HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/21/2008, PH 3 - TENTATIVE TRACT MAP PROPOSAL FOR A SIX UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT (730&748 FOOTHILL BOULEVARD, TR/ER COUn Cl l Meaem`D.e.
j acEnda Rpm p 3
C I TY OF S AN L U IS O B I S P O
FROM: John Mandeville, Community Development Director
Prepared By: Brian Leveille, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: TENTATIVE TRACT MAP PROPOSAL FOR A SIX UNIT CONDOMINIUM
PROJECT (730& 748 FOOTHILL BOULEVARD,TR/ER 108-07).
CAO RECOMMENDATION
As recommended by the Planning Commission, adopt a resolution approving a tentative tract
map and Negative Declaration of environmental impact for a six unit condominium development
located at 730 & 748 Foothill Boulevard (TR/ER 108-07).
DISCUSSION
Situation/Previous Review
The City has received an application to construct a new condominium project at 730 & 748
Foothill Boulevard. The Architectural Review Commission (ARC) found the project architecture
and site plan consistent with the City's Community Design Guidelines and approved the project
design on January 28, 2008 (Attachment 3, ARC meeting minutes). On February 13, 2008, the
Planning Commission continued the item so that the applicant could address issues raised during
the Planning Commission discussion (Attachment 4, meeting minutes). On August 27, 2008, the
Planning Commission (PC) reviewed the proposed project and found the applicant had
adequately addressed all concerns from previous review of the project and unanimously
recommended approval of the subdivision map and environmental document to the City Council
(Attachments 5 & 6, August 27, 2008, staff report and meeting minutes). Condominium projects
with five or more units in residential zones require the approval of a tract map, which requires
review by both the Planning Commission and City Council for compliance with the Subdivision
Regulations and the City's Condominium Regulations. The project is now in its final stage of
review, consideration by the City Council of the tentative subdivision map and negative
declaration.
Data Summary
Address: 730 & 748 Foothill Boulevard
Applicant: Richard Rengel and Ryan Perron
Zoning: R-4(High-Density Residential Zone)
General Plan: High-Density Residential
Environmental Status: An initial study of environmental review has been prepared for the project
and staff has determined that the project will result in less than significant impacts
(Attachment 7). /
Council Agenda Report J
TR 108-07 (730 & 748 Foothill Blvd)
Page 2
Site.Description
The project site is currently developed with two 850 square-foot, single family residences
constructed in 1949 (proposed for demolition). The project site has two separate properties (730
& 748 Foothill) with a total size of 11,000 square-feet (.25 acre). The site is generally surrounded
by multi-family development also zoned R-4 (Figure 1, below). The project site is in an area
where many students reside since the area is in close proximity to Cal Poly. Across Foothill
Boulevard to the south is a shopping center zoned C-C (Community Commercial).
tL
`U,
77
es
l
-_ - ,--
Foo`H LL CM
Figure 1.Project Site and Vicinity
Proiect Description
The applicant is proposing to construct six residential condominium units within two buildings
of three units each oriented along the west and east property lines. All of the proposed units
contain two bedrooms and range in size from 1,260 square feet to 1,460 square feet. The floor
plan layouts for both buildings are substantially similar. The end units for both buildings (four
units total) have lower floor garage spaces with a kitchen and living room area. Bedrooms are
located on the second floor and each has access to exterior deck space. The center units of each
building have a multi-level layout with garage space on the first floor and the kitchen and living
space on the second level. Bedrooms are located on the third level with each having exterior
deck space(see plan sheets A3-A5).
The building design incorporates significant articulation with multiple rooflines stepping up
from the two-level end units to the three level units at the center of each building. Elements of
the design incorporate a Craftsman style with exposed rafters and low pitched rooflines.
Exterior materials include lap siding, architectural grade carriage type garage doors, and a stone
veneer base with a milled top sill. Painted wood trim is used on wall edges and to frame
3roL
Council Agenda Report _
TR 108-07 (730 & 748 Foothill Blvd)
Page 3
windows. The roof material is composition type and is noted as "Weathered Shake Blend".
Windows on the second floors are single hung vertical and slider-style Milgard "Montecito"
vinyl windows which are designed to look like single-hung windows. On the third level center
units there are casement type windows for the den area and sliding doors and windows for each
of the bedrooms. Windows will be the higher quality "simulated divided light" type where the
dividers are outside of the glass.
The site plan is a central two-way drive configuration with the structures on the east and west
sides of the site with driveway in the center. The common recreation area is located at the rear of
the site. Parking is provided within two-car garages for each unit and there is an uncovered guest
parking space at the front of the property.
1' _
I
..........
WEST ELEVAMN
Figure 2. West elevation of the east three unit building
Evaluation
The Planning Commission has considered each of the project's issue areas prior to making a
recommendation of approval on the subdivision and Negative Declaration to the City Council.
The Planning Commission found the subdivision to be consistent with General Plan Policy and
in compliance with the Subdivision Regulations, and therefore recommended approval of the
project as proposed. A more thorough review of the issue areas summarized below is in the
Planning Commission report (Attachment 5).
1. General Plan
The site's High-Density Residential land use designation is designed for multi-family
developments with compact outdoor spaces. Adjacent properties throughout this neighborhood
are developed with similar high-density residential developments. Consistent with General Plan
Land Use and Housing Element policies, this project proposes to utilize an infill site to maximize
the property's density and provide a mixture of housing units. As discussed in the Planning
Commission staff report, the project was also found to be consistent with Land Use Element
Policy 2.2.10 and Housing Element Policy 7.2.1. These policies relate to neighborhood
compatibility.
3-3
Council Agenda Report
TR 108-07 (730 & 748 Foothill Blvd)
Page 4
2. Compliance with R4 Zone Development Standards
The project requires two minor exceptions from development standards. The front porch
overhang support posts for the units fronting Foothill Boulevard are at a 10-foot setback where
the standard minimum setback is 15-feet (Figure 3, below). The Planning Commission was
supportive of this minor exception since the porch design provides a pleasing architectural
transition to the street and the main buildings would still meet the minimum required 15-foot
setback. The project also proposes a minor deviation from the common open space requirement
of 600 square feet. The common open space is provided at the rear of the site and is currently
designed with 562 square feet. The Planning Commission was supportive of the exception since
the project is far in excess of private open space requirements and the projects exceeds the"total"
open space requirements by over 250 square feet. At its January 28, 2008, hearing, the
Architectural Review Commission granted approval of the trash and recycling enclosure to be
within the Foothill Boulevard street yard setback area with the inclusion of appropriate landscape
screening and exterior finish materials complementary to the main residential structures.
Other than the requested minor deviations, noted above, the project is in compliance with R-4
property development standards in terms of height, coverage, yards and density. Staff has
reviewed the cover page of the applicant's plan set that provides site planning statistics and
verified on the plans that all other aspects of the project are in compliance.
3. Subdivision Reeulations Covered Porch
The project is proposed to be IT
developed as an airspace —
condominium project. Each unit ;
t
will be eligible for private
ownership while the driveway and --
other common areas would be
commonly owned and managed by
a homeowners association. The Figure 3. Foothill Blvd Elevation
Subdivision Regulations regulate
condominium developments and require specific standards for common, private and total open
space. The analysis provided in the Planning Commission report (Attachment 5) describes how
the project complies with the regulations.
Environmental Review
The Planning Commission has recommended a Negative Declaration of environmental impact
for the project. The initial study is included as Attachment 7.
Next Steps
Tract maps are a two-step process made up of a tentative map and a final map. The applicant
must satisfactorily complete all conditions of the tentative map before City consideration of the
final map. Final maps are brought back to the Council for action on the Consent Calendar.
ly
I
Council Agenda Report
TR 108-07 (730 & 748 Foothill Blvd)
Page 5
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 in compliance with City standards, including the location and design of the trash and
recycling enclosure.
FISCAL IMPACT
When the General Plan was prepared, it was accompanied by a fiscal impact analysis, which
found that overall the General Plan was fiscally balanced. Accordingly, since the proposed
project is consistent with the General Plan, it has a neutral fiscal impact.
ALTERNATIVES
1. Continue review of the proposed subdivision with specific direction to the applicant and
staff.
2. Approve a resolution recommending that the City Council deny the proposed subdivision,
based on findings of inconsistency with the Subdivision Regulations and/or General Plan
Policies as specified by the City Council.
Attachments:
Attachment 1: Vicinity Map
Attachment 2: Reduced Size Development Plans
Attachment 3: Architectural Review Commission meeting minutes, January 28, 2008
Attachment 4: Planning Commission meeting minutes, February 13, 2008
Attachment 5: Planning Commission staff report, August 27, 2008
Attachment 6: Planning Commission meeting minutes, August 27, 2008.
Attachment 7: Initial Study of Environmental Impact
Attachment 8: Draft City Council Resolution approving subdivision map with findings and
conditions as recommended by the Planning Commission.
Council reading file: Full size set of project plans
G:\CD-PLAN\bleveille\Subdivisions\TR-ER 108-07(730,748 Foothill)\TR and ER 108-07(730&748 Foothill)Comcil Report.doc
3-S
R-4 �
C-
FOOTHILL
R -4 cmc "
VICINITY MAP 108-07
730 & 748 FOOTHILLA
of
i 1a4i
. q
I � V
fill .� ,w t
" INN
I
r +II• _ \
/L
I •/f�CrJ7��/f ^I� I�� ��„���r �.►14�r,1 AIM.
��`` •
TRE E WELL
rLUSH W/
PRIVEWAV
I 1 I
j
I
I
I
I
i � I
;.
I
j
,
WE WAYI
t� 4'e
rm
Mill
-
�I
=1 r
`imp lFQ
�.
���tl�r r neap
I=10049,
'Eli ta
l..rs.. 7
t. NYS H
r .i r
r
u r
OR lilil
��I'lAfF•d'S tF;��
Yvl I '��IIr�I SI
s �
• in
vmmrx�,l
Yll'�I ire'
�� a k�li la.:_. •••'P� t, �3l���1
MINIM
�Cl � ,�Ill��� li=� i�ll.
I�i�un�n�er
f i 1Y
- i ►� li
r k
l Ld ivt'� ' S�` ri+�7��fC
e.
— � i_-- • : � ��5 a3Yk . k � � c irf
t • �`:.�••� aj/JJ ,r.�jb it :�, -.6i�a' ,i
�,t�fr/�4`�mi
�AI
/
pill
a u �
.y o
� I
INN
16iftl11A1� � �!aIWi;.10
Iro n
i a
!hl IMNil
" I
■
1
(_ x"49 fi•rMAW,
RA
y l;7FiTs�'r
v;
115.a■ FBS
: TIMM
M
al
MV 1111row
� 1
Oil
Ei R�iWl,l dila '
� � �, ':iUlf 7. X Ciikl.lieeil
r
FA"l
f � \ �I�.i';• 1.. �y �11�8
nt 2
------
-------_-__ - _ = � _-- __�--- -
Oh-iB -niH100-j
Eta
I I � '•rw'na om,�
rm
I I �
mmryi —4— /cps
° w.•7 '"L'� I i ggg I ��r— ,,,° II t..I 1e'�
@ lam• �' �f'"y,�e � �� j I ,�
'� _ �I fir-- y»��� I --��I � •�
II _ tz)
I ee�� I I I° I d:d 1 � • 1141
LO
im
� I
aiI 1� o.�.�
I I I gg� I F
I
.14
..a
§z
C S
a! �1i ¢ g�i i° g§pz � •spadaaao+@@@�@s¢oQias> gaBBoymB�iIpI
o i x € €` ° 2 A d MIN.,
ae �@ : o �e$$pi (tl gggg@g�ig$�$k � g8 S 4 6 $19 gill?
E 8X ,yg� ¢E 5R�A g@gg?N @��°�^�@" � �@i 8! d 9 & .
$ 4 Est y s e9 a °ai d�� �9dill x igiA 9' Z y e AZ 8 g ff6o 1
rO9 e'v °f$ § F6s Im w xiP•@eQi08Qpeafwx¢•¢ i` ° oj0' 3-1-x.3
gF 81g0.13 S� � � 3 X .. ge®®®®8®�..
Nil
I
i i i i i I I
5 l i 1 I t:• ;
I d
I I
� I
I�II� kart-•.avae� � I I g � I 1
daggga g 4 1 1
El
as !
a �8 . ; fill alb
HT-,? '
,kill
l
�•i �,' SSS93B a cs Ina Ly f Pf'gg L_r
Yaaaid aa� ,p}4Y i YE
5 ja aP i
fHill
eenaa
�a?a7aa
oil 6{{p tg yai e�
36�
If a l 3 LgBip ri@SBai
� E
p �i9 a°i� EepiaLd
da �3 �is P�a6
Q]
ca y -
r� €
All o JaRk A&
E7:7 J
rg. ,tda.
UA
ae FOOTHILL BLVD
ri
J TNE PARCEL MM
SLO 07-0172
M Attachment 2
___ ENGINgE�E,RING
__. Sa46ChIgq CJ1CLDA1
® plies 009510.71t!
m � � mchM5169Y
_ .•cert
e v
e EMGNEEN OF�Dpiq
O
r•,v.
a v•We
:. !a .'.y'•S" DATE
•'. • a
UNIT#734 TURNING TEMPLATE UNIT#744 TURNING TEMPLATE
o
6
J Z d
J �U
— UNIT#732 TURNING TEMPLATE UNIT#746 TURNING TEMPLATE z a
O ow
O 9d
LL o x
w
.'. z}
K
1
a�
® e
a m
0
o
UNIT#730 TURNING TEMPLATE UNIT#748 TURNING TEMPLATE 4
DE9p1Ep: os
°� DRAgM: DA
JDB MweEre WON
Y EE C-^
DATE:MY, =!
3-4 �-
Attachment 3
SAN LUIS OBISPO
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES
January 28, 2008
ROLL CALL:
Present: Commissioners Zeljka Howard, Allen Root, Greg Wilhelm, Anthony
Palazzo, Steven Hopkins
Absent: Commissioners Michael Boudreau and Jason Kambitsis
Staff: Senior Planner Pam Ricci, Associate Planner Phil Dunsmore, and
Recording Secretary Jill Francis
ACEPTANCE OF THE AGENDA:
The agenda was accepted as presented.
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS:
There were no comments made from the public.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
1. Cross Street (formerly 174 Suburban Road). MOD/ARC 5-05; Modifi on
to ap ved ARC plans to allow transit facility (RTA); C-S-S zone; KDS E rprises,
applican . hil Dunsmore)
Associate Planner ' Dunsmore presented the staff report, r mmending that the
Commission grant final a oval to site plan modifications to approved project design
to accommodate the Regiona ransit Facility bus storag nd maintenance yard, based
on findings, and subject to recom nded conditions d code requirements.
Steve Devencenzi, Planning Director, Sa Obispo Council of Governments, noted
that he supported the staff's recommend o r approval and responded to questions
brought up by the Commission regar " g fencing d landscaping. He clarified that the
existing fencing at the site was vanized steel, ra er than wrought iron. He noted
that the on-site detention basi as intended to function ' e a bio-swale to filter run-off.
He added that it will be ne ssary to install some additiona ignage to direct site users
from Suburban Road.
Jim Hoffman, H man Associates, introduced himself and noted t he was also
available to a wer questions from the Commission.
PUBLI OMMENTS:
T ere were no comments made from the public.
Attachment 3
ARC Minutes
January 28, 2008
Page 2
COMMISSION COMMENTS:
mission discussion focused on clarifying the proposed fencing a ate design and
the a nt and types of screening landscaping proposed alon a perimeter of the
fencing.
Commr. Hopkins s orted the fence height except' for this facility given the unique
circumstances.
Commr. Wilhelm asked staff an a ap ' ant to describe in more detail the proposed
landscaping plan.
On motion bv Commr. Howar o grant fina oroval to the modified proiect with staff-
recommended conditions with modifications _o conditions 4 & 5 and code
requirements. Second Commr. Wilhelm.
AYES: Co rs. Wilhelm, Howard, Root, Hopkins, Pa o
NOES: ne
RECUSE None
ABSE Commrs. Boudreau & Kambitsis
T/e motion passed on a 5:0 vote.
2. 730 & 748 Foothill Blvd. ARC 108-07; Review of six-unit residential condominium
development; R-4 zone; Foothill Courtyard, LLC, applicant. (Brian Leveille)
Senior Planner Pam Ricci presented the staffreport, recommending that the
Commission grant final approval to the proposed six-unit, multi-family residential project,
based on findings, and subject to conditions.
Rick Rengel, applicant, clarified the proposed wall combined with vertical trellis design
for the street yard areas along Foothill Boulevard. He noted his support of the proposed
street yard setback reduction to increase the amount of common open space at the rear
of the site and to help with the maneuverability of parking spaces. He mentioned how
he was continuing to work with the City Utilities Department on a solid waste service
solution that did not require the installation of a large trash enclosure in the street yard.
He stated that he would like to see on-site fixtures utilized to provide more light to the
sidewalk area, rather than a separate City street light standard.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
There were no comments from the public.
COMMISSION COMMENTS:
The ARC was very complementary of the Craftsman architectural design of the
buildings and recommended that the Planning Commission approve the proposed street
3-47-
ARC Minutes Attac ent 3
January 28, 2008
Page 3
yard setback exception and fence height exception when the tentative map for the
proposed condominium units comes before them.
Commr. Howard noted her support for a solid waste service plan that either eliminated
the requirement for the proposed trash enclosure or relied on fewer or shared
receptacles. She recommended that the roof shingles not be a dark color.
After clarification from staff on the specifics of the request, Commr. Wilhelm supported
the proposed street yard setback exceptions. He also recommended that the Public
Works Department consider the elimination of the requirement for a street light.
On a motion by Commr. Wilhelm to grant final approval of the project, based on
findings, and subject to conditions (change to conditions 6 &13 and adding #18 all rain
-gutters shall be square or beveled as opposed to ogee shape and shall be painted to
match the color scheme of the building). Seconded by Commr. Howard.
AYES: Commrs. Wilhelm, Howard, Root, Hopkins, Palazzo
NOES: None
RECUSED: None
ABSENT: Commrs. Boudreau & Kambitsis
The motion carried on a 5-0 vote.
COMMENT & DISCUSSION:
1. Staff
A. Agenda Forecast
Pam Ricci gave an agenda forecast of upcoming projects.
2. Commission:
A. Minutes of December 3 & December 17, 2007
The minutes of December 3 & 17, 2007, were approved as submitted.
ADJOURNMENT:
The meeting adjourned at 6:27 p.m.
Respectfully submitted by
Jill Francis
Recording Secretary
3-r$
N N Attachment ;4
SAN LUIS OBISPO
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
February 13, 2008
ROLL CALL:
Present: Commissioners Amanda. Brodie, John Ashbaugh, Michael Multari,
Dan Carpenter, Vice-Chair Charles Stevenson, and Chairperson
Carlyn Christianson
Absent: Diana Gould-Wells
Staff: Associate Planner Tyler Corey, Associate Planner Brian Leveille,
Associate Planner Phil Dunsmore, City Utilities Conservation
Coordinator Ron Munds, Natural Resources Manager Neil Havlik,
Deputy Community Development Director Doug Davidson, and
Assistant City Attorney Christine Dietrick
ACCEPTANCE OF AGENDA: Commissioners or staff may modify the order of items.
MINUTES: The minutes of January 23, 2008 were approved as amended.
PUBLIC COMMENT:
There were no comments made from the public.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
1. 467 Hill Street. U 187-07: Request to add executiv uite uses to the allowable
use list established for the site and extend hou of operation for the use from
.m. to 7 p.m. to 24 hours a day for up to 4 ployees for office/phone work; R-1
zone, bin Rossi, applicant. (Tyler Corey
This item was cond to a date unc in to allow the project to be properly noticed
with a 1,000 foot radius the sit , and allow the applicant and staff additional time
to clarify existing and propose S.
On motion by Commr Mult to continue date uncertain. Seconded by Commr.
Ashbaugh.
AYES: Co rs. Multari, Ashbaugh, Carpen Brodie, Stevenson, and
ristianson
NOES: None
RECU None
AB Commr. Gould-Wells
The motion carried on a 6:0 vote.
Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the Planning Commission regarding any item on 3_0
�/Q
this agenda will be made available for public inspection in the Community Development, 919 Palm / I
Street, during normal business hours.
Planning Commission
Attachment 4
2/13/08
Page 2
2. 730 & 748 Foothill Blvd. TR/ER 108-07: Tentative tract map and environmental
review for six airspace condo units with requests to allow the trash enclosure within
street yard setback, fence height exception, and building setback reductions along
Foothill Blvd; R-4 zone; Foothill Courtyard LLC, applicant.
(Brian Leveille)
Associate Planner Brian Leveille presented the staff report, recommending that the
Planning Commission adopt a resolution recommending approval of the condominium
tract map and Negative Declaration to the City Council.
Commr. Stevenson questioned the setback exception and if the design would be
affected. He also was concerned that the tree wells provided adequate back-up space.
He wondered if the applicants had considered additional areas of pervious pavers.
Commr. Ashbaugh recognized the site constraints and appreciated the R-4 density. He
asked if an addition street tree (palm) could be provided.
Commr. Multari asked about the entry to the rear units and the justification for the
setback exception.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
Richard Rengel, applicant, supported staff's recommendation. He discussed the
Commission's concerns regarding the back-up space and setback exception.
Commr. Multari asked the applicant to confirm the entry and open space of the units.
Commr. Stevenson asked about the trash bins and where they would be stored.
Ron Munds, City Utilities Conservation Coordinator, explained the reason for the
enclosure instead of individual bins.
There were no further comments made from the public.
COMMISSIONER COMMENTS:
Commr. Stevenson said he does not support the setback exception and desires more
permeable surface in the driveway. He was also concerned about the maneuvering of
vehicles on site, particularly spaces #11 and #12.
Commr. Ashbaugh agreed with the exception concerns.
Commr. Carpenter supported the density and scale of the project but does not support
the street yard exception or the fence height exception. He did say he could support an
exception to the open space standards.
® The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services,programs and
activities. Please contact the City Clerk or staff liaison prior to the meeting if you require assistance. 3 ��
Planning Commission MOA M Attachment 4
2/13/08
Page 3
Commr. Multari said he appreciated the density, but the project is too tight to be able to
function adequately. He agrees with Commissioner Carpenter in not supporting the
street yard and fence height exception.
Commr. Brodie agreed with the other Commissioners that the project could be reduced
in size to meet City standards.
On motion by Commr. Stevenson to continue the item to March 12, 2008 to allow time
to address the Commission's concerns over setbacks, fence height, open space
Parking spaces/surfaces and other development standards. Seconded by Commr.
Ashbauqh.
AYES: Commrs. Stevenson, Ashbaugh, Multari, Carpenter, Brodie, and
Christianson
NOES: None
RECUSED: None
ABSENT: Commr. Gould-Wells
The motion carried on a 6:0 vote.
3. 1290-1292 Foothill Blvd. and 123 125 137 1.75 Crandall Avenue. /GP-
"R/ER 109-05; General Plan amendment and rezone from Medium gh Density
esidential (R-3) to High Density Residential (R-4), use permit allow fraternity,
a environmental review; R-3 zone; Kevin Hauber, applican Brian Leveille)
Associate P ner Brian Leveille presented the staff r ort, recommending that the
Planning Comm sion adopt a resolution recomme ng approval of the use permit,
general plan amenent and rezone, and Negat' Declaration to the City Council. He
highlighted the projec ' sustainable es eatures and noted the addition of a
condition from the Public orks Depa ent to contribute a fair share of the traffic
improvements at Foothill and, liforn' treets.
Commr. Multari questioned th cce from the handicap space to the second floor and
if the unit's bathrooms wer esigned fo andicap accessibility. He further stated that
he does not support th commended con ' 'on from the Public Works Department.
PUBLIC COMM S:
Kevin Ha r, representative of the fraternity, supported staff recommendation and
introdu d the project team.
J n Knight, RRM, discussed the project including the history of its desig .
® The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services,programs and
activities. Please contact the City Clerk or staff liaison prior to the meeting if you require assistance.
3-�I
Planning Commission Iv Attachment 4
2/13/08
Page 4
Steve Gordon, President of the Fraternity, stated that the project meets the atemity's
eeds and respects the surrounding neighborhood. They have ablished a
n hborhood outreach plan.
Jan H ell Marc, neighbor, supports the fraternity and the re-zone R-4.
There were o further comments made from the public.
COMMISSIONE COMMENTS:
Commr. Multari supp ed the land use in this location ith its proximity to Cal Poly. He
also supported keepin the limit of the number of ople. He also believed that the
first floor bathroom next the dining room and at ast one unit should be designed as
handicap accessible even i it's not required by C standards. He does not support the
recommended condition fro the Public Wor Department because the residents of
the fraternity house would r uce the im ct on the intersection by walking and
bicycling to Cal Poly.
On motion b Commr. Multari .to a o a resolution recommending approvaI of the
rezonegeneral plan amendment d Negative Declaration to the City Council.
Seconded by Commr. Carpenter.
AYES: Commrs. Multari, Carp\teuvten Ashbaugh, Brodie, and
Christianson
NOES: None
RECUSED: None
ABSENT: Commr. Gou -Wells
The motion carried on :0 vote.
On motion b Com Stevenson to adornmending approval of the
use permit and no include the Public Works De artment ecommended condition of
traffic im roveme is but torequire that the bathroom near the dinnina room and one of
the units be des' ned as handicap accessible. Seconded bv C mmr. Brodie
/ABSE :
ommrs. Stevenson, Brodie, Multari, Carpent r, Stevenson, and
hristianson
shbaugh
None
ommr. Gould-Wells
rried on a 5:1 vote.
augh voted against the motion and felt that the Public Works Department
ffic improvements should be a condition of the project.
® The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services, programs and
activities. Please contact the City Clerk or staff liaison prior to the meeting if you require assistance.
3-a2-
Planning Commission Nft Attachment 4
2/13/08
Page 5
Commr. Stevenson said the project was noteworthy because of its reen Building
principles used in its design.
4. 11980 Los Osos Valley Road. ANNX/ARC/GP-R/ER 7- Discussion of the
cope of the EIR for a project to annex and develop va agricultural land along
L Osos Valley Road with a new retail center; Irish Hills laza East LLC, applicant.
(Ph' Dunmore)
Associate lanner Phil Dunsmore presented an verview of the project and
environmenta issues identified in the EIR work scop
Commr. Multari a ed if archaeology is a potenti ly significant impact. He also asked
how does the wide ing of the flood plain add r ss downstream impacts and if it was
possible for a by-pas channel.
Commr. Ashbaugh ques ned the vehicul access to Oceanaire from Froom Ranch.
He also asked about the o ite mitigatio or open space.
Commr. Brodie asked about t futur bridge across the creek and if there are bike
trails and connections in the area.
Neil Havlik, City Natural Resource ager, answered the Commission's questions.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
Carol Florence, represent ive of the appli nt, introduced the project team and
encouraged the Commissi n to visit the site.
Linda Seeley, San L is Obispo, expressed con rns over the greenhouse gas
emissions and conve ion of agriculture land.
Rosemary Wilvert, resident of Citizens for Planning Resp sibility (CPR), referenced
her letter submitt d to the Commission. She disagreed with he off-site mitigation for
open space.
Michael Sulli n, San Luis Obispo, agreed with the points of the R letter, including
the 50% op n space requirement. He believed that the project's im cts on biological
resources re significant.
Jan M , San Luis Obispo, supported the 50% open space requirement o each of the
three ' dividual sites as referenced in the General Plan.
Steven Marx, San Luis Obispo, agreed with the previous speakers and questions the
impacts of a large regional center on agriculture land.
® The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services,programs and
activities. Please contact the City Clerk or staff liaison prior to the meeting if you require assistance.
3-a3
Planning Commission Attachment 4
2/13/08
Page 6
Jrry Smith, San Luis Obispo, confirmed the flooding constraints of the property and the
wi life habitat.
COM SSIONER COMMENTS:
Commr. tari recommended the revised staff report contain seri s alternatives. He
also request the work scope explore housing possibilities, an Iternative site plan to
open up to the ek, agriculture versus wildlife habitat, green ouse gas emissions and
a look at all releva General Plan and zoning policies.
Commr. Ashbaugh wo d like to see creative sol Ions to the flooding problems,
protection of the creek, an espect to the adjacent eighbors.
Commr. Carpenter appreciated public com ents and the importance of the General
Plan policies, the proposed bridge er the eek and any traffic impacts to the area.
Commr. Christianson was concerned t the project's impacts on view shed and was
concerned about a project not propo ' g 5 of open space on-site.
COMMENT AND DISCUSSION-
5. Staff
A. Agenda Forec t
Deputy Director D g Davidson gave the agenda forecast of u oming projects.
6. Commis 'on
ADJOU MENT: The meeting adjourned at 8:45 p.m.
Ap oved by the Planning Commission on February 27, 2008.
Ryan K. Betz
Supervising Administrative Assistant
Presenting Planner(s): Tyler Corey, Brian Leveille, & Phil Dunsmore
® The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services,programs and
activities. Please contact the City Clerk or staff liaison prior to the meeting if you require assistance.
Attachment 5
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
PLANNING.COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT ITEM#3
BY: Brian Leveille, Associate Planner(781-7166)%/ MEETING DATE: August 27, 2008
FROM: Doug Davidson,Deputy Director of Community Development�D
FILE NUMBER: TR/ER 108-07
PROJECT ADDRESS: 730&748 Foothill Boulevard
SUBJECT: Review of a proposed six-unit multi-family residential project, located on the north
side of Foothill Boulevard between Ferrini Road and North Chorro Street.
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a resolution recommending approval of the condominium tract map and Negative
Declaration to the City Council.
BACKGROUND
Situation
The applicant is proposing to develop the vacant lot with a new six-unit residential
condominium project. Condominium projects with 5 or more units require approval of a tract
map, which requires review by both the Planning Commission and City Council for compliance
with the Subdivision Regulations and the City's Condominium Regulations. The Architectural
Review Commission reviewed the project for conformance with the Community Design
Guidelines on January 28, 2008, and granted approval of the building architecture and site
design,contingent upon approval of the tract map.
On February 13, 2008, The Planning Commission heard the item and continued the project to a
date uncertain for the applicant to address issues raised in discussion.
Data Summary
Address: 730&748 Foothill Blvd.
Applicant: Richard Rengel
Zoning: R-4 (High-Density Residential Zone)
General Plan: High-Density Residential
Environmental Status: A Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact was recommended by
the Director of Community Development on February 1, 2008 (Attachment 4).
Site DeserhWon
The project site is currently developed with two 850 square-foot, single-family residences. The
3-a�
Attachment 5
TRIER 108-07 (730 &748 Foothill Blvd.)
Page 2
applicant's project statement identifies the structures as barrack buildings originally constructed
in 1949. The project site has two separate properties (730 & 748 Foothill) with a total size of
11,000 square feet (.25 acres).The site is generally surrounded by multi-family development also
zoned R-4. The project site is in an area where many students reside since it is in close proximity
to Cal Poly. Across Foothill Boulevard to the south is a shopping center zoned C-C (Community
Commercial).
Project Description
The applicant is proposing to construct six residential condominium units within two buildings
of three units each oriented along the west and east property lines. All of the proposed units
contain two bedrooms and range in size from 1,260 square feet to 1,460 square feet. The floor
plan layouts for both buildings are substantially similar. The end units for both buildings (four
units total) have lower floor garage spaces with a kitchen and living room area. Bedrooms are
located on the second floor and each has access to exterior deck space. The center units of each
building have a multi-level layout with garage space on the first floor and the kitchen and living
space on the second level. Bedrooms are located on the third level with each having exterior
deck space (see plan sheets A3-A5).
West elevation of units the east three unit building
The building design incorporates significant articulation with multiple rooflines stepping up
from the two level end units to the three level unit at the center of each building. Elements of the
design incorporate a Craftsman style with exposed rafters and low 4:12 pitched rooflines.
Exterior materials include lap siding, architectural grade carriage type garage doors, and a stone
veneer base with a milled top sill. The project also incorporates 2x8 fascia and 4x6 outriggers
with 4x4 diagonal supports. Painted wood trim (2x4) is used on wall edges and to frame
windows. The roof material is composition type and is noted as "Weathered Shake Blend".
Windows on the second floors are single hung vertical and slider-style Milgard "Montecito"
vinyl windows which are designed to look like single-hung windows. On the third level center
units there are casement type windows for the den area and sliding doors and windows for each
Attachment 5
TRIER 108-07 (730&748 Foothill Blvd.)
Page 3
of the bedrooms. Windows will be the higher quality "simulated divided light" type where the
dividers are outside of the glass.
The site plan is a central two-way drive configuration with the structures on the easi and west
sides of the site with driveway in the center.The common recreation area is located at the rear of
the site. Parking is provided within two-car garages for each unit and there is an uncovered guest
parking space at the front of the property.
EVALUATION
Previous Review and Project Modifications
In the previous Planning Commission review on February 13, 2008, several areas of concern
were noted (Attachment 3, meeting minutes). The following issues as identified by the
Commission in the previous review are listed below, followed by discussion of the applicant's
responses and revisions to project plans.
Setbacks
Covered porch
In the previous review of the project the ^-
applicant's submittal showed the front
of the condominium buildings setback
at 15-feet from the Foothill Blvd !--
property line with posts for the porch
overhang at a 10-foot setback. The ___
common open space at the rear of the
site was short of meeting the 600
square feet required minimum. Since a
setback exception for the porch Foothill Blvd elevation
overhang supports was already required for the applicant's project, to provide the minimum
required open space and to provide increased back up and turning area at the back of the site,
staff recommended pursuing bringing the buildings forward to a 13-foot setback. The Planning
Commission was not supportive of setback exceptions for the main buildings and noted
exceptions to reduce open space requirements would be preferable to bringing the building
forward. Staff believes the porch design would provide a pleasing architectural transition to the
street and has provided findings for approval of a setback exception which could support
approval for the porch overhangs at 10-feet with the building left at a 15-foot setback.
Fence Height Exception
A fence height exception was requested with the previous review for the outdoor spaces adjacent
to Foothill Boulevard for the two end units.The Planning Commission was not supportive of the
requested fence height exception. With the revised submittal, the applicant has removed the
3 ,13-
Attachment 5
TR/ER 108-07 (730 &748 Foothill Blvd.)
Page 4
request for a fence height exception.
Circulation and Driveways
The Commission noted concerns over the functionality of the driveway and parking design. The
Commission identified potential problems with the ability of vehicles to back out of garage
spaces and turn around in the driveway. The applicant has responded that the design complies
with back up and turning distances for vehicles backing up from garage spaces since the doors
were widened to 18-feet to provide an improved turning radius. The tree wells are intended to be
flush to allow increased turning area. The applicant has provided a turning template sheet which
demonstrates how vehicles can maneuver from each parking space (sheet C-2,project plans).
The applicant has revised the driveway surfacing to provide interlocking pavers at the entry to
the project and along the perimeter. The accent paving is intended to enhance the appearance of
the driveway and provide some delineation for pedestrians to the entrances of the units from
Foothill Boulevard. The redesigned driveway with pavers is shown on the Landscape Plan sheet
of the plan set..
Trash and Recycling
The applicant was pursuing individual bin service for each unit instead of an enclosure for the
trash and recycling. In the previous Planning Commission review of the project,Ron Munds,the
City Utilities Conservation Coordinator, showed photos of problem areas along Foothill Blvd
where bins have been left blocking the sidewalk and indicated his opposition to allowing
individual bin service. The Planning Commission did not indicate any support for allowing
individual bin service. The applicant has since worked with Ron Munds to obtain approval of a
shared split waste bin enclosure to allow the collection of trash and recyclables.
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.
LU 2.210: 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: As discussed below in Community Design Guidelines analysis, surrounding
structures do not set a particularly unique or quality design aesthetic. The proposed project is
compatible with the surrounding development pattern and creates a higher architectural standard
for the neighborhood. The project is not in close proximity to lower density development.
�ct
` Attachment 5
TR/ER 108-07 (730&748 Foothill Blvd.)
Page 5
LU 2.4.8:High Density Residential
High Density Residential development should be primarily attached dwellings in two-
or three-story buildings, with common outdoor areas and very compact private
outdoor spaces. Other uses which are supportive and compatible with these dwellings
such as group housing, parks, schools, and churches may be permitted Such
development is appropriate near employment centers and major public facilities.
Staffs Analysis: The project is designated as "High Density Residential" on the General Plan
Land Use Element (LUE) map. The project is consistent with LU 2.4.8 since it proposes two
buildings with attached units. All the units are two-story units with a lower level garage and
contain very compact private outdoor spaces provided by ground floor open space and upper
level decks designed to conform to Subdivision Regulation private open space requirements.
General Plan HE Policy 7.2.1: "Within established neighborhoods, new residential
development shall be of a character, size, density and quality that preserves the
neighborhood character and maintains the quality of life for existing and future
residents."
Staffs Analysis: The project site is mostly surrounded by high density multi-family, multi-story
apartments and condominiums. The height, mass, and density of the proposed project is
compatible to adjacent development and complies with Housing Element Policy 7.2.1.
2.Subdivision Remdatiions
The City's Municipal Code contains provisions for the development of new condominiums..
Consistent with the General Plan and the Community Design Guidelines, these provisions
contain standards for common and private open space, recreation amenities and storage. Unlike a
rental apartment project, which are open to discretion on the size and placement of open space
areas, the condominium standards have specific guidelines that must be incorporated into
ownership condominium projects. As quoted in Section 16.17.010 of the regulations, the City
does "recognize that ownership units differ from rental apartments and,for the benefit of public
health, safety and welfare, such projects should be treated differently from apartments."
In general, the regulations for condo projects in the R-4 zone require 100 square feet of private
open space and 100 square feet of common open.space for each unit. Additionally the regulations
require that projects in the R-4 zone have a combined total of at least four hundred square feet of
both private and common open space per unit. Common recreation facilities are required in the
R-4 zone for projects of five or more units. Storage must also be included for each unit and shall
include at least two hundred cubic feet of enclosed, weatherproof and lockable private storage
space,exclusive of cabinets and closets within the unit.
3 -as
ATTACHMENT S
TR/ER 108-07 (730 &748 Foothill Blvd.)
Page 6
Staffs Analysis:
Private Open Space: The proposed project provides 2,107 square feet and meets the private
open space requirement of 100 square feet per unit. Private open space requirements are met by
providing lower level porch space and upper level decks.
Common Open Space: The proposed project provides 562 square feet of common open space
which is a minor deviation from the 600 square foot minimum. Common open space is provided
at the rear of the site. As discussed above, the Planning Commission indicated support in the
previous review of the project for minor exceptions from open space requirements as preferable
options versus moving the buildings forward toward the Foothill Blvd. property lines which
would have required a setback exception. Staff supports the minor exception considering the
private open space for the project is far in excess of the minimum requirements and the project
also exceeds the"total'open space requirement by over 250 square feet.
Combined °Notal° open space: The project meets the total open space requirement of 2,400
(6x400 sq. ftJunit). The project provides a total of 2,669 square feet with 562 square feet of
common open space and 2,107 square feet of private open space.
Common Recreation Facilities: The project is required to provide a minimum of 20 square feet
per unit of common indoor recreation facilities, or 40 square feet per unit of improved outdoor
recreation facilities. This requirement is met with the provision of 600 square feet of recreation
facility area. Common recreation facilities include amenities such as a built-in barbeque and
picnic table.
Storage:Lockable storage areas are provided within the garage area of each unit.
Laundry: Minimum requirements for laundry facilities are to provide laundry area within each
unit, or in common laundry space. Washers and dryers are provided in the garage level of each
unit.The project meets laundry requirements.
3.Development Standards
With exception to the requested setback reductions for the front unit porch overhangs along
Foothill Blvd, and the approval granted by the ARC to allow the trash enclosure within the street
yard setback, the project is in compliance with development standards of the Zoning Regulations
including height, yards, lot coverage,parking, etc.
4.Landscaping& Tree Removals
The landscape plan includes a variety of trees, shrubs, and groundcover for the common areas.
3 -3()
Attachment 5
TR/ER 108-07 (730 &748 Foothill Blvd.)
Page 7
The landscape plan appears sufficient to enhance the appearance of the project and soften the
visual impact of buildings. The proposed project also includes the removal of several non-native
trees,all less than 16"in diameter.
Summary
The Architectural Review Commission has reviewed the design details of the development site
and the architecture of the proposed units and found that the project is appropriate and consistent
with the Community Design Guidelines. Staff believes the applicant has addressed potential
issues discussed by the Planning Commission in the previous review. The responsibility of the
Planning Commission and City Council is to review the subdivision map requirements,
applicable General Plan Policies, open space standards, and to determine if the applicants
response from concerns raised by the Commission at the previous meeting have been adequately
addressed-
ALTERNATIVES
ddressedALTERNATIVES
1. Continue the item. An action to continue the item should include a detailed list of additional
information or project modifications required.
2. Recommend denial of the project to the City Council. Action denying the application should
include the basis for denial.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment 1: Vicinity map
Attachment 2: Reduced scale project plans
Attachment 3: Planning Commission meeting minutes,February 13, 2008
Attachment 4: ARC Report,January 28, 2008
Attachment 5: Draft Initial Study of Environmental Review w/o attachments
Attachment 6: Resolution recommending approval of the tract map to City Council
Enclosed: Full-size project plans.
GAIeveilletsubdivisionfrWER 108-07(730&748 Foothill Blvd.)
Attachment 6
SAN LUIS OBISPO
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
August 27, 2008
ROLL CALL:
Present: Commissioners Amanda Brodie, Dan Carpenter, Carlyn Christianson, Diana
Gould, Michael Multari, Vice-Chairperson John Ashbaugh, and Chairperson
Charles Stevenson
Absent: None
Staff: Deputy Director Doug Davidson, Senior Planner Jeff Hook, Senior Planner
Pam Ricci, Associate Planner Brian Leveille, Natural Resources Manager
Neil Havlik, Deputy Director Kim Murry, and Recording Secretary Michelle
Lakey
ACCEPTANCE OF AGENDA: Commissioners or staff may modify the order of items.
MINUTES: The minutes of August 13, 2008, were approved as submitted.
PUBLIC COMMENT:
hawn McNabb, San Luis Obispo, stated that the 300 Lawrence Drive PD ans were
c nged without review. He stated that there is encroachment into the n space. He
stat that the approved plans are not being followed. He provid the Commission
with ph sof the site. He stated that trees have been damage y the contractor. He
hoped tha a Planning Commission (PC) could place this it on their next agenda to
provide directs to staff to stop construction and look ov he plans to see if the plans
are being followe
Dan Caldon, San Luisbispo, discussed 300 awrence Drive PD. He provided the
Commission with a copy o letter he wrote the Fire Marshal. He stated that the City
is in violation of the City's m 'cipal cod . He asked that the project be resubmitted to
the PC to be re-approved. He to at there have been major plan changes to this
location, including encroachment, rlook issues, and cul-de-sac issues. He felt there
should be no exceptions to the afe hat the PC and City Council need to provide for
the city..
Deannie Marcotte, Luis Obispo, She greed with Mr. McNabb and Caldon
regarding 300 Law nce Drive PD.
There were further public comments.
PUBLI EARINGS:
1 2238 Broad Street. R/U 70-08: Request to add the mixed-u overlay zoning to
the site's existing Neighborhood-Commercial and Service-Co ercial zoning
designations and consideration of an Addendum to update the previo ly-adopted
3 -3�
Planning Commission Minutes _ _
Attachment 6
August 27, 2008
Page 2
Mitigated Negative Declaration; and request for a use permit to allow a mixed-use
project, including exceptions for building height and a side yard setback, and a 30%
ared and mixed-use parking reduction; C-N-H zone; Rick Moses, applicant.
(C tinued to September 10, 2008) (Pam Ricci)
The item wa continued to September 10, 2008, to allow staff additional time to pr are
the staff report.
2. Stenner Ranch sements. GPC 100-08; General Plan Consistenc or: 1) Sale
of City property Xth retention of conservation easement; and 2) cquisition of
conservation easem nt of Stenner Ranch; City of San Luis Obispo applicant. (Neil
Ha0k)
Neil Havlik, Natural Resource Manager, presented the staff re ort; recommending the
Commission determine, and re rt to the City Council, that a proposed transactions
are consistent with the General PI He explained that t transactions will secure full
City ownership of the Bowden Ran h open space, pe anently protect 838 acres of
land in Stenner Ranch, and will, as art of the sal of the adjacent city-owned lot,
encumber a majority of that site with consery on easement. He explained the
mechanics of the series of land transactio s and ' dicated that the City will transfer the
easement to the Land Conservancy. He a that the Stenner Ranch owners (the
Glick family) have had an interest in acquirin he surplus City property across from the
Stenner Ranch.
He further explained that the easeme restricts de elopment on the 838-acre property
to four home sites plus limited agri tural uses: on one of the home sites would be
permitted on the hill above the ailroad tracks. In sponse to a Commissioner's
question, Mr. Havlik responded at the proposed easem t does not restrict the size of
the home permitted on each f the home sites. He sta d that the Bowden Ranch
transactions were found co istent by the Commission in 20 In response to another
Commissioner's question, taff responded that a restriction pr ibiting wood-cutting on
the property could be c sidered as part of the agreement. He tated there is a well-
established and used _ail on adjacent City-owned property and, erefore, no trails or
public access was p sued as part of the agreement for this property.
PUBLIC COMM TS:
There were comments made from the public.
COMMIS ION COMMENTS:
Chai erson Stevenson expressed concern about the amount of developme that
wo still be allowed under the conservation easement and stated that restrictio on
th size of the homes, the amount of grading, and accessory uses should be include in
e agreement. He expressed disappointment that the transaction did not include pla s
to provide connection to other trails. Chairperson Stevenson indicated that the
transaction did not seem to capture enough benefit to the City as presented thus far.
3 -33
Planning Commission Minutes Attachment 6
August 27, 2008
Page 3
ommr. Multari felt that the proposed transactions are consistent with the General an.
tated that the action needed by the Planning Commission is a finding of c ormity
with t General Plan and the decision of whether the transaction is a "go deal" for
the City i of within the Planning Commission's purview — it is up to the Council to
decide if th transaction has merit. He felt that restrictions should a added to the
agreement totallow secondary dwellings on the four home sites. Dr. Havlik
responded that su restrictions were intended and would be c ' ed in the agreement.
Commr. Brodie share some of Chairperson Steven n's concerns about the
restrictions on allowed b ' ings on the home sites d the lack of trails on the
easement.
Vice-Chairperson Ashbaugh indicat he woul ike to see the terms of the easement.
He would like staff to add a restriction w d-cutting to the easement. He felt staff
made a good decision in limiting the numb of homes that are allowed to be built above
the railroad tracks to one. He felt it is a od rall transaction.
Commr. Christianson agreed with ntiments expres d by Commmr. Multari.
On motion bv Vice-Chair A au h seconded b Com sioner Gouldthe Planning
Commission voted to ado the staff recommendation and re rt to the Ci_ Council that
the ro osed transacti s are consistent with the General Plan.
AYES: Co rs. Multari, Gould, Brodie, Carpenter, Christians and Vice-Chair
Baugh.
NOES: Chairperson Stevenson
RECUS None
ABS None
e motion carried on a 6:1 vote.
3. 730 & 748 Foothill Blvd. TR 108-07: Tentative tract map and environmental
review for six airspace condo units with requests to allow the trash enclosure within
street yard setback and to allow portions of covered porches within part of the
Foothill Blvd. setback area; R-4 zone; Foothill Courtyard LLC, applicant. (Brian
Leveille)
Brian Leveille, Associate Planner, presented the staff report recommending the
Commission adopt a resolution recommending approval of the condominium tract map
and Negative Declaration to the City Council. He explained there are currently two
existing structures built in 1949. He explained that the project was reviewed by the
ARC on January 28, 2008, and by the PC on February 13, 2008. He explained the PC
continued the item for applicant to address issue areas: setbacks, fence height
exception, trash and recycling, and circulation and driveways. He stated that Staff finds
the proposed project to be consistent with General Plan Policy LU 2.210, LU 2.4.8, HE
3.13.1
3-3�
Planning Commission Minutes Attachment 6
_�
August:27, 2008
Page 4
Ryan Perron, San Luis Obispo, applicant, noted he had withdrawn the request for the
front yard setback exception for the main buildings and the previously-requested fence
height exception. He stated that the trash enclosures have been designed per City
standards and were approved by Ron Munds on August 19, 2008. He stated that he
currently exceeds the required total open space and private open space requirements
and the deviation from the common open space is minor. He stated that two garage
spaces were widened to increase maneuvering of vehicles.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
Brian Roberts, San Luis Obispo, felt that the architecture of the condominiums is nice
and improves the surrounding neighborhood.
Ryan Eads, San Luis Obispo, approved of the proposed project and felt that it would
add to the neighborhood.
Ian LeMay, San Luis Obispo, stated that finding housing within walking distance to Cal
Poly has been difficult. He felt that housing developments such as the proposed project
are important and would like the PC to approve it.
Josh Pickles, San Luis Obispo, stated that finding affordable housing for students has
been very difficult. He approved of the proposed project.
There were no further comments made from the public.
COMMISSION COMMENTS:
Vice-Chair Ashbaugh felt that this is a well designed project.
Commr. Multari appreciated the work by staff and the applicant to address the concerns
the PC brought up earlier in the year.
Commr. Gould felt that the applicant did a great job addressing the concerns of the PC..
On motion by Commr. Multari seconded by Commr. Carpenter to adopt a resolution
.recommending approval of the condominium tract map and Negative Declaration to the
City Council.
AYES: Commrs. Multari, Gould, Brodie, Carpenter, Christianson, Vice-Chair
Ashbaugh, and Chairperson Stevenson.
NOES: None
RECUSED: None
ABSENT: None
The motion carried on a 7:0 vote.
Commr. Brodie recused herseff from item #4 and was absent for the remainder of the
meeting.
3 3�
Planning Commission Minutes ATTACHMENT Ei
August 27,2008
Page 5
4. Citywide. GPI 49-06; Review land use and phasing strategy, form-based codes,
street and building character, and general regulations in the Draft South Broa
Street Corridor Plan; City of San Luis Obispo, applicant. (Jeff Hook)
Jeff ook, Senior Planner, presented the staffreport, recommending the Co ission
revie Chapter 5, Architectural Standards, and continue discussion of the Dr Plan to
the Co ission's October 22, 2008, meeting. No final action is anticip ted at this
evening's eeting. The meeting's purposes are to continue discussion f the revised
Draft Plan, provide an opportunity for questions, and to get Commis on direction on
necessary c nges or additions. He provided the PC with the com ents made by the
ARC. He su arized the changes to the draft plan and explain that eight building
types are includ d as part of the form-based codes for the area well as differentiate_d
street types.
He further explained at the Cultural Heritage Committe ominated twelve properties
for possible historic signation; three of which are Iready listed as contributing
properties on the List Historic Resources. He ated that there is a proposed
bicycle/pedestrian bridge er the railroad tracks ng a Village Court connecting to
Sinsheimer park/school. He rovided the PC wit a graphic showing three options for
location of the bridge all o which are esti ated to cost around $1 million. He
explained that there will be anot r six to eig months of public review of the plan and
environmental document, and the ffic st y is expected in late September. The plan
changes will most likely trigger an E a the public process will include continued PC
and ARC review, continued Focus G up participation and Council action tentatively
slated for Winter 2009. He explaine h t the proposed Village at Broad Street project
would fit in well with the South Bro Stre Corridor plan.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
There were no comments de from the public.
COMMISSION COMM TS:
Commr. Christians did not feel that the ARC's direction o use "real" rather than "faux"
exterior building aterials was a meaningful distinction a d could add to the cost of
construction in a area. She stated she would like staff to i clude direction in the plan
of what Hist cal Designation" for the 12 properties under nsideration by the CHC
would mea or future developers — if designation would preclud demolition, it needs to
be plainly tated in the plan. She felt the costs of the propos d bicycle/pedestrian
bridge a reasonable and would like to see them used as estimate for the Orcutt Area
Specif' Plan bike/ped bridge.
Ch irperson Stevenson agreed with Commr. Christianson about "real" rat rthan "faux"
e erior building materials in regard to the ARC's comments. He indicated at the ARC
eeds to be specific about the intent of the regulations. He further expresse hat many
of the newer products (such as Hardy Plank, etc.) are indistinguishable f m their
original counterparts and should be allowed to be used.
3-53
Planning Commission Minutes
Attachment 6
August 27, 2008
Page 6
C mr. Carpenter agreed with Commr. Christianson about "real" rather than "f x"
exte ' r building materials in regard to the ABC's comments. He supported Opti A for
the bic le/pedestrian bridge location as the best option.
Commr. Mu ri felt that staff should be careful in designating "shalls" an "shoulds" in
the plan to b clear where design flexibility is appropriate and wher standards are
mandatory.
On motion b Com r Christianson seconded b Commr Ca nter to continue the
item to the October 22M008. regular meeting.
AYES: Commrs. M ari, Gould, Carpenter, Christia on, Vice-Chair Ashbaugh,
and Chairpers Stevenson
NOES: None
RECUSED: Commr. Brodie
ABSENT: None
The motion carried on a 6:0 vote.
COMMENT AND DISCUSSION:
5. Staff
a. Agenda Forecast — Kim Mur provided forecast of upcoming meetings. She
stated that the only item endized for th next meeting, September 10, 2008,
is the Village at Broad St et.
6. Commission
a. Commr. Multari m ved, seconded by Vice-Chair As baugh, to add an item to
the agenda for t September 10, 2008, meeting to i cuss the Council's
decision to all applicants to proceed with annexatio outside of the Land Use
Element Up to Process.
AYES: Co rs. Multari, Gould, Christianson, Vice-Ch "r Ashbaugh, and
C irperson Stevenson.
NOES: mmr. Carpenter
RECUSED: one
ABSENT: Commr. Brodie
The mo ' n carried on a 5:1 vote.
ADJ URMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 9:25 p.m.
spectfully submitted by
Michelle Lakey
Recording Secretary �2
� �8Illlp Attachment 7
II���III�NIilllllllllll)��� II SII _ � .
a ty of sAn tui _.
Community Development Department•919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218
INITIAL STUDY
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
For ER 108-07
1. Project Title: Foothill Courtyard Townhomes
2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of San Luis Obispo
919 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA.93401
3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Brian Leveille, Associate Planner
(805) 781-7166
4. Project Location: 730 & 748 Foothill Blvd., City of San Luis Obispo (north side of Foothill
Blvd. between Ferrini Road and North Chorro Street)
5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address:
Applicant: Richard Rengel, Foothill Courtyard LLC
6033 Alta Mira Lane
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
6. General Plan Designation: High-Density Residential
7. Zoning: R4 (High-Density Residential)
8. Description of the Project:
Demolish two existing single-family residences and construct six residential condominium units
within two buildings of three units each oriented along the west and east property lines on the .25
acre site. All of the proposed units contain two bedrooms and range in size from 1,260 square
feet to 1,460 square feet (see attached project plans).
9. Surrounding Land Uses and Settings:
The site is generally surrounded by multi-family development also zoned R-4. The project site is
in an area where many students reside since it is in close proximity to Cal Poly. Across Foothill
Boulevard to the south is a shopping center zoned C-C (Community Commercial) -see attached
vicinity map.
3
3-
�� The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services, programs and activities.
Telecommunications Device for the Deaf(805) 781-7410.
Attachment 7
10. Project Entitlements Requested:
The applicant has requested architectural review and approval of a tentative tract map for six air
space residential condominiums.
11. Other public agencies whose approval is required: None
3-39
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
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 _ y
FISH AND GAME FEES
There is no evidence before the Department that the project will have any potential adverse effects on fish
X and wildlife resources or the habitat upon which the wildlife depends. As such, the project qualifies for a
de minimis waiver with regards to the filing of Fish and Game Fees.
The project has potential to impact fish and wildlife resources and shall be subject to the payment of Fish
and Game fees pursuant to Section 711.4 of the California Fish and Game Code. This initial study has been
circulated to the California Department of Fish and Game for review and comment.
STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
This environmental document must be submitted to the State Clearinghouse for review by one or more
State agencies (e.g. Cal Trans, California Department of Fish and Game, Department of Housing and
Community Development). The public review period shall not be less than 30 days (CEQA Guidelines
15073(a)).
-qo
=� 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 X
a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been
made, or the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet(s) have been added and
agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be
prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL 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 2ro2osed project, nothing further is required.
�Q,, — — 2 /l lO
Signature Date
Doug Davidson,Deputy Director,Development Review John Mandeville,Community Development Director
Printed Name for
3-�f�
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 detemiination is made, an EIR is required.
4. "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has
reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less than Significant Impact." The lead agency must
describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level
(mitigation measures from Section 17,"Earlier Analysis,"may be cross-referenced).
5. Earlier analysis may be used where,pursuant to the tiering,program EIR, or other CEQA process,an effect has been
adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063 (c) (3) (D) of the California
Administrators Code. Earlier analyses are discussed in Section 17 at the end of the checklist.
6. Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential
impacts (e.g. general plans; zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should,
where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated.
7. Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached,and other sources used or individuals contacted
should be cited in the discussion. In this case,a brief discussion should identify the following:
a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review.
b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and
adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such
effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on earlier analysis.
c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated,"
describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent
to which they address site-specific conditions for the project
3-�f�
. Attachment 7
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potenta«y Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER # 108-07 Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
Page No. 6
1.AESTHETICS. Would theproject:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? 1 X
b) Substantially damage scenic resources,including,but not limited 1,2, X
to,trees,rock outcroppings,open space,and historic buildings 8,9
within a local or state scenic highway?
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of 9,21 X
the site and its surroundings?
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would 19,21 X
adversely effect nighttime views in the area?
Evaluation
a), b), c), d) The project involves redevelopment of a site substantially surrounded by urban development. The project is
located along an area designated as"moderate scenic value",as determined by the City's Scenic Roadways Map. The project
includes development within the allowable property development standards of the Zoning Regulations and no height
exceptions are requested. The building configuration is consistent with the development pattern in the vicinity and would not
unnecessarily block views of the surrounding hills as seen from the roadway or adjacent properties.In advance of the tentative
tract hearing, the Architectural Review Commission has approved the project finding consistency with Community Design
Guidelines. The project site contains no scenic resources, such as significant trees or rock outcroppings. The project will not
create a new source of substantial light or glare.
Conclusion
No impacts have been identified relating to aesthetics. The project is subject to architectural review and the City's
Architectural Review Commission has reviewed the project for consistency with the Community Design Guidelines. No
mitigation is required.
2.AGRICULTURE RESOURCES. Would theproject:
a) Convert Prime Farmland,Unique Farland,or Farmland of
Statewide Importance(Farmland),as shown on the maps 8, 10, X
pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of 11
the California Resources Agency,to non-agricultural use?
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use,or a 8 X
Williamson Act contract?
c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which,due to 9 X
their location or nature,could result in conversion of Farmland,
to non-agricultural use?
Evaluation
a),b),c)The site is designated as Urban Land by the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources
Agency. The project will not convert prime farmland to any non-agricultural use. The project site is within an urban area
and will not conflict with any agricultural zoning or Williamson Act contract. The project is an in-fill development that will
not result in changes that could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural uses.
Conclusion
The project will not have any impact on agricultural resources.
3. AIR QUALITY. Would theproject:
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an 12, 13 X
existing or projected air quality violation?
b) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air 12 X
quality plan?
c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant 21 X
3-Y3
Attachment 7
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentiauy Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER # 108 07 Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
Page No. 7
concentrations?
d) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of 2 X
people?
e) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria
pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an
applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard 21 X
(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 PMio(fine particulate matter 10 microns or less in
diameter)air quality standards. State law requires that emissions of non-attainment pollutants and their precursors be reduced
by at least 5% per year until the standards are attained. The Clean Air Plan (CAP) for San Luis Obispo County was
developed and adopted by the Air Pollution Control District(APCD) to meet that requirement. The CAP is a comprehensive
planning document designed to reduce emissions from traditional industrial and commercial sources, as well as from motor
vehicle use. Land Use Element Policy 1.18.2 states that the City will help the APCD implement the Clean Air Plan.
According to the Air Pollution Control District's(APCD)"CEQA Air Quality Handbook,"land uses that cause the generation
of 10 or more pounds per day (PPD) of reactive organic gases, oxides or nitrogen, sulfur dioxide, or fine particulate matter
have the potential to affect air quality significantly. A 50-unit apartment complex generates over 10 pounds of these
pollutants. Since the site is proposed to be developed with six condominium dwellings, the project is of a size that is below
APCD's air quality significance thresholds. Therefore, the project and resulting development will not generate a significant
impact on long-term air quality impacts.
d)The project is a residential condominium development and will not create objectionable odors under normal circumstances.
Conclusion
The project does not exceed APCD thresholds and air quality mitigation measures are not required. The City's Grading
Ordinance includes dust control measures that will apply to the project. Energy efficiency is a factor that is routinely
considered by the City's Architectural Review Commission and conditions of approval may be required to insure that City
goals are met with respect to solar orientation,building materials and general methods for conservation. No further mitigation
is required.
4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would theproject:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect,either directly or indirectly or 1,5,9 X
through habitat modifications,on any species identified as a
candidate,sensitive,or special status species in local or regional
plans,policies,or regulations,or by the California Department
of Fish and Game or U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service?
b) Have a substantial adverse effect,on any riparian habitat or 5,9 X
other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional
plans,policies,or regulations,or by the California Department
of Fish and Game or U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service?
c) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting 5,9
biological resources,such as a tree preservation policy or X
ordinance(e.g.Heritage Trees)?
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident
or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native 9 X
resident or migratory wildlife corridors,or impede the use of
wildlife nursery sites?
e) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted habitat Conservation
Plan,Natural Community Conservation Plan,or other approved_- 5 X
3-qY
r Aftachment 7
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentlany Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER # 108-07 Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
Page No. 8
local,regional,or state habitat conservation plan?
f) Have a substantial adverse effect on Federally protected
wetlands as defined in Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(including,but not limited to,marshes,vernal pools,etc.) 5 X
through direct removal,filling,hydrological interruption,or
other means?
Evaluation
a),b), c), e), f) The site is not within a riparian corridor and there are no creeks on the property. No endangered,threatened
or other protected species have been reported on the project site. There are no local ordinances or habitat conservation plans
that affect the property or that identify the site as potential habitat for any protected species of plant or animal. There are
several trees proposed for removal, none of the trees are Heritage trees and they are not of a size or species where special
mitigations would be required.The project would not conflict with City tree preservation policy.
Conclusion
The project does not have the potential to impact biological resources.No Impact.
5.CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would theproject:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a 9, 15, X
historic resource?(See CEQA Guidelines 15064.5) 17
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an 9, 14, X
archeological resource?(See CEQA Guidelines 15064.5)
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource 5, 14, X
or site or unique geologic feature?
d) Disturb any human remains,including those interred outside of T17 X
formal cemeteries?
Evaluation
a) There are no designated historic resources on the site. Additionally, no "Heritage Trees" are located on the property
according to Heritage Trees of San Luis Obispo. The potential for a structure to be found historically significant is based on a
number of criteria including, style, design, age, architect, environmental design continuity, history-person, history-event and
history-context as described in the Historical Preservation Program Guidelines. This property cannot be reasonably expected
to yield information important in prehistory or history.
b) The City's Archeological Resource Preservation Guidelines require preliminary archeological studies for properties that
are considered sensitive sites. The project site does not meet the criteria for sensitive site designation because it is more than
200 feet away from the City's major creeks and known archeological sites. The site is also outside of a historical district and
the property is not on the City's Inventory of Historic Resources. These factors indicate that the project will have no impact
on archeological resources.
c), d) The project site does not contain any known paleontological or geological resources and is not within an area where
burials are likely,as indicated by the City's Burial Sensitivity Map,on file in the Community Development Department.
Conclusion
No mitigation is required.
6. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would theproject:
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? 5,21 X
b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient 5,21 X
manner?
c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource
that would be of value to thereion and the residents of the 9 X
3-q�-
. i Attachment 7
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentiiauy Potentially Lass Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER # 108-07 Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
Page No.9
State?
Evaluation
a) The project is a residential development consistent with the site's General Plan designation and Zoning,and will not
conflict with adopted energy conservation plans or promote the use of non-renewable resources in an inefficient manner.
b)Any development on the site must comply with the policies contained in the General Plan Conservation and Open Space
Element(COSE).The COSE encourages new development to minimize the use of conventional energy for space heating and
cooling,water heating,and illumination by means of proper design and orientation,including the provision and protection of
solar exposure. The City implements energy conservation goals through enforcement of the California Energy Code,which
establishes energy conservation standards for residential and nonresidential construction. Future development of this site
must meet those standards.
c)There are no known mineral resources on the project site that would be of value to the region or the State.
Conclusion
No further mitigation is required beyond compliance with City established energy conservation standards and all applicable
State requirements. The City's Development Standards for New Condominium Projects (SLOMC 17.82.110) requires solar
water heating to be provided to each unit unless equivalent energy savings can be made through other means. The
Architectural Review Commission regularly reviews development projects for compliance with this standard.
7. GEOLOGY AND SOILS Would theproject:
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse 4,21 X
effects,including risk of loss,injury or death involving:
I. Rupture of a known earthquake fault,as delineated in the 18 X
most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map
issued by the State Geologist for the area,or based on other
substantial evidence of a known fault?
II. Strong seismic ground shaking? 4 X
III. Seismic related ground-failure,including liquefaction? 4 X
IV. Landslides or mudflows? 4 X
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? 4,21 X
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable,or that 4 X
would become unstable as a result of the project,and potentially
result in on or off site landslides,lateral spreading,subsidance,
liquefaction,or collapse?
d) Be located on expansive soil,as defined in Table 18-1-B of the 4 }{
Uniform Building Code(1994),creating substantial risks to life
or property?
Evaluation
a) San Luis Obispo County, including the City of San Luis Obispo, is located within the Coast Range Geomorphic Province,
which extends along the coastline from central California into Oregon. This region is characterized by extensive folding,
faulting, and fracturing of variable intensity. In general, the folds and faults of this province comprise the pronounced
northwest trending ridge-valley system of the central and northern coast of California.
Under the Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zones Act, the State Geologist is required to delineate appropriately wide special
studies zones to encompass all potentially and recently-active fault traces deemed sufficiently active and well-defined as to
constitute a potential hazard to structures from surface faulting or fault creep.
In San Luis Obispo County,the special Studies Zone includes the San Andreas and the Los Osos faults. The edge of this stud
3- 61
Affachm-ant 7
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentiw4 Potentially less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER # 108-07 Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
Page No. 10
area extends to the westerly city limits line,near Los Osos Valley Road.According to a recently conducted geology study,the
closest mapped active fault is the Los Osos Fault, which runs in a northwest direction and is about one mile from the City's
westerly boundary. Because portions of this fault have displaced sediments within a geologically recent time(the last 10,000
years), portions of the Los Osos fault are considered "active". Other active faults in the region include: the San Andreas,
located about 30 miles to the northeast, the Nacimiento,located approximately 12 miles to the northeast, and the San Simeon-
Hosgri fault zone, located approximately 12 miles to the west.
Although there are no fault lines on the project site or within close proximity, the site is located in an area of"High Seismic
Hazards",which means that future buildings constructed on the site will most likely be subjected to excessive ground shaking
in the event of an earthquake. Structures must be designed in compliance with seismic design criteria established in the
California Building Code for Seismic Zone 4. To minimize this potential impact, the Uniform Building Codes and City
Codes require new structures to be built to resist such shaking or to remain standing in an earthquake.
b-d) Future development will be required to comply with the Uniform Building Codes and City Codes which require new
structures to be built to resist such shaking or to remain standing in an earthquake, and proper documentation of soil
characteristics for designing structurally sound buildings. The Building Division of the Community Development Department
routinely reviews project for their compliance with the recommendations of the soils engineering report for the site. No
further mitigation is required.
Conclusion
No mitigation is required.
8. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the pro'ect:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment 21 X
though the routine use,transport or disposal of hazardous
materials?
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment 21 X
through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions
involving the release of hazardous materials into the
environment?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely 21 X
hazardous materials,substances,or waste within one-quarter
mile of an existing or proposed school?
d) Expose people or structures to existing sources of hazardous 21 X
emissions or hazardous or acutely hazardous materials,
substances,or waste?
e) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous 8 X
materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section
65962.5 and,as a result,it would create a significant hazard to
the public or the environment?
f) For a project located within an airport land use plan,or within 8 X
two miles of a public airport,would the project result in a safety
hazard for the people residing or working in the project area?
g) Impair implementation of,or physically interfere with,the 4 X
adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation
plan?
h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of lose,injury, 4 X
or death,involving wildland fires,including where wildlands are
adjacent to urbanized areas or where residents are intermixed
with wildlands?
Evaluation
3 -�f�
Attachment 7
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentiauy Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER # 108-07 Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
Page No. 11
a), b), c), d), e) The site does not contain any know hazardous substances and is not located in an area of high risk As a
residential subdivision the project will not emit any hazardous emissions or require handling of hazardous wastes. The site is
not on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5.
f) The project site is outside of the Airport Land Use Plan area.
g) The project has been reviewed by the Fire Marshall and will not conflict with any emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan.
h) The Safety Element of the General Plan identifies the site as having a low potential for impacts from wildland fires.
Conclusion
The project will not involve any impacts with respect to hazards or hazardous materials.
9. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would theproject:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge 6,20 X
requirements?
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere 6,21 X
substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be
a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local
groundwater table level(eg.The production rate of preexisting
nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support
existing land uses for which permits have been granted)?
c) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the 20,21 X
capacity of existing or planned storm-water drainage systems or
provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff.
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or 20,21 X
area in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or
siltation onsite or offsite?
e) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or 20,21 X
area in a manner which would result in substantial flooding
onsite or offsite?
f) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on 8 X
a Federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map
or other flood hazard delineation map?
g) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which 8 X
would impede or redirect flood flows?
h Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? 21 X
Evaluation
a), b), h) The project will not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. All of the residences will
be served by the City's sewer system and run-off is required to be directed to an approved point of disposal, in this case flows
discharged onto adjacent properties do not exceed historical flow discharged along the front and back of the lot. The project
will be served with water by the City's Utilities Department and will not use or otherwise deplete groundwater resources or
negatively effect water quality.
c),d)Future development of the site will increase the amount of impervious surfaces on the site and affect the absorption rate,
drainage patterns and the amount and rate of surface runoff. To assure that potential drainage impacts are minimized to a
level of insignificance, any future development of the site will be required to be designed to meet all applicable City codes,
including City grading and drainage standards. Site runoff rates will be slightly increased as a result of this project,however,
flows discharged onto adjacent properties and the public right-of-way will not exceed historical flow discharges, and there
will be only insignificant differences in the depth of flow along the curbs downstream of the project.
3-{s
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentia„y Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER # 108-07 Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
Page No. 12
e),f)The project site is not within the boundaries of an area subject to inundation from flood waters in a 100-year storm.
Conclusion
No impacts have been identified with respect to water quality or hydrology. Drainage plans have been evaluated for
consistency with existing City codes as part of the subdivision and architectural review process. No further mitigation is
re uired.
10. LAND USE AND PLANNING- Would theproject:
a) Conflict with applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of 1 X
an agency with jurisdiction over the project adopted for the
purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
b) Physically divide an established community? 1,2 X
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural 5 X
community conservationplans?
Evaluation
a) The General Plan Land Use Map designates the site High Density Residential. The land use designation is described as
"primarily attached dwellings in two- or three-story buildings with common outdoor areas and very compact private outdoor
spaces." The project site is zoned R-4(High Density Residential)with a maximum allowable density of 24 units per net acre,
or 6 for this 0.25 acre site. The project has been designed with a density equivalent of six density units, no more than the
maximum density allowed on the site. The six units are arranged within two buildings. Each unit is provided with a private
entrance,two-car garage,and private yard area.
b) The project site includes two land parcels totaling 0.25 acres. The project will be served by existing streets and will be
bordered by other residential uses. The project will not physically divide an established community.
c) The project will not conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plans or natural community conservation plans.
Conclusion
The project will be developed with the type of improvements anticipated by the General Plan and Zoning Regulations and will
not create any impacts to land use and planning.
11.NOISE. Would the project result in:
a) Fxposure of people to or generation of"unacceptable"noise X
levels as dcfined by the San Luis Obispo General Plan Noise 3
Element,or general noise levels in excess of standards
established in the Noise Ordinance?
b) A substantial temporary,periodic,or permanent increase in 3,21 X
ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing
without the project?
c) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundbome 21 X
vibration or groundborne noise levels?
d) For a project located within an airport land use plan,or within 8
two miles of a public airport or public use airport,would the X
project expose people residing or working in the project area to
excessive noise levels?
a) A portion of the project site is within the measured noise contours for Foothill Blvd., the closest noise source of
significance. The Noise Guidebook contains specific measures to reduce potential noise levels below maximum thresholds.
For indoor spaces the maximum decibel level is 45 and for outdoor activity areas the maximum is 60 dB.The potential noise
levels at the site range from 70 db at the front of the parcel to 60 db at the rear of the parcel according to Figure 5 in the
General Plan Noise Element. The front two units at less than 15 feet from Foothill Blvd will be required to include standard
3-` q
Af eac, it ent 7
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentia„y Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER # 108 07 Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
Page No. 13
construction practices to achieve a noise level reduction(N-LR) of 25 dB. The other units on the site will have to achieve a
noise level reduction of 20 dB which can also be achieved through standard requirements of the Noise Guidebook. The
common open space area is at the back of the site in an area designed not to exceed 60 dB and does not require modifications
to the building orientation or location to not exceed outdoor activity area noise thresholds.
b) During construction, there will be a temporary increase in ambient noise levels. This type of noise is regulated by the
City's Noise Ordinance, which regulates times of construction and maximum noise levels that may be generated. If noise
levels exceed the Noise Ordinance thresholds,the property owner would be subject to possible citations.
c), d)The project will not expose people to the generation of excessive groundbome noise levels or vibration. The project is
outside of the Airport Land Use Plan area and is not directly in a flight path where occupants would be subject to noise from
aircraft operations.
Conclusion
Standard noise level reduction measures of the Noise Guidebook are sufficient to ensure interior noise levels meet City
standards. During construction there will be a temporary increase in ambient noise levels, as controlled by the City Noise
Ordinance.No additional mitigation measures are required.
12. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would theproject:
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly 1,21 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 1,21
necessitating the construction of replacement housing X
elsewhere?
Evaluation
a), b) The population added by this project is within the General Plan's projection and will not induce substantial growth in
the area or result in population exceeding local and regional growth projections. The project site is substantially surrounded
by urban development and the development of the site represents an in-fill development opportunity. This type of
development is encouraged because it can take advantage of existing facilities for water,sewer,storm drainage,transportation
and parks. The project site is only developed with two residential structures currently so there is no potential of substantial
displacement.
Conclusion
The population growth created by the project is considered to be less than significant since the development is on an existing,
residentially zoned parcel of land, and development of the project site has been accounted for in the population estimates
contained in the City's General Plan.
—50
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potenpauy Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER # 108-07 Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
Page No. 14
13.PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the
provision,or need,of new or physically altered government facilities,the construction of which could cause
significant environmental impacts,in order to maintain acceptable service ratios,response times,or other
performance objectives for any of the public services:
a) Fire protection? 1,21 X
b) Police protection? 1,21 X
c) Schools? 1,21 X
d) Parks? 1,21 X
e) Roads and other transportation infrastructure? 1,21 X
Other public facilities? 1,21 X
Evaluation
a) b), d),e), f) No potential impacts have been identified to any public services because of the small scale of the project and
its location within an existing residential neighborhood.
c) The school districts in the state are separate governing bodies with authority to collect fees to finance school construction
and parcel acquisition. Section 65955 of the Government Code prohibits the City from denying a subdivision or collecting
any fees beyond those required by the school district itself, to mitigate effects of inadequate school facilities. Any effect that
the additional children will have on school facilities will be mitigated in whole or in part by the districts per square foot fees,
charged at the time of building permit issuance for each residence.
Conclusion
The project has been routed to City Departments for review and comments on the proposal. As part of each routing, the
reviewing department is required to certify that serving the project will not result in a deficiency to any City facility or
resource. All reviewing departments have indicated their ability to serve this project.
14.RECREATION. Would theproject;
a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood or regional parks or 21 X
other recreational facilities such that substantial physical
deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
b) Include recreational facilities or require the construction or 21 X
expansion of recreational facilities,which might have an adverse
physical effect on the environment?
Evaluation
a) The project will add incrementally to the demand for parks and other recreational facilities. However,given the size of the
project and the expected number of residents, no significant recreational impacts are expected to occur with development of
this site. Park Land In-Lieu fees will be collected, with credit given for the existing lot, to insure adequate provision of park
facilities for the new residents of the project,per existing City policy.
b) The project does not include the construction of recreational facilities beyond small private and common open space areas.
The construction of these facilities will not have an adverse physical effect on the environment because of their small scale.
Conclusion
Park and recreation facility demand will increase incrementally,and not significantly,with the development of the project.
15. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would theproject:
Attachment 7
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potenua„y Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER # 108 07 Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
Page No. 15
a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the 2,21 X
existing traffic load and capacity of the street system?
b) Exceed,either individually or cumulatively,a level of service 2,21 X
standard established by the county congestion management
agency for designated roads and highways?
c) Substantially increase hazards due to design features(e.g.sharp 21 X
curves or dangerous intersections)or incompatible uses(e.g.
farm equipment)?
d) Result in inadequate emergency access? 21 X
e) Result in inadequate parking capacity onsite or offsite? 9,21 X
Conflict with adopted policies supporting alternative 2,21 X
transportation(e.g.bus turnouts,bicycle racks)?
g) Conflict with the with San Luis Obispo County Airport Land 8 X
Use Plan resulting in substantial safety risks from hazards,noise,
or a chane in air trafficpatterns?
Evaluation
a),b),c),d) The project will incrementally contribute to an increase in traffic on Foothill Boulevard and surrounding streets.
The City's Transportation Division has indicated that these streets are operating at acceptable levels of service and that they
can adequately accommodate the project's anticipated vehicle trips without changing the current level of service. The Fire
Marshall has reviewed the private drive configuration proposed for the project and determined that the site can be adequately
accessed by emergency vehicles.
e) Each dwelling has been provided with two parking spaces as required. No parking will be permitted along the private
driveway. On-street parking is fairly constrained due to the proximity to several dense residential developments and the Cal
Poly campus. One guest parking space is provided to meet the City's code requirement, which will make it more convenient
for guests visiting residents of the project.
f) Each unit within the project will includes a two-car garage that will be able to accommodate bicycle storage in addition to
parked vehicles. The project will not conflict with alternative transportation policies.
e) The project is outside of the Airport Land Use Plan area.
Conclusion
The project will add incrementally to existing traffic conditions in the City, but the City's Transportation Division has
determined that development of the project as proposed will not have an effect on the level of service on adjacent streets.
Parking proposed by the project meets Zoning Regulations requirements. No impacts have been identified with respect to
transportation and traffic.
16. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would theproject:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable 6,21 X
Regional Water Quality Control Board?
b) Require or result in the construction or expansion of new water 6,21 X
treatment,wastewater treatment,or storm drainage facilities,the
construction of which could cause significant environmental
effects?
c) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project 6,21 X
from existing entitlements and resources,or are new and
expanded water resources needed?
d) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider 6,21 X
which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate
capaci�to serve the prqject'spr9jected demand and addition to
A m,=nt 7
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potenhaii„ Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER # 108 07 Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
Page No. 16
the provider's existing commitment?
e) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to 6,21 X
accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs?
f) Comply with federal,state,and local statutes and regulations 6,21 X
related to solid waste?
Evaluation
a), b) This project has been reviewed by the Utilities Department staff. Comments note that the project is subject to water
impact fees which were adopted to ensure that new development pays its fair share of the cost of constructing the water
supply,treatment and distribution facilities that will be necessary to serve it.
c) The City Water&Wastewater Management Element projects the City water needs at its ultimate build-out of 56,000
people.The project site is included in the anticipated build-out,because it was in the Urban Reserve at the time the element
was adopted. Each unit in the subdivision will have an annual water usage estimated at.21 acre feet. For the total project,the
annual water usage is estimated at 2.1 acre feet(.21'10 units). The 2001 Water Resources Report indicates that there are
currently 142 acre feet of water available to allocate to in-fill development(development within the 1994 City Limits).
Another 142 acre feet is available for allocation to the City's expansion areas.
d) The City wastewater treatment plant has adequate capacity to serve this development. The existing sewers in the vicinity
have sufficient capacity to serve the development. The developer will be required to construct private sewer facilities to
convey wastewater to the nearest public sewer. The on-site sewer facilities will be required to be constructed according to the
standards in the Uniform Plumbing Code. Subdivision improvement plans and building plans will be checked for compliance
with UPC standards. Impact fees are collected at the time building permits are issued to pay for capacity at the City's Water
Reclamation Facility. The fees are set at a level intended to offset the potential impacts of each new residential unit in the
project.
e),f)Background research for the Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989(AB939)shows that Californians dispose of
roughly 2,500 pounds of waste per month. Over 90%of this waste goes to landfills,posing a threat to groundwater,air
quality,and public health. Cold Canyon landfill is projected to reach its capacity by 2018. The Act requires each city and
county in California to reduce the flow of materials to landfills by 50%(from 1989 levels)by 2000. To help reduce the waste
stream generated by this project,consistent with the City's Source Reduction and Recycling Element,recycling facilities must
be accommodated on the project site and a solid waste reduction plan for recycling discarded construction materials must be
submitted with the building permit application.The project is required by ordinance to include facilities for recycling to
reduce the waste stream generated by the project,consistent with the Source Reduction and Recycling Element.Provision of
adequate trash and recycling collection facilities is routinely reviewed by the ARC as part of the determination of consistency
with City property development standards.
Conclusion
No impacts have been identified relative to utilities or service systems. The City has recently adopted a solid waste recycling
ordinance to insure recycling of construction debris,which the project will need to comply with.No further mitigation is
required.
17.MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the X
environment,substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife
species,cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-
sustaining levels,threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
community,reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of
the maior veriods of California history or prehistory?
As indicated in the Table on Page 3, the project does not have the potential to have adverse impacts on any of the issue areas
evaluated.
3 -S3
Attachma.rlt 7
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potenhauy Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER # 108 07 Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
Page No. 17
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited,but X
cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable"
means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable
when viewed in connection with the effects of the past projects,
the effects of other current projects,and the effects of probable
futureprojects)
No impacts have been identified in this initial study.
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause X
substantial adverse effects on human beings,either directly or
indirectly?
The project will not result in substantial adverse impacts on humans.
18.EARLIER ANALYSES.
Earlier analysis may be used where,pursuant to the tiering,program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have
been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration. Section 15063 (c) (3) (D). In this case a discussion
should identify the following items:
a) Earlier analysis used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review.
The San Luis Obispo Land Use Plan Element update and Final EIR can be found at the City of San Luis Obispo Community
Development Department at 990 Palm Street,San Luis Obispo,California.
b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately
analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards,and state whether such effects were addressed by
mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
Not applicable.
c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the mitigation
measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific
conditions of the project.
Not applicable.
19. SOURCE REFERENCES
I. City of SLO General Plan Land Use Element,August 1994
2. City of SLO General Plan Circulation Element,November 1994
3. City of SLO General Plan Noise Element
4. City of SLO General Plan Safety Element
5. City of SLO General Plan Conservation and Open Space Element,April 2006
6. City of SLO Water and Wastewater Element,July 1996
7. City of San Luis Obispo Municipal Code
8. City of San Luis Obispo,Land Use Inventory Database
9. Site Visit
10. USDA,Natural Resources Conservation Service,Soil Survey of San Luis Obispo County
Il. Website of the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency:
http://www.consrv.ca.gov/dlrp/FMMP/
12. Clean Air Plan for San Luis Obispo County,Air Pollution Control District,2001
13. CEQA Air Quality Handbook,Air Pollution Control District,2003
14. City of San Luis Obispo,Archaeological Resource Preservation Guidelines,on file in the Community
Development De artment
15. City of San Luis Obispo,Historic Site Ma
16. City of San Luis Obispo Burial Sensitivity Ma
17. City of San Luis Obispo,Historic Resource Preservation Guidelines,on file in the Community Development
Department
18. San Luis Obispo Quadrangle Map,prepared by the State Geologist in compliance with the Al uist-Priolo
Attachment 7
Issues, Discussion and Supporting"Information Sources Sources Potenaa.y Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER # 108 07 Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
Page No. 18
Ear&quae Fault Zoning Act,effective January 1, 1990
19. City of San Luis Obispo Community Design Guidelines
20. Project Plans
Attachments:
1. Vicinity map
2. Project plans
3-SS
Attachment 8
RESOLUTION NO.####-08
A RESOLUTION OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO CITY COUNCIL
APPROVING A CONDOMINIUM TRACT MAP FOR SIX RESIDENTIAL UNITS
FOR THE PROPERTY AT 730 & 748 FOOTHILL BOULEVARD
TR/ER 108-07
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 27, 2008, pursuant to an application filed by Richard Rengel, applicant;
and recommended approval of the subdivision map and adoption of the Negative Declaration of
environmental impact and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo has considered testimony
of the applicant, interested parties, and evaluation and recommendations by staff; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the draft Negative Declaration of
environmental impact as prepared by staff;
BE IT RESOLVED,by the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. Findings.
1. The design of the tentative tract map is consistent with the General Plan because the
proposed subdivision respects existing site constraints, will incrementally add to the
City's residential housing inventory, result in condominium units that meet density
standards, and will be consistent with the density and development limits established by
the High Density Residential District.
2. The site is physically suited for the proposed type of development allowed in the R4
zones since the site is generally flat, surrounded by existing high density residential
development and close to parks, schools and transit services.
3. The design of the subdivision will not conflict with easements for access through (or use
of property within) the proposed subdivision.
4. The design of the tentative tract map and proposed improvements are not likely to cause
serious health problems, substantial environmental damage or substantially and
unavoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat because the site does not have any
creeks or other potentially significant habitat areas for fish and wildlife. The site is
surrounded by urban development and has been previously developed with multi-family
residential units.
5. A Negative Declaration was prepared by the Community Development Department on
February 1, 2008. The City Council finds and determines that the project's Negative
Declaration adequately addresses the potential significant environmental impacts of the
proposed project. _6Z
Resolution No.####-08 (-- Attachment 8
730 &748 Foothill Boulevard
Page 2
SECTION 2. Action.
The City Council hereby adopts the Negative Declaration and approves the Tentative Tract Map
for six residential units at 730 & 748 Foothill Boulevard subject to the following conditions:
Conditions:
1. The applicant shall construct the project so as to substantially conform to plans stamped
with Community Development Department approval and incorporate conditions listed
herein. Any change to approved design, colors, materials, landscaping, or other
conditions of approval must be approved by the Community Development Director and
may at the discretion of the Director, have to be referred back to the Architectural Review
Commission.
2. Final building plan sets released to the builder/contractor shall contain clear and legible
notes that no changes (even for minor exterior details) from building plan sets shall occur
without prior permission from Brian Leveille, City of San Luis Obispo, Staff Planner, or
the Community Development Director, as required.
3. Building plan submittals shall include all necessary measures required in the Noise
Guidebook for noise level reduction(NLR) to meet interior noise standards.
4. Construction plan sets shall include conditions of approval from all project approvals
(ARC/TR-ER 108-07) for contractor/builder reference.
5. Windows shall be the divided light type where the dividers are on the outside of the glass.
Details noting this feature shall be reflected on construction plans submitted to the
Building Division.
6. Submitted construction plan documents shall include the interlocking pavers as shown on
landscape plans.
7. Final landscape plans shall include effective landscape screening between the enclosure
and the property line and ensure the enclosure doors and finish materials do not detract
from the project subject to the approval of the Community Development Director.
8. All ducts, meters, air conditioning equipment, and all other mechanical equipment,
whether on the ground, on the structure or elsewhere, shall be screened from public view
with materials architecturally compatible with the main structure. Public view includes
the existing views from all public streets and sidewalks. Gas and electric meters, electric
transformers, and large water piping systems (backflow prevention devices) shall be
completely screened from public view with approved architectural features and/or
landscape plantings.
9. If required, backflow prevention devices, fire department connections, or other similar
devices that are not shown on the plans approved by the Architectural Review
Commission shall be approved by the Planning Department prior to placement on the site.
3 -5�
Resolution No.#WAft Attachment 8
730 &748 Foothill Boulevard
Page 3
If located within the street yard, such devices shall be screened by landscape walls or
landscape shrubs and painted a flat green color.
10. The on-site drive aisle and the drive approach shall be the same width.
11. Complete new frontage improvements including curb, gutter, and sidewalk shall be
installed in accordance with City standards.
12. The new driveway approach shall comply with City Standard 92111. If adequate right-of-
way does not exist to accommodate the 4' ADA sidewalk extension, then a public
pedestrian easement shall be shown and offered on the final map.
13. The subdivider shall install one new street light along the project frontage. The street
light installation shall include all associated facilities including but not limited to
conduits, sidewalk vaults, fusing, wiring, and luminaries per City standards. The ARC
recommended that the Public Works Department consider on-site lighting solutions for
illumination of the sidewalk area rather than a separate street light standard.
14. Separate utilities, including water, sewer, gas, electricity, telephone, and cable TV shall
be served to each dwelling unit to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director and
serving utility companies. The proposed on-site sewer main will be privately owned and
maintained by the Homeowner's Association. Utilities to new residences shall be
underground.
15. The subdivider shall dedicate a 6'-wide public utility easement and a 10'-wide street tree
easement across the frontage of each lot. Said easements shall be adjacent to and
contiguous with all public right-of-way lines bordering each lot.
16. All parking spaces shall be able to be entered in one movement. All spaces, drive aisles,
etc., shall be designed so that all vehicles can exit to the adjoining street in a forward
motion in not more than two maneuvers. For purposes of maneuverability, all required
and proposed covered and uncovered spaces shall be assumed to be occupied by a
standard-size vehicle.
17. All eave gutters shall be beveled in profile as opposed to an ogee shape and shall be
painted to coordinate with the approved color palette.
18. 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
3 -SSS
Resolution No.####-08
� ) Attachment 8
730 & 748 Foothill Boulevard
Page 4
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.
19. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66474.9(b), the subdivider shall defend,
indemnify and hold harmless the City and/or its agents, officers and employees from any
claim, action or proceeding against the City and/or its agents, officers or employees to
attack, set aside, void or annul, the approval by the City of this subdivision; and all
actions relating thereto, including but not limited to environmental review.
On motion of seconded by , and on
the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this day of , 2008.
Mayor David F. Romero S7
Resolution No.####-08 Attachment 8
730 &748 Foothill Boulevard
Page 5
ATTEST:
Audrey Hooper,City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Jon an Loell,City Attorney
G:blevelle/subdivisiodTR 135-07(225 N.Chorro)/CC Reso TR-ER 135-07.doc