Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
04/01/2003, PH5 - 7 UNIT CONDOMINIUM / PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT SUBDIVISION AND ASSOCIATED MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARA
I : council acEnaa Repo12t ,temNmber Tp CITY OF SAN LUIS OB ISP O FROM: John Mandeville, Community Development DirecIp— Prepared By: Philip Dunmore,Associate Planner SUBJECT: 7 UNIT CONDOMINIUM / PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT SUBDIVISION AND ASSOCIATED MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2903 BROAD STREET (TR/ER-109-02). CAO RECOMMENDATION As recommended by the Planning Commission, adopt a resolution approving a 7 lot condominium development and associated Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact. DISCUSSION Situation/Previous Review The City has received an application to subdivide a .63 acre site for a condominium project that will result in 6 development lots, with a 7`h lot retained for a common driveway and open space. The development lots will be individually owned with a commonly owned parcel to be managed by a homeowners association. The project will result in total of 7 dwelling units on this property. The applicant is also requesting a side yard setback exception to allow a 7-foot setback where 8 feet is normally required. The Planning Commission has reviewed and recommended approval of the subdivision and environmental document (Mitigated Negative Declaration) to the City Council (attached resolution 5357-03, attachment 4). The project was given schematic approval by the Architectural Review Commission (ARC), with minor refinements to return to ARC following action on the subdivision map by the City Council. See ARC schematic approval letter, attachment 5. Data Summary Address: 2903 Broad Street Applicant/Property Owner: Dave Bolduan, PO Box 1845 SLO, CA 93401 Representative: Joseph Boud &Associates 1009 Morro Street, Suite 206, SLO CA 93401 Zoning: R-2-S (Medium Density Residential) General Plan: Medium Density Residential Environmental Status: the Community Development Director recommended a Mitigated Negative Declaration on November 20, 2002. Council Agenda Report TR 109-02 (Bolduan) Page 2 Site Description See the attached Planning Commission Agenda Report (Attachment 3) for a complete site description. Proiect Description The proposed development would include demolition of one existing studio dwelling unit and construction of 5 new 2-bedroom residences, each with an attached garage. One of the 5 new units will contain an attached studio apartment in order to maximize the density on the property and allow for affordable rental housing. The existing 2-bedroom house situated near Broad Street would remain at the site and become a part of the development. The site would ultimately contain 6 separate dwelling units on individual lots with 1 unit containing an attached rental dwelling unit for a total of 7 units at the site. Evaluation Staff has evaluated the project with respect to consistency with the City's General Plan, and development related codes, including the Zoning Regulations and Subdivision Regulations, including the City's condominium development standards. The Planning Commission has considered each of the project's issue areas prior to making a recommendation of approval on the subdivision and Mitigated Negative Declaration to the City Council. The Planning Commission found the subdivision in compliance with the Subdivision regulations, property development standards and condominium standards and recommended approval of the exception request. A complete review of the issue areas can be found in the Planning Commission Staff report, Attachment 3. PER'KI^NS LANE El El El Y Y u Meal / m Y y F�p1f/pO iC O.oO I it J I _ IYYr ''�p 6 : 2. 3A Ie SA I I Y Y 6 Y PB.Y l.M!'IYe--G--G� YM1MNu �� Y YAOmlpo IObMIY Y Y ��IWwYtllr 1 T [� Proposed site plan General Plan Consistency In order to approve the proposed subdivision, the City Council must find that the project is consistent with the General Plan. The Planning Commission staff report (Attachment 3) contains a complete analysis of General Plan policies, goals and objectives that pertain to the proposed development. The Planning Commission found the project consistent with the General Plan, and specifically the following General Plan Policies: 1. LU Policy 2.2.4: Residential Next to Nonresidential 2. LU Policy 2.2.12: Residential Project Objectives S`� Council Agenda Report TR 109-02 (Bolduan) Page 3 3. Land Use Element Policy 2..4.6: Medium Density Residential 4. Land Use Element Goal 31 5. Housing Element Policy 7.2.1: Character,Size,Density and Quality 6. Housing Element Policy 7.2.2: Location of Infill Housing 7. Housing Element Policy 2.2.3: Creation and Preservation-Affordable Rental Housing At the Planning Commission, affordable rental housing and consistency with Housing Element Policy 2.2.3 was discussed regarding the development of a proposed rental studio apartment on one of the properties. This project includes an affordable rental studio apartment attached to one of the 2 bedroom houses. The studio apartment will be deed restricted to remain affordable, consistent with City standards. This unit however will only supply a .5 density unit as affordable, so the Planning Commission recommended the applicant still pay 50% of the required in-lieu fee for affordable housing as required by the City's Inclusionary Housing Ordinance. Airport Land Use Plan The site is in the area subject to the Airport Land Use Plan (ALUP), so this project was referred to the County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC). Since this project does not require adoption of, or amendment to, a general or specific plan, zoning ordinance, or building regulation, review by the ALUC is voluntary. Actions taken by the ALUC for a project of this' nature are advisory, and the City Council has final authority on the project determination. According to the ALUP, the maximum gross residential density for this area is six dwellings per acre. This project proposes seven units on a 0.63-acre site (net area) consistent with the R-2 zoning that applies to this area. On December 18`s, 2002, the ALUC voted 5-0 to find the project inconsistent with the ALUP because of excessive density. The ALUC staff report is attachment 7. If this property were to be developed at a ratio of 6 units per acre, the site would be limited to a maximum of 3 units. However, when the entire Rockview neighborhood is considered, including hillside open space, and assuming that all R-2 zoned land is developed at 12 dwellings per acre, the gross density is 5.1 dwellings per acre, which is within the ALUP maximum. (This calculation does not include open space that would be used to determine gross density of other residential areas such as the Margarita Area, the Stoneridge development, or the Meadow Park neighborhood. It also does not include the commercial area.) The site of the proposed subdivision is a small strip of land surrounded by similar development. The City Council should consider this an infill site surrounded by similar development. This proposed project is designed to meet R-2 density standards consistent with development found on adjacent properties on Rockview Place within the same airport land use zone. Furthermore, this proposal is consistent with the City's General Plan Land Use Element. The site is not within an aircraft approach and climbout area. The proposed project is outside of the projected 50dB noise contour as established in the Airport Land Use. Considering both the neighborhood gross density under full development of the R-2 zone and the site location with respect to the airport, the City Council can find the project consistent with the intent of the ALUP. Because the proposal is consistent with the City's standards, lowering the Council Agenda Report - TR 109-02 (Bolduan) Page 4 density through the approval process would require special findings, consistent with the Government Code. The Government Code (State Planning and Zoning Law Section 65589.5 j) reads: "When a proposed housing development project complies with applicable, objective general plan and zoning standards and criteria in effect at the time that the housing development project's application is determined to be complete, but the local agency proposed to. disapprove the project or approve the project at a lower density, the local agency shall base its decision regarding the proposed housing development project upon written findings supported by substantial evidence on the record that both of the following conditions exist: 1) The housing development project would have a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety unless the project is disapproved or approved upon the condition that the project is developed at a lower density. 2) There is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the adverse impact identified pursuant to paragraph 1, other than the disapproval of the housing development project or the approval of the project upon the condition that it be developed at a lower density. Environmental Review The Planning Commission has recommended a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project. The initial study has been included as attachment 6 to this staff report. Staff identified mitigation measures that should be required of the project in the areas of Aesthetics, Geology and Soils, Hydrology and Water Quality, and Noise. CONCURRENCES The public works department has reviewed the project and found the proposed project and driveway access to be compatible with the vicinity. Since the project driveway does not allow through-access and only 2 residences will access from Broad Street, the project will have negligible impacts to area traffic. Additional discussion can be found in the attached Planning Commission staff report. 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. Approve a resolution recommending that the City Council deny the proposed subdivision, based on findings of inconsistency with the Subdivision Ordinance and General Plan as specified by the City Council. 2. Continue review of the proposed subdivision with specific direction to the applicant and staff. S'`T Council Agenda Report TR 109-02 (Bolduan) Page 5 Attachments: Attachment 1: Vicinity Map Attachment 2: Reduced Size Development Plan Attachment 3: Planning Commission Staff Report Attachment 4: Adopted Planning Commission Resolution 5357-03 Attachment 5: ARC schematic approval letter Attachment 6: Initial Study of Environmental Impact and Mitigated Negative Declaration Attachment 7: San Luis Obispo County Airport Land Use Commission Staff Report Attachment 8: Draft City Council Resolution approving subdivision map with findings and conditions as recommended by staff. Attachment 9: Alternative Draft City Council Resolution recommending denial of the subdivision map G:\GROUPS\COMDEV\CD-PLAN\Pdunsmore\Subdivisions\TR 109-02(2903 Broad)\TR 109-02 Council Report.doc achment 1 R-2 a �JIS STONERIDGE C-S R-2-S R-2-S �•p 90 C-S-S R-2-S ok R-2-S C-S-S R-2-S VICINITY MAP TR 109-02 N 2903 Broad A MINE lululaMISS IJ-s.i . . Ilhliu" :ll - HIRIIti'�I: :c71 p"�I� �rI�I '� ISI � 'i '� ► "{�� „I�1II�If■ � _ • �'�!I I— NICs �IIII:vRy' �■I � ��� �IICIII� _ 'MITI ';:s� . ,also I,,i�•.•na�llwu unlit '•�nnTil•li �••112i1ci�M�:�� ��'�' palm pminmJidddY,s •� +f II�IIIGI��1�1�I's7l '' `��';� @II nnll�� ■ rlan�"+��IinA�l - ,I:_C� 11111 =NI . Ilillllllilpl I!118VI I f'a,...ou..1;= In. IL I�—IIIIIII .�L r iL i 'I_lllll�Illllil I AI _ yIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII'IGMIlIINI'llVli l ; Pit 1:11:1Ill l Illf ll� .; its i IIII�ggIIIWI��I��lilllii�l � ,.iI � —IIi IlliVl im nn� 3I hIIIfIIIIIII ,�ll�nhll r Attachment 2 a 5 Dp■ D� ddoo � (LZZ X ei'oiS � QVDiIE ¢ 5 t m$f3F�atl ~g SF" Tsga d QW to �"- Z Q a a 5- oCD9i�y�a z is � A I m ' 8 f 9I I 4' I— I i666r,IAo'' SaDO 1 _ -- I ' e � I u- I B I: ( as a e I4 I `— 1 '� I � 3i �` 4; � �I X38 F. tulip r; Is 0 15 it I Syy 8 Wit .� ? 'I I i r 1 1 u .::)•.: �� mu ZI H M 05 3 d:3$ 4 i I ''I r II ! I ��g Attachment 2 o as Y EE9 5 0 6.2 pp � � ✓iia Vie. _ _�`--^— —• — s'."n- ALL~ �?�j'� � na• m ¢ a" , y 5 I II a� —1 I • , I II I , Ny� i I If •.#` 1 �g�a� I I e IP�I I I I I 8 +a n I ell 4Dg . LII I • 6+,i ' �I ��IjIIl� leeeel�r�aa00000�a4Es L-- 3 II• I I 3'f l.� � III � r � _ �s LLLLL 44 j I I r p a !E I n ! '•aA I I I I� 3r ,c• 52�3$� d'�3 hj I L41 II.. 1- III ' I — 9Yq Sr9 Attachment 3 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT ITEM#Z BY: Philip Dunsmore, Associate Planner(781-7522) MEETING DATE: January 8, 2002 FROM: Ron Whisenand, Deputy Director- Development Revie� FILE NUMBER: TR, ER 109-02 PROJECT ADDRESS: 2903 Broad SUBJECT: Review of a proposed condominium planned unit development subdivision with a setback exception request and a proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration. SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION Recommend the Planning Commission adopt a resolution: 1. Recommending approval of the proposed condominium map to the City Council allowing development a seven lot planned unit development with a setback exception; and 2. Recommending adoption of a proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project to the City Council. BACKGROUND Situation The City has received an application to subdivide a .63 acre site for a condominium project that will result in 6 development lots, with a 7t' lot retained for a common driveway and open space. These units are proposed as a planned unit development, with individual lot ownership and a common owned parcel for access and open space. The applicant is also requesting a side yard setback exception to allow a 7-foot setback where 8 feet is normally required. The project is subject to environmental review, and an Initial Study of Environmental Impact with a Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared.. Mitigation measures are recommended for Aesthetics, Geology & Soils, Hydrology, and Noise. The Planning Commission should make a recommendation on the proposed subdivision and environmental document to the City Council. The project should proceed to the Architectural Review Commission for further review and refinements prior to review and action by the City Council. Data Summary Address: 2903 Broad Street Applicant/Property Owner: Dave Bolduan, PO Box 1845 SLO, CA 93401 Representative: Joseph Boud & Associates 1009 Monro Street, Suite 206, SLO CA 93401 Attachment 3 TR, ER 109-02 (2903 Broad) Page 2 Zoning: R-2 (Medium Density Residential) General Plan: Medium Density Residential Environmental Status: the Community Development Director recommended a Mitigated Negative Declaration on November 20, 2002. Site Description The project site is a 27,598 square foot property with frontage on both Broad Street (Hwy 227) and Rockview Place. It is zoned Medium Density Residential with a special considerations overlay (R-2-S) and abuts R-2-S property to the north that currently contains residential units on Perkins Lane. Property to the south is zoned Commercial Service (CS) on the Broad Street side and R-2-S on the Rockview side. The vicinity has an "S" overlay, or special considerations zoning designation, to ensure development is compatible with the adjacent commercial districts and potential noise and traffic associated with Broad Street and the airport. The property is within the County of San Luis Obispo Airport Area Plan-Zone 6. The property slopes gently from its midpoint both to the west and east. Two walnut trees located near the midpoint of the property will be retained in the project open space / park area. The majority of the property is vacant and lacks significant vegetation or native features. The property contains an existing 2-bedroom house and a detached studio dwelling unit located at the east end of the property near Broad Street. Proiect Description The proposed development would include demolition of the existing studio dwelling unit and construction of 5 new 2-bedroom residences, each with an attached garage. Each unit would be constructed on it's own small parcel instead of a typical airspace condominium project. One of the 5 new units will contain an attached studio apartment in order to maximize the density on the property and allow for affordable rental housing. The existing 2-bedroom house situated near Broad Street would remain at the site and become a part of the planned unit development. The site would ultimately contain 6 separate dwelling units on individual lots with 1 unit containing an attached rental dwelling unit fora total of 7 units at the site. The new homes would be designed as individual detached units with attached garages. The new residences are designed with a 2 level floor plan of 1,248 square feet. The studio apartment attached to unit 4 would be limited to a maximum size of 450 square feet. Private open space is provided primarily within small ground level yard areas. A common open space with shade trees is proposed for the center of the site, accessible to all of the units. One visitor parking space is proposed at each end of the site. A new driveway will serve 2 of the units from Broad Street and a separate new driveway will be constructed at the Rockview side of the property to serve 4 new units and the studio apartment. The existing driveway at Broad Street will be abandoned. No through vehicular access is proposed to allow vehicles to access Broad Street from Rockview, 1 Attachment 3 TR, ER 109-02 (2903 Broad) Page 3 however a pedestrian pathway will allow access through the site. The driveway and common open space area will be within a separate common lot maintained by a homeowners association. EVALUATION Staff has evaluated the project with respect to consistency with the City's General Plan, and development related codes, including the Zoning Regulations and Subdivision Regulations. Development of residential property in the special consideration zone automatically requires a use permit prior to establishing a use on the property, however the use permit requirement may be waived when property proposed for development is the subject of a subdivision map application (see Zoning Regulations Section 17.56.040). The Planning Commission should consider each of the following issue areas prior to making a recommendation on the subdivision and Mitigated Negative Declaration to the City Council. �( PERKINS LANE c I Ie�o� I I w�saMroemw rn c u Np.91 6 IrMN Ir P99T/. '• . r J 8♦ N 6• p ji l - _ u � ra9 mn.�, O mwlr rri.v..rras�-� rrrsrne '^� ._ r99vaar marlw9 n Proposed site plan Subdivision Design and Property Development Standards Given the unique long and narrow lot configuration (55 feet wide by 298 feet long) the property cannot be developed to meet the City's standards of a typical deep lot subdivision. In order to develop the property to its maximum residential density and still create individual ownership properties the applicant wishes to pursue a planned unit development. Planned unit developments, which are essentially condominium developments, are evaluated for conformance to development standards in the R-2-S district as well as the City's condominium standards. Planned Development rezoning of the property is not an option for this site since a minimum of one acre is required for planned development rezoning in residential districts. Condominium developments (or planned unit developments) may be developed on any size parcel and may be subdivided into any size parcel. Condominiums and planned unit developments differ from a planned development in that the property owners of a condominium share a common interest in a portion of the property. In this case a common interest lot would be created for the driveway and Attachment 3 TR, ER 109-02 (2903 Broad) Page 4 small open space area. The following is an overall evaluation of the project with respect to the City's conventional property development standards. In addition to Chapter 17.16 of the Zoning Regulations (Property Development Standards), this project is subject to the requirements contained in the Property Improvement Standards for New Condominium Projects, (Attachment 3). The project's design and site layout is also subject to review and approval by the Architectural Review Commission. I. Front Elevetlon - -- Front Elevation . Proposed unit 4:note stairway at right serving Proposed units 1,2,3&5. attached studio apartment above garage. 2-bedroom units with 2-car garage. Density The proposed project meets the density standards provided in,the Zoning Regulations. In the R-2 (Medium Density) residential zone, the maximum number of dwelling units per acre is 12. Density for condominium projects takes into account the entire lot area prior to subdivision. Instead of estimating allowed density for each lot staff has calculated density based on the gross project area including the common lot area. Although the project site would allow for one additional 2-bedroom unit under the current density standards, the configuration of the lot and required setback, parking, driveway and open space standards limit the development potential. The following table summarizes the density unit value of the project. Lot Size_- _._ Allowable•Develo ment Proposed Develo went .63 acres .63 x 12 = 6 two bdr. units= 6 density units Studio apt. = .5 units 7.56 density units Total = 6.5 units Lot Coverage Since the project proposes individual lots instead of air space units, each property must comply with the lot coverage standards for the zoning district. In the R-2 district the lot coverage maximum is 50%. As proposed, all units meet lot coverage standards as shown in the chart below. s' l3 Attachment 3 TR, ER 109-02 (2903 Broad) Page 5 LOT COVERAGE LotSize SLot'Covera a Private o ea_s ace_ 1. 2,848 s.f. 39% 912 s.f. 2. 2,552 s.f. 43010 721 s.f. 3. 2,330 s.f. 48% 560 s.f. 4. 3,367 s.f. (this unit will have 33% 650 s.f. an attached studio) 5. 2,789 s.f. 43% 844 s.f. 6. 3,628 s.f. (this lot will contain 25% 1,235 s.f. the existing residence) Setbacks In the R-2 zone, the required street yard is 20 feet and other yards have a dimension of 5 to 15 feet depending on building height. Since the proposed subdivision is not an airspace condominium project or a planned development, each unit must meet required setbacks for the R-2 district unless exceptions are approved with the subdivision. The applicant is requesting an exception to allow a 7-foot "other" yard setback where an 8-foot setback is normally required due to the building height. The Zoning Ordinance provides two types of exceptions to setbacks. First, those of which the property is entitled to because of physical circumstances, and second, those which the City may approve upon request and subject to certain discretionary criteria. In new subdivisions the Planning Commission may grant an exception to other yard setbacks, provided a separation of at least 10 feet between buildings on adjacent lots will be maintained and an acceptable level of solar exposure will be guaranteed (see Zoning Regulations Section 17.16.020 E 2b). In this case, buildings on adjacent lots are close, however no buildings on adjacent properties are closer than 3 feet to the property line, therefore a minimum distance between buildings of at least 10 feet will be maintained if a 7 foot setback is approved. Parkin Parking for each new residence is provided within 2-car enclosed garages. Parking for the existing residence will be provided in 2 unenclosed spaces adjacent to Broad Street. The parking space for the rental studio unit is an unenclosed space, adjacent to unit 4, accessed from Rockview Place. 2 guest parking spaces are provided on the site, 1 at each driveway. Guest parking is required at the rate of 1 space for every 5 units, therefore 2 guest parking spaces will satisfy the minimum requirements. Parking proposed for the existing residence will require a setback exception to be granted since the edge of the parking area will be located 16-feet from Broad Street. The street yard setback required for this property is 20-feet at Broad Street. Attachment 3 TR, ER 109-02 (2903 Broad) Page 6 Parking should be located outside of the street yard setback, however staff supports granting an exception to allow the parking area to be established with a 16-foot setback if the remaining yard area can be planted with screening shrubs and trees on an earthen berm. The berm and landscape would mitigate the effect of parking in the street yard as well as help to buffer the existing residence from traffic noise on Broad Street. Driveway Design/Site access A 12-foot wide driveway will provide access to 2 units from Broad Street and a separate 16-foot wide driveway will provide access to 5 units from Rockview Place. The driveway on the Rockview side will begin at a 16-foot width, tapering to 12 feet as it passes the second unit. A 16-foot wide driveway is required for residential uses serving more than 6 spaces, and a 12-foot driveway is allowed for residential driveways serving fewer than 6 spaces. The driveway width appears to conform to the City's Parking and Driveway Standards and meets fire code requirements as reviewed by the City's Fire Marshal. As recommended by the City Traffic Engineer and Planning Staff, the project is designed to keep the majority of additional vehicle trips onto Rockview Place, where traffic can utilize existing intersections to merge with Broad Street. Common and Private Open Space Common open space, private open space and recreation space are required to be provided by the City's Development Standards for New Condominium Projects (Chapter 17.82.140 of the Zoning Regulations, Attachment 3). To qualify as private open space, the private yard must be directly accessible from the unit it serves and must have a minimum dimension in every direction of at least 10 feet inside of a minimum area of at least 100 square feet. Each of the units contains at least 500 square feet of qualifying private open space. The proposed attached studio unit has a 50 square foot private outdoor deck and access to a 1,400 square foot common open space area that will be accessible to all of the units. The common open space area will be at the center of the site where it can take advantage of existing trees. A pathway will provide access to the common open space to both sides of the property. The project proposal meets the minimum private and common open space requirements as identified in the standards for new condominium developments. Grading, Drainage and Utilities The proposed development requires grading to achieve acceptable slopes for the driveways and building pads, but generally follows the existing, mild natural grades of the site. Currently the site sheet drains to the south into existing residential properties and the public streets. Adjacent residents have built a small berm at the edge of the property in an attempt to guide drainage towards the public street. Construction plans for the property will need to identify direction of future drainage, accommodating and directing all drainage to an adequate point of disposal in the public right of way. The Public Works staff has reviewed the project and it appears that drainage can be accommodated without significant site plan modification or significant grading. All utility services such as electricity, phone and cable will be provided to the new units Attachment 3 TR, ER 109-02 (2903 Broad) Page 7 underground. General Plan Consistency In order to approve the proposed subdivision, the Planning Commission and the City Council must find that the project is consistent with the General Plan. The following is an analysis of General Plan policies, goals and objectives that may pertain to the proposed development. Each of the general plan excerpts are in italics, with a staff response following. LU Policy 2.2.4:Residential Next to Nonresidential In designing development at the boundary between residential and nonresidential uses, protection of a residential atmosphere is the first priority. The project is directly adjacent to a Commercial Service district property that is currently used for retail sales and storage of home furnishing products and an irrigation contractor. The site is adequately separated from the commercial property through the use of adequate setbacks, fencing and landscaping. Newly planted trees have been placed near the property line on the commercial side of the property. The site appears to have satisfactory buffering from the adjacent commercial uses. LU Policy 2.2.12:Residential Project Objectives - Residential projects should provide.- A) rovide.A)Privacy,for occupants and neighbors of the project; The project includes satisfactory private open space areas for each of the units. As proposed, the Units may overlook properties to the North on Perkins Lane. The properties on Perkins Lane do not have significant rear yards that will be depreciated from overlook, however the future development potential for properties on Perkins Lane and the overlook potential for this new project should be considered. B) Adequate usable outdoor area, sheltered from noise and prevailing winds, and oriented to receive light and sunshine; The project exceeds the minimum private open space standards as specified within the City's condominium standards. The private yard areas appear to have adequate solar exposure and some wind protection. C) Use of natural ventilation, sunlight, ,and shade to make indoor and outdoor spaces comfortable with minimum mechanical support; D)Pleasant views from and toward the project; The project appears to be designed with adequate solar orientation, and several of the properties will be oriented to take advantage of views of the South Street hills. Final design of units and outdoor spaces will require additional review and approval of the Architectural Review Commission. E) Security and safety; F) Separate paths for vehicles and for people, and bike paths along collector streets; Attachment 3 TR, ER 109-02 (2903 Broad) Page 8 The driveway is the minimum width for a project of this scale. The small site does not provide alternatives for a separate pedestrian pathway and a vehicular driveway since the property is only 55 feet wide. Since the driveway only provides access to 5 units from Rockview and 2 units from Broad Street, use of the driveway as a pedestrian path may not be a significant concern. A separate pedestrian pathway is proposed to link the two driveways and common open space area, allowing pedestrians to walk through the site. G)Adequate parking and storage space; Each unit contains required parking within it's own property, and in most cases within enclosed garages. H)Noise and visual separation from adjacent roads and commercial uses. A portion of the project site is subject to excessive noise levels from Broad Street. As proposed, the project does not propose placing any new residential construction close to Broad Street. The existing residence located on the property will be the closest residence to Broad Street and it complies with current setback standards. Additional landscape is proposed as a buffer between the existing residence and Broad Street. Additional noise mitigation,such as sound walls or other features may not be necessary because of the sufficient setback proposed for new units in the subdivision. I) Design elements that facilitate neighborhood interaction, such as front porches, front yards along streets, and entryways facing public walkways. The project design facilitates neighborhood interaction. Each unit contains a front entry and small porch facing the common driveway. J) Buffers from hazardous materials transport routes, as recommended by the City Fire Department. The City Fire Marshall has reviewed the proposed project for compliance with this standard and does not have concerns. Land Use Element Policy 2.4.6. Medium Density Residential — Development should be primarily dwellings having locations and forms that provide a sense of both individual identity and neighborhood cohesion for the households occupying them, but in a more compact arrangement than low density residential. Such dwellings are generally one-or two-story detached buildings on small lots, or attached dwellings, with some private outdoor space for each dwelling. The project includes one and two story-detached dwellings, with compact private outdoor spaces. Common areas are also provided and all open space exceeds the standards contained in the Condominium Development Standards. Project appears to meet the General Plan description of an R-2 development while taking advantage of a challenging narrow lot. Land Use Element Goal 31: Grow gradually outward from its historic center until its ultimate Attachment 3 TR, ER 109-02 (2903 Broad) Page 9 boundaries are reached, maintaining a compact urban form. The project helps the City achieve this goal by developing the project site near the maximum allowable density on an infill site. The site is close to the downtown planning area and is within walking distance to shops, services and transit. Housing Element Policy 2.2.3: Creation and Preservation-Affordable Rental Housing The City will preserve and expand its supply of affordable rental housing. The project will produce five additional houses on an infill lot in the R-2 district. As part of the project the applicant is proposing to construct an attached studio apartment in conjunction with one of the new houses. The applicant would like to deed restrict the studio unit to be an affordable rental housing unit. The remainder of the units are not intended to be affordable units, but will likely be sold below the median housing cost in the City since the units will be 2 bedroom units on small lots without extensive site amenities. The City's Inclusionary Housing Ordinance requires at least 1 affordable unit to be constructed for a project of this scale. As an option the applicant may pay an in-lieu fee instead of providing the unit. Since this proposal only suggests a studio apartment as the affordable unit, staff is not confident that the 1 studio apartment will satisfy the affordable housing requirement when the project will contain 5 other 2-bedroom market rate units. Staff has calculated the in-lieu fee for affordable housing for this project to be approximately $27,000. The Planning Commission should consider whether the value of providing an affordable studio apartment is equal to the required in-lieu fee. The Planning Commission may also consider a partial in-lieu fee in addition to the affordable unit. Furthermore, the Planning Commission should determine whether the project is consistent with Housing Element Policy 2.2.3. Housing Element Policy 7.2.1: Character, Size, Density and Quality — Within established neighborhoods, new residential development must be of a character, size, density, and quality that preserves the City's neighborhoods and maintains the quality of life for existing and future residents. The scale and density of the project is an appropriate size and density for the R-2 zone at this location. The proposed character of this project appears to be consistent with existing development found on nearby adjacent properties. A condominium project is adjacent to south property line and small detached apartment units are located adjacent to the north property line. Housing Element Policy 7.2.2: Location of Infill Housing— Within established neighborhoods, infill housing should be located on appropriate sites, but not on sites designated in the General plan for parks, open space, or similar uses of neighborhood importance. The project site is designated for medium density residential development and is currently developed with 2 residential units that are below the site's maximum density potential. The project site presents a good infill opportunity for additional housing if the design can overcome some of the existing site constraints (ie; lot width). (- y Attachment 3 TR, ER 109-02 (2903 Broad) Page 10 Airport Land Use.Plan. The site is in the area subject to the. Airport Land Use Plan (ALUP), so this project was referred to the County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC). Since this project does not require adoption of, or amendment to, a general or specific plan, zoning ordinance, or building regulation, review by the ALUC is voluntary. Actions taken by the ALUC for a project of this nature are advisory, and the City Council has final authority on the project determination. This site is in an area where aircraft operate between 500 to 1000 feet above ground level. For purposes of the ALUP, aircraft overflight is considered to be a significant safety hazard. According to the ALUP, the maximum gross residential density for this area is six dwellings per acre. This project proposes seven units on a 0.63-acre site (net area). On December 18`s, 2002, the ALUC voted 5-0 to find the project inconsistent with the ALUP because of excessive density. On a separate motion the commission voted to offer direction to the City and the project applicant. The second motion said the project could be found consistent if it was developed to a maximum of six dwellings per acre and a real estate disclosure document was reviewed and approved by the ALUC. If this property were to be developed at a ratio of 6 units per acre, the site would be limited to a maximum of 3 units. The ALUC must consider the area that is covered by a referred action, in this case the development site. However, when the whole Rockview neighborhood is considered, including hillside open space, and assuming that ail R-2 zoned land is developed at 12 dwellings per acre, the gross density is 5.1 dwellings per acre, which is within the ALUP maximum. (This calculation does not include open space that would be used to determine gross density of other residential areas such as the Margarita Area, the Stoneridge development, or the Meadow Park neighborhood. It also does not include the commercial area.) - The site of the proposed subdivision is a small strip of land surrounded by similar development. The Planning Commission should consider this an infill site surrounded by similar development. This proposed project is designed to meet R-2 density standards consistent with development found on adjacent properties on Rockview Place within the same airport land use zone. Furthermore, this proposal is consistent with the City's General Plan Land Use Element. The site is not within an aircraft approach and climbout area. The proposed project is outside of the projected 50dB noise contour as established in the Airport Land Use. Considering both the neighborhood gross density under full development of the R-2 zone and the site location with respect to the airport, the Planning Commission can find the project consistent with the intent of the ALUP and forward this recommendation to the City Council. Subdivision Findings In order to approve the proposed tentative map, the Subdivision Map Act requires the City Attachment 3 TR, ER 109-02 (2903 Broad) Page 11 Council must make the following findings: 1. The proposed map is consistent with the General Plan. 2. The design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is consistent with the General Plan. 3. The site is physically suited for the proposed type of development. 4. The site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development. 5. The design of the subdivision, or the type of improvements, is not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and unavoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. 6. The design of the subdivision, or type of improvements, is not likely to cause serious public health problems. 7. That the design of the subdivision, or the type of improvements, will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, property within the proposed subdivision. Findings tailored for the specific subdivision are included in a draft Planning Commission Resolution should the Planning Commission recommend approval of the project to the City Council (Attachment 6). Environmental Review The Community Development Director has recommended a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project. The initial study has been included as attachment 4 to this staff report. Staff identified mitigation measures that should be required of the project in the areas of Aesthetics, Geology and Soils, Hydrology and Water Quality, and Noise. Some of the known potential impacts to the site will be automatically mitigated by compliance with required building code provisions that will be incorporated in the plan check process. RECCOMENDATION 1. Recommend the Planning Commission adopt a resolution: A. Recommending approval of the proposed condominium map to the City Council allowing development a seven lot planned unit development with setback exceptions; and B. Recommending adoption of a proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project to the City Council. 2. Forward the project to the Architectural Review Commission for further review. ` nn Attachment 3 TR, ER 109-02 (2903 Broad) Page 12 ALTERNATIVES 1. Continue the project and offer specific direction on items to return to the Planning Commission for additional review. 2. Recommend denial of the project. This action should be based on the findings from the Subdivision Map Act listed in the body of the report under the heading "Required Findings." Attachments: Attachment 1: Vicinity Map Attachment 2: Reduced Size Development Plan Attachment 3: Property Improvement Standards for New Condominium Subdivisions (SLOMC 17.82.140) Attachment 4: Initial Study of Environmental Impact and Mitigated Negative Declaration Attachment 5: San Luis Obispo County Airport Land Use Commission Staff Report Attachment 6: Draft Planning Commission Resolution with findings and conditions as recommended by staff G:\GROWS\COMDEV\CD-PLAN\Pdunsmore\Subdivisions\TR 109-02(2903 Broad)\Staff report 109-02.1-8-03.DOC �r Attachment 4 RESOLUTION NO. 5357-03 A RESOLUTION OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 2490 FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2903 BROAD STREET TR/ER 109-02(Tract 2490) 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 January 8, 2003 for the purpose of considering Application TR/ER 109-02, a condominium subdivision with 7 units; and WHEREAS, said public hearing was for the purpose of formulating and forwarding recommendations to the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo regarding the project; and WHEREAS, notices of said public hearing were made at the time and in the manner required by law; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed and considered the Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impact and the mitigation monitoring program prepared for the project; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has duly considered all evidence, including the testimony of the applicant, interested parties, and the evaluation and recommendations by staff, presented at said hearing. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: Section 1. Findings. Based upon all the evidence, the Commission makes the following findings: 1. The proposed map is consistent with the General Plan because the subdivision will provide for Medium density residential development on property designated for such development. 2. As conditioned, the design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is consistent with the General Plan because each dwelling has access to a satisfactory private open space area and the development will occur as part of the neighborhood pattern anticipated for the medium density residential zone. 3. The site is physically suited for the proposed type of development because it is an under- developed site that is adjacent to an existing street right-of-way and it is close to the downtown and associated services. 4. As conditioned, the site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development because the site is within an existing residential developed site adjacent to existing roadways and additional residential dwellings, services are available to serve the development, and utilities have been designed to serve the site per City standards. -5�r as Attachment 4 Resolution No.5357-03 2903 Broad Page 2 5. The design of the subdivision, or the type of improvements, is not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and unavoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat because the site does not have any creeks or other potentially significant habitat areas for fish or wildlife. 6. The design of the subdivision, or type of improvements, is not likely to cause serious public health problems because the type of improvements are residential and development is a similar scale to existing development already functioning at the site. Additionally, new construction will be designed to meet existing building and safety codes. 7. The design of the subdivision, or the type of improvements, will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, property within the proposed subdivision because no such easements exist. 8. The proposed density of the housing and the design of the proposed residences will not cause unreasonable, health, safety or welfare concerns or expose people to excessive noise since it is an infill site at the outer edge of the San Luis Obispo County Airport Land Use Plan. 9. The Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project adequately identifies and evaluates the potential impacts associated with this project and where impacts are potentially significant, mitigation measures are provided to reduce these impacts to less than significant levels. Section 2. Environmental Review. The Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project, with the following mitigation measures and monitoring program. I. Aesthetics A. All trees shall be protected and preserved on the site unless otherwise approved for removal by the City Arborist. Removal of any tree on site shall require a City tree removal permit and mitigation to consist of on-site replanting of trees of a minimum size 15-gallon nursery stock. B. New construction on the lots shall be subject to architectural review. Aesthetics Monitoring Program:. Plans submitted for architectural review shall show all existing trees and significant vegetation. Trees proposed for removal shall be clearly shown on the plans. A landscape plan that includes drought tolerant landscape and trees shall be required as part of the architectural review application. Continued compliance with aesthetic mitigation measures will be accomplished through final review of the project improvement plans; building and grading plan check; and occupancy release. 2. Geology and Soils A. A detailed soils engineering report shall to be submitted as part of the grading and building permit applications in order to ensure foundation design that is consistent with city building codes. The soils report shall include at a minimum: data regarding the S_- 0 3 Attachment 4 Resolution No.5357-03 2903 Broad Page 3 nature, distribution and strength of the existing soils, conclusions and recommendations for grading procedures, and design criteria for corrective measures, when necessary. Grading and building must be designed and performed in compliance with the soils engineering report. Geology & Soils Monitoring Program: Compliance with this mitigation measure will be accomplished through final review of the project improvement plans and the required soils report; building and grading plan check; and occupancy release. 3. Hydrology and Water Quality A. Provisions must be made to accept and convey offsite drainage to an adequate point of disposal to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director and Building Official. B. All newly graded surfaces shall be protected from soil erosion with City approved temporary erosion control methods or approved permanent landscaping immediately following commencement of final site grading work. C. At least 25% of the driveway and outdoor parking area surfacing shall be constructed using pervious pavers such as turf block. Pervious pavers should be used instead of solid asphalt or concrete with the intention of reducing offsite drainage and allowing some percolation of site drainage. _Hydrology and Water Quality Monitoring Program: Plans submitted for architectural review shall provide a grading and drainage plan for the site and show any necessary easements. Driveway surfacing materials shall be shown on the plan submitted for architectural review. Continued compliance with this mitigation measure will be accomplished through final review of the project improvement plans; building and grading plan check; and occupancy release. 4. Noise A. Proposed lots 5 and 6 nearest Broad Street shall have a landscaped berm designed for noise buffering between the private yard spaces and Broad Street. The berm shall be at least 4 feet in height and designed to be compatible with the project and planted with appropriate drought tolerant landscaping consisting of trees and shrubs. B. Structures shall be designed to meet standards for a noise mitigation package to reduce interior noise by 15dB as provided in the City's noise guidebook. Noise Monitoring Program: Plans submitted for architectural review shall provide a landscape design that includes a berm for the street yard. Continued compliance with these mitigation measures will be accomplished through final review of the project improvement plans; building and grading plan check; and occupancy release.. Section 3. Recommendation. The Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council approval of application ER/TR 109-02, subject to the following conditions and code requirements. S� � Attachment 4 Resolution No.5357-03 2903 Broad Page 4 1. The project shall be forwarded to the Architectural Review Commission to review the design details and ensure the project contains satisfactory private open space, appropriate building orientation, and an appropriate design that is complementary to the neighborhood. 2. The proposed unit nearest Rockview Place shall be repositioned on the site to the north property boundary to allow an adequate setback between the new development and existing condominium structure on adjacent property to the south. The driveway, parking areas and landscape shall be adjusted appropriately. Revised plans shall be reviewed by the Community Development Department prior to proceeding to Architectural Review Commission for Review. 3. At least 25% of the common driveway and private outdoor driveway areas shall be designed with pervious surfaces such as pavers or turf block. 4. Usable amenities including a pathway, lawn area, appropriate landscape, and a bench shall be provided within the common open space area. 5. A common address sign shall be placed within each driveway intersection at the public street. Address sign shall list all unit addresses and shall be reviewed with architectural plans for consistency with the proposed subdivision and the existing neighborhood. 6. A complete landscape plan shall be provide for the project common areas and front yard areas of each residence. The landscape plan shall provide trees, shrubs groundcover plants, and mulch groundcover for exposed soil areas. An irrigation plan, consisting of water conserving drip irrigation, shall be provided. Plant species shall be selected for drought tolerance and compatibility with local conditions while providing shade, screening and aesthetic enhancement of the property. A conceptual landscape plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Architectural Review Commission. 7. An earthen berm with a minimum height of 4 feet shall be provided in the street yard area between the proposed outdoor parking area and Broad Street. The berm shall be planted with trees, shrubs and groundcover designed to screen the parking area and buffer the residences from Broad Street. 8. The final map shall indicate building footprints, building setbacks and all property lines. Building setbacks shall be designed to maintain a minimum of 10 feet between proposed buildings and existing buildings on adjacent properties. Setbacks between buildings on adjacent properties shall be indicated on the map. 9. Consistent fencing plans for the north and south property lines shall be submitted for review and approval by the Architectural Review Commission. A screening fence and landscape shall be required for the south property line adjacent to the existing commercial district property. S� Attachment 4 Resolution No.5357-03 2903 Broad Page 5 10. The applicant shall pay Park In-Lieu Fees prior to recordation of the Final Map, consistent with SLO Municipal Code Section 16.40.080. 11. The project shall include a minimum of one affordable dwelling unit or the applicant shall pay an affordable housing in lieu fee equal to 5% of the total building valuation of the new dwelling units. The unit shall be deed restricted for a period of not less than 30 years. The value of the unit shall be equal to or greater than 5% of the total building valuation of the project (project is considered to be the construction of five 2 bedroom dwelling units). If a studio unit is chosen for deed restriction, the applicant shall pay 50% of the in-lieu fees in addition to providing the affordable studio. 12. 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. Code Requirements 1. The existing driveway approach shall be upgraded as necessary to provide disabled access behind the ramp per the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and city standards to the approval of the Public Works Director. 2. Additional public right-of-way or public pedestrian easements may be necessary to accommodate improvements required for Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) compliance, to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director. 3. The developer shall be responsible to hire a registered civil engineer or land surveyor to provide all grades, layout, staking, and cut-sheets necessary for the construction of frontage improvements in accordance with the City's curb grade plan and/or Cal Trans standards for Broad Street(State Highway 227). 4. The subdivider shall dedicate a 2m wide public utility easement across the frontage of each lot facing a public right of way. Said easement shall be adjacent to and contiguous with all public right-of-way lines bordering each lot. 5. The subdivider shall dedicate a 3m wide street tree easement across the frontage of each lot facing a public right of way. Said easement shall be adjacent to and contiguous with all public right-of-way lines bordering each lot. 6. A new streetlight shall be installed on the Broad St frontage on the existing wood power pole, adjacent southerly to the site, to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director. !�,-Q Attachment 4 Resolution No.5357-03 2903 Broad Page 6 7. The proposed on-site sewer main will be privately owned and maintained by the Homeowner's Association. 8. Final grades and alignments of all public water, sewer and storm drains (including service laterals and meters) shall be subject to change to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director and Utilities Engineer. 9. Separate utilities, including water, sewer, gas, electricity, telephone, and cable TV shall be served to each parcel to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director and serving utility companies. Utilities to new residences shall be underground. 10. The subdivider shall provide individual electrical, phone, television, natural gas, water service, and sewer connections to the approval of the affected utility companies and the Public Works Director. 11. All lots shall be graded to preclude cross-lot drainage, or, appropriate easements and drainage facilities shall be provided, to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director. Mapping Requirements 12. The subdivider shall submit a final map to the city for review, approval, and recordation. The map shall be prepared by, or under the supervision of a registered civil engineer or licensed land surveyor. .-The final map shall be prepared in accordance with the Subdivision Map Act and the Subdivision.Regulations. 13. The map shall be tied to at least two points of the City's horizontal control network, California State Plane Coordinate System, Zone 5 (1991.35 epoch adjustment of the North American Datum of 1983 also referred to as "NAD 83" - meters) for direct import into the Geographic Information System (GIS) database. Submit this data either via email, CD or a 3-1/2" floppy disc containing the appropriate data for use with AutoCAD, version 2000 or earlier (model space in real world coordinates, NAD 83 - m). If you have any questions regarding format, please call prior to submitting electronic data. 14. The final map shall use the International System of Units (metric system). The English System of Units may be used on the final map where necessary (e.g. - all record data shall be entered on the map in the record units, metric translations should be in parenthesis), to the approval of the City Engineer. 15. Electronic files and stamped and signed drawings shall be submitted for all public improvement plans prior to map recordation or commencing with improvements; whichever occurs first. Submittal documents shall include the electronic drawing files (.dwg) and any associated plot files along with one original, stamped and signed, ink on mylar set of plans. 16. Prior to acceptance by the City of public improvements, the developer's engineer shall Attachment 4 Resolution No.5357-03 2903 Broad Page 7 submit a digital version of all public improvement plans and record drawings, compatible with AutoCAD (Digital Interchange Format, DXF) for Geographic Information System (GIS)purposes,to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director. Transportation 17. Traffic impact fees shall be paid prior to the issuance of a building permit. 18. Bicycle Parking: all dwellings within the proposed subdivision area shall provide bicycle parking in compliance with Section 17.16.060,Table 6.5 of the Zoning Regulations. Utilities 19. Upon development, a water allocation will be required, due to the.additional demand on the City's water supplies. The City currently has water to allocate, and does so on a "first- come, first-served" basis. Water is allocated at the time building permits are issued and the Water Impact Fee is paid. Both the Water and the Wastewater Impact Fees are based on a per residential unit basis, with appropriate credit given for prior accounts on the property. Water and Wastewater Impact Fees shall be paid at the time building permits are issued. 20. Each parcel is to have its own separate water and wastewater service laterals. Existing water and sewer services shall be properly relocated and resized, if necessary, to ensure that each parcel is appropriately served in accordance with City standards. The development is allowed.to utilize a common sewer lateral to serve the new lots, providing a proper agreement is in place documenting the joint ownership and maintenance responsibilities of the owners. 21. If a private fire hydrant is required on-site, the hydrant lateral shall include a USC approved backflow preventer appropriate for the proposed use. The backflow preventer shall be located as close to the public right-of-way as possible, in direct alignment with the connection to the public water main. The backflow preventer can be located no further than 25 feet from the right-of-way line without prior written approval of the Utilities Engineer. The USC approved backflow preventer shall also include detector capabilities (double detector check assembly), as a result of serving a hydrant. The FDC may be located behind the backflow prevention assembly, in accordance with manufacturer's recommendations. The location and orientation of the FDC shall be approved by the Fire Department. 22. By ordinance, the applicant is required to prepare a recycling plan for approval by the City to address the recycling of construction waste for projects valued at over $50,000 or demolition of structures over 1000 square feet. The recycling plan shall be submitted to the Building Department with the building plans. The City's Solid Waste Coordinator can provide some guidance in the preparation of an appropriate recycling plan. 23. The redevelopment of the site triggers the Utilities Department Sewer Lateral Abandonment Policy. This policy states that the sewer lateral must be abandoned at the main prior to demolition or construction, unless the lateral is intended for reuse,and it passes a video Attachment 4 Resolution No.5357-03 2903 Broad Page 8 inspection. If a sewer lateral exists, and is intended for reuse, the owner shall submit a VHS videotape documenting the internal condition of the pipe to the Utilities Department for approval. City Arborist 24. Fifteen (15) gallon street trees shall be planted to meet city standards. (1 per 35 if of street frontage on both streets) Species shall be per city special approved list for Broad St. and the general list for the Rockview Place frontage. 25. If the City Arborist identifies trees requiring safety pruning, all pruning shall be performed by a certified Arborist. Fire Department 26. Fire Department Access: Access shall be in accordance with Article 9 of the California Fire Code. Fire apparatus access shall be provided when any portion of the exterior wall of the first story is exceeds 300' from fire apparatus access as measured by an approved route around the exterior of the building. 27. Water Supplies: Water supplies shall be in accordance with Sections 901 and 903 of the California Fire Code. An approved water supply connected to the City distribution system and capable of providing the required fire flow for fire protection is required. The fire flow shall be deterrhining using Appendix III-A of the California Fire Code. The minimum acceptable fire flow shall be 1,000 gallons per minute. 28. Fire Hydrants: Fire hydrants shall be installed in accordance with Section 903.4 of the California Fire Code. The location, number and type of hydrants connected to the City system shall be determined using Appendix HI-B of the California Fire Code and the approved City Engineering Standards. Unit 4 B exceeds the 300' distance from an approved water supply. An onsite hydrant shall be required. 29. Fire Protection Systems and Equipment: Fire protection systems shall be in accordance with the California Fire Code and California Building Code as amended by the City. An approved automatic fire sprinkler system shall be installed within each dwelling unit in accordance with National Fire Protection Standard.Pamphlet 13D. 30. Fire Safety During Construction: Buildings undergoing construction, alteration or demolition shall be in accordance with Article 87 of the California Fire Code. Fire extinguishers shall be provided for buildings under construction. Combustible debris, waste material or rubbish shall not be accumulated within buildings or burned on the site. Attachment 4 Resolution No.5357-03 2903 Broad Page 9 On motion by Commissioner Cooper, seconded by Chairperson Loh, and on the following roll call vote to wit: AYES: Commissioners Christianson, Aiken, Cooper, Caruso, Boswell, Osborne &Loh NOES: None REFRAIN: None ABSENT: None The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 8th day of January, 2003. /- ,"Roqd1d Whise d, Secretary Planning Co ssion G:\GROUPS\COMDEV\CD-PLAN\Pdunsmore\Subdivisions\TR 109-02(2903 Broad)\Resolution 109-02.doc S� Attachment 5 �1►I�IIII�IIIIIINNIIIIII!�� �IIIllllllllll city of sAn tuts omspo 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 March 6, 2003 Dave Bolduan P.O. Box 1845 San Luis Obispo, CA 93406 SUBJECT: ARC 109-02: 2903 Broad Street Review of a seven-unit residential development in the "special considerations" overlay zone Dear Mr. Bolduan: The Architectural Review Commission, at its meeting of March 3, 2003, granted schematic approval to the above project (which means the item will come back to the ARC for final review), with the following direction: 1. Alternative pavement materials shall be incorporated into the project other than asphalt. Pavers, turf block, colored concrete or other all weather approved driving surface materials should be utilized to create interest in the pavement design and to define vehicle and pedestrian areas. The Commission specified that stamped concrete be used at the driveway entrances to the project that had a depth of about 20 feet. 2. The project shall incorporate vinyl or wood clad windows that enhance the architectural appearance of the units. Aluminum sliders shall be avoided. 3. The design of the garages shall be modified to include an arbor and entry columns on Plan B (Unit 4). Window treatments should be incorporated into the garages. 4. Additional architectural details should be incorporated into the units. 5. A landscape plan shall be prepared that includes drought tolerant landscape designed to create privacy for outdoor open space areas, shade for south exposures and parking areas, and buffering from the roadways. The landscape plan should incorporate evergreen and deciduous trees, medium and tall shrubs and permanent groundcover plants where appropriate, and be designed with drip irrigation. The City of San LuisObispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services, programs and activities. Telecommunications Device for the Deaf(805) 781-7410. �� 51 Attachment ARC 109-02 Page 2 If you have questions, please contact Phil Dunsmore at (805) 781-7522. Sincerely, XRo�nd Whisenand Deputy Community Development Director Development Review cc: County of SLO Assessor's Office Joseph Boud & Associates 1009 Morro Street, Suite 206 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 David Bolduan, Tre Etal c/o Dale W. King 1250 Peach Street, Suite D San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 S-� 3a Attachment 6 CITY Of sAn luis oBispo_ S__ Norma 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM ER 109-02 1. Project Title: Condominium Tract Map 2490 (TR/ER 109-02) 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of San Luis Obispo, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Philip Dunsmore (805) 781-7522 4. Project Location: 2903 Broad Street (as shown on attachment 1, vicinity map) 5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Dave Bolduan 6. General Plan Designation: Medium Density Residential 7. Zoning: R-2-S; Medium Density Residential, Special Considerations Overlay 8. Description of the Project: Request to subdivide one existing parcel into a seven-lot planned unit development (condominium) subdivision to include 6 residential lots and 1 common lot to serve the driveway and open space area. Individual lots will be subdivided as a Planned Unit Development (PUD) and will include small, private backyards. Two of the proposed lots will have access from Broad Street via an existing driveway serving an existing single-family residence. Four other lots will be accessed from a proposed driveway that will intersect with Rockview Place. Refer to attachment 2 for a copy of the proposed tract map. Proposed preliminary development for the lots includes 2 bedroom residences with attached 2 car garages and small private yards. All residents will share a common open space area. 4 of the lots will be developed with a new 1,390 square foot 2 bedroom, 2- bath residence. One lot will be developed with a 1,110 square foot 2 bedroom, 2-bath residence with an attached 430 square foot studio apartment. The 6th lot will contain an existing 2 bedroom residence, and the 7th lot will contain a common driveway, guest parking, and a small common open space/park area. 9. Project Entitlements Requested: Tract Map no. 2490 to allow a planned unit development in the R-2-S district (TR-109-02). Architectural review of 6 new residential units (ARC 109-02).. The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services, programs and activities. V Telecommunications Device for the Deaf(808)781-7410. �r 2 j. Attachment 6 10. Surrounding Land Uses and Settings: The project site is a 27,598 square foot property with frontage on both Broad Street (Hwy 227) and Rockview Place. It is zoned Medium Density Residential (R-2) and abuts R-2 property to the north that currently contains residential units. Property to the south is zoned Commercial Service (CS) on the Broad Street side and R-2-S on the Rockview side. The property slopes gently from its midpoint both to the west and east. Two English walnut trees located near the midpoint of the property will be retained in the project open space / park area. The existing 2- bedroom house located near Broad Street on the east end of the property will be retained and the existing studio apartment will be removed with the proposed tract map. 11. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g. permits,financing approval, or participation agreement): None. CITY OF SAN Luis OwsPo 2 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CCNECKusT 2002 Sr O I Attachment 6 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' or a "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation is Incorporated" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. X Aesthetics X Geology/Soils Public Services Agricultural Resources Hazards&Hazardous Recreation Materials Air Quality X Hydrology/Water Quality Transportation&Traffic Biological Resources Land Use and Planning Utilities and Service Systems Cultural Resources X Noise Mandatory Findings of Significance Energy and Mineral Population and Housing Resources FISH AND GAME FEES There is no evidence before the Department that the project will have any potential adverse effects on fish x and wildlife resources or the habitat upon which the wildlife depends. As such, the project qualifies for a de minimis waiver with regards to the filing of Fish and Game Fees. The project has potential to impact fish and wildlife resources and shall be subject to the payment of Fish and Game fees pursuant to Section 711.4 of the California Fish and Game Code. This initial study has been circulated to the California Department of Fish and Game for review and comment. STATE CLEARINGHOUSE This environmental document must be submitted to the State Clearinghouse for review by one or more State agencies (e.g. Cal Trans, California Department of Fish and Game, Department of Housing and Community Development). The public review period shall not be less than 30 days (CEQA Guidelines 15073(a)). �-3S Attachment 6 Issues, Discussion and Supportnny „[formation Sources Sources Po , Potentially [Jess Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact ER# 109-02 Issues Unless Impact Mitigation 2903 Broad Street Incorporated DETERMINATION: On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, X there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made, or the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet(s) have been added and agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is.required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant' impact(s) or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact(s) on the environment, but at least one effect (1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (1) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (2) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR of NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. November 20, 2002 [gnat Date Ronald Whisenand Deputy Director of Community Development For: John Mandeville,Community Development Director Printed Name CRY OF SAN LUIS Osispo 4 INmAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2002 4�-, ()i r. Attachment 6 Issues, Discussion and Supportil,y ..formation Sources Solutes Pot, Potentially Lass Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact ER # 109-02 Issues Unless Impact Mitigation 2903 Broad Street Incorporated EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: 1. A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the analysis in each section. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g. the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants,based on a project-specific screening analysis). 2. All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site,cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. The explanation of each issue should identify the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question. 3. "Potentially Significant Impact' is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made,an EIR is required. 4. "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section 17, "Earlier Analysis," may be cross-referenced). 5. Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering,program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063 (c) (3) (D) of the California Administrators Code. Earlier analyses are discussed in Section 17 at the end of the checklist. 6. Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g. general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. 7. Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached,and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. In this case,a brief discussion should identify the following: a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on earlier analysis. c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated;' describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project. 5 CRY of SAN LUIS OBISPO INmAL STUDY ENvIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2002 Attachment 6 Issues, Discussion and Supportu,y ..,rormation Sources Sources Po, Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact ER # 109 02 Issues Unless Impact Mitigation 2903 Broad Street Incorporated 1.AESTHETICS. Would theproject: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? X b) Substantially damage scenic resources,including,but not limited X to,trees,rock outcroppings,open space,and historic buildings within a local or state scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of X the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial fight or glare which would X adversely effect day or nighttime views in the area? The subject property is currently surrounded by urban uses and is not within a location that is considered a scenic vista. Broad Street, however, is considered a road of high scenic value as recognized within the City's General Plan Circulation Element. The scenic value is recognized as views of the South Street Hills that are parallel to Broad Street. As proposed the project does not appear to significantly alter hillside views from this roadway or reduce the aesthetic quality of the corridor. The subject property contains an existing residence adjacent to Broad Street that will remain with the proposed development. Additional dwellings will be constructed behind the existing residence, however the nearest new residence will be approximately 120 feet from Broad Street. This residence and others planned for the property will have a proposed maximum height of 25 feet. Considering the distance from the roadway and proposed building height, the new development will not significantly alter views of the hills from Broad Street, and therefore will not degrade the visual quality of the corridor. New construction combined with new landscape at the property is likely to produce negligible aesthetic impacts, and instead is likely to enhance the aesthetic appearance of the property. Construction on the property will be subject to architectural review by the City's Architectural Review Commission to ensure aesthetic compatibility of the project to the site and its surroundings. CONCLUSION: Less than significant with proposed mitigation measures. MITIGATION MEASURES Aesthetics A. All trees shall be protected and preserved on the site unless otherwise approved for removal by the City Arborist. Removal of any tree on site shall require a City tree removal permit and mitigation to consist of on-site replanting of trees of a minimum size 15-gallon nursery stock. B. New construction on the lots shall be subject to architectural review. 2.AGRICULTURE RESOURCES. Would theproject: a) Convert Prime Farmland,Unique Farmland,or Farmland of X Statewide Importance(Farmland),as shown on the maps pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency,to non-agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use,or a X Williamson Act contract? c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which,due to X their location or nature,could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use. The project is located on a site that is not considered prime farmland, or farmland of unique or statewide importance as indicated on City maintained maps created pursuant to the to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency. The site is too small to be considered important 6 CRY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INmAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CNEcKusT 2002 S- 3� Attachment 6 Issues, Discussion and Supporti. .,[formation Sources Sources Po. Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact ER# 109-02 Issues Unless Impact Mitigation 2903 Broad Street Incorporated farmland and furthermore is surrounded by developed urbanized uses. No properties within the immediate vicinity are zoned or used for commercial agricultural use. Some cattle grazing exists on the nearby South Street hills, however this property is separated from the subject property by urban development and public streets. CONCLUSION: Less than significant. 3. AIR QUALM. Would theproject: a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an X existing or projected air quality violation? b) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air X quality plan? c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant X concentrations? d) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of X people? e) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria X pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed qualitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? The Air Quality Handbook finds that a project that produces 10 pounds a day of emissions will have a significant effect on air quality. The construction of 35 homes may result in the production of 10 pounds of emissions per day. The proposed project will ultimately allow the construction of 6 additional homes. It is anticipated that less than significant air quality impacts may result from construction of the six new residences and an access driveway. Minor increases in air pollution may occur during project construction phases and demolition of existing structures, however following construction and demolition, air quality impacts will be less than significant. CONCLUSION: Less than significant with proposed mitigation measures. MITIGATION MEASURES Air Quality 1.The project shall be conditioned to comply with all applicable District regulations pertaining to the control of fugitive dust(PM-10)as contained in section 6.4 of the Air Quality Handbook. All site grading and demolition plans notes shall list the following regulations: a. All material excavated or graded shall be sufficiently watered to prevent excessive amounts of dust. Watering shall occur at least twice daily with complete coverage,preferably in the late morning and after work is finished for the day. b. All clearing,grading,earth moving, or excavation activities shall cease during periods of high winds(i.e. greater than 20 mph averaged over one hour) so as to prevent excessive amounts of dust. c. All material transported off-site shall be either sufficiently watered or securely covered to prevent excessive amounts of dust. d. The area disturbed by clearing,grading,earth moving, or excavation operations shall be minimized so as to prevent excessive amounts of dust. e. Permanent dust control measured identified in the approved project revegetation and landscape plans 7 CrrY of SAN Luis OBISPo INRULL STUDY ENvutomAENTAL CHECKLIST 2002 Attachment 6 Issues, Discussion and Supporth.y ..tformation Sources Sources Po. Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact ER# 109 02 Issues Unless Impact Mitigation 2903 Broad Street Incorporated shall be implemented as soon as possible following completion of any soil disturbing activities. f. Exposed ground areas that are planned to be reworked at dates greater than one month after initial grading shall be sown with fast-germinating native grass seed and watered until vegetation becomes established. g. All disturbed areas not subject to revegetation shall be stabilized using,jute netting,or other methods approved in advance by the APCD. h. All roadways,driveways, sidewalks,etc. to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible. In addition, structural foundations shall be completed as soon as possible following building pad construction. i. On-site vehicle speed shall be limited to 15 mph for any unpaved surface. j. All unpaved areas with vehicle traffic shall be watered at least twice per day,using non-potable water. k. Streets adjacent to the project site shall be swept daily to remove silt, which may have accumulated from construction activities so as to prevent excessive amounts of dust from leaving the site. 4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would theproject: a) Have a substantial adverse effect,either directly or indirectly or X through habitat modifications,on any species identified as a candidate,sensitive,or special status species in local or regional plans,policies,or regulations,or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect,on any riparian habitat or X other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans,policies,or regulations,or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting X biological resources,such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance(e.g.Heritage Trees)? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident X or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors,or impede the use of wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted habitat Conservation X Plan,Natural Community Conservation Plan,or other approved local,regional,or state habitat conservation plan? f) Have a substantial adverse effect on Federally protected X wetlands as defined in Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including,but not limited to,marshes,vernal pools,etc.) through direct removal,filling,hydrological interruption,or other means? City creek maps, a site visit and review of project plans have not identified a creek, wetland area or other area of significant habitat value on or adjacent to the proposed construction site. The site is a remainder vacant lot between two developed lots. No significant native vegetation or heritage trees exist on the site. The site contains two English walnut trees and non-native European grasses. The walnut trees are proposed to remain with the development. The site lacks value as a significant habitat area due to the small size of the site and continuous use of the property by surrounding residential properties as a yard and recreation area. Subdivision and redevelopment of the property is likely to create less than significant impacts to biological resources on the CrrY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 8 INmAL STUDY ENviRONemENTAL CHECKLIST 2002 �' �© Attachment 5 Issues, Discussion and Supporting .aformation Sources Sources Pot. Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact ER# 109-02 Issues Unless Impact Mitigation 2903 Broad Street Incorporated subject property and within the project vicinity. CONCLUSION: Less than significant. S.CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would theproject: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a X historic resource?(See CEQA Guidelines 15064.5) b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an X archeological resource?(See CEQA Guidelines 15064.5) c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource X or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains,including those interred outside of X formal cemeteries? The existing property does not contain any historic or prehistoric archeological resources as identified on City maintained resource maps. No known archeological resources exist within the project site. According to the City's map of archeological sensitive areas, which is based on information from the Central Coast Historical Resource Information Center at the University of California at Santa Barbara and previous archaeological studies,the site is not within an archeological sensitive area. Given that the site is less than one acre in size and is not within a sensitive area, it is not considered "archaeologically sensitive" and additional study to determine the presence of archaeological of historical resources is not required. Based on an assessment of available historic records and in accordance with Sections 800.4(a)-(d) of 36 CFR Part 800 governing identification and protection and protection of historic resources, it has been determined that there are no historic properties that may be affected by the proposed project. The existing residences on the property are not considered historic resources and were constructed between 1950 and 1968. One of the structures, currently a residential studio apartment will be demolished with the proposed project. The other dwelling, constructed in approximately 1950 will remain with the proposed project. The adjacent properties to the west contain single-family dwellings and apartments that were are not considered historic or potentially historic properties. Development of the project as proposed is not anticipated to create significant impacts to archeological or historic resources on or adjacent to the project site. CONCLUSION: Less than significant. 6. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would theproject: a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? X b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient X manner? c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource X that would be of value to the region and the residents of the State? The project is consistent with the City's Energy Element that encourages concentrations of residences close to concentrations of employment. The housing will be an infill project surrounded by existing urban development, thereby reducing energy impacts that could be created by placing additional housing further from existing development. The project is close to schools, City services and the downtown area of the city. No known mineral resources exist within the project vicinity. CONCLUSION: Less than significant. CRY OF SAN Luis CaisPo 9 INmAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CNEcKusT 2002 S,41 Attachment 6 Issues, Discussion and Supporhi,y . .formation Sources Sources Pot, y potentially Isss T uut No Significant Significant Significant Impact ER# 109-02 saes unless impact Mitigation 2903 Broad Street Incorporated 7. GEOLOGY AND SOILS Would theproject: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects,including risk of loss,injury or death involving: I. Rupture of a known earthquake fault,as delineated in the X most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area,or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? II. Strong seismic ground shaking? X HL Seismic related ground-failure,including liquefaction? X IV. Landslides or mudflows? X b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? X c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable,or that X would become unstable as a result of the project,and potentially result in on or off site landslides,lateral spreading,subsidance, liquefaction,or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil,as defined in Table 18-1-B of the X Uniform Building Code(1994),creating substantial risks to life or property? The site is partially developed with two residences, a driveway and a small parking area. One of the structures on the site will be demolished to accommodate this project, however site grading is not anticipated to significantly alter the existing landform. There are no known fault lines on site or in the immediate vicinity. However, the City of San Luis Obispo is in Seismic Zone 4, a seismically active region of California and strong ground shaking should be expected during the life of proposed structures. Structures must be designed in compliance with seismic design criteria established in the Uniform Building Code. Moderately expansive soils are common in the project vicinity. All new construction will require a City building permit, and therefore require construction that will meet or exceed building code standards for these soils. The site lies in an area identified by the Seismic Safety Element of the General Plan as being in the "F"', Franciscan Formation, zone which has a high landslide risk. As defined in the Seismic Safety Element, "the Franciscan Formation is composed of incompetent material of complex structure". The evaluation included in the element qualifies its applicability by noting that it is based on natural conditions and does not account for changes in stability that may accompany development. Soils Stability Although a soils study has not been prepared for this site, soils studies prepared for immediately adjacent properties have been evaluated by staff. The primary concerns at adjacent properties were "the potential for different settlement, the potential for subsurface water, and the expansive soil condition." The study concluded that the sites were suitable, from a geotechnical standpoint, for the proposed project and provided recommendations to insure long-term soils stability. Staff is recommending the following mitigation measure to insure that a thorough geotechnical analysis is prepared for this site in conjunction with any permits for new structures. The study shall also identify and provide recommendations regarding any unique geologic or physical features on the site that may have an impact on soils stability. Crry OF SAN Luis Oinspo 10 INITIAL ST=ENvutoNmENTAL CNEcKusT 2002 s- �a Attachment 6 Issues, Discussion and Supporting „Iformation Sources Sources Po, Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Issues Unless Impact ER# 109-02 Mitigation 2903 Broad Street Incorporated CONCLUSION: Less than significant when proposed mitigation is incorporated. MITIGATION MEASURES: Geologyand Soils A detailed soils engineering report shall to be submitted as part of the grading and building permit applications in order to ensure foundation design that is consistent with city building codes. The soils report shall include at a minimum: data regarding the nature, distribution and strength of the existing soils, conclusions and recommendations for grading procedures, and design criteria for corrective measures, when necessary. Grading and building must be designed and performed in compliance with the soils engineering report. 8. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the r('ect: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment X though the routine use,transport or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment X through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely X hazardous materials,substances,or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Expose people or structures to existing sources of hazardous X emissions or hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances,or waste? e) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous X materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and,as a result,it would create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? f) For a project located within an airport land use plan,or within X two miles of a public airport,would the project result in a safety hazard for the people residing or worldng in the project area? g) Impair implementation of,or physically interfere with,the X adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of lose,injury, X or death,involving wildland fires,including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residents are intermixed with wildlands? The project proposal does not involve the use of hazardous materials nor will it involve hazardous conditions. In order to accommodate new condominium units on the property an existing residential structure will be demolished. Demolition of the structure may involve the possibility of encountering asbestos which was a common construction material used in the era of the building that is proposed for demolition. A demolition permit will be required prior to any demolition work on the property. The demolition permit will require a handling and disposal plan for the building materials to be removed from the site and properly disposed of. With appropriate removal and disposal of potential asbestos materials during demolition, the project will result in less than significant impacts. At this time the existing structure to be demolished has not been identified to contain asbestos or any other hazardous materials. Construction of the housing project does not involve the introduction of any known hazardous materials. CITY OF SAN Luis 0aisPo l 1 INmAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CNECKusT 2002 x. 43 Attachment 6 Issues, Discussion and Supporting ..[formation Sources Sources Pot. Potentially Less Thin No Significant Significant Significant Impact Issues ER# 109-02 Mitigation Impact gation 2903 Broad Street Incorporated The project site is located at the outer edge of the airport planning area for the San Luis Obispo airport, however this location does not commonly receive air traffic. The project has been reviewed by the airport land use commission and has been found consistent with the applicable airport land use plan for this vicinity. The project will not result in impacts to an emergency response plan, nor will the project place residences outside of available emergency response resources. CONCLUSION: Less than significant. 9. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would theproject: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge X requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere X substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level(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 that would exceed the capacity X 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 X area in a manner that would result in substantial erosion or siltation onsite or offsite? e) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or X area in a manner which would result in substantial flooding onsite or offsite? f) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on X a Federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? g) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which X would impede or redirect flood flows? h) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? X The existing project site slopes at approximately 5% up at each end towards a high point in the center of the property. Broad Street and Rockview Place are approximately 8 feet lower than the high point in the center fo the property. The existing slope conveniently allows the property to drain to the public street at each end (east and west). Development of the property and associated grading, paving and other improvements will be designed to carry drainage into the public roadways where it can be handled by existing storm drains. The project site is within a"C" flood zone as indicated on FEMA flood zone maps. Zone B indicates that the site is not within flood zone of either 100 or 500-year storm events. A visit to the site reveals that existing slope and drainage would not likely result in the property being subject to flooding, nor is it likely to contribute to flooding following development. The project will ultimately result in the construction of six new residences, parking areas and driveways. The existing drainage pattern of the site will be modified from the introduction of new impervious surfaces and new structures. Construction of the site will require the review of a grading and drainage plan that results in adequate site drainage. Construction features such as pervious pavers and turf block in the parking lot areas should be incorporated in order to reduce the potential for excessive site runoff. CRY OF SAN Luis OetsPo 12 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHEcnnT 2002 S--44 Attachment 6 F Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact ER# 109-02 Issues nlesMitiigati n Impact 2903 Broad Street Incorporated CONCLUSION: .The project construction will be required to meet current building code standards and require review and approval of a grading and drainage plan that is consistent with the UBC and City Standards. On site drainage impacts are anticipated to be less than significant with the implementation of the following mitigation measures. MITIGATION MEASURES Hydrology and Water Quality A. Provisions must be made to accept and convey offsite drainage to an adequate point of disposal to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director and Building Official. B. All newly graded surfaces shall be protected from soil erosion with City approved temporary erosion control methods or approved permanent landscaping immediately following commencement of final site grading work. C. At least 25% of the driveway and outdoor parking area surfacing shall be constructed using pervious pavers such as turf block. Pervious pavers should be used instead of solid asphalt or concrete with the intention of reducing offsite drainage and allowing some percolation and filtration of site drainage. 10. LAND USE AND PLANNING- Would the rgiect: a) Conflict with applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of X an agency with jurisdiction over the project adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? b) Physically divide an established community? X c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural X community conservationplans? The project proposal complies with the provisions of the General Plan Land Use Element as it applies to new condominium projects. The proposed subdivision would create 7 lots from 1 existing lot, allowing the individual ownership of 6 properties (1 common lot would remain). The proposed project complies with density standards for the R-2 district. The project is unique in that the request to subdivide the property is not a typical condominium airspace development, however it includes individual lots that will be within a common lot development- commonly referred to as a "planned unit development". The proposed lots will not meet subdivision requirements for depth, width and minimum square feet however will be subdivided under the definition of condominium lot subdivision that allows lots of any size or shape. Approval of the project as proposed may require exceptions to the setback requirements for the R-2 district. CONCLUSION: Less than significant. Setback exceptions that may be associated with this subdivision proposal are an issue of neighborhood compatibility and property aesthetics. 11.NOISE. Would the project result in: a) Exposure of people to or generation of"unacceptable"noise X levels as defined by the San Luis Obispo General Plan Noise Element,or general noise levels in excess of standards established in the Noise Ordinance? b) A substantial temporary,periodic,or permanent increase in X ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? c) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne X vibration or groundbome noise levels? d) For a project located within an airport land use plan,or within X two miles of a public airport or public use airport,would the ro'ect expose people residing or working in the prejest area to 13 CRY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2002 � A< Attachment 6 Issues, Discussion and Supporting ..iformation Sources source Pot. -_ Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact ER# 109-02 Issues Unless Impact Mitigation 2903 Broad Street Incorporated project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? The proposed project is located adjacent to Broad Street, a significant arterial roadway with moderate vehicular traffic. Two of the proposed lots and residential units closest to Broad Street will be within an area that is located inside of the 65-decibel noise contour as established in the City's noise maps. The noise contour is established to recognize traffic noise levels at the 1990 projected buildout levels of the city. The City Noise Element recommends that new noise sensitive land uses such as residential uses may only be established when the sensitive use (such as a residential backyard or interior of a dwelling) has been mitigated to reduce the noise level to certain standards. The maximum allowable standards for transportation noise sources are 45 dB for indoor residential spaces and 60 dB for outdoor activity areas. Since the proposed 2 lots adjacent to Broad Street are within the 65dB vicinity as identified within the General Plan Noise Element, the proposed residential yard areas and dwellings shall require noise mitigation measures in order to meet the appropriate standards. One of the 2 lots within close proximity to Broad street contains an existing house that is proposed to remain with the subdivision. See attachment 3 for a graphic of noise contours within this vicinity. The General Plan Noise Element suggests mitigating potential noise exposure through increased setback from noise source and noise attenuation construction methods such as sound walls, insulated windows and additional wall insulation. Considering the property nearest the noise source is an existing dwelling that is proposed to remain with the subdivision, it is not feasible to increase the setback. The outdoor yard areas for the front 2 parcels, however, can be designed with noise mitigation measures that will reduce the traffic noise to less than significant levels. Construction of the project will temporarily increase ambient noise levels due to demolition and construction activity. Construction activities are regulated to daytime work hours. CONCLUSION: With required mitigation measures the project will create Less than significant noise impacts to persons living within the project or within the vicinity. MITIGATION MEASURES Noise A. Proposed lots 5 and 6 nearest Broad Street shall have masonry walls designed for noise buffering between the private yard spaces and Broad Street. The walls shall be designed to be compatible with the project and should help create an attractive pedestrian residential setting through changes in alignment, detail and texture, places for people to walk through, and appropriate landscaping. B. New structures shall be designed to meet standards for a noise mitigation package to reduce interior noise by 15dB as provided in the City's noise guidebook. 12. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would theproject: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly X (for example by proposing new homes or businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing or people X necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Two residential units currently exist on the property, one of which would be demolished in order to construct the 6 new residential units. A total of 7 residential units will occupy the property following completion of the CRY OF SAN LUIS Oeispo 14 INMAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHEcKusT 2002 !�--�� Attachment 6 Issues, Discussion and Supporting .,iformation Sources sources Pot. Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact ER# 109-02 Issues Mitigation n Impact 2903 Broad Street incorporated project. One of the seven units is proposed to be a studio apartment that will be constructed as an attached structure on one of the 2 bedroom units. The project places needed additional housing in a location near schools, employment and the downtown area. The project is proposed to be built to the maximum density as allowed within the R-2 district. This is consistent with Land Use and Housing Element policies encouraging a variety of housing types, efficient infill development, and compact urban form. Since the 1 residential studio unit removed from the property will be replaced with 6 new residences in the moderate price range, the impacts resulting from a loss of housing will be less than significant. CONCLUSION: Less than significant. 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? X b) Police protection? X c) Schools? X d) Parks? X e) Roads and other.transportation infrastructure? X f) Other public facilities? X Six additional residences on this property are not likely to create significant impacts to public services. The design of the lots and the proposed access has been approved by the City Fire Department and will not impact available public services to the site or adjacent residents. CONCLUSION: Less than significant. 14.RECREATION. Would theproject: a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood or regional parks or X other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Include recreational facilities or require the construction or X expansion of recreational facilities,which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Six additional residences on this property are not likely to create significant impacts to recreation services in the City. Final approval of the new lots will also be subject to impact fees designed to support park acquisition (Quimby fees). CONCLUSION: Less than significant. 15. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would theproject: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the X existing traffic load and capacity of the street system? b) Exceed,either individually or cumulatively,a level of service X standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads and highways? c) Substantially increase hazards due to design features(e.g.sharp X curves or dangerous intersections)or incompatible rues(e.g. farm equipment)? d) Result in inadequate emergency access? X e) Result in inadequate parking capacity onsite or offsite? X M CRY OF SAN LUIS 081SP0 15 INf LAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHEcaw 2002 S- 4q Attachment 6 Issues, Discussion and Supportlt-,j ..Iformation Sources Sources Po. ._.y Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact ER# 109-02 Issues Unless Impact Mitigation 2903 Broad Street Incorporated f) Conflict with adopted policies supporting alternative X transportation(e.g.bus turnouts,bicycle racks)? g) Conflict with the with San Luis Obispo County Airport Land X Use Plan resulting in substantial safety risks from hazards,noise, or a change in air trafficpatterns? The project will result in a total of five single-family residential dwellings to be served by a single 16-foot wide driveway that will intersect with Rockview Place, an existing local street. Two residences will be accessed by an existing driveway that currently intersects with Broad Street (State Highway 227). Five residences will be accessed by a new driveway that will intersect with Rockview Place at the opposite end of the site. The site contains sufficient space to allow the site to be designed to allow on site parking for tenants, guests and an adequate turn around area. The Institute of Traffic Engineers Manual estimates that single-family homes generate an average of 10 vehicle trips per day. A total of seven homes might generate 70 trips per day on average. Existing street systems are capable of handling the additional trips. Furthermore, the site is within reasonable walking distance from shopping, schools, and transit services. The project intends to use the existing driveway access to the site to serve 2 of the residences. The driveway intersects with an arterial roadway. Presently the existing driveway serves 2 existing residences without significant driveway access difficulties. Left turns out of the project, however, are difficult due to traffic flow. The City Traffic Engineer has reviewed the site for potential traffic impacts and feels that the existing project can be accommodated without introducing significant traffic impacts. Expansion of the site and intensity of the housing is not considered significant since the project will utilize an existing local street at the opposite end of the site to allow access. The project will have 2 driveways,one driveway accessing the project from Broad Street and one from Rockview. The driveway does not act as a through driveway however and does not allow vehicles to travel through the site from street to street. As proposed, the project will not require mitigation to reduce potential traffic impacts. 16.UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would theproject: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable X Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction or expansion of new water X treatment,wasterwater treatment,or storm drainage facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project X from existing entitlements and resources,or are new and expanded water resources needed? d) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider X which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand and addition to the provider's existing commitment? e) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to X accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? f) Comply with federal,state,and local stattnes and regulations X related to solid waste? At this time the City can supply water to the proposed additional residences without significant impacts or without exceeding existing water resources. A water allocation is required, due to the additional demand on the City's water supplies. The City currently has water to allocate, and does so on a"first-come, first-served" basis. CITY OF SAN Luis OBISPO 16 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2002 S5- 0 Attachment 6 Issues, Discussion and Supportiliy .,iformation Sources Sources Po, _.j Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact ER# 109-02 Issues M` Impact Mitigation 2903 Broad Street Incorporated Water is allocated at the time building permits are issued and the Water Impact Fee is paid. The new residences are not likely to create significant impacts to available City Utilities and Service Systems. CONCLUSION: Less than significant. 17.MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the X environment,substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species,cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels,threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community,reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? N/A 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) N/A c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause X substantial adverse effects on human beings,either directly or indirectly? N/A 18.EARLIER ANALYSES. Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration. Section 15063 (c) (3) (D). In this case a discussion should identify the following items: a) Earlier analysis used Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. N/A b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards,and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. N/A c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions of the projeCt. 19. SOURCE REFERENCES 1. City of San Luis Obispo General Plan 2. City of San Luis Obispo Zoning Regulations 3. City of San Luis Obispo Municipal Code (Chapter 17.82, Residential Condominium Development) 4. City of San Luis Obispo Architectural Review Guidelines 5o._ Cityof San Luis Obispo Archaeological Resource Preservation Guidelines 6. Air Pollution Control District Clean Air Plan, 1998 CrrY OF SAN Luis OBISPO 17 Imn LL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL C iECKL=2002 5. 49 Attachment 6 Issues, Discussion and Supportiiy .oforrnatiori Sources Sources Po. —I Potentially toss Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact ER# 109-02 Issues Unless Impact Mitigation 2903 Broad Street Incorporated 7. 1 Project comments frorn other departments and agencies 8. 1 Project Description and proposed osed Planned Unit Development (Tract) Map. Attachments: 1. Project Vicinity Map 2. Proposed Tract Map 3. 65 and 60 dB noise contours, traffic noise source at buildout 1990 scenario(San Luis Obispo Noise Element) REQUIRED MITIGATION AND MONITORING PROGRAMS I. Aesthetics A. All trees shall be protected and preserved on the site unless otherwise approved for removal by the City Arborist. Removal of any tree on site shall require a City tree removal permit and mitigation to consist of on- site replanting of trees of a minimum size 15-gallon nursery stock. B. New construction on the lots shall be subject to architectural review. e Monitoring Program: Plans submitted for architectural review shall show all existing trees and significant vegetation. Trees proposed for removal shall be clearly shown on the plans. A landscape plan that includes drought tolerant landscape and trees shall be required as part of the architectural review application. Continued compliance with aesthetic mitigation measures will be accomplished through final review of the project improvement plans; building and grading plan check; and occupancy release. 2. Geology and Soils A detailed soils engineering report shall to be submitted as part of the grading and building permit applications in order to ensure foundation design that is consistent with city building codes. The soils report shall include at a minimum: data regarding the nature,distribution and strength of the existing soils, conclusions and recommendations for grading procedures, and design criteria for corrective measures, when necessary. Grading and building must be designed and performed in compliance with the soils engineering report. e Monitoring Program: Compliance with this mitigation measure will be accomplished through final review of the project improvement plans and the required soils report; building and grading plan check; and occupancy release. 3. Hydrology and Water Quality A. Provisions must be made to accept and convey offsite drainage to an adequate point of disposal to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director and Building Official. B. All newly graded surfaces shall be protected from soil erosion with City approved temporary erosion control methods or approved permanent landscaping immediately following commencement of final site grading work. C. At least 25% of the driveway and outdoor parking area surfacing shall be constructed using pervious pavers such as turf block. Pervious pavers should be used instead of solid asphalt or concrete with the intention of reducing offsite drainage and allowing some percolation of site drainage. CRY of SAN Luis OBISPO 18 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL.CHECKLIST 2002 S� JlJ Attachment 6 issues, Discussion and Supporter y .oformation Sources Sources Pot. Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant ' Significant Impact ER# 109 02 Issues Unless impact Mitigation 2903 Broad Street Incorporated • Monitoring Program: Plans submitted for architectural review shall provide a grading and drainage plan for the site and show any necessary easements. Driveway surfacing materials shall be shown on the plan submitted for architectural review. Continued compliance with this mitigation measure will be accomplished through final review of the project improvement plans; building and grading plan check; and occupancy release. 4. Noise A. Proposed lots 5 and 6 nearest Broad Street shall have masonry walls designed for noise buffering between the private yard spaces and Broad Street. The walls shall be designed to be compatible with the project and should help create an attractive pedestrian residential setting through changes in alignment, detail and texture, places for people to walk through, and appropriate landscaping. B. Structures shall be designed to meet standards for a noise mitigation package to reduce interior noise by 15dB as provided in the City's noise guidebook. • Monitoring Program: Plans submitted for architectural review shall provide a wall design for the yard spaces on lots 1 and 2. Continued compliance with these mitigation measures will be accomplished through final review of the project improvement plans;building and grading plan check; and occupancy release. 19 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBLSPo INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2002 Attachment 7 Staff Report San Luis Obispo County Airport Land Use Commission DATE: DECEMBER 18, 2002 TO: AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION FROM: BILL ROBESON, COUNTY PLANNING AND BUILDING REFERRING AGENCY: CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING PROPOSED PROJECT APPLICANT: DAVID BOLDUAN SUBJECT: A VOLUNTARY REQUEST FOR DETERMINATION CONSISTENCY OR INCONSISTENCY OF A PROPOSED SUBDIVISION OF A 27,500 SQUARE FOOT LOT INTO 6 LOTS ON A PARCEL ZONED R-2-S.THE SITE IS LOCATED AT 2903 BROAD IN THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO. THE SITE IS LOCATED IN THE SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY REGIONAL AIRPORT PLAN- LAND USE ZONE 6. RECOMMENDATION Recommend denial of the project to the City of San Luis Obispo based on the following:. Finding - The proposed development is inconsistent with the 2002 San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport Land Use Plan because the proposed development is inconsistent with policies S-3 and S-4.The R-2 zone is also inconsistent with the ALUP because this zoning category allows special. function uses such as convalescent home, daycare centers and residential care facilities which are prohibited in the area the proposed development is located. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Proposal: A proposed subdivision of a 27,500 square foot lot into 6 lots in the R-2-S zone. San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport Plan Airport Land Use Areas: The proposed development is within Zone 6, within the safety area that has aircraft operations at 500 to 1000 feet above ground level and within the projected 50dB airport noise contour. The policies that apply deal with the Safety Policies S-3 and S-4. DISCUSSION The referring agency is requesting determination of consistency or inconsistency for the subdivision of a 27,500 square foot lot into 6 lots between 2,300 square feet and 3,628 square feet. According to 4.4.3 Policies, c. S-3, under Section 4.4 Specific Land. Use Policies: Safety, projects or developments located in an area where overflight by aircraft is significant safety hazard County Government Center, San Luis Obispo, CA 93408-(805) 549-5600 Attachlmni 7 December 18, 2002 Page 2 Bolduan Subdivision CitySLO and the anticipated altitude of overflying aircraft is equal to less than 1000 feet AGL, is limited to 6 units per acre. The project proposes 6 units on just over 27,500 square feet (1 acre =43,560 square feet). In addition,the project description does not limit the uses on the property, more specifically it does not limit the uses to those that are consistent with the ALUP nor does it forbid special function uses or conditionally compatible and prohibited uses. Summary The ALUC staff advises that your Commission recommend to the City of San Luis Obispo that this project be determined inconsistent, because the project is located in an area where overflight by aircraft is significant safety hazard and the anticipated altitude of overflying aircraft is equal to less than 1000 feet AGL. Maximum residential density of 6 units per acre is set on this property and the proposed project has 6 units designed in a 27;500 square foot area. And because the project description does not forbid special function uses or conditionally compatible and prohibited uses. Therefore, the project does not meet the policies set forth in the ALUP. �'-S 3 5 -q rte/ L O 4 �• �,"ii u� ak �. \ Pmk - O J Airport Land Use Zones ® Tone 2-Other airport property Zone 3—Approach and climbout extensions ® Zone 4—Potential great conflict with airport operations , IV 1! V" ® Zone 5—Potential moderate conflict with airport operations �✓ �j • X11.7 v © Zone 6—Other land within the airport planning area 4i: Airport Land Use Commission to be advised of proposed development in dais area n ��✓ Airport Safety Areas Q Runway protection canes Q Aims operations at less than 500 feet above ground level ALUP Safety Policies S-2,S-4,and S-5 ate applicable Q Aircraft operations at 500 to 1000 feet above ground level ALUP Safety Policies S-3,S-4,and S-5 are applicable ' evl :5 locod-ee� in f+tis NOTE: Enlarged depictions of Runway Protection Zones are provided in the Airport Layout Plan(Appendix B) ' Attachment 8 Draft Resolution "A" RESOLUTION NO. (2003 Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO CITY COUNCIL APPROVING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 2490 FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2903 BROAD STREET TR/ER 109-02 (Tract 2490) WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo recommended approval of Application TR/ER 109-02, a condominium subdivision with 7 units, and adoption of the Mitigated Negative Declaration at a public hearing in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on January 8, 2003; and WHEREAS, said public hearing was for the purpose of formulating and forwarding recommendations to the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo regarding the project; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo reviewed the project and considered public testimony at a public hearing in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on April 1, 2003 and WHEREAS, notices of said public hearing were made at the time and in the manner required by law; and WHEREAS, the City Council reviewed and considered the Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impact and the mitigation monitoring program prepared for the project; and WHEREAS, the City Council has duly considered all evidence, including the testimony of the applicant, interested parties, and the evaluation and recommendations by staff, presented at said hearing. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: Section 1. Findings. Based upon all the evidence, the Council makes the following findings: 1. The proposed map is consistent with the General Plan because the subdivision will provide for Medium density residential development on property designated for such development. 2. As conditioned, the design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is consistent with the General Plan because each dwelling has access to a satisfactory private open space area and the development will occur as part of the neighborhood pattern anticipated for the medium density residential zone. 3. The site is physically suited for the proposed type of development because it is an under- developed site that is adjacent to an existing street right-of-way and it is close to the S7r �� ER/TR 109-02 - - Attachment 8 2903 Broad 4-01-03 downtown and associated services. 4. As conditioned, the site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development because the site is within an existing residential developed site adjacent to existing roadways and additional residential dwellings, services are available to serve the development, and utilities have been designed to serve the site per City standards. 5. The design of the subdivision, or the type of improvements, is not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and unavoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat because the site does not have any creeks or other potentially significant habitat areas for fish or wildlife. 6. The design of the subdivision, or type of improvements, is not likely to cause serious public health problems because the type of improvements are residential and development is a similar scale to existing development already functioning at the site. Additionally, new construction will be designed to meet existing building and safety codes. 7. The design of the subdivision, or the type of improvements, will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, property within the proposed subdivision because no such easements exist. 8. The proposed density of the housing and the design of the proposed residences will not cause unreasonable, health, safety or welfare concerns or expose people to excessive noise since it is an infill site at the outer edge of the San Luis Obispo County Airport Land Use Plan. 9. The Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project adequately identifies and evaluates the potential impacts associated with this project and where impacts are potentially significant, mitigation measures are provided to reduce these impacts to less than significant levels. Section 2. Environmental Review. The City Council does hereby adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project, with the following mitigation measures and monitoring program. 1. Aesthetics A. All trees shall be protected and preserved on the site unless otherwise approved for removal by the City Arborist. Removal of any tree on site shall require a City tree removal permit and mitigation to consist of on-site replanting of trees of a minimum size 15-gallon nursery stock. B. New construction on the lots shall be subject to architectural review. Aesthetics Monitoring Program: Plans submitted for architectural review shall show all existing trees and significant vegetation. Trees proposed for removal shall be clearly shown on the plans. A landscape plan that includes drought tolerant landscape and trees shall be required as part of the Page 2 5-.SZo ERITR 109-02 Attachment 8 2903 Broad 4-01-03 architectural review application. Continued compliance with aesthetic mitigation measures will be accomplished through final review of the project improvement plans; building and grading plan check; and occupancy release. 2. Geology and Soils A. A detailed soils engineering report shall to be submitted as part of the grading and building permit applications in order to ensure foundation design that is consistent with city building codes. The soils report shall include at a minimum: data regarding the nature, distribution and strength of the existing soils, conclusions and recommendations for grading procedures, and design criteria for corrective measures, when necessary. Grading and building must be designed and performed in compliance with the soils engineering report. Geology &Soils Monitoring Program: Compliance with this mitigation measure will be accomplished through final review of the project improvement plans and the required soils report; building and grading plan check; and occupancy release. 3. Hydrology and Water Quality A. Provisions must be made to accept and convey offsite drainage to an adequate point of disposal to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director and Building Official. B. All newly graded surfaces shall be protected from soil erosion with City approved temporary erosion control methods or approved permanent landscaping immediately following commencement of final site grading work. C. At least 25% of the driveway and outdoor parking area surfacing shall be constructed using pervious pavers such as turf block. Pervious pavers should be used instead of solid asphalt or concrete with the intention of reducing offsite drainage and allowing some percolation of site drainage. Hydrology and Water Qualms Monitoring Program: Plans submitted for architectural review shall provide a grading and drainage plan for the site and show any necessary easements. Driveway surfacing materials shall be shown on the plan submitted for architectural review. Continued compliance with this mitigation measure will be accomplished through final review of the project improvement plans; building and grading plan check; and occupancy release. 4. Noise A. Proposed lots 5 and 6 nearest Broad Street shall have a landscaped berm designed for noise buffering between the private yard spaces and Broad Street. The berm shall be at least 4 feet in height and designed to be compatible with the project and planted with appropriate drought tolerant landscaping consisting of trees and shrubs. B. Structures shall be designed to meet standards for a noise mitigation package to reduce interior noise by 15dB as provided in the City's noise guidebook. Noise Monitoring Program: Page 3 �� 1 ER/IR 109-02 Attachment 8 2903 Broad 4-01-03 Plans submitted for architectural review shall provide a landscape design that includes a berm for the street yard. Continued compliance with these mitigation measures will be accomplished through final review of the project improvement plans building and grading plan check; and occupancy release. Section 3. Approval. The City Council does hereby recommend approval of application ER/TR 109-02, subject to the following conditions and code requirements. 1. The project shall be forwarded to the Architectural Review Commission to review final design details and ensure the project contains the following design elements. 2. At least 25% of the common driveway and private outdoor driveway areas shall be designed with pervious surfaces such as pavers or turf block. 3. Usable amenities including a pathway, lawn area, appropriate landscape, and a bench shall be provided within the common open space area. 4. A common address sign shall be placed within each driveway intersection-at the public street. Address sign shall list all unit addresses and shall be reviewed with architectural plans for consistency with the proposed subdivision and the existing neighborhood. 5. A complete landscape plan shall be provide for the project common areas and front yard areas of each residence. The landscape plan shall provide trees, shrubs groundcover plants, and mulch groundcover for exposed soil areas. An irrigation plan, consisting of water conserving drip irrigation, shall be provided. Plant species shall be selected for drought tolerance and compatibility with local conditions while providing shade, screening and aesthetic enhancement of the property. A conceptual landscape plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Architectural Review Commission. 6. An earthen berm with a minimum height of 4 feet shall be provided in the street yard area between the proposed outdoor parking area and Broad Street. The berm shall be planted with trees, shrubs and groundcover designed to screen the parking area and buffer the residences from Broad Street. 7. The final map shall indicate building footprints, building setbacks and all property lines. Building setbacks shall be designed to maintain a minimum of 10 feet between proposed buildings and existing buildings on adjacent properties. Setbacks between buildings on adjacent properties shall be indicated on the map. 8. Consistent fencing plans for the north and south property lines shall be submitted for review and approval by the Architectural Review Commission. A screening fence and landscape shall be required for the south property line adjacent to the existing commercial district property. Page 4 Sf''Sr8 I ER TR 109-02 Attachment 8 2903 Broad 4-01-03 9. The applicant shall pay Park In-Lieu Fees prior to recordation of the Final Map, consistent with SLO Municipal Code Section 16.40.080. 10. The project shall include a minimum of one affordable dwelling unit or the applicant shall pay an affordable housing in lieu fee equal to 5% of the total building valuation of the new dwelling units. The unit shall be deed restricted for a period of not less than 30 years. The value of the unit shall be equal to or greater than 5% of the total building valuation of the project (project is considered to be the construction of five 2 bedroom dwelling units). If a studio unit is chosen for deed restriction, the applicant shall pay 50% of the in-lieu fees in addition to providing the affordable studio. 11. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66474.9(b), the subdivider shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City and/or its agents, officers and employees from any claim, action or proceeding against the City and/or its agents, officers or employees to attack, set aside, void or annul, the approval by the City of this subdivision, and all actions relating thereto, including but not limited to environmental review. Code Requirements 1. The existing driveway approach shall be upgraded as necessary to provide disabled access behind the ramp per the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and city standards to the approval of the Public Works Director. 2. Additional public right-of-way or public pedestrian easements may be necessary to accommodate improvements required for Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) compliance, to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director. 3. The developer shall be responsible to hire a registered civil engineer or land surveyor to provide all grades, layout, staking, and cut-sheets necessary for the construction of frontage improvements in accordance with the City's curb grade plan and/or Cal Trans standards for Broad Street (State Highway 227). 4. The subdivider shall dedicate a 2m wide public utility easement across the frontage of each lot facing a public right of way. Said easement shall be adjacent to and contiguous with all public right-of-way lines bordering each lot. 5. The subdivider shall dedicate a 3m wide street tree easement across the frontage of each lot facing a public right of way. Said easement shall be adjacent to and contiguous with all public right-of-way lines bordering each lot. 6. A new streetlight shall be installed on the Broad St frontage on the existing wood power pole, adjacent southerly to the site, to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director. 7. The proposed on-site sewer main will be privately owned and maintained by the Homeowner's Association. Page 5 ERITR 109-02 Attachment 8 2903 Broad 4-01-03 8. Final grades and alignments of all public water, sewer and storm drains (including service laterals and meters) shall be subject to change to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director and Utilities Engineer. 9. Separate utilities, including water, sewer, gas, electricity, telephone, and cable TV shall be served to each parcel to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director and serving utility companies. Utilities to new residences shall be underground. 10. The subdivider shall provide individual electrical,phone, television, natural gas, water service, and sewer connections to the approval of the affected utility companies and the Public Works Director. 11. All lots shall be graded to preclude cross-lot drainage, or, appropriate easements and drainage facilities shall be provided, to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director. Mapping Requirements 12. The subdivider shall submit a final map to the city for review, approval, and recordation. The map shall be prepared by, or under the supervision of a registered civil engineer or licensed land surveyor. The final map shall be prepared in accordance with the Subdivision Map Act and the Subdivision Regulations. 13. The map shall be tied to at least two points of the City's horizontal control network, California State Plane Coordinate System, Zone 5 (1991.35 epoch adjustment of the North American Datum of 1983 also referred to as "NAD 83" -meters) for direct import into the Geographic Information System(GIS)database. Submit this data either via email, CD or a 3-1I2" floppy disc containing the appropriate data for use with AutoCAD,version 2000 or earlier(model space in real world coordinates,NAD 83 -m). If you have any questions regarding format, please call prior to submitting electronic data. 14. The final map shall use the International System of Units (metric system). The English System of Units may be used on the final map where necessary (e.g. all record data shall be entered on the map in the record units, metric translations should be in parenthesis), to the approval of the City Engineer. 15. Electronic files and stamped and signed drawings shall be submitted for all public improvement plans prior to map recordation or commencing with improvements, whichever occurs first. Submittal documents shall include the electronic drawing files (.dwg) and any associated plot files along with one original, stamped and signed;ink on mylar set of plans. 16. Prior to acceptance by the City of public improvements, the developer's engineer shall submit a digital version of all public improvement plans and record drawings, compatible with Autocad (Digital Interchange Format, DXF) for Geographic Information System (GIS) purposes, to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director. Page 6 ER/TR 109-02 Attachment 8 2903 Broad 4-01-03 Transportation 17. Traffic impact fees shall be paid prior to the issuance of a building permit. 18. Bicycle Parking: all dwellings within the proposed subdivision area shall provide bicycle parking in compliance with Section 17.16.060,Table 6.5 of the Zoning Regulations. Utilities 19. Upon development, a water allocation will be required, due to the additional demand on the City's water supplies. The City currently has water to allocate, and does so on a "first-come, first-served" basis. Water is allocated at the time building permits are issued and the Water Impact Fee is paid. Both the Water and the Wastewater Impact Fees are based on a per residential unit basis, with appropriate credit given for prior accounts on the property. Water and Wastewater Impact Fees shall be paid at the time building permits are issued. 20. Each parcel is to have its own separate water and wastewater service laterals. Existing water and sewer services shall be properly relocated and resized, if necessary, to ensure that each parcel is appropriately served in accordance with City standards. The development is allowed to utilize a common sewer lateral to serve the new lots, providing a proper agreement is in place documenting the joint ownership and maintenance responsibilities of the owners. 21. If a private fire hydrant is required on-site, the hydrant lateral shall include a USC approved backflow preventer appropriate for the proposed use. The backflow preventer shall be located as close to the public right-of-way as possible, in direct alignment with the connection to the public water main. The backflow preventer can be located no further than 25 feet from the right-of-way line without prior written approval of the Utilities Engineer. The USC approved backflow preventer shall also include detector capabilities (double detector check assembly), as a result of serving a hydrant. The FDC may be located behind the backflow prevention assembly, in accordance with manufacturer's recommendations. The location and orientation of the FDC shall be approved by the Fire Department. 22. By ordinance, the applicant is required to prepare a recycling plan for approval by the City to address the recycling of construction waste for projects valued at over$50,000 or demolition of structures over 1000 square feet. The recycling plan shall be submitted to the Building Department with the building plans. The City's Solid Waste Coordinator can provide some guidance in the preparation of an appropriate recycling plan. 23. The redevelopment of the site triggers the Utilities Department Sewer Lateral Abandonment Policy. This policy states that the sewer lateral must be abandoned at the main prior to demolition or construction,unless the lateral is intended for reuse and it passes a video inspection. If a sewer lateral exists,and is intended for reuse,the owner shall submit a VHS videotape documenting the internal condition of the pipe to the Utilities Department for approval. Page 7 �'L� ER/TR 109-02 Attachment 8 2903 Broad 4-01-03 City Arborist 24. Fifteen (15) gallon street trees shall be planted to meet city standards. (1 per 351f of street frontage on both streets) Species shall be per city special approved list for Broad St. and the general list for the Rockview Place frontage. 25. If the City Arborist identifies trees requiring safety pruning, all pruning shall be performed by a certified Arborist. Fire Department 26. Fire Department Access: Access shall be in accordance with Article 9 of the California Fire Code. Fire apparatus access shall be provided when any portion of the exterior wall of the fust story is exceeds 300' from fire apparatus access as measured by an approved route around the exterior of the building. 27. Water Supplies: Water supplies shall be in accordance with Sections 901 and 903 of the California Fire Code. An approved water supply connected to the City distribution system and capable of providing the required fire flow for fire protection is required. The fire flow shall be determining using Appendix III-A of the California Fire Code. The minimum acceptable fire flow shall be 1,000 gallons per minute. 28. Fire Hydrants: Fire hydrants shall be installed in accordance with Section 903.4 of the California Fire Code. The location, number and type of hydrants connected to the City system shall be determined using Appendix 111-B of the California Fire Code and the approved City Engineering Standards. Unit 4 B exceeds the 300' distance from an approved water supply. An onsite hydrant shall be required. 29. Fire Protection Systems and Equipment: Fire protection systems shall be in accordance with the California Fire Code and California Building Code as amended by the City. An approved automatic fire sprinkler system shall be installed within each dwelling unit in accordance with National Fire Protection Standard Pamphlet 13D. 30. Fire Safety During Construction: Buildings undergoing construction, alteration or demolition shall be in accordance with Article 87 of the California Fire Code. Fire extinguishers shall be provided for buildings under construction. Combustible debris, waste material or rubbish shall not be accumulated within buildings or burned on the site. Page 8 ER/TR 109-02 Attachment 8 2903 Broad 4-01-03 On motion of , seconded by , and on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: the foregoing resolution was adopted this_day of , 2003. Mayor David F. Romero ATTEST: City Clerk Lee Price APPROVED AS TO FORM: s• Acting City ttorney Gil Trujillo G:\GROUPS\COMDEV\CD-PLAN\Pdunsmore\Subdivisions\TR 109-02(2903 Broad)\Resolution 109-02.doc Page 9 �-l�3 Attachment 9 Resolution `B" RESOLUTION NO. (2003 Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO CITY COUNCIL DENYING A VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 2490 AND ASSOCIATED MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2903 BROAD STREET TR/ER 109-02 (TRACT MAP 2490) WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo reviewed the project and considered public testimony at a public hearing in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on April 1, 2003; and WHEREAS, notices of said public hearing were made at the time and in the manner required by law; and WHEREAS, the City Council reviewed and considered the Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impact and the mitigation monitoring program prepared for the project; and WHEREAS, the City Council has duly considered all evidence, including the testimony of the applicant, interested parties, and the evaluation and recommendations by staff, presented at said hearing. BE IT RESOLVED,by the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: That this Council, after consideration of Tentative Parcel Map No. MS 139-02 (County Map No. SLO 02-0210), staff and Planning Commission recommendations, and reports thereof makes the following findings: 1. The site is not suited for the type and design of the subdivision because the narrow lot and limited street access is not conducive to appropriate single-family development. 2. The property to be divided is not of such size or shape, or is not affected by such topographic conditions, that it is impossible, impractical or undesirable, in the particular case, to conform to the strict application of the regulations codified in this title (Title 16, Subdivisions, of the SLO Municipal Code). The lot could be subdivided to meet the City's Subdivision Standards if fewer lots were created on the site. 3. The exception will allow approval of a minor subdivision that will result in improvements that may be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare, or be injurious to other properties in the vicinity because the additional density may exceed allowable Airport Land Use Zone 6 density. The project may place excessive density within an airport flyover zone. Attachment 9 Resolution No. (2003_Series) Page 2 4. Granting the exception is not in accord with the intent and purposes of the Subdivision Ordinance, the Zoning Regulations, and is not consistent with the General Plan or other City adopted plans and standards, because the lot sizes are not consistent with standard R-2 district allowable lot sizes and the project requires setback exceptions in order to be approved. SECTION 2. Denial. The request for approval of Tentative Tract Map No. TR/ER 109-02 (TRACT MAP 2490) and proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration is hereby denied. On motion of seconded by and on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: the foregoing resolution was adopted this_day of , 2003. Mayor David F. Romero ATTEST: City Clerk Lee Price APPROVED AS TO FORM: Acting Cityme it Trujillo �� LP