units at 1310 Foothill Boulevard, is hereby approved, based
on the following findings, and subject to the following conditions:
Findings:
1. The design of the tentative tract map is consistent with the General Plan because the
proposed condominium 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 topographically suitable, 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. A Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared by the Community Development
Department on August 4, 2008. The Planning Commission finds and determines that the
project's Mitigated Negative Declaration adequately addresses the potential significant
environmental impacts of the proposed project.
Conditions
1. The project shall require final review by the Architectural Review Commission (ARC)
which may require minor project amendments to allow the project to be consistent with
the Community Design Guidelines.
2. A completed Green Building checklist shall be submitted prior to final review by the
ARC. The California Build it Green or LEED checklist shall be utilized. A narrative shall
be included to describe how the green building credits will be achieved.
(::�
Attachment 9
Resolution No.XXXX(2008 Series)
Page 4
3. An affordable housing agreement consistent with City policies, shall be submitted for
review and approval of the Community Development Director prior to proceeding to the
City Council.
4. The applicant shall pay Park In-Lieu Fees prior to recordation of the Final Map,
consistent with SLO Municipal Code Section 16.40.080.
5. 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.
6. The subdivider shall dedicate a 6' wide public utility easement and a 10' wide street tree
easement across the frontage of site. Said easements shall be adjacent to and contiguous
with the public right-of-way lines.
7. Complete frontage improvements will be required as a condition of the tract map. The
improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the engineering standards in effect
at the time of encroachment permit issuance.
8. The proposed on-site sewer main will be privately owned and maintained by the
Homeowner's Association.
9. The building plans shall show and note compliance with Engineering Standard 101O.B
for Stone Water Quality Management. This code requirement is applicable to new or
redeveloped sites where the total area of impervious surfaces is more than 10,000 square
feet. Water quality management is required for the runoff from uncovered parking spaces
and driveway areas. Provide calculations showing impervious area.
10. The proposed access to Campus Way shall be in compliance withADA standards. Access
should be obtained through the adjacent property to the east.
11. One 15-gallon street tree will be required for each 35 lineal feet of frontage. The City
Arborist shall approve the tree species, planting requirements, and whether the street trees
shall be planted in tree wells in the sidewalk area or behind the back of walk in the tree
easement.
12. Tree removals may require approval by the City Arborist. The plan shall show all
existing and proposed street trees.
a-S�
Attachment 9
Resolution No.XXXX(2008 Series)
Page 5
20. 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.
Code Requirements
The following code requirements are included for information purposes only. They serve to give
the applicant a general idea of other City requirements that will apply to the project. This is not
intended to be an exhaustive list as other requirements may be identified during the plan check
process.
a-ss
Attachment 9
Resolution No. XXXX(2008 Series)
Page 6
1. The demolition of the existing structures shall comply with all local, state, and federal
requirements for the demolition of structures.
2. Public improvements required as a condition, code requirement, or mitigation measure
should be shown on the building plans. Said improvements may be completed or a bond
posted for their completion to allow for recordation of the map prior to the completing of
all required and/or proposed improvements.
3. All boundary monuments, lot corners and centerline intersections, BC's, EC's, etc., shall
be tied to the City's Horizontal Control Network. At least two control points shall be used
and a tabulation of the coordinates shall be submitted with the final map or parcel map.
All coordinates submitted shall be based on the City coordinate system. A 3.5" diameter
computer floppy disk, containing the appropriate data compatible with Autocad(Digital
Interchange Format,DXF) for Geographic Information System (GIS)purposes, shall be
submitted to the City Engineer.
4. The parcel map/final map preparation and monumentation shall be in accordance with the
city's Subdivision Regulations, Engineering Standards, and the Subdivision Map Act.
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:
City Clerk Audrey Hooper
APP OVED AS O ORM:
ity Attorney Jonathan Lowell
G:\CD-PLAN\Pdunsmore\Rezoning&GPA's\GPR 200-07(13 10 Foothill)\CC Reso 200-07.doc
Attachment 9
EXHIBIT A
Medium Density
Residential(R-3)to High
Density Residential(R4)
Project Site
1310-1318 Foothill
n�
d
R-4 7<
POO�H,�`
v R-4 R-1
S
00� Arl
tijG��