Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-04-2017 Item 16, Review Appeal of ARC decision regarding 71 Palomar Meeting Date: 4/4/2017 FROM: Michael Codron, Community Development Director Prepared By: Rachel Cohen, Associate Planner SUBJECT: REVIEW OF AN APPEAL (FILED BY TERESA MATTHEWS AND LYDIA MOURENZA) OF THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION’S DECISION TO APPROVE THE REHABILITATION, ADAPTIVE REUSE, AND REPOSITIONING OF THE MASTER LIST HISTORIC SANDFORD HOUSE AND THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW 33-UNIT, MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL PROJECT ON 71 PALOMAR DRIVE, WITH A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW RECOMMENDATION Adopt a resolution (Attachment A) denying the appeal and upholding the Architectural Review Commission's approval of the rehabilitation, adaptive reuse, and repositioning of the Master List Historic Sandford House and the construction of a new 33-unit, multi-family residential project on 71 Palomar Drive, with a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Review. PROJECT INFORMATION Site Data Applicant LR Development Group Representative Thom Jess, Architect Historic Status Master List Zoning R-4 (High Density Residential) General Plan High Density Residential Site Area 57,500 square feet (1.32 acres) Environmental Status Mitigated Negative Declaration REPORT-IN-BRIEF The applicant is proposing to reposition, rehabilitate, and adaptively reuse the Master List Historic Sandford House as part of a new 33-unit, multi-family residential project located at the corner of Luneta and Palomar. The project includes the repositioning of the Historic Sandford House for the proposed project’s leasing office and amenity space (study room, fitness room, etc.) and constructing six apartment buildings (four, 2-story structures; two 4-story structures built into the hill - all with a maximum height of 35 feet) with a total of 33 residential units (five studios, four of which will be deed restricted for very low income; sixteen two-bedroom Packet Pg. 203 16 apartments; and twelve three bedroom apartments). The project is also proposing to remove 55 of the 59 existing trees on the site and replanting a total of 110 (34 trees on the project site and 76 off-site). The project includes 63 parking spaces within a two-level garage beneath the two, north apartment buildings that is accessed from Palomar Avenue and 66 bicycle parking spaces. Based on community feedback and prior Council direction, alternatives are being considered in place of the Luneta Drive connection included in the Circulation Element of the City’s General Plan, such as a pedestrian and bicycle connection only. Conditions of approval are included to allow for implementation of these alternatives in the event such policies are modified in the future. However, until any changes are made to the Circulation Element, the project shows compliance with current policies. On March 28, 2016, the CHC reviewed a proposal for a 41-unit multi-family development with four multi-level buildings and the rehabilitation of the Master List Historic Sandford House. The CHC continued the item and provided direction to the applicant that included reducing the scale of the new structures on the site and providing more distance between the historic house and the new construction (Attachment J, CHC Minutes). On June 27, 2016, the CHC reviewed a revised project proposal that included the rehabilitation of the Master List Historic Sandford House and a newly designed 33-unit multi-family development that responded to CHC direction. The CHC voted 4:2 recommending the ARC find the project consistent with Historic Preservation Program Guidelines and Secretary of Interior Standards with a series of conditions (see Attachment I, CHC Resolution). On August 1, 2016, the ARC participated in a conceptual review of the proposed project and provided feedback to the applicant regarding trees, landscaping, architectural elements and materials, scale and massing. On January 30, 2017, the ARC reviewed the proposed multi-family project and the Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Review and considered the CHC’s recommendation and the response by the applicant to ARC direction. The ARC voted 4:1 to approve the repositioning, rehabilitation, and adaptive reuse of the Master List Historic Sandford House and the proposed 33-unit multi-family residential project (Attachment G, ARC Resolution). On February 8, 2017, Teresa Matthews and Lydia Mourenza filed an appeal of the ARC’s decision to approve the project (Attachment E, Appeal Application & Letter). The appeal states that the project has not been properly analyzed and as currently designed will have a significant negative impact on the environment as well as adverse effects on health and safety. The scope of this review is to provide an evaluation of the project in terms of its consistency with the General Plan, Community Design Guidelines and other applicable City policies and standards. The Council is being asked to review the proposed project, the concerns of the appeal and provide a final determination on the proposed project. Staff is recommending the Council deny the appeal and uphold the ARC’s approval of the project (Attachment A, Resolution A) because the project respects site constraints, will be compatible with the scale and character of the neighborhood, is consistent with the City’s Packet Pg. 204 16 development standards and General Plan policies and the Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact finds that with incorporation of mitigation measures, environmental impacts of the project will be less than significant. As such, the project will not be detrimental to the health, safety, and welfare of persons living or working at the site or in the vicinity. If the Council approves the project, the project will have all necessary entitlements needed to move forward for building permits. The following report provides additional background and analysis of the proposed project and the appeal. DISCUSSION Site Information/Setting Table 1: Site Information Site Size 57,500 square feet (1.32 acres) Present Use & Development Residential; Master List Historic Sandford House Land Use Designation High Density Residential (R-4) Topography Elevation: Min. 245 feet; Max. 270 ft. Slope: ~11% slope Current Access From Luneta Drive Surrounding Use/Zoning North, East & West: R-4 (High Density Residential) South: R-1 (Single Family Residential) Project Description: The applicant is proposing the following (Attachment D, Project Plans):  Removal of the non-historic additions to the main structure;  Removal of the non-historic garage, carport and the secondary residential building;  Repositioning the historic house approximately 33 feet east and 16 feet south of its current location; Packet Pg. 205 16  Rehabilitation of the historic structure and adaptive reuse for the proposed project’s leasing office and amenity space (study room, fitness room, etc.);  Removal of 551 of the 59 existing trees on the site and replanting 110 trees (34 trees on site and 76 trees off site);  Construction of six apartment buildings (four, 2 -story structures; two 4-story structures built into the hill - all with a maximum height of 35 feet) with a total of 33 residential units (five studios of which four are deed restricted for very low income residents, sixteen two-bedroom apartments, and twelve three bedroom apartments);  63 parking spaces and 66 bicycle parking spaces within a two-level garage beneath the two, north apartment buildings, accessed from Palomar Avenue; and  Road improvements to Luneta Drive.  Materials include: smooth stucco, horizontal lap siding, and wood balcony railings. 1 Approximately 9 of the 55 trees proposed to be removed are located within the area for the Luneta Street extension. If this extension is not required based on a General Plan amendment, then the trees may remain in place depending on the alternative design. These trees include eucalyptus, a coast live oak, a Monterey pine, a myoporum, and an acacia tree. Figure 2: Site Plan: The image shows the locations of each of the residential structures. Parking is located under the most northerly buildings (outlined) on the site. Ingress and egress to the parking garage is off Palomar Avenue (shown with the arrow). Packet Pg. 206 16 Project Statistics Table 2: Project Comparison to R-4 Zoning Standards Item Proposed R-4 Zoning Standards Setback Front Yard 16 feet 15 feet Other Yard 10 feet 10 feet Max. Height of Structures 35 feet 35 feet Max. Building Coverage (footprint) 43% 60% Density Units (DU) 5 studios (2.5 DU), 16 two-bedrooms (16 DU), and 12 three bedrooms (18 DU) = 36.51 DU 28.56 (24 DU per acre) + 25% (8 DU2) density bonus = 36.56 DU for the site Parking Spaces 3 Vehicle 63 61 Bicycle (long-term) 66 66 Bicycle (short-term) 22 4 Notes: 1. 28.56 DU x 25% density bonus for providing 7% very -low affordable housing units (4 studio units). Per SLOMC 17.16.010, studio apartments are 0.50 DUs, One bedroom units are 0.66 DUs, Two bedroom units are 1 DU, and three bedroom units are 1.5 DUs. 2. The 7.14 DU density bonus for this project rounds up to 8 DU based on SLOMC 17.90.040(B): All density calculations resulting in fractional units shall be rounded up to the next whole number . 3. Chapter 17.90.040 (Standard Incentives for housing projects) includes parking ratio of 1 space per studio and 1-bedroom and 2 spaces per 2- and 3-bedroom residential units. Historic Background In 1983, the Historic Sandford House was added to the Master List of Historic Resources based on its architectural significance as an excellent example of the Colonial Revival style of American architecture (Attachment K, Mitigated Negative Declaration – Attachment 4: Historic Evaluation Report). The report notes the Sandford House retains several of the notable characteristics which reflect Colonial Revival style, including symmetrically placed window features with a prominent main entryway and neoclassical portico. The Historic Evaluation identified the period of significance for the structure as circa 1895-1930. The Historic Sandford House was likely constructed in 1895 (no records have been found with the exact date of construction). Reginald Wills-Sandford, (for whom the house is named), and his wife Mary Woods Sperry owned the property from 1895 to 1899. In 1930 the solarium was added and integrated into the south side of the Historic Sandford House. The addition of the solarium is considered historically significant as it contributes to the architectural style and character of the house (Attachment K, Mitigated Negative Declaration – Attachment 4: Historic Resources Report, Section 6.2.1). In the 1950’s other additions and accessory structures were added to the property. These non - historic alterations included: two single-story stucco clad additions to the rear (north side) of the main structure, a 2-story addition, a detached garage, and a secondary residential building. In 1970, the garage was converted into sleeping quarters and a carport was added (Attachment K, Mitigated Negative Declaration – Attachment 4: Historic Resources Report, Sections 5.2 and Packet Pg. 207 16 6.2.1). Policy Background 1. Land Use Element The subject property has been identified in the Land Use Element (LUE) as High Density Residential. High Density Residential is defined as attached dwellings in two and three story buildings, with common outdoor areas and very compact private outdoor spaces. This type of development is appropriate in some locations near Cal Poly, in the Downtown core, near employment concentrations, and near transit corridors and nodes (Table 1: General Plan Land Use Designations and Development Standards, Land Use Element). LUE Policy 2.2.6. states that the City shall promote livability, quiet enjoyment, and safety for all residents. Characteristics of quality neighborhoods vary from neighborhood to neighborhood, but often include one or more of the following characteristics:  A mix of housing type styles, density, and affordability.  Design and circulation features that create and maintain a pedestrian scale.  Nearby services and facilities including schools, parks, retail (e.g., grocery store, drug store), restaurants and cafes, and community centers or other public facilities.  A tree canopy and well-maintained landscaping.  A sense of personal safety (e.g., low crime rate, short police and emergency response times).  Convenient access to public transportation.  Well-maintained housing and public facilities. Additionally, the LUE states the City shall promote infill development, redevelopment, rehabilitation, and adaptive reuse efforts that contribute positively to existing neighborhoods and surrounding areas (LUE Policy 2.2.7). 2. Housing Element The Housing Element (HE) supports LUE goals and policies and includes several specific policies that encourage infill residential development, housing for all financial strata and the promotion of higher residential density where appropriate.2 The City has outlined in HE Goal 2 that housing should be in-line with the Regional Housing Needs Allocation, for the 2014 - 2019 planning period (see Table 3). The project is proposing to construct four very-low income units 2 Housing Element Policies: Policy 2.2: Encourage housing production for all financial strata of the City's population, in the proportions show n in the Regional Housing Needs Allocation, for the 2014 - 2019 planning period. Policy 6.10: To help meet the Quantified Objectives, the City will support residential infill development and promote higher residential density where appropriate. Policy 7.1: Within established neighborhoods, new residential development shall be of a character, size, density and quality that respects the neighborhood character and maintains the quality of life for existing and future residents. Policy 7.2: Higher density housing should maintain high quality standards for unit design, privacy, security, on -site amenities, and public and private open space. Such standards should be flexible enough to allow innovative design solutions in special circumstances, e.g. in developing mixed-use developments or in housing in the Downtown Core. Packet Pg. 208 16 which are some of the more challenging units to be provided within a private development. The HE further states that affordable housing units should be intermixed and not segregated by economic status and encourages housing development that meets a variety of special needs, including large families, single parents, disabled persons, the elderly, students, veterans, the homeless, or those seeking congregate care, group housing, single-room occupancy or co- housing accommodations, utilizing universal design (HE Policy 8.1). The Housing Element further states:  That the City should continue to consider increasing residential densities above state density bonus allowances for projects that provide housing for low, very low and extremely low income households (Policy 2.17); and  That the City should continue to incentivize affordable housing development with density bonuses, parking reductions and other development incentives, including City financial assistance (Program 6.19). Table 3: Housing Element Table 6: Remaining RHNA need based on dwelling units approved, under construction or built (January 1, 2014 to October 11, 2016) Income Category A B A-B New Construction Need (RHNA) Dwelling Units Approved, Under Construction or Built Remaining RHNA Need, Dwelling Units Extremely-Low (< 31% of AMI) 142 5 137 Very Low (31-50% of AMI) 143 53 90 Low (51-80% of AMI) 179 81 98 Moderate (81-120% of AMI) 202 95 107 Above Moderate (>120% of AMI) 478 4781 0 TOTAL RHNA UNITS 1,144 7121 432 Source: City of San Luis Obispo Community Development Department, 2016 1No credit allowed for the number of above moderate units built that exceed RHNA. Actual above moderate units = 1,350. 3. Major City Goal Housing was determined to be one of the most important, highest priority goals for the City to accomplish over 2015-17 financial year. The goal states: Implement the Housing Element, facilitating workforce, affordable, supportive and transitional housing options, including support for needed infrastructure within the City’s fair share. 4. State Housing Density Bonus Law California State law encourages the development of affordable housing and provides density bonuses based on the inclusion of affordable units within a project. In addition to a density bonus, by providing a certain percentage of affordable units within a project (as outlined in Section 17.90.060 of the Zoning Regulations), a developer may receive alternative incentives or concessions for the project such as exceptions to height limits, setback and parking requirements and deferral or waiver of fees. Government Code § 65915(e)(1) states, in pertinent part: Packet Pg. 209 16 …In no case may a city, county, or city and county apply any development standard that will have the effect of physically precluding the construction of a development meeting the criteria of subdivision (b) at the densities or with the concessions or incentives permitted by [the Density Bonus Law]. This section allows a developer to request a waiver or concession of a development standard and the City must grant the waiver or concession unless it finds that the waiver or reduction would have a specific, adverse impact upon health, safety, or the physical environment, and for which there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific adverse impact. A “specific, adverse impact” is defined as follows: … a significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact, based on objective, identified written public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions as they existed on the date the application was deemed complete. For purposes of this section, inconsistency with the zoning ordinance or general plan land use designation does not constitute a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety. As it relates to this specific project it is consistent with the zoning ordinance and the General Plan land use designation. For this project, the developer is setting aside four units for very-low income (7%) which equals a State mandated 25% density bonus in accordance with State law and the City’s Zoning Code. The developer has requested standard incentives for parking requirements as outlined in Section 17.90.040 of the Zoning Regulations and is fully consistent with all development standards. 5. Housing Accountability Act The Housing Accountability Act (“HAA”) applies to “housing development projects.” “Housing development project” means a use consisting of any of the following:  Residential units only.  Mixed-use developments consisting of residential and nonresidential uses in which nonresidential uses are limited to neighborhood commercial uses and to the first floor of buildings that are two or more stories.  Transitional housing or supportive housing. The HAA provides certain protections for housing development projects. One of the State legislature’s stated reasons for the enactment of the HAA is because the legislature found that [m]any local governments do not give adequate attention to the economic, environmental, and social costs of decisions that result in disapproval of housing projects, reduction in density of housing projects, and excessive standards for housing projects. Gov. Code § 65589.5(a)(4). In light of this declaration of policy, the legislature enacted the HAA which prohibits a local agency from: (1) disapproving a housing development project; (2) conditioning the approval of a housing development project for very low, low or Packet Pg. 210 16 moderate income households which renders the project infeasible; or 3) approving but requiring the housing development project to be developed at a lesser density than allowed by the agency’s zoning code unless the agency makes a finding that the project will have a specific adverse impact on the public health and safety and there is no feasible way to mitigate the impact. Again, “specific, adverse impact” is defined as … a significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact, based on objective, identified written public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions as they existed on the date the application was deemed complete and inconsistency with the zoning ordinance or general plan land use designation does not constitute a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety. See Gov. Code § 65589.5(d)(2) and § 65589.5(j) The proposed project at 71 Palomar is a housing development project within the meaning of the HAA because it consists of residential units only. Staff does not believe that the adaptive reuse of the historic Sanford House as an office and amenity center disqualifies the project from this definition as those uses are purely accessory to this housing development project. Project Review Background March 28, 2016: The CHC reviewed a proposal for a 41-unit multi-family development with four multi-level buildings. The proposal also included the rehabilitation of the Master List Historic Sandford House. The CHC continued the item and provided the following direction to the applicant: 1. Maintain aspects of the cultural landscape of the Sandford House by reducing the extent to which it is relocated and increase the distance between the historic house and the right- of-way and the new development; 2. Re-evaluate ways in which to reduce the scale and massing and detailing of the new development to ensure that the new construction does not overwhelm the prominence of the historic residence; and 3. New construction should not mimic the historic house, but elements such as fenestration, window patterns and other detailing should be considered that highlight the historic elements of the Sandford House. June 27, 2016: The CHC reviewed a revised proposal for the subject site that included the rehabilitation of the Master List Historic Sandford House and proposed a newly designed 33-unit multi-family development in response to the CHC direction. The CHC voted 4:2 recommending the ARC find the project consistent with Historic Preservation Program Guidelines and Secretary of Interior Standards with a series of conditions (see Attachment I, CHC Resolution). The CHC provided the following recommendations to ARC: 1. The ARC shall evaluate further reduction in scale and massing to ensure the new development does not overwhelm the prominence of the Historic Sandford House and Packet Pg. 211 16 give great consideration to the City Arborist’s recommendations for protection of trees. 2. Plans submitted for final review shall include all details, cut sheets, dimensions, and specifications as determined by staff to be necessary for the ARC to ensure all materials, windows, and architectural details are of high quality and suitable for an infill project adjacent to an architecturally significant historic structure. 3. The project shall remove the smooth panel horizontal elements around the windows on Buildings A and B. August 1, 2016: The ARC participated in a conceptual review on the proposed project in order to provide feedback to the applicant. The ARC provided the following list of directional items: Tree Removal and Landscaping The ARC deferred directional comments on tree removal and landscaping until they have more information. The ARC requested the following information be included for their review: 1. Provide a tree survey, biological report, wildlife habitat information, bird survey and an aesthetics analysis. 2. Review the trees individually and collectively. 3. Discussion on the historic siting and location of plantings. 4. Vintage of the trees. 5. Carefully consider the use or need of water as a part of the new landscaping plan. 6. Provide details on the landscape plans that show exactly how vegetation will be planted along the northern property line. Materials and Architectural Elements 1. Provide durable materials – include details on plans of the fit and finish of all the materials on all (4) sides of the project. 2. Provide details of the exterior light fixtures. 3. Consider using lighter colors. Scale and Massing 1. Reduce the number of the bedrooms, especially in the structures closest to Luneta. Consider putting single level structures at Luneta. 2. Provide individuality between the buildings. 3. Lower the perceived elevation/height of the structures along Luneta and the Sandford House. 4. Provide second-story off-sets or some other element to break up the two-story planes. 5. Provide more setbacks and articulation along the north elevation of the project, especially the northeast corner (east elevation, right corner, sheet A3.5). 6. Pedestrian circulation between buildings appears too close. Provide wider walkways between the buildings. Packet Pg. 212 16 January 30, 2017: The ARC reviewed the proposed multi-family project and the Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Review. The review also included consideration of the CHC’s recommendation and as well as changes made to the project in response to ARC direction. The ARC voted 4:1 to approve the repositioning, rehabilitation, and adaptive reuse of the Master List Historic Sandford House and the proposed 33-unit multi-family residential project (Attachment G, ARC Resolution). Appeal On February 8, 2017, Tessa Matthews and Lydia Mourenza filed an appeal of the ARC’s decision to approve the project (Attachment E, Appeal Application & Letter). The appeal states that the project has not been properly analyzed and as currently designed will have a significant negative impact on the environment as well as adverse effects on h ealth and safety. Specifically, the appeal lists the following issues/concerns: 1. The Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental review is flawed; 2. The Arborist Reports are flawed and cannot be relied upon; 3. The Biological Studies are limited and the proposed mitigations outlined in the IS/MND are fatally flawed; 4. The Aesthetics Section of the IS/MND is inadequate; 5. Moving the Sandford House will compromise the integrity of the structure; 6. Parking for the project is inadequate; 7. The IS/MND does not adequately address safety, noise and the overturn of family occupied houses with 150 new neighborhood residents and their visitors; 8. The project will overburden utilities in the neighborhood; and 9. The ARC was erroneously instructed that California State Law prohibited them from reducing the overall density of the project. Staff Analysis of the Appeal Project plans were reviewed in terms of their consistency with the City’s General Plan, Zoning Regulations, Community Design Guidelines for Multi-family Housing Design (Chapter 5, Section 5.4), State housing law, laws concerning historic structures and environmental impacts as required by California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. Below is a discussion of the concerns and issues identified within the appeal application and letter. 1. Flawed Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines § 15195 specifically exempts from environmental review “Residential Infill” which are higher density housing projects, less than 100 units on less than four acres within one half mile of a major transit stop and provides a certain level of affordable housing. This project would otherwise qualify for this exemption except that the threshold criteria in § 15195(a)(1) and § 15192(g) limits the use of such exemption if the project has a significant effect on historic resources. Because of the potential impacts to the historic Sandford House, staff determined that this CEQA exemption was inappropriate. Accordingly, an Initial Study was prepared. An Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (“MND”) was completed for the proposed Packet Pg. 213 16 project in accordance with the CEQA. The MND found that with incorporation of mitigation measures, potential impacts to air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, hydrology/water quality, and utilities/service systems will be less than significant. A MND and Addendum was completed by Oliveira Environmental Consulting in March 2016 and June 2016 following changes to the design of the project. During the first public hearings for the project at the Cultural Heritage Committee, new information was provided during public testimony that resulted in the Community Development Director’s decision to revisit the MND, specifically the aesthetic and biological sections. Rincon Consultants was selected by the City as a third-party consultant to peer review the MND and to prepare an arborist report and evaluations focused on the potential aesthetic and biological impacts of the proposed tree removals. The Arborist Report, Aesthetics Analysis and the Biological Peer Review are included as attachments to the MND attached (Attachment K, MND – Attachments 6, 7 & 8)). The peer review and evaluations included policy analysis of potential impacts and made recommendations for additional mitigation measures. Based on the analysis and recommended mitigation, staff updated the MND. The MND was re-released for another 30- day public review period from November 15, 2016 to December 19, 2016. Public comment was received on the analysis of the MND and, although not required for a MND, responses to those comments are compiled in Attachment L. Comments were also received on the technical accuracy of the supplemental Arborist Report completed by Rincon Consultants. Rincon reviewed their report based on those comments and submitted a revised document which corrected the species of several trees and tree height (Attachment N, Revised Arborist Report). The revised report does not recommend a change in the recommendation provided in the MND. 2. Arborist Reports are Flawed The Appeal letter states that the arborist reports misidentify trees; inadequately assess their health; fail to adjust their health assessment for simple remedies; and do not identify the many significant trees... The role of an arborist report is to provide information that can be used by staff and decision makers to evaluate the proposed tree removals based on City Code and policies. First, it should be noted that Rincon’s arborist report was an independent review from the applicant’s arborist report prepared by A&T Arborists dated June 8, 2016. As noted in the previous section above, the Arborist Report completed by Rincon was reviewed and revised based on comments provided by the public as well as the Tree Committee. Revisions included correcting species names and heights of trees (Attachment N, Revised Arborist Report). Rincon’s Arborist Report identifies that there are 59 trees on the site and that 41 trees on site are either dead or in poor or fair condition. This information is consistent with the findings of A&T Arborists (Attachment K, MND – Attachments 7). Chapter 12.24 of the City’s Municipal Code sets forth the City’s Tree Regulations. Included within these regulations is the procedure for requesting the removal of trees as part of a development project. The Code states: Packet Pg. 214 16 E. Tree Removal with a Development Permit. 1. To remove a tree from any parcel in the city as part of property development by subdivision, building permit or other entitlement, the developer shall clearly delineate trees proposed to be removed as part of the development application and approval process. All development applications which include tree removals shall include the following documents: a. A site plan showing the location and species of any tree proposed for removal; b. All information to support the reason for removal; c. Any other pertinent information required. 2. Review of the application to remove a tree with a development permit shall proceed as follows: a. The city arborist shall inspect the property and recommend approving or denying the application;3 b. If no architectural review is required for the development, the tree committee shall approve or deny the application; c. If architectural review is required for the development, the architectural review commission shall approve or deny the application: i. If the city arborist has recommended denying the application and the architectural review commission has approved the application, the tree committee shall review the architectural review commission’s decision; ii. If the tree committee concurs with the city arborist’s recommendation to deny the application when the architectural review commission has approved the application, the city council shall review the matter for final action. The Tree Regulations do not provide criteria or establish a list of tree types that are to be preserved other than stating the City values trees as an important part of the natural and economic environment and efforts shall be made to preserve them whenever possible and feasible. When reviewing requests for tree removal permits, the City shall discourage removing desirable trees and shall consider approving removal of desirable trees only as a last resort alternative for the applicant (Section 12.24.090.A). The City’s General Plan has a goal to “Protect, preserve and create the conditions that will promote the preservation of significant trees and other vegetation, particularly native California species” (COSE 7.4) and has the following policy for protection of significant trees. None of the trees on the site have been categorized as significant trees. Significant trees, as determined by the City Council upon the recommendation of the Tree Committee, Planning or Architectural Review Committee, are those making substantial contributions to natural habitat or to the urban landscape due to their species, size, or rarity. Significant trees, particularly native species, shall 3 The City Arborist inspected the property and all the trees on the site. Through the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (“MND”) review the City Arborist provided a recommendation of r emoval with the mitigation outlined in the MND. Packet Pg. 215 16 be protected. Removal of significant trees shall be subject to the criteria and mitigation requirements in Chapter 8.6.3. Oak Woodland communities in the Greenbelt and in open space areas shall be protected. The City Arborist supports the removal of 55 of the 59 trees and is recommending mitigation and conditions of approval in exchange for their removal. The City Arborist has included within the Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Review mitigation measures for the tree removals as follows: 4 The project is required to plant two trees for every one tree that is removed (the “replacement trees”). The developer shall plant as many of the replacement trees on the site as feasible. The remaining required replacement trees shall be planted and/or distributed as follows in order of priority: a) trees shall be planted offsite in the neighborhood in existing City tree wells, City parks, and/or City property; and/or b) the developer shall make a financial donation to the Urban Forest Tree Bank for the purchase of 15 gallon trees to be used in local tree planting projects. The final tree planting and replacement plan shall be included as part of the building plans and approved by the City Arborist. With a 2:1 planting, the project will not only replace the 55 trees that are removed but will also add an additional 55 trees to the City’s urban forest for a total of 110 trees. The applicant will plant at least 34 trees on-site and 76 trees off-site. Depending on the final decision regarding Luneta Drive, approximately 9 of the trees proposed to be removed may be retained in place contingent on the design. 3. Biological Studies are Flawed The appeal letter states that the “project does not comply with CEQA, the Federal Migratory Bird Treaty and the City’s own General Plan.” A Biological Assessment completed by Rincon found that mature landscaping present at the project site provides tree and shrub habitats that have the potential to support wildlife habitat for urban-adapted avian or bat species. The Assessment identified that several large trees on the site are suitable habitat for various raptor species such as the Cooper’s hawk (Accipiter cooperii) (on the Federal Watch List and a species of local concern), the common red-tailed hawk and the barn owl. Additionally, the State Fully Protected and local species of concern white-tailed kite (Elanus leucurus) could also nest at the site while foraging in the open grasslands located less than 1,000 feet to the south. White-tailed kite has been documented by the California Natural Diversity Database, an inventory of the status and locations of rare plants and animals in California, within 3.5 miles of the proposed project site. Most of the mature landscaping would be removed prior to construction of the project, and impacts to nesting birds are considered potentially significant but mitigable. The project site also contains potential roosting habitat for pallid bat (Antrozous pallidus) (a 4 City of San Luis Obispo Municipal Code, Section 12.24.090.I: Approval Conditions . In approving an application for tree removal, the director, the tree committee, the architectural review commission or the city council may require planting of replacement trees and may require a bond ensuring that replacement trees shall be planted and maintained. Packet Pg. 216 16 State and Local Species of Special Concern). Pallid bat has been documented by the CNDDB approximately one mile south of the project site and this species ma y utilize the structures on the project site as roosting areas. Structures that occur within the project site that can be utilized by special status bats include the Sandford house, sheds, enclosed carports, and other living areas. The demolition of existing structures and the movement of the Historic Sandford house and the removal of the mature landscaping would happen prior to the construction of the project, and impacts to pallid bats are considered potentially significant but mitigable. Mitigation measures have been incorporated into the Environmental Document that assumes that these bird and bat species will be found on the site. Mitigation Measures BIO-1 includes the following requirements consistent with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act to protect bird species: Prior to commencement of construction, to avoid conflicts with nesting birds, construction activities shall not be allowed during the nesting bird season (February 1 to September 15). For construction activities occurring during the nesting season, surveys for nesting birds covered by the California Fish and Game Code and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act shall be conducted by a qualified biologist no more than 14 days prior to vegetation removal. These mitigation measures are commonly accepted by biologists of Fish and Wildlife to protect bird populations that are within a proposed area of development. Mitigation Measure BIO-2 require the following mitigation for Roosting Bats: Prior to construction, a qualified biologist shall conduct a survey of existing structures within the project site to determine if roosting bats are present. The survey shall be conducted during the non-breeding season (November through March). The biologist shall have access to all interior attics, as needed. If a colony of bats is found roosting in any structure, further surveys shall be conducted sufficient to determine the species present and the type of roost (day, night, maternity, etc.) If the bats are not part of an active maternity colony, passive exclusion measures may be implemented in close coordination with CDFW. 4. Inadequate Aesthetics Evaluation The appeal letter states that an: …unbiased study will show that the project is not in compliance with the Land Use Element that requires the City shall preserve protect and enhance the City’s neighborhoods (2.1); that residential developments preserve and incorporate amenities, natural site features such as land forms, views, creeks, wetlands, wildlife habitats, wildlife corridors, and plants (2.3.7); and that the Ci ty shall require that new housing built within an existing neighborhood be sited and designed to be compatible with the character of the neighborhood, preserve Natural, Historic and Cultural Features and maintain mature trees on-site to the maximum extent feasible (2.3.9). Packet Pg. 217 16 A supplemental Aesthetics Analysis was provided by Rincon Consultants that analyzed various views toward the proposed project site in conjunction with City policies and CEQA thresholds regarding viewsheds. The Aesthetics Analysis includes numerous photographs and in-person analysis of views towards the site (Attachment K, MND – Aesthetic Analysis: Attachment 6). The Study determined that the project was consistent with General Plan policies and would not result in significant degradation of the visual character of the site and its surroundings, and this impact would be a less than significant impact and does not require mitigation. The project site is in an urban area of the City characterized by residential and commercial development amongst natural features such as mature trees, and Cerro San Luis and Bishop Peak. The project site is aesthetically prominent from adjacent roadways due to the existing historic structure and trees onsite, but is not within a City designated scenic vista (COSE Figure 11). Analysis indicates that when viewed from various other public viewpoints near the site, including public trails on Cerro San Luis and surrounding roadways, the project site blends in with the surrounding uses and vegetation and does not stand out as visually prominent or unique, and the addition of the proposed apartment buildings, would conform to views of the surrounding urban area which includes other multi-family structures. The Aesthetic Analysis identified that the proposed development would involve more intense structural development on the site than existing conditions, and proposes the removal of most of the existing mature trees from the site. Despite retaining some of the existing mature trees on the Figure 4: Northeast-facing view of project area from Cerro San Luis public hiking/bicycle trail. Figure 3: Southwest facing view of the project and surroundings from the north side of Ramona Drive, approximately 130 feet east of Palomar Avenue Packet Pg. 218 16 site, the proposed development and overall number of trees removed would result in a less natural appearance of the site when compared to existing conditions as newly landscaped trees would be shorter in height than the proposed 35-foot structural development unlike the existing trees. Although the project would change the aesthetic character of the site, based on the CEQA thresholds, the project does not have a substantial effect on a scenic vista, damage scenic resources, degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site or surroundings and does not create a new source of substantial light glare. The proposed project includes high-density residential development with a maximum height of 35 feet that is consistent with adjacent high- density development and retains the visually prominent Sandford House. Additionally, the project includes design elements such as peaked roof lines, separate structures to break up the massing of the proposed multi-level residential structures, inclusion of over 30 landscaped trees, four existing trees, and other landscape features, and agrarian style architecture to complement the Sandford House. With these design and landscape features, the project complies with City General Plan policies aimed at preserving scenic views and the character of prominent visual features within the City. The ARC determined the project was consistent with the City’s Community Design Guidelines that are intended to ensure that future development is consistent with the City’s expectations relating to the quality and character of site and building design, and to protect scenic resources and views, from public rights-of-way. As such, the project would not result in significant degradation of the visual character of the site and its surroundings. 5. Repositioning of the Historic Sandford House The appellant’s letter states that the “relocation from the original foundation compromises the integrity of the historic resource and degrades the setting, feeling and associate which are criteria under the City historic preservation ordinance.” Applied Earthworks evaluated the repositioning of the historic house for compliance with the Secretary of the Interior (SOI) Standards for rehabilitation as well as with the City’s Historic Preservation Program Guidelines (Attachment K, MND – Historic Evaluation Report: Attachment 4). This evaluation determined the proposed repositioning was consistent with SOI standards and City policies and recommended a series of conditions to ensure the preservation of the historic structure. As noted above in the Background section, the Cultural Heritage Committee (CHC) supported the proposed rehabilitation, adaptive reuse, and repositioning of the Master List Historic Sandford House and the construction of a new 33-unit, multi-family residential project and found that the project complied with the SOI standards and the City standards. Repositioning the house would not necessarily preclude the house from being nominated for the National Register of Historic Places. Currently the site historic structure is not being considered. 6. Parking The appeal letter states “the parking proposal is clearly inadequate as the 33 units as currently designed will house close to 150 residents. The city’s existing models are not adequate to address the occupancy, and thus, the likely automobile population resulting from this project.” The City’s parking standards contained in the Municipal Code do not base the calculation on the number of residents, the calculation is based on the number of bedrooms. This Municipal Code Packet Pg. 219 16 provision requires the project to include 61 parking spaces; the project provides 63 spaces. This is based on the parking requirements found in Chapter 17.90: Affordable Housing Incentives, which outlines standard incentives for housing project that include affordable units. The section states that “upon the request of the developer, parking ratios of a development meeting the criteria of this section, inclusive of handicapped and guest parking shall be as follows: 1. Studio to one bedroom: one onsite parking space 2. Two to three bedrooms: two onsite parking spaces 3. Four or more bedrooms: two and one-half parking spaces.” 5 Table 4: Parking Requirements for developments that include affordable housing per SLOMC 17.90 Unit Type # of units Parking Required Studio/One-bedroom 5 5 Two-bedroom/Three-bedroom 28 56 Total 61 7. Environmental Review of Safety, Noise and Neighborhood Compatibility The appeal letter states that the “IS/MND does not adequately address the likely issues resulting from the 150 new neighborhood residents and their visitors.” In particular, the appellants have concerns regarding the safety of pedestrians and bicyclists at various intersections, noise with the addition of 150 people to the site and will cause family occupied houses to change over to high density rentals. Safety: The project will include upgrades to the frontage along Luneta Drive including new sidewalks for pedestrian access. The MND evaluated the traffic generated by the project and found that the additional trips associated with the project were within the level of service allowed for residential streets. Noise: The MND evaluated noise and noted that the Noise Element designates residential uses as noise sensitive. The proposed residential use is consistent with existing residential uses in the project vicinity and would not result in substantial changes to the existing noise environment. Adjacent single family residences will be partially shielded from noise generated by the project by distance (over 50 feet from the single-family units to the south property line) and by the structures themselves since all entrances to the buildings and common spaces are interior to the site. The environmental review noted that the proposed project would have a less 5 Zoning Regulations Section 17.90.040.K. Figure 5: Map showing the zoning of the project site (outlined) and the surrounding neighborhood. Packet Pg. 220 16 than significant impact related to producing a permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above existing levels. Change in single-family housing occupants: No information or policies are available to evaluate the impact of new multi-family development on the change in occupancy of single-family units within the same neighborhood. 8. Utilities The appeal letter states that “many if the neighborhood utilities are already overburdened (e.g., natural gas, sewer, water, etc.). We cannot afford to add to this burden without significant capital investment.” The City does not provide natural gas – that utility is provided by Southern California Gas Company. In regards to other utilities, the proposed project was reviewed by the City’s Utilities Department and no resource/infrastructure deficiencies were identified. The proposed project would result in an incremental increase in demand on City infrastructure, including water, wastewater and storm water facilities, which were anticipated under the recent General Plan Update. The City has adequate water service to serve the use. Existing storm water facilities are present near the project site, and it is not anticipated the proposed project will result in the need for new facilities or expansion of existing facilities. The City completed a Sanitary Sewer Flow Monitoring and Inflow/Infiltration Study in 2012 and the Wastewater Collection System Infrastructure Renewal Strategy (WCSIRS) in January 2016. The WCSIRS identified capacity deficiencies in the collection system during peak wet weather downstream of the project and have been identified as at risk for potentially surcharging which could result in sanitary sewer overflows. Replacement and rehabilitation of private sewer laterals in poor condition will reduce inflow and infiltration in the collection system and peak flow rates. Based on this information the project is required to incorporate Mitigation Measure USS-1 (Attachment K, MND). Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy, the developer is required to identify, demonstrate or implement off-site sewer rehabilitation that results in quantifiable inflow and infiltration reduction in the City’s wastewater collection system. The final selection of the inflow and infiltration reduction project will be approved by the Utilities Director. Aside from this condition of approval, the City has adequate sewer service to serve the proposed project. 9. The ARC Review and California State Law The Appellant’s letter states that “the ARC was erroneously instructed that California State Law prohibited them from making any requirement that would result in a reduction in the overall density of the project.” The ARC was informed during the review process about the State Housing Density Bonus Law and the Housing Accountability Act as discussed the Policy Background Section of this staff report. The ARC was directed that they had the ability to discuss options of how the project may be further reduced in scale, but could not require a reduction in the number of units per State Law unless they could make findings, based upon substantial evidence in the record, that the development project, as proposed, would have a specific, adverse impact upon public health or safety, and there was no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific adverse impact other than reducing the density. Packet Pg. 221 16 Conditions of Approval Staff has updated the ARC Conditions of Approval within the Draft Resolution to provide further clarity in the requirements expected for the project (see underline and strikethrough in Attachment A). Condition No. 8 requires that the applicant/property owner shall ensure long- term maintenance, protection, and survival of the trees as shown on the final landscape plan for a minimum of five years. In the event a tree does not survive within the five-year period, the applicant/property owner shall replace the tree to ensure no net loss of trees on the site over the long-term. Conditions No. 19 and 42 provide clarity of the developer’s responsibility regarding Luneta Drive depending on any amendments to the City’s Circulation Element. CONCURRENCES The project has been reviewed by Building, Fire, Public Works, Natural Resources and Utilities staff. Their conditions have been incorporated into the resolution and these departments support the project if incorporated conditions of approval are adopted. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW An Initial Study was completed for the proposed project in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) is recommended for adoption (Attachment K). The MND finds that with incorporation of mitigation measures, potential impacts to air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, hydrology/water quality, and utilities/service systems will be less than significant. Summaries of the potential impacts and recommended mitigation measures, as well as a discussion on aesthetics are included as part of the Environmental Review section of the ARC staff report (Attachment F). All mitigation measures have been incorporated into project conditions of approval (Attachment A, Resolution A). 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. There is no fiscal impact associated with the approval of this project. ALTERNATIVES 1. Uphold the appeal, thereby denying the project. The Council can deny the project, based on findings of inconsistency with the General Plan, Zoning Regulations, and applicable City regulations and policies (Attachment B, Resolution B - Appeal upheld). 2. Continue consideration of the project if more information is needed. The City Council make continue consideration of the project if more information is needed to make a decision. Packet Pg. 222 16 If the project is continued, clear direction should be provided to City staff so that a decision can be made on the project when it returns for action. Attachments: a - Resolution A - Appeal denied b - Resolution B - Appeal upheld c - Vicinity Map d - Project Plans - 12-14-16 e - Application & Letter f - ARC Staff Report (1-30-2017) g - ARC Reso (1-30-2017) h - ARC Minutes (1-30-2017) i - CHC Resolution (6-27-16) j - CHC Minutes (6-27-16) k - Council Reading File - MND (11-15-2016) l - Council Reading File - Response to Comments and Letters m - Heritage Tree Memo (6-9-16) n - Revised Arborist Report with Track Changes Packet Pg. 223 16 R ______ RESOLUTION NO. __________ (2017 SERIES) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA, DENYING AN APPEAL FILED BY TERESA MATTHEWS AND LYDIA MOURENZA AND THEREBY APPROVING THE REHABILITATION, ADAPTIVE REUSE, AND REPOSITIONING OF THE MASTER LIST HISTORIC SANDFORD HOUSE AND THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW 33-UNIT, MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL PROJECT, WITH A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW, AS REPRESENTED IN THE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT AND ATTACHMENTS DATED APRIL 4, 2017 (71 PALOMAR AVENUE, APPL-0158-2017) WHEREAS, the Cultural Heritage Committee of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on June 27, 2016, with a four-two vote recommending the ARC approve the project, subject to the findings and conditions of CHC Resolution No. CHC-1009-16 pursuant to a proceeding instituted under ARCH 2193-2015, LR Development Group, applicant; and WHEREAS, the Architectural Review Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing in the Council Hearing Room of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on January 30, 2017, with a four-one vote approving the project, subject to the findings and conditions of ARC Resolution No. ARC-1002-17 pursuant to a proceeding instituted under ARCH 2193-2015, LR Development Group, applicant; and WHEREAS, on February 8, 2017, Teresa Matthews and Lydia Mourenza, the appellants, filed an appeal of the Architectural Review Commission’s action on January 30, 2017; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on April 4, 2017, pursuant to a proceeding instituted under APPL-0158-2017, Teresa Matthews and Lydia Mourenza, the appellants; and WHEREAS, notices of said public hearing were made at the time and in the manner required by law; and WHEREAS, the City Council has duly considered all evidence, including the testimony of the applicant, the appellants, interested parties, and the evaluation and recommendations by staff, presented at said hearing, and 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 City Council makes the following findings to deny the appeal (APPL-0158-2017) of the Architectural Review Commission decision, thereby granting final approval to the project (ARCH 2193-2015): Packet Pg. 224 16 Resolution No. ______________ (2017 Series) Page 2 R ______ 1. That the project will not be detrimental to the health, safety, and welfare of persons living or working at the site or in the vicinity because the project respects site constraints and will be compatible with the scale and character of the neighborhood. 2. The proposed project is consistent with Housing Element Policies 8.1 and 2.17 because the project provides infill, high-density residential for a variety of special needs and meets the City’s RHNA need for very low units. 3. The project is consistent with the City’s Community Design Guidelines because the proposed project incorporates similar materials and architectural features to the surrounding neighborhood and provides a complementary color scheme. 4. The project design maintains consistency with the City’s Community Design Guidelines by providing architectural design that complements the character, height and scale of the historic Sandford House and the surrounding neighborhood. 5. The proposed modifications to the Master List Historic Sandford House and site which includes rehabilitation, adaptive reuse, and repositioning is consistent with the Historic Preservation Guidelines and Secretary of Interior Standards, since character defining features will be retained, repaired, or replaced in kind. 6. That the proposed construction of the new, 33-unit apartment buildings is consistent with Secretary of Interior Standards for new construction on historic properties since the new construction is subordinate to and compatible with the scale, siz e, massing and architectural features of the Master List Historic Sandford House. 7. That the proposed removal of the non-historic additions is consistent with the Secretary of Interior Standards for Rehabilitation because they have not acquired historic significant in their own right. 8. The project is consistent with Archaeological Resource Preservation Program Guidelines since the project will be required to include an excavation monitoring and data recovery plan to document and preserve any artifacts found during construction. 9. That the Initial Study of Environmental Impact and resultant Mitigated Negative Declaration properly characterize the project’s potentially significant impacts and that the incorporated mitigations measures appropriately ensure that p otentially significant impacts are mitigated to a less than significant level. SECTION 2. Environmental Review. The City Council hereby adopts the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact that finds that with incorporation of mitigation measures, environmental impacts will be less than significant. Packet Pg. 225 16 Resolution No. ______________ (2017 Series) Page 2 R ______ Air Quality Mitigation Measure AQ-1: Prior to grading plan approval, the project proponent shall ensure that a geologic evaluation should be conducted to determine if NOA is present within the area that will be disturbed. If NOA is not present, an exemption request must be filed with the District. If NOA is found at the site, the applicant must comply with all requirements outlined in the Asbestos ATCM. This may include development of an Asbestos Dust Mitigation Plan and an Asbestos Health and Safety Program for approval by the APCD. Technical Appendix 4.4 of this Handbook includes a map of zones throughout SLO County where NOA has been found and geological evaluation is required prior to any grading. More information on NOA can be found at http://www.slocleanair.org/rules- regulations/asbestos.php.  Monitoring Plan, AQ-1: All mitigation measures shall be shown on grading and building plans. In addition, the contractor shall designate a person or persons to monitor compliance with APCD requirements. The name and telephone number of such persons shall be provided to the APCD, Community Development and Public Works Departments prior to commencement of construction. The applicant shall provide documentation of compliance with APCD requirements to City staff prior to issuance of any grading or building permits. Mitigation Measure AQ-2: Any scheduled disturbance, removal, or relocation of utility pipelines shall be coordinated with the APCD Enforcement Division at (805) 781-5912 to ensure compliance with NESHAP, which include, but are not limited to: 1) written notification, within at least 10 business days of activities commencing, to the APCD, 2) asbestos survey conducted by a Certified Asbestos Consultant, and, 3) applicable removal and disposal requirements of identified ACM. More information on NOA can be found at http://www.slocleanair.org/rules- regulations/asbestos.php.  Monitoring Plan, AQ-2: All mitigation measures shall be shown on grading and building plans. In addition, the contractor shall designate a person or persons to monitor compliance with APCD requirements. Their duties shall include holiday and weekend periods when work may not be in progress. The name and telephone number of such persons shall be provided to the APCD, Community Development and Public Works Departments prior to commencement of construction. Mitigation Measure AQ-3: During construction/ground disturbing activities, the applicant shall implement the following particulate (dust) control measures. These measures shall be shown on grading and building plans. In addition, the contractor shall designate a person or persons to monitor the dust control program and modify practices, as necessary, to prevent transport of dust off site. Their duties shall include holiday and weekend periods when work may not be in progress. The name and telephone number of such persons shall be provided to the Community Development and Public Works Departments prior to commencement of construction. a. Reduce the amount of disturbed area where possible. Packet Pg. 226 16 Resolution No. ______________ (2017 Series) Page 2 R ______ b. Use water trucks or sprinkler systems in sufficient quantities to prevent airborne dust from leaving the site, and from exceeding the APCD’s limit of 20% opacity for no greater than 3 minutes in any 60-minute period. Increased watering frequency will be required whenever wind speeds exceed 15 m.p.h. and cessation of grading activities during periods of winds over 25 m.p.h. Reclaimed (non-potable) water is to be used in all construction and dust-control work. c. All dirt stock pile areas (if any) shall be sprayed daily and covered with tarps or other dust barriers as needed. d. Permanent dust control measures identified in the approved project revegetation and landscape plans should be implemented as soon as possible, following completion of any soil disturbing activities. e. Exposed grounds that are planned to be reworked at dates greater than one month after initial grading shall be sown with a fast germinating, non-invasive, grass seed and watered until vegetation is established. f. All disturbed soil areas not subject to revegetation shall be stabilized using approved chemical soil binders, jute netting, or other methods approved in advance by the APCD. g. All roadways, driveways, sidewalks, etc. to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible. In addition, building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used. h. Vehicle speed for all construction vehicles shall not exceed 15 m.p.h. on any unpaved surface at the construction site. i. All trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials, are to be covered or shall maintain at least two feet of freeboard (minimum vertical distance between top of load and top of trailer) in accordance with California Vehicle Code Section 23114. j. Install wheel washers where vehicles enter and exit unpaved roads onto streets, or wash off trucks and equipment leaving the site. k. Sweep streets at the end of each day if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent paved roads. Water sweepers shall be used with reclaimed water should be used where feasible. Roads shall be pre-wetted prior to sweeping when feasible. l. All PM10 mitigation measures required shall be shown on grading and building plans. m. The contractor or builder shall designate a person or persons to monitor the fugitive dust emissions and enhance the implementation of the measures as necessary to minimize dust complaints, reduce visible emissions below the APCD’s limit of 20% opacity for no greater than 3 minutes in any 60-minute period. Their duties shall include holidays and weekend periods when work may not be in progress. The name and telephone number of such persons shall be provided to the APCD Compliance Division prior to the start of any grading, earthwork or demolition.  Monitoring Plan, AQ-3: All mitigation measures shall be shown on grading and building plans. In addition, the contractor shall designate a person or persons to monitor the dust control program and to order increased watering, as necessary, to prevent transport of dust off site. Their duties shall include holiday and weekend periods when work may not be in progress. The name and telephone number of such persons shall be provided to the APCD, Community Development and Public Works Departments prior to commencement of construction. Packet Pg. 227 16 Resolution No. ______________ (2017 Series) Page 2 R ______ Mitigation Measure AQ-4: Prior to any construction activities at the site, the project proponent shall ensure that all equipment and operations are compliant with California Air Resource Board and APCD permitting requirements, by contacting the APCD Engineering Division at (805) 781- 5912 for specific information regarding permitting requirements.  Monitoring Plan, AQ-4: All mitigation measures shall be shown on grading and building plans. In addition, the contractor shall designate a person or persons to monitor compliance with APCD requirements. The name and telephone number of such persons shall be provided to the APCD, Community Development and Public Works Departments prior to commencement of construction. The applicant shall provide documentation of compliance with APCD requirements to City staff prior to issuance of any grading or building permits. Mitigation Measure AQ-5: To reduce sensitive receptor emissions impact of diesel vehicles and equipment used to construct the project and export soil from the site, the applicant shall implement the following idling control techniques: 1. California Diesel Idling Regulations a. On-road diesel vehicles shall comply with Section 2485 of Title 13 of the California Code of regulations. This regulation limits idling from diesel-fueled commercial motor vehicles with gross vehicular weight ratings of more than 10,000 pounds and licensed for operation on highways. It applies to California and non-California based vehicles. In general, the regulation specifies that drivers of said vehicles: 1. Shall not idle the vehicle’s primary diesel engine for greater than 5 minutes at any location, except as noted in Subsection (d) of the regulation; and, 2. Shall not operate a diesel-fueled auxiliary power system (APS) to power a heater, air conditioner, or any ancillary equipment on that vehicle during sleeping or resting in a sleeper berth for greater than 5.0 minutes at any location when within 1,000 feet of restricted area, except as noted in Subsection (d) of the regulation. b. Off-road diesel equipment shall comply with the 5-minute idling restriction identified in Section 2449(d)(2) of the California Air Resources Board’s In-Use Off-road Diesel regulation. c. Signs must be posted in the designated queuing areas and job sites to remind drivers and operators of the state’s 5-minute idling limit. 2. Diesel Idling Restrictions Near Sensitive Receptors (residential homes). In addition to the State required diesel idling requirements, the project applicant shall comply with these more restrictive requirements to minimize impacts to nearby sensitive receptors: a. Staging and queuing areas shall not be located within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors. b. Diesel idling within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors shall not be permitted. c. Use of alternative fueled equipment is recommended. d. Signs that specify the no idling areas must be posted and enforced at the site. 3. Soil Transport. It is estimated that 16,000 cubic yards of cut material (i.e., soils) will be cut from the site, but the final volume of soil that will be hauled off-site, together with the fleet mix, hauling route, and number of trips per day will need to be identified for the APCD. Specific standards and conditions will apply.  Monitoring Plan, AQ-5: All mitigation measures shall be shown on grading and building plans. In addition, the contractor shall designate a person or persons to monitor that idling control Packet Pg. 228 16 Resolution No. ______________ (2017 Series) Page 2 R ______ techniques are being implemented to reduce sensitive receptor emissions impact of diesel vehicles and equipment during construction. Their duties shall include holiday and weekend periods when work may not be in progress. The name and telephone number of such persons shall be provided to the APCD, Community Development and Public Works Departments prior to commencement of construction. The applicant shall provide documentation of compliance with APCD requirements to City staff prior to issuance of any grading or building permits. Biological Resources Mitigation Measure BIO-1: Prior to commencement of construction, to avoid conflicts with nesting birds, construction activities shall not be allowed during the nesting bird season (February 1 to September 15). For construction activities occurring during the nesting season, surveys for nesting birds covered by the California Fish and Game Code and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act shall be conducted by a qualified biologist no more than 14 days prior to vegetation removal. The surveys shall include the disturbance area plus a 500-foot buffer around the site. If active nests are located, all construction work shall be conducted outside a buffer zone from the nest to be determined by the qualified biologist. The buffer shall be a minimum of 50 feet for non-raptor bird species and at least 300 feet for raptor species. Larger buffers may be required depending upon the status of the nest and the construction activities occurring in the vicinity of the nest. The buffer area(s) shall be closed to all construction personnel and equipment until the adults and young are no longer reliant on the nest site. A qualified biologist shall confirm that breeding/nesting is completed and young have fledged the nest prior to removal of the buffer.  Monitoring Plan, BIO-1: Grading and building plans shall show and outline all details and requirements of the Migratory bird monitoring plan per the mitigation measure above. The plans shall call out the name and contact information of the qualified biologist that will survey the project site. Grading and building plans will be reviewed by City’s Natural Resources Manager for compliance with the mitigation measure to ensure sufficient details are clearly visible for contractors and City inspectors. City staff will periodically inspect the site for continued compliance with the above mitigation measures. Mitigation Measure BIO-2: Prior to construction, a qualified biologist shall conduct a survey of existing structures within the project site to determine if roosting bats are present. The survey shall be conducted during the non-breeding season (November through March). The biologist shall have access to all interior attics, as needed. If a colony of bats is found roosting in any structure, further surveys shall be conducted sufficient to determine the species present and the type of roost (day, night, maternity, etc.) If the bats are not part of an active maternity colony, passive exclusion measures may be implemented in close coordination with CDFW. These exclusion measures must include one-way valves that allow bats to exit the structure but are designed so that the bats may not re-enter the structure. If a bat colony is excluded from the project site, appropriate alternate bat habitat as determined by a qualified biologist shall be installed on the project site or at an approved location offsite. Prior to removal of any trees over 20-inches in diameter-at-breast-height (DBH), a survey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist to determine if any of the trees proposed for removal or trimming harbor sensitive bat species or maternal bat colonies. If a non-maternal roost is found, the qualified biologist, in close coordination with CDFW shall install one-way valves or Packet Pg. 229 16 Resolution No. ______________ (2017 Series) Page 2 R ______ other appropriate passive relocation method. For each occupied roost removed, one bat box shall be installed in similar habitat and should have similar cavity or crevices properties to those which are removed, including access, ventilation, dimensions, height above ground, and thermal conditions. Maternal bat colonies may not be disturbed.  Monitoring Plan, BIO-2: Grading and building plans shall show and outline all details and requirements of bat monitoring plan per the mitigation measure above. The plans shall call out the name and contact information of the qualified biologist that will survey the project site. Grading and building plans will be reviewed by City’s Natural Resources Manager for compliance with the mitigation measure to ensure sufficient details are clearly visible for contractors and City inspectors. City staff will periodically inspect the site for continued compliance with the above mitigation measures. Mitigation Measure BIO-3: The project is required to plant two trees for every one tree that is removed (the “replacement trees”). The developer shall plant as many of the replacement trees on the site as feasible. The remaining required replacement trees shall be planted and/or distributed as follows in order of priority: a) trees shall be planted offsite in the neighborhood in existing City tree wells, City parks, and/or City property; and/or b) the developer shall make a financial donation to the Urban Forest Tree Bank for the purchase of 15 gallon trees to be used in local tree planting projects. The final tree planting and replacement plan shall be included as part of the building plans and approved by the City Arborist.  Monitoring Plan, BIO-3: Grading and building plans shall show and outline all details and requirements of the tree replanting and replacement plan per the mitigation measure above. Grading and building plans will be reviewed by City’s Arborist for compliance with the mitigation measure to ensure sufficient details are clearly visible for contractors and City inspectors. City staff will periodically inspect the site for continued compliance with the above mitigation measures. Cultural Resources Mitigation Measure CR-1: Preservation of Archeological Resources. A formal monitoring plan shall be prepared and approved by the City prior to building permit approval. The plan will need to include a summary of the project and expected ground disturbances, purpose and approach to monitoring, description of expected materials, description of significant materials or features, protocols for stoppage of work and treatment of human remains, staff requirements, and a data recovery plan to be implemented in case significant deposits are exposed.  Monitoring Plan, CR-1: Grading and building plans shall show and outline all details and requirements of the formal monitoring plan of the rehabilitation of the Historic Sandford House and the new construction per the mitigation measure above. Grading and building plans will be reviewed by City staff for compliance with the mitigation measure, the City’s Archaeological Resource Preservation Guidelines, and project conditions to ensure sufficient details are clearly visible for contractors and City inspectors. City staff will periodically inspect Packet Pg. 230 16 Resolution No. ______________ (2017 Series) Page 2 R ______ the site for continued compliance with the above mitigation measure, including all requirements of the formal monitoring plan. Mitigation Measure CR-2: Removal of Non-Original Additions. Extreme care shall be taken during the removal of the non-original additions to avoid damaging the original building walls. Any non-repairable or missing materials revealed upon removal of the addition directly attached to the Sandford House shall be replaced in-kind to match existing stucco. Any historical wood- sash windows found during demolition shall be preserved for reuse on the Sandford House where appropriate.  Monitoring Plan, CR 2: Grading and building plans shall show and outline all details of the removal of the non-original additions of the Historic Sandford House per the mitigation measure above. Grading and building plans will be reviewed by City staff for compliance with the mitigation measure for removals to ensure sufficient details are clearly visible for contractors and City inspectors. City staff will periodically inspect the site for continued compliance with the above mitigation measure. Mitigation Measure CR-3: Relocation of the Sandford House. The elevation of the existing Sandford House on the site shall be maintained as closely as possible to the historic siting of the original house. The reconstructed foundation and platform porch on the house in its new location shall retain the amount of height and exposure that the existing house exhibits. A stair height similar to that which currently exists shall also be maintained.  Monitoring Plan, CR-3: Grading and building plans shall show and outline all details of the relocation of the Historic Sandford House per the mitigation measure above. Grading and building plans will be reviewed by City staff for compliance with the mitigation measure to move the house to ensure sufficient details are clearly visible for contractors and City inspectors. City staff will periodically inspect the site for continued compliance with the above mitigation measure. Mitigation Measure CR-4: Sandford House Window Replacement. Modern replacements for the first-floor solarium windows shall minimally consist of window sash that is of the appropriate proportion to fit into the original openings. Multi-light versions which replicate the original multi- light windows located throughout other areas of the residence should be used to the maximum extent feasible in the event that the original window design for the solarium cannot be confirmed.  Monitoring Plan, CR-4: Building plans shall show and outline all details of replacing the first floor solarium windows of the Historic Sandford House per the mitigation measure above. Building plans will be reviewed by City staff for compliance with the mitigation measure to replace the windows to ensure sufficient details are clearly visible for contractors and City inspectors. City staff will periodically inspect the site for continued compliance with the above mitigation measure. Mitigation Measure CR-5: Low Impact Cleaning and Paint Removal. Only the gentlest methods of paint removal, and stucco cleaning or removal shall be used on or around t he Sandford House. Packet Pg. 231 16 Resolution No. ______________ (2017 Series) Page 2 R ______ High-pressure water blasting; sand or other hardened material blasting; or chemical paint strippers that damage wood grain or erode metals shall not be used unless specifically approved by the City.  Monitoring Plan, CR-5: Building plans shall show and outline all details of the method in which the historic Sandford House will be cleaned and paint removed per the mitigation measure above. Building plans will be reviewed by City staff for compliance with the mitigation measure to clean and remove paint to ensure sufficient details are clearly visible for contractors and City inspectors. City staff will periodically inspect the site for continued compliance with the above mitigation measure. Mitigation Measure CR-6: Massing, Location, and Architectural Features of the Proposed New Construction. The applicant shall maintain the architectural relationship between the new construction and historic residence and the design for the new apartment buildings shall respect the dominance of the Sandford House on the property using scale and massing. New construction shall not be over-detailed or designed to draw attention away from the Sandford House.  Monitoring Plan, CR-6: Grading and building plans shall show and outline all architectural details, location and massing of the new construction per the mitigation measure above. Building plans will be reviewed by City staff for compliance with the mitigation measure and the approved architectural plans to ensure sufficient details are clearly visible for contractors and City inspectors. City staff will periodically inspect the site for continued compliance with the above mitigation measure. Hydrology and Water Quality Mitigation Measure HWQ-1: The Stormwater Control Plan (Ashley and Vance Engineering, Inc. October 12, 2015) prepared for the proposed project includes design features, recommended BMPs for water quality control, and operations and maintenance standards for maintaining stormwater quality via the proposed underground storage chambers for on-site stormwater detention. These measures shall become required components of project development and the project proponent shall be required to implement these design features and recommendation as set forth.  Monitoring Plan, HWQ-1: All mitigation measures shall be shown on grading and building plans. Community Development Planning and Public Works staff shall review the Stormwater Control Plan as part of the Building Permit application package prior to issuance of grading or construction permits. City staff will periodically inspect the site during construction for continued compliance with the above mitigation measure. Utilities and Service Systems Mitigation Measure USS-1: The project proposes additional wastewater flow in a wet weather capacity constrained portion of the City’s wastewater collection system which is identified in the City’s Wastewater Collection System Infrastructure Renewal Strategy as sub-basin B.2. Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy, the developer is required to identify, demonstrate or Packet Pg. 232 16 Resolution No. ______________ (2017 Series) Page 2 R ______ implement off-site sewer rehabilitation that results in quantifiable inflow and infiltration reduction in the City’s wastewater collection system in sub-basin A1, A2, A3, A4, B.2 or B.3 in an amount equal to offset the project’s wastewater flow increase. This may be satisfied by: (A) Sufficient reductions in wastewater flow within sub-basins A1, A2, A3, A4, B.2 or B.3, commensurate with the additional wastewater flow contributed by the project, to be achieved by the verified replacement of compromised private sewer laterals, or public sewer mains, either by the developer, the City, or any property owner located within the basins; (B) Participation in a sewer lateral replacement program or similar inflow and infiltration reduction program to be developed by City, which is in place prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy; or (C) Any other off-site sewer rehabilitation proposed by the developer approved by the Utilities Director, which will achieve a reduction in wastewater flow commensurate with the additional wastewater flow contributed by the project. The final selection of the inflow and infiltration reduction project will be approved by the Utilities Director.  Monitoring Plan, USS-1: A sewer rehabilitation plan shall be developed in cooperation with Utilities Staff per the mitigation measure above. The rehabilitation plan shall be shown on the public improvement plans and reviewed by Utilities staff as part of the Building Permit application package prior to issuance of grading and construction permits. City staff will periodically inspect the site for continued compliance with the above mitigation measure, including all requirements of the sewer rehabilitation plan. SECTION 3. Action. The City Council does hereby deny the appeal of the Architectural Review Commission’s action to approve the proposed project, hereby granting final approval of the application APPL-0158-2017 for the rehabilitation, adaptive reuse and repositioning of the Master List Historic Sandford House and the construction of a new 33-unit, multi-family residential project, subject to the following conditions: Conditions Planning Division – Community Development Department 1. The applicant 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 project, and all actions relating thereto, including but not limited to environmental review (“Indemnified Claims”). The City sh all promptly notify the applicant of any Indemnified Claim upon being presented with the Indemnified Claim and the City shall fully cooperate in the defense against an Indemnified Claim. 2. The Architectural Review Commission’s approval of this project will expire after three years if construction has not started. On request, the Community Development Director may grant a single, one-year extension. 3. Final project design and construction drawings submitted for a building permit shall be in substantial compliance with the project plans approved by the ARC. A separate, full-size sheet shall be included in working drawings submitted for a building permit that lists all conditions and code requirements of project approval listed as sheet number 2. Reference Packet Pg. 233 16 Resolution No. ______________ (2017 Series) Page 2 R ______ shall be made in the margin of listed items as to where in plans requirements are addressed. Any change to approved design, colors, materials, landscaping, or other conditions of approval must be approved by the Director or Architectural Review Commission, as deemed appropriate. 4. Plans submitted for a building permit shall call out the colors and materials of all proposed building surfaces and other improvements. Colors and materials shall be consistent with the color and material board submitted with Architectural Review application. 5. The locations of all exterior lighting, including lighting on the structure, bollard style landscaping or path lighting, shall be included in plans submitted for a building permit. All wall-mounted lighting fixtures shall be clearly called out on building elevations included as part of working drawings. All wall-mounted lighting shall complement building architecture. The lighting schedule for the building shall include a graphic representation of the proposed lighting fixtures and cut-sheets on the submitted building plans. The selected fixture(s) shall be shielded to ensure that light is directed downward consistent with the requirements of the City’s Night Sky Preservation standards contained in Chapter 17.23 of the Zon ing Regulations. 6. Mechanical and electrical equipment shall be located internally to the building. With submittal of working drawings, the applicant shall include sectional views of the building, which clearly show the sizes of any proposed condensers and other mechanical equipment. If any condensers or other mechanical equipment is to be placed on the roof, plans submitted for a building permit shall confirm that parapets and other roof features will provide adequate screening. A line-of-sight diagram may be required to confirm that proposed screening will be adequate. This condition applies to both initial project construction and later building modifications and improvements. 7. A final landscaping plan, including irrigation details and plans, shall be submitted to the Community Development Department along with working drawings. The legend for the landscaping plan shall include the sizes and species of all groundcovers, shrubs, and trees with corresponding symbols for each plant material showing their specific locations on plans. 8. The applicant/property owner shall ensure long-term maintenance, protection, and survival of the trees shown on the final landscape plan for a minimum of five years. In the event a tree does not survive within the five-year period the applicant/property owner shall replace the tree to ensure no net loss of trees on the site over the long-term. 9. The location of any required backflow preventer and double-check assembly shall be shown on all site plans submitted for a building permit, including the landscaping plan. Construction plans shall also include a scaled diagram of the equipment proposed. Where possible, as determined by the Utilities Director, equipment shall be located inside the building within 20 feet of the front property line. Where this is not possible, as determined by the Utilities Director, the back flow preventer and double-check assembly shall be located in the street yard and screened using a combination of paint color, landscaping and, if deemed appropriate Packet Pg. 234 16 Resolution No. ______________ (2017 Series) Page 2 R ______ by the Community Development Director, a low wall. The size and configuration of such equipment shall be subject to review and approval by the Utilities and Co mmunity Development Directors. 10. Plans submitted for a building permit shall include all details, cut sheets, dimensions, and specifications to ensure all materials, windows, and architectural details are of high quality and suitable for an infill project adjacent to an architecturally significant historic structure. 11. The project shall retain the Blue Gum Eucalyptus at the southwest corner of the site, the Norfolk Island Pine and Canary Island Palm in front of the Historic Sandford House and the Mexican Fan Palm at the northeast corner of the site as shown on the landscape plans approved by ARC and shall be considered for Heritage Tree designation. 12. The project shall plant at a minimum three 36-inch box trees and two 15-gallon trees on the project site and/or adjacent property on which the property owner of 71 Palomar has an access and landscaping easement to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director and the City Arborist. Engineering Division – Public Works/Community Development Department 13. Projects involving the construction of new structures, the addition of dwelling units, or the substantial remodel of existing structures requires that complete frontage improvements be installed or that existing improvements be upgraded per city standard. MC 12.16.05 14. The building plan submittal shall show and label all existing and proposed public and private easements for reference. The building plan submittal shall include the dimensions and bearings for all property lines for reference. The developer shall provide authorization for all proposed improvements within the corner parcel known as 75 Palomar (052-162-015). 15. The required public and private improvements may be completed with a separate public improvement plan submittal processed through the Public Works Department. As an alternate, the building plan submittal may be used to show all required improvements. Improvements located within the public right-of-way will require a separate encroachment permit and associated inspection fees. A separate plan review fee payable to the Public Works Department shall be required for the Public Works Department review of improvements associated with the building plan submittal. Said review fee shall be in accordance with the improvement plan review fee resolution in effect at the time of the building permit application submittal. 16. The building plan submittal or improvement plan submittal shall show and note any sections of damaged or displaced curb, gutter & sidewalk or driveway approach to be repaired or replaced to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department. 17. The existing driveway approaches shall be abandoned and replaced with curb, gutter, and sidewalk per City Engineering Standards. Packet Pg. 235 16 Resolution No. ______________ (2017 Series) Page 2 R ______ 18. The building plan submittal or improvement plan submittal shall show all new driveway approaches to comply with current standards. The current city and ADA standard requires a 4’ accessible sidewalk extension behind the ramp. 19. Luneta Drive shall be developed as a through public street per City Engineering Standards unless otherwise waived or deferred by the City Council. If Luneta Drive is developed as a public street, then the developer shall dedicate the required public right-of-way including PUE and Street Tree easements to the satisfaction of the City. If the City Council later amends the Circulation Element of the General Plan to not require Luneta Drive as a through street, then the developer shall offer to dedicate to the City that same portion of the property for PUE, street tree easements, pedestrian and bicycle right of way, or park or other similar purposes to the satisfaction of the City. 20. The building plan submittal or improvement plan submittal shall include a complete street improvement and curb grade plan for the build out of Luneta Drive, Luneta Drive sidewalk extension, the bulb-out on Palomar Avenue, and/or street termination or cul-de-sac if applicable. All grades, layout, staking and cut sheets necessary for the construction of street paving and frontage improvements shall be the responsibility of the developer. 21. The developer shall underground the existing overhead wire utilities along the Luneta Drive widening and extension from the existing westerly terminal end pole to the joint pole on the easterly side of Palomar Avenue per City and PG&E standards. The preliminary and final PG&E handout packages shall be submitted to the City for review and approval. 22. The developer shall install one additional streetlight along the Luneta Drive frontage to the satisfaction of the City. All associated facilities including but not limited to conduits, sidewalk vaults, fusing, wiring, and lumenaires shall be installed per City Engineering Standards. Off-site street lighting improvements, alterations, or upgrades may be required along roadways leading to and from the proposed development to complete the necessary improvements. 23. Record drawings shall be provided for Luneta Drive public street improvements prior to final inspection approvals. 24. The building plan submittal shall include all required parking lot improvements, dimensions, space dimensions, maneuverability, materials, space and aisle slopes, drainage, pavement marking, signage, and striping in accordance with the Parking and Driveway Standards and disabled access requirements of the CBC. 25. All parking spaces shall be able to be entered in one movement. All spaces, drive aisles, etc. shall be designed so that all vehicles can exit to the adjoining street in a forward motion in not more than two maneuvers. For purposes of maneuverability, all required and proposed covered and uncovered spaces shall be assumed to be occupied by a standard size vehicle. Packet Pg. 236 16 Resolution No. ______________ (2017 Series) Page 2 R ______ 26. The building plan submittal shall show all parking spaces that are adjacent to a post, column, or wall shall be one additional foot in width per City Engineering Standard 2220. 27. The building plan submittal shall include complete details showing the existing parking easement area serving 555 Ramona to be preserved. The plan shall show and dimension the planter area, vehicle overhang, and parking bay width per City Engineering Standards. 28. The existing neighboring parking easement area (555 Ramona) shall include tree plantings within diamond planters or finger planters to support compensatory tree plantings, if allowed, to the satisfaction of the Planning Division and City Arborist. 29. Provisions for trash, recycle, and green waste containment, screening, and collection shall be approved to the satisfaction of the City and San Luis Obispo Garbage Company. The respective refuse storage area and on-site conveyance shall consider convenience, aesthetics, safety, and functionality. 30. The building plan submittal or improvement plan submittal shall include a complete site utility plan. All existing and proposed utilities along with utility company meters shall be shown. Existing underground and overhead services shall be shown along with any proposed alterations or upgrades. All wire services to the new structures shall be underground. All work in the public right-of-way shall be shown or noted. 31. The final domestic and irrigation service configuration including the Luneta median irrigation meter shall be reviewed and approved to the satisfaction of the City. The engineer of record shall schedule a meeting with the City prior to developing final plans. 32. The building plan submittal or improvement plan submittal shall include a complete grading, drainage and topo plan. The grading and drainage plan shall show existing structures and grades located within 15’ of the property lines. The plan shall consider historic run-on or run- off tributary to this property that may need to be conveyed along with the improved on-site drainage. This development will alter and/or increase the storm water runoff from this site. The improved or altered drainage shall be directed to the street and not across adjoining property lines unless the drainage is conveyed within recorded easements or existing waterways. 33. The building plan submittal shall show and detail the neighboring storm drain easement and improvements for reference. 34. The building plan submittal shall include a drainage report in accordance with the Waterway Management Plan. The drainage report shall include a summary of the bulleted items found in Section 2.3.1 of the manual. 35. The building plan submittal shall show compliance with the Post Construction Stormwater Requirements as promulgated by the Regional Water Quality Control Board for redeveloped sites. Packet Pg. 237 16 Resolution No. ______________ (2017 Series) Page 2 R ______ 36. An operations and maintenance manual will be required for the post construction stormwater improvements. The manual shall be provided at the time of building permit application and shall be accepted by the City prior to building permit issuance. A private stormwater conveyance agreement will be required and shall be recorded prior to final inspection approvals. 37. EPA Requirement: General Construction Activity Storm Water Permits are required for all storm water discharges associated with a construction activity where clearing, grading or excavations result in land disturbance of one or more acres. Storm water discharges of less than one acre, but which is part of a larger common plan of development or sale, also requires a permit. Permits are required until the construction is complete. To be covered by a General Construction Activity Permit, the owner(s) of land where construction activity occurs must submit a completed "Notice of Intent" (NOI) form, with the appropriate fee, to the State Regional Water Quality Control Board. An application is required to the State Board under their recently adopted Stormwater Multi-Application, Reporting, and Tracking System (SMARTS). 38. The building plan submittal shall include a copy of the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) for reference. Incorporate any erosion control measures into the building plans as required by the Board, identified in the SWPPP, and in accordance with Section 10 of the city’s Waterways Management Plan. The building plan submittal shall include reference to the WDID number on the grading and erosion control plans for reference. 39. The building plan submittal or improvement plan submittal shall show all existing trees on the property with a trunk diameter of 3" or greater. Offsite trees along the adjoining property lines with canopies and/or root systems that extend onto the property shall be shown for reference. The plan shall note which trees are to remain and which trees are proposed for removal. Include the diameter and species of all trees. Tree canopies should generally be shown to scale for reference. The City Arborist supports the proposed tree removals with the compensatory tree plantings shown on the landscape plan and identified in the mitigation measures of the initial study. 40. Street trees are required at a rate of one 15-gallon street tree for each 35 linear feet of frontage. The plans shall show all existing and proposed street trees. Tree species and planting requirements shall be in accordance with City Engineering Standards. 41. Tree protection measures shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the City Arborist. The City Arborist shall review and approve the proposed tree protection measures prior to commencing with any demolition, grading, or construction. The City Arborist shall approve any safety pruning, the cutting of substantial roots, or grading within the dripline of trees. A city-approved arborist shall complete safety pruning. Any required tree protection measures shall be shown or noted on the building plans. Packet Pg. 238 16 Resolution No. ______________ (2017 Series) Page 2 R ______ Transportation Division - Public Works Department 42. The developer shall install all necessary street frontages along Luneta per City standards. Said improvements along Luneta shall may be deferred by the Director of Public Works until to allow the City Council to consider an amendment to the City’s Circulation Element eliminating the Luneta Street connection. If such an amendment is approved, the Director of Public Works may waive or modify this pursuant to Council direction. At a minimum the Developer will be required to complete bicycle and pedestrian improvements, landscaping and other miscellaneous improvements to Luneta that completes the terminus of the public rights of way as determined by the Public Works Director takes action on the disposition of the Luenta Street connection. 43. Prior to building permit the applicant shall enter into a covenant agreement to design and install their Luneta St. frontage improvements per the final configuration to be adopted by the City Council. Utilities Department 44. A separate meter shall be provided for the Sandford House as it is proposed to be used as amenity space (non-residential uses). 45. The property’s existing sewer lateral to the point of connection at the City main must pass a video inspection, including repair or replacement, as part of the project. The CCTV inspection shall be submitted during the Building Permit Review Process for review and approval by the Utilities Department prior to issuance of a Building Permit. 46. Potable city water shall not be used for major construction activities, such as grading and dust control as required by under Prohibited Water Uses; Chapter 17.07.070.C of the City’s Municipal Code. Recycled water is available through the City’s Construction Water Permit program. 47. Any private sewer services that cross one proposed parcel for the benefit of another shall provide evidence that a private utility easement appropriate for those facilities has been recorded prior to final Building Permit. 48. Landscaping in the proposed median shall be irrigated from the project’s landscape meter. 49. The project’s Landscape Plan shall be consistent with provisions of the City’s declared drought emergency (estimated total water use (ETWU) cannot exceed 50 percent of maximum applied water allowance or (MAWA)). 50. The project is required to implement off-site sewer rehabilitation (private lateral repair/ replacement) consistent with the mitigation measures identified in the initial study. Packet Pg. 239 16 Resolution No. ______________ (2017 Series) Page 2 R ______ Fire Department 51. Provide riser rooms with exterior door access for fire sprinkler risers in each building show on floor plans. Code Requirements Building Division – Community Development Department 52. Any project submitted for building permit application after January 1st, 2017 will be subject to the 2016 California Code series. Modify applicable code series notes on plans. Upon Motion of ___________, seconded by _____________, and on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this ___________day of ___________ 2017. ______________________________ Mayor Heidi Harmon ATTEST: ______________________________________ Carrie Gallagher City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM ________________________________________ J. Christine Dietrick City Attorney Packet Pg. 240 16 Resolution No. ______________ (2017 Series) Page 2 R ______ IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of the City of San Luis Obispo, California, this _______day or ______________, _________. ______________________________ Carrie Gallagher City Clerk Packet Pg. 241 16 R ______ RESOLUTION NO. __________ (2017 SERIES) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA, DENYING THE REHABILITATION, ADAPTIVE REUSE, AND REPOSITIONING OF THE MASTER LIST HISTORIC SANDFORD HOUSE AND THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW 33-UNIT, MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL PROJECT, WITH A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW, AS REPRESENTED IN THE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT AND ATTACHMENTS DATED APRIL 4, 2017 (71 PALOMAR AVENUE, APPL- 0158-2017) WHEREAS, the Cultural Heritage Committee of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on June 27, 2016, with a four-two vote recommending the ARC approve the project, subject to the findings and conditions of CHC Resolution No. CHC-1009-16 pursuant to a proceeding instituted under ARCH 2193-2015, LR Development Group, applicant; and WHEREAS, the Architectural Review Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing in the Council Hearing Room of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on January 30, 2017, with a four-one vote approving the project, subject to the findings and conditions of ARC Resolution No. ARC-1002-17 pursuant to a proceeding instituted under ARCH 2193-2015, LR Development Group, applicant; and WHEREAS, on February 8, 2017, Teresa Matthews and Lydia Mourenza, the appellants, filed an appeal of the Architectural Review Commission’s action on January 30, 2017; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on April 4, 2017, pursuant to a proceeding instituted under APPL-0158-2017, Teresa Matthews and Lydia Mourenza, the appellants; and WHEREAS, notices of said public hearing were made at the time and in the manner required by law; and WHEREAS, the City Council has duly considered all evidence, including the testimony of the applicant, interested parties, and the evaluation and recommendations by staff, presented at said hearing, and 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 City Council makes the following findings to deny the appeal (APPL-0158-2017) of the Architectural Review Commission decision, thereby granting final approval to the project (ARCH 2193-2015), based on the following findings: Packet Pg. 242 16 Resolution No. ______________ (2017 Series) Page 2 R ______ 1. The project will be detrimental to the health, safety, and welfare of persons living or working at the site or in the vicinity because the project does not respect site constraints and is not compatible with the scale and character of the neighborhood. 2. The project design is inconsistent with the City’s Community Design Guidelines because the architectural style, character, and scale of the new multi-family development are incompatible with the neighborhood and adjacent development. 3. The project design is inconsistent with the City’s Community Design Guidelines because the architectural design of the multi-family development does not complement the character, height and scale of the historic Sandford House. 4. The proposed modifications to the Master List Historic Sandford House and site which includes rehabilitation, adaptive reuse, and repositioning are inconsistent with the Historic Preservation Guidelines and Secretary of Interior Standards. 5. The proposed construction of the new, 33-unit apartment buildings is inconsistent with Secretary of Interior Standards for new construction on historic properties since the new construction is not subordinate to and compatible with the scale, size, massing and architectural features of the Master List Historic Sandford House. SECTION 2. Environmental Review. The project is statutorily exempt pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15270 (Projects which are disapproved). SECTION 3. Action. Based on the above findings and evidence submitted in support thereof, the City Council does hereby deny application APPL-0158-2017. Upon Motion of ___________, seconded by _____________, and on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this ___________day of ___________ 2017. ______________________________ Mayor Heidi Harmon ATTEST: Packet Pg. 243 16 Resolution No. ______________ (2017 Series) Page 2 R ______ ______________________________________ Carrie Gallagher City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM ________________________________________ J. Christine Dietrick City Attorney IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of the City of San Luis Obispo, California, this _______day or ______________, _________. ______________________________ Carrie Gallagher City Clerk Packet Pg. 244 16 R-1 R-1 R-4 C-C R-1 R-4-PD R-4-PD R-1-PD R-1 R-4 R-4 R-1 R-1 R-4 R-2 R-4-PD R-1 R-1 C/OS-20 C-C-SFR-1 RAMONA FOOTHILL SERRANO LUNETAVERDE PALOMARBRESSIPENMANELM VICINITY MAP ARCH-2193-201571 PALOMAR AVENUE ¯ Packet Pg. 245 16 Packet Pg. 24616 Packet Pg. 24716 Packet Pg. 24816 Packet Pg. 24916 Packet Pg. 25016 Packet Pg. 25116 Packet Pg. 25216 Packet Pg. 25316 Packet Pg. 25416 Packet Pg. 25516 Packet Pg. 25616 Packet Pg. 25716 Packet Pg. 25816 Packet Pg. 25916 Packet Pg. 26016 Packet Pg. 26116 Packet Pg. 26216 Packet Pg. 26316 Packet Pg. 26416 Packet Pg. 26516 Packet Pg. 26616 Packet Pg. 26716 Packet Pg. 26816 Packet Pg. 26916 Packet Pg. 27016 Packet Pg. 27116 Packet Pg. 27216 Packet Pg. 27316 Packet Pg. 27416 Packet Pg. 27516 Packet Pg. 27616 Packet Pg. 27716 Packet Pg. 27816 ''Packet Pg. 27916 ' ' W WWW' 'Ashley&VanceG,C1413 Monterey StreetSan Luis Obispo, CA 93401 (805) 545-0010 (323) 744-0010www.ashleyvance.comC I V I L S T R U C T U R A L020 20 40HORIZONTAL SCALE: FEETN264.4 FF - PODIUM DECK253.0' FF - 2ND LEVEL PARKING DECK244.0' FF - 1ST LEVEL PARKING DECK264.2 FS268.5 FF267.3 FG267.8 FG264.3 FSPALOM A R A V E N U E LUNETA DRIVE(258.7 EG)(253.0 EG)(244.4 EG)51,900 SF AREAEARTHWORK:16,000 CY CUT50 CY FILL20' MAX CUT5' MAX FILLLID STORMWATERREQUIREMENTS, TIER 2PROJECT UTILIZES:xUNDERGROUND RETENTIONxDISCONNECTED DOWNSPOUTSxVEGETATED SWALESxOPEN CELL BLOCK PAVING273.1 TW/FS264.3 TW(264.3 EG)264.3 TW(258.6 EG)264.2 TWSITE CONSTRUCTION NOTES:LIMITS OF PODIUM DECK/PARKING AREA ROOFREMOVE EXISTING RETAINING WALLPROPOSED 5' MAX RETAINING WALLEXISTING RETAINING WALL TO REMAINNOT USEDNOT USEDEXISTING POWER POLE TO REMAINEXISTING AC PAVEMENT AND AC DIKELANDSCAPE MEDIANRELOCATED HISTORICAL STRUCTUREPROPOSED DRAIN INLET. SEE SHEET C3.1 FOR UNDERGROUND IMPROVEMENTSEXISTING RESIDENTIAL DRIVEWAYPROPOSED PROPERTY LINEBIO-FILTRATION RAIN GARDENSIDEWALK UNDERDRAIN PER CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO STANDARD 3410.DRIVEWAY PER SAN LUIS OBISPO CITY STANDARD 2110, 2120 AND 2130.EXISTING PARKING LOTEXISTING DROP INLET TO REMAIN20' WIDE DRIVEWAY RAMP PER SAN LUIS OBISPO CITY STANDARD 2110 AND 2120.LIMITS OF INTERIOR PARKING GARAGE RAMPEXISTING TREES TO REMAINTRANSFORMER PAD123478991012121212126'S/W12'TRAVEL LANE12'MEDIAN12'TRAVEL LANE6'EXISTS/W1PROPOSED ROAD SECTIONSCALE: 1" = 4' HORIZONTAL1" = 4' VERTICAL13(272.3 TC)MATCH EXIST(274.3 TC)(273.7 TC)271.6 TC270.5 TC(271.2 TC)267.6 TC(268.3 TC)(264.9 TC)(263.3 TC)MATCH EXIST251.7 BSW250.3 BSW248.5 BSW247.1 BSW246.2 FS@ DWY246.2 FS@ DWY253.0 FS@ DWY253.0 FS@ DWY141515161617186.0%13.8%12.1%4.8%191918.00'244.0 FS@ DWY244.0 FS@ DWY20(5.3%)(6.5%)3.5%3.5%PROPOSED 4' MAXRETAINING WALL(CUT WALL)PROPOSED 5' MAXRETAINING WALL(FILL WALL)2'SAWCUT(VARIES)(VARIES)VARIES3.5%2122268.4 FS268.0 FF268.0 FF268.5 FF268.5 FF264.8 FG264.3 FG267.8 FG267.9 FG1111111111111111111111268.4 FS265.4 FS266.9 FGBUILDING CBUILDING DBUILDING FBUILDING EBUILDING ABUILDING BBUILDING G1~266.5 FG264.3 FG264.0 FS265.4 FG266.7 FGPacket Pg. 28016 ' ' ' 'SSW WWWSSSSSSDSDSD SDSDSDSDSDSDSD SDSAshley&VanceG,C1413 Monterey StreetSan Luis Obispo, CA 93401 (805) 545-0010 (323) 744-0010www.ashleyvance.comC I V I L S T R U C T U R A L020 20 40HORIZONTAL SCALE: FEETNPALO M A R A V E N U E UNDERGROUNDRETENTIONCHAMBERS, SIZEAND TYPE TBD, TYPTIE INTO EXIST6" SEWER(1) NEW 2" DOMESTICMETER. SITE TO BESUBMETERED BEYONDTHIS POINTTIE INTO EXIST10" WATERCLEANOUT, TYPSTORM DRAINOVERFLOWS TOSTREET VIASIDEWALKUNDERDRAIN4" FIRE WATER,DDCV AND FDCASSEMBLY,LANDSCAPESCREENED(EXIST FIREHYDRANT)~75' FROM PL~150' FROM PL(EXIST FIREHYDRANT)REUSE (1) EXISTDOMESTIC METER, AND(1) EXIST IRRIGATIONMETER.NEW PADMOUNTEDTRANSFORMERLUNETA DRIVELANDSCAPE IRRIGATION NOTES:INSTALL WATER METER FOR CITY REGULATED LANDSCAPE IRRIGATIONINSTALL IRRIGATION SERVICE ASSEMBLY PER CITY STANDARD DETAIL 8560INSTALL IRRIGATION CONTROLLER PER CITY STANDARD DETAIL 8520, LOCATION APPROXIMATEIRRIGATION SERVICEEXISTING PG&E POWER POLEEXISTING WATER MAINPROPOSED FIRE WATER LINEEXISTING SEWER MAIN4" PVC SLEEVE21344567889HDPE STORM DRAIN,SIZES VARY, TYPHDPE STORM DRAIN,SIZES VARY, TYPSDR 35 PVCSEWER, SIZEVARIES, TYP264.4 FF - PODIUM DECK253.0' FF - 2ND LEVEL PARKING DECK244.0' FF - 1ST LEVEL PARKING DECK268.5 FF268.0 FF268.0 FF268.5 FF269.0 FFBUILDING CBUILDING DBUILDING FBUILDING EBUILDING ABUILDING BBUILDING GPacket Pg. 28116 Packet Pg. 28216 Filing Fee Tree Appeal: $113.00 0 All Other Appeals: $281 .00 CITYOP Sffn IAIIS OBISPO Received by: FEB 0 8 2017 SLO CITY C .. RK APPEAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL SECTION 1. APPELLANT INFORMATION ~~.s~ Ma.ttli~.s ~()~ Ui·o~J.O </;1 /?4'owtfVt-,,~0 'l.3 1~ Name Mailing Address and Zip Code bl-r Lunet-~ /Jr, gLLJ ?3 Fax ' ./?tJ. Title Phone Fax SECTION 2. SUBJECT OF APPEAL 1. In accordance with the procedures set forth in Title 1, Chapter 1.20 of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code (copy attached), I hereby appeal the decision of the: /lrtth1f e~tur~L fev1~ {!677J/#116.s~t:>n (Name of Officer, Committee or Commission decision being appealed) 2. The date the decision being appealed was render~ ..3.9: .Zo Ir 3. The application or project was entitled: V ~-II.IL.. _ SL D A lfe tl -2.L 93 -2.olfi" 4. I discussed the matter with the following City staff member: Jev.erv ~ aT t/Ar/~. on march ,to/t, ame and Department)~es 9~/Yt!e, (Date) 5. Has this matter been the subject of a previous appeal? If so, when was it heard and by whom : SECTION 3. REASON FOR APPEAL Explain specifically what action/s you are appealing and why you believe the Council should consider your appeal. Include what evidence you have that supports your appeal. You may attach additional pages, if necessary. This form continues on the other side. Page 1of3 . ' Packet Pg. 283 16 Reason for Appeal continued SECTION 4. APPELLANT'S RESPONSIBILITY The San Luis Obispo City Council values public participation in local government and encourages all forms of citizen involvement. However, due to real costs associated with City Council consideration of an appeal, including public notification , all appeals pertaining to a planning application or project are subject to a filing fee of $281', which must accompany the appeal form. Your right to exercise an appeal comes with certain responsibilities. If you file an appeal, please understand that it must be heard within 45 days from filing this form. You will be notified in writing of the exact date your appeal will be heard before the Council. You or your representative will be expected to attend the public hearing, and to be prepared to make your case. Your testimony is limited to 1 O minutes. A continuance may be granted under certain and unusual circumstances. If you feel you need to request a continuance, you must submit your request in writing to the City Clerk. Please be advised that if your request for continuance is received after the appeal is noticed to the public, the Council may not be able to grant the request for continuance. Submitting a request for continuance does not guarantee that it will be granted; that action is at the discretion of the City Council. I hereby agree to appear and/or send a representative to appear on my behalf when said appeal Is schedµled for a public hearing before the City Council. 7n cl: ,;f;/N l.,A QAtwcv Fi1 (,ZLJ1r I (Date) (Signature of Appellant) / Exceptions to the fee: 1) Appeals of Tree Committee decisions are $113. 2) The above-named appellant has already paid the City $281 to appeal this same matter to a City official or Council advisory body. This item is hereby calendared for---------------------- cc: City Attorney City Manager Department Head Advisory Body Chairperson Advisory Body Liaison City Clerk (original) 07116 update Page 2 of 3 Packet Pg. 284 16 February 8, 2017 Attachment to Appeal to City Council City Council City of San Luis Obispo 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Re: Appeal to the City Council to Overturn the Architectural Review Commission Approval of the 71 Palomar Project (ARCH 2193-2015) on January 30, 2017 Dear Mayor Harmon and City Council Members: On January 30, 2017, the Architectural Review Commission (ARC) approved a resolution to grant final approval to the proposed 71 Palomar project (ARCH 2193-2015) based on 9 findings. We wish to appeal the ARC decision. This project has not been properly analyzed and as currently designed will have a significant negative impact on the environment as well as adverse effects on health and safety. We recommend that it not move forward toward development as currently designed. Over the course of the appeal process, we anticipate that many concerned citizens will come forward to provide additional information. Initially, we have identified the following issues to support the appeal: 1 The Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) is flawed as we will show below and in subsequent written and oral argument. Because the IS/MND is flawed and the Project is not exempt from CEQA the Initial Study must be redone or the project must be rejected. Packet Pg. 285 16 2 The Arborist Reports are flawed and cannot be relied upon. They misidentify trees; inadequately assess their health; fail to adjust their health assessment for simple remedies (e.g., adequate watering); and do not identify the many significant trees that are scheduled for removal so that decision makers can assess the value of these trees themselves. The ARC Agenda Report argues that there are no significant trees scheduled for removal. Since "significant tree" is not a defined term in the city's lexicon, we ask that Council Members visit the site and determine this for themselves. Note that moving the historic house to its proposed location will result in the removal of a 95 ft. tall Norfolk Island Pine which is clearly a "significant tree" because as Dr. Matthew Ritter has written: "the tallest national champion A. heterophylla in Camarillo, CA is 108 ft. tall" and that: "There are between 20-30 mature individual A. heterophylla in San Luis Obispo ... and the individual at 71 Palomar is the 2nd tallest in San Luis Obispo". 3 The Biological studies are limited, and the proposed mitigations outlined in the IS/MND are fatally flawed. The project does not comply with CEQA, the Federal Migratory Bird Treaty, and the City's own General Plan including but not limited to the Conservation and Open Space Element and the Land Use Element. The Rincon Peer Review mitigations for removal of bio-resources associated with the 17 eucalyptus trees are significantly lacking when compared to those mitigations included in the San Luis Ranch Draft Environmental Impact Report. 4 The Aesthetics Evaluation is inadequate which can be demonstrated using photographic evidence and upon visual inspection from Council members. An unbiased study will Packet Pg. 286 16 show that the project is not in compliance with the Land Use Element that requires that the City shall preserve, protect and enhance the City's neighborhoods (2.1); that residential developments preserve and incorporate as amenities, natural site features such as land forms, views, creeks, wetlands, wildlife habitats, wildlife corridors, and plants (2.3.7); and that the City shall require that new housing built within an existing neighborhood be sited and designed to be compatible with the character of the neighborhood, preserve Natural, Historic and Cultural Features and maintain mature trees on-site to the maximum extent feasible (2.3.9). Ultimately, we urge Council members to see this site for themselves and make up their own minds. 5 The Historic Sandford House should not be moved. Relocation from the original foundation compromises the integrity of the historic resource and degrades the setting, feeling and association which are criteria under the City historic preservation ordinance {14.01). In addition, if the property is moved, it will be disqualified from eligibility on the National Register of Historic Places, even if it is moved from one location on its original site to another location on the same property. The developer has failed to provide any documentary evidence to support a need to relocate the house which continues to serve as a residence. The proposed development significantly alters the topography which should remain in its natural state, and fails to avoid over- excavation. The removal of trees would permanently obliterate the cultural landscape, is in-conflict with preservation of our Urban forest and detrimental to neighborhood wellness. Packet Pg. 287 16 6 The parking proposal is clearly inadequate as the 33 units as currently designed will house close to 150 residents. The city's existing models are not adequate to address the occupancy, and thus, the likely automobile population resulting from this project. We urge Council members to carefully examine the projected occupancy of each room in the proposed project. Please note that each bedroom is oversized and designed to accommodate a partition. Thus, for example, each two-bedroom apartment is likely to have at least 4 residents. In addition, most of these residents are likely to own a car and the proposed project's 63 parking spaces are woefully inadequate, and thus, pose a terrible burden on an already over-burdened neighborhood that already has a parking district. The project's parking proposal is clearly inconsistent with the city's Land Use Element which requires that new development provide adequate off- street parking to match the intended use and is inconsistent with the Circulation Element that requires that the City facilitate strategies to protect neighborhoods from spill-over parking from adjacent high intensity uses (14.1.2). 7 The IS/MND does not adequately address the likely issues resulting from the 150 new neighborhood residents and their visitors. We have significant concerns regarding the safety of pedestrians and bicyclists (including seniors from the Villages Residence) at the Palomar and Ramona, Ramona and Broad, Palomar and Serrano, and Serrano and Broad street intersections. These intersections are particularly sensitive and the existing models have significantly Packet Pg. 288 16 underestimated likely occupancy and traffic flow and thus, a significantly refined traffic and safety study is required. In addition, adding 150 people into this condensed space without a noise buffer is a significant degradation to the peace and tranquility of the neighborhood and because the noise is not necessarily sustained, it will likely not be an enforceable noise violation. The overall concern is that adding additional density to an already overcrowded neighborhood will likely add many additional unintended consequences associated with high density neighborhoods. Finally, please note that while the project itself will only displace 7-10 individuals, the impact will extend beyond the property causing further overturn of family occupied houses to high density rentals due to the degradation of neighborhood wellness. 8 Many of the neighborhood's utilities are already overburdened (e.g., natural gas, sewer, water, etc.). We cannot afford to add to this burden without significant capital investment. 9 The ARC was erroneously instructed that California State Law prohibited them from making any requirement that would result in a reduction in the overall density of the project. For example, the Committee was not allowed to consider requiring a reduction in massing to protect the prominence of the historic home if it would reduce density. We will demonstrate in future correspondence and verbal testimony that many of the instructions given to the ARC as to just what was in their purview were not consistent with Packet Pg. 289 16 state law. Thus, at a minimum, the ARC must reconsider this application without the illegal constraints. In summary, we are urging the Council to either: a. uphold the appeal and deny the project or, b. uphold the appeal and completely redo the Initial Study and return the project to the Tree Committee and the ARC. We reserve the right to provide additional information and evidence pertaining to this appeal. Packet Pg. 290 16 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT SUBJECT: Review of the rehabilitation, adaptive reuse, and repositioning of the Master List Historic Sandford House and the construction of a new 33-unit, multi-family residential project, with a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Review. PROJECT ADDRESS: 71 Palomar Avenue BY: Rachel Cohen, Associate Planner Phone Number: (805) 781-7574 e-mail: rcohen@slocity.org FILE NUMBER: ARCH-2193-2015 FROM: Doug Davidson, Deputy Director RECOMMENDATION: Adopt the Draft Resolution (Attachment 1) which approves the project, based on findings, and subject to conditions. SITE DATA Applicant LR Development Group Representative Thom Jess, Architect Historic Status Master List Submittal Date 10/16/2015 Complete Date 5/20/2016 Zoning R-4 (High Density Residential) General Plan High Density Residential Site Area 57,500 square feet (1.32 acres) Environmental Status Mitigated Negative Declaration SUMMARY The applicant is proposing to reposition, rehabilitate, and adaptively reuse the Master List Historic Sandford House as part of a new 33-unit, multi-family residential project. The project includes the repositioning of the Historic Sandford House for the proposed project’s leasing office and amenity space (study room, fitness room, etc.) and constructing six apartment buildings (four, 2-story structures; two 4-story structures built into the hill - all with a maximum height of 35 feet) with a total of 33 residential units (five studios, sixteen two-bedroom apartments, and twelve three bedroom apartments). The project is also proposing to remove 55 of the 59 existing trees on the site and replanting 34 trees on the project site and 76 off-site. The project includes 63 parking spaces within a two-level garage beneath the two, north apartment buildings, accessed from Palomar Avenue and 66 bicycle parking spaces. Per the City’s current General Plan policies and conditions of the Meeting Date: January 30, 2017 Item Number: 1 RC ARC1 - 1Packet Pg. 291 16 ARCH-2193-2015 71 Palomar Avenue Page 2 subdivision, the project is also proposing to connect Luneta Drive to Palomar Avenue. Other alternatives are being considered in place of the road connection and conditions of approval are included to allow for implementation of these alternatives in the event such policies are modified in the near future. The project has been designed to be consistent with the Community Design Guidelines and has already been given direction from the Cultural Heritage Committee (CHC) and the Architectural Review Commission (ARC). The project includes a 25% density bonus and includes four, very-low affordable studios which is consistent with the City’s Zoning Regulations and State Law. The applicant is not requesting any exceptions or concessions to the development standards for a R-4 zoned lot. 1.0 COMMISSION’S PURVIEW The Commission is tasked with the following: 1. Review the Cultural Heritage Committees recommendation (Attachment 4, CHC Resolution) and take final action on the project’s consistency with historic preservation standards. 2. Review the project in terms of its consistency with the Community Design Guidelines and applicable City policies and standards. 3. Review and take action on the attached Mitigated Negative Declaration (Attachment 7). 2.0 BACKGROUND March 28, 2016: The CHC reviewed a proposal for a 41-unit multi-family development with four multi-level buildings. The proposal also included the rehabilitation of the Master List Historic Sandford House. The CHC continued the item and provided the following direction to the applicant: 1. Maintain aspects of the cultural landscape of the Sandford House by reducing the extent to which it is relocated and increase the distance between the historic house and the right-of-way and the new development; and 2. Re-evaluate ways in which to reduce the scale and massing and detailing of the new development to ensure that the new construction does not overwhelm the prominence of the historic residence; Figure 1: View of the Sandford House from Palomar Avenue ARC1 - 2Packet Pg. 292 16 ARCH-2193-2015 71 Palomar Avenue Page 3 3. New construction should not mimic the historic house, but elements such as fenestration, window patterns and other detailing should be considered that highlight the historic elements of the Sandford House. June 27, 2016: The CHC reviewed a revised proposal for the subject site that included the rehabilitation of the Master List Historic Sandford House and proposed a newly designed 33-unit multi-family development in response to the CHC direction. The CHC voted 4:2 recommending the ARC find the project consistent with Historic Preservation Program Guidelines and Secretary of Interior Standards with a series of conditions (see Attachment 4, CHC Resolution). The CHC provided the following recommendations to ARC: 1. The ARC shall evaluate further reduction in scale and massing to ensure the new development does not overwhelm the prominence of the Historic Sandford House and give great consideration to the City Arborist’s recommendations for protection of trees. 2. Plans submitted for final review shall include all details, cut sheets, dimensions, and specifications as determined by staff to be necessary for the ARC to ensure all materials, windows, and architectural details are of high quality and suitable for an infill project adjacent to an architecturally significant historic structure. 3. The project shall remove the smooth panel horizontal elements around the windows on Buildings A and B. August 1, 2016: The ARC participated in a conceptual review on the proposed project in order to provide feedback to the applicant (Attachment 6, ARC Conceptual Review Minutes). The ARC provided the following list of directional items: Tree Removal and Landscaping The ARC deferred directional comments on tree removal and landscaping until they have more information. The ARC requested the following information be included for their review: 1. Provide a tree survey, biological report, wildlife habitat information, bird survey and an aesthetics analysis. 2. Review the trees individually and collectively. 3. Discussion on the historic siting and location of plantings. 4. Vintage of the trees (Were they planted during the period of significance?). 5. Carefully consider the use or need of water as a part of the new landscaping plan. 6. Provide details on the landscape plans that show exactly how vegetation will be planted along the northern property line. Materials and Architectural Elements 1. Provide durable materials – include details on plans of the fit and finish of all the materials on all (4) sides of the project. 2. Provide details of the exterior light fixtures. 3. Consider using lighter colors. ARC1 - 3Packet Pg. 293 16 ARCH-2193-2015 71 Palomar Avenue Page 4 Scale and Massing 1. Reduce the number of the bedrooms, especially in the structures closest to Luneta. Consider putting single level structures at Luneta. 2. Provide individuality between the buildings. 3. Lower the perceived elevation/height of the structures along Luneta and the Sandford House. 4. Provide second-story off-sets or some other element to break up the two-story planes. 5. Provide more setbacks and articulation along the north elevation of the project, especially the northeast corner (east elevation, right corner, sheet A3.5). 6. Pedestrian circulation between buildings appears too close. Provide wider walkways between the buildings. 3.0 PROJECT INFORMATION 3.1 Site Information/Setting Table 1: Site Information Site Size 57,500 square feet (1.32 acres) Present Use & Development Residential; Master List Historic Sandford House Land Use Designation High Density Residential (R-4) Topography Elevation: Min. 245 feet; Max. 270 ft. Slope: ~11% slope Current Access From Luneta Drive Surrounding Use/Zoning North, East & West: R-4 (High Density Residential) South: R-1 (Single Family Residential) 3.2 Project Description: The applicant is proposing the following (Attachment 3, Project Plans):  Removal of the non-historic additions to the main structure;  Removal of the non-historic garage, carport and the secondary residential building;  Repositioning the house approximately 33 feet east and 16 feet south of its current location;  Rehabilitation of the historic structure and adaptive reuse for the proposed project’s leasing office and amenity space (study room, fitness room, etc.);  Removal of 55 of the 59 existing trees on the site and replanting 34 trees;  Construction of six apartment buildings (four, 2-story structures; two 4-story structures built into the hill - all with a maximum height of 35 feet) with a total of 33 residential units (five studios, sixteen two-bedroom apartments, and twelve three bedroom apartments);  63 parking spaces and 66 bicycle parking spaces within a two-level garage beneath the two, north apartment buildings, accessed from Palomar Avenue; and  Road improvements to Luneta Drive including two-way traffic and raised medians.  Materials include: smooth stucco, horizontal lap siding, and wood balcony railings. ARC1 - 4Packet Pg. 294 16 ARCH-2193-2015 71 Palomar Avenue Page 5 3.2 Project Statistics Table 2: Project Comparison to R-4 Zoning Standards Item Proposed R-4 Zoning Standards Setback Front Yard 16 feet 15 feet Other Yard (max height 35 feet) 10 feet 10 feet Max. Height of Structure(s) 35 feet 35 feet Max. Building Coverage (footprint) 43% 60% Density Units (DU) 36.561 28.56 (24 DU per acre) Parking Spaces 2 Vehicle 63 61 Bicycle (long-term) 66 66 Bicycle (short-term) 22 4 Notes: 1. 28.56 DU x 25% density bonus for providing 7% very -low affordable housing units (4 studio units) 2. Chapter 17.90.040 (Standard Incentives for housing projects) includes parking ratio of 1 space per studio and 1 - bedroom and 2 spaces per 2- and 3-bedroom residential units. 3.4 Historic Background In 1983, the Historic Sandford House was added to the Master List of Historic Resources on the basis of architectural significance as an excellent example of the Colonial Revival style of American architecture (Attachment 7, Mitigated Negative Declaration – Attachment 4: Historic Resources Report). The report notes the “Sandford House retains several of the notable characteristics which reflect Colonial Revival style, including symmetrically placed window features with a prominent main entryway and neoclassical portico.” The Historic Evaluation Report has identified the period of significance for the structure as circa 1895-1930. Figure 2: East elevation (top) and South elevation (bottom) views ARC1 - 5Packet Pg. 295 16 ARCH-2193-2015 71 Palomar Avenue Page 6 The Historic Sandford House was likely constructed in 1895 (no records have been found with the exact date of construction). Reginald Wills-Sandford, (for whom the house is named), and his wife Mary Woods Sperry owned the property from 1895 to 1899. In 1930 the solarium was added and integrated into the south side of the Historic Sandford House (see Figure 2). The addition of the solarium is considered to be historically significant as it contributes to the architectural style and character of the house (Attachment 7, Mitigated Negative Declaration – Attachment 4: Historic Resources Report, Section 6.2.1). In the 1950’s other additions and accessory structures were added to the property. These non- historic alterations included: two single-story stucco clad additions to the rear (north side) of the main structure, a 2-story addition, a detached garage, and a secondary residential building. In 1970, the garage was converted into sleeping quarters and a carport was added (Attachment 7, Mitigated Negative Declaration – Attachment 4: Historic Resources Report, Sections 5.2 and 6.2.1). 3.5 Policy Background 3.5.1 Land Use Element The subject property has been identified in the Land Use Element (LUE) as High Density Residential. High Density Residential is defined as attached dwellings in two and three story buildings, with common outdoor areas and very compact private outdoor spaces. This type of development is appropriate in some locations near Cal Poly, in the Downtown core, near employment concentrations, and near transit corridors and nodes (Table 1: General Plan Land Use Designations and Development Standards, Land Use Element). LUE Policy 2.2.6. states that the City shall promote livability, quiet enjoyment, and safety for all residents. Characteristics of quality neighborhoods vary from neighborhood to neighborhood, but often include one or more of the following characteristics:  A mix of housing type styles, density, and affordability.  Design and circulation features that create and maintain a pedestrian scale.  Nearby services and facilities including schools, parks, retail (e.g., grocery store, drug store), restaurants and cafes, and community centers or other public facilities.  A tree canopy and well-maintained landscaping.  A sense of personal safety (e.g., low crime rate, short police and emergency response times).  Convenient access to public transportation.  Well-maintained housing and public facilities. Additionally, the LUE states the City shall promote infill development, redevelopment, rehabilitation, and adaptive reuse efforts that contribute positively to existing neighborhoods and surrounding areas (LUE Policy 2.2.7). 3.5.2 Housing Element The Housing Element (HE) includes several policies that encourage infill residential development, housing for all financial strata, and the promotion of higher residential density ARC1 - 6Packet Pg. 296 16 ARCH-2193-2015 71 Palomar Avenue Page 7 where appropriate.1 The City has outlined in HE Goal 2 that housing should be in-line with the Regional Housing Needs Allocation, for the 2014 - 2019 planning period (see Table 3). The project is proposing to construct four very-low income units which are some of the more challenging units to be provided within a private development. The HE further states that affordable housing units should be intermixed and not segregated by economic status and encourages housing development that meets a variety of special needs, including large families, single parents, disabled persons, the elderly, students, veterans, the homeless, or those seeking congregate care, group housing, single-room occupancy or co-housing accommodations, utilizing universal design (HE Policy 8.1). The Housing Element further states:  That the City should continue to consider increasing residential densities above state density bonus allowances for projects that provide housing for low, very low and extremely low income households (Policy 2.17); and  That the City should continue to incentivize affordable housing development with density bonuses, parking reductions and other development incentives, including City financial assistance (Program 6.19). Table 3: Housing Element Table 6: Remaining RHNA need based on dwelling units approved, under construction or built (January 1, 2014 to October 11, 2016) Income Category A B A-B New Construction Need (RHNA) Dwelling Units Approved, Under Construction or Built Remaining RHNA Need, Dwelling Units Extremely-Low (< 31% of AMI) 142 5 137 Very Low (31-50% of AMI) 143 53 90 Low (51-80% of AMI) 179 81 98 Moderate (81-120% of AMI) 202 95 107 Above Moderate (>120% of AMI) 478 4781 0 TOTAL RHNA UNITS 1,144 7121 432 Source: City of San Luis Obispo Community Development Department, 2016 1No credit allowed for the number of above moderate units built that exceed RHNA. Actual above moderate units = 1,350. 3.5.3 Major City Goal Housing was determined to be one of the most important, highest priority goals for the City to accomplish over 2015-17 financial year. The goal states: Implement the Housing Element, 1 Housing Element Policies: Policy 2.2: Encourage housing production for all financial strata of the City's population, in the proportions shown in the Regional Housing Needs Allocation, for the 2014 - 2019 planning period. Policy 6.10: To help meet the Quantified Objectives, the City will support residential infill development and promote higher residential density where appropriate. Policy 7.1: Within established neighborhoods, new residential development shall be of a character, size, density and quality that respects the neighborhood character and maintains the quality of life for existing and future residents. Policy 7.2: Higher density housing should maintain high quality standards for unit design, privacy, security, on -site amenities, and public and private open space. Such standards should be flexible enough to allow innovative design solutions in special circumstances, e.g. in developing mixed -use developments or in housing in the Downtown Core. ARC1 - 7Packet Pg. 297 16 ARCH-2193-2015 71 Palomar Avenue Page 8 facilitating workforce, affordable, supportive and transitional housing options, including support for needed infrastructure within the City’s fair share. 3.5.4 State Housing Density Bonus Law California State law encourages the development of affordable housing and provides density bonuses based on the inclusion of affordable units within a project. In addition to a density bonus, by providing a certain percentage of affordable units within a project (as outlined in Section 17.90.060 of the Zoning Regulations), a developer may receive alternative incentives or concessions for the project such as exceptions to height limits, setback and parking requirements and deferral or waiver of fees. For this project, the developer is setting aside four units for very- low income (7%) which equals a State mandated 25% density bonus in accordance with State law and the City’s Zoning Code. The developer has not requested any incentives or concessions and, except for density limits, the proposed project is fully consistent with all development standards. Government Code section 65915(e)(1) states, in pertinent part: In no case may a city, county, or city and county apply any development standard that will have the effect of physically precluding the construction of a development meeting the criteria of subdivision (b) at the densities or with the concessions or incentives permitted by [the Density Bonus Law]. 3.5.5 Housing Accountability Act The Housing Accountability Act applies to “housing development projects.” “Housing development project” means a use consisting of any of the following:  Residential units only.  Mixed-use developments consisting of residential and nonresidential uses in which nonresidential uses are limited to neighborhood commercial uses and to the first floor of buildings that are two or more stories.  Transitional housing or supportive housing. Section 65589.5(d)(2) of the Act states that: (d) A local agency shall not disapprove a housing development project…for very low, low-, or moderate-income households…or condition approval in a manner that renders the project infeasible for development for the use of very low, low-, or moderate-income households…including through the use of design review standards, unless it makes written findings, based upon substantial evidence in the record, as to one of the following: (2) The development project…as proposed would have a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety, and there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific adverse impact without rendering the development unaffordable to low- and moderate-income household…a “specific, adverse impact” means a significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact, based on objective, identified written public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions as they existed on the date the application was deemed complete. Inconsistency with the zoning ordinance or general plan land use designation shall not constitute a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety. ARC1 - 8Packet Pg. 298 16 ARCH-2193-2015 71 Palomar Avenue Page 9 4.0 PROJECT ANALYSIS Project plans were reviewed in terms of their consistency with the City’s General Plan, Zoning Regulations and the Community Design Guidelines (CDG) for Multi-family and Clustered Housing Design.2 Staff has evaluated the project’s consistency with relevant requirements and is discussed in the following analysis. 4.1 General Plan – Luneta Drive Under the General Plan Luneta Dr. is currently planned to provide connectivity between Verde Dr. & Palomar Ave. The last section of the roadway needed to implement this plan is 71 Palomar’s frontage on Luneta drive. Per subdivision regulations this project is required to complete their frontage improvements allowing the roadway to be connected. During the public review process neighborhood residents raised concerns about having Luneta drive opened and subsequently the City Council directed staff to evaluate a general plan amendment to keep Luneta closed and return to Council with a recommendation. This separates the Luneta Dr. closure issue from the development project, allowing the development review process to continue on a separate track regardless of the outcome of the Luneta Dr. configuration. The projects public improvements on the Luneta frontage will still be the applicant’s responsibility, however those will be deferred until the Council reaches a decision on the potential general plan amendment and new design for the road. 4.2 Zoning Regulations Development Standards The proposed project complies with all of the development standards for an R -4 zoned lot as shown in Table 2 above. Below is a specific discussion on the proposed density bonus and parking. 4.2.1 Density: The site is zoned R-4 which allows 24 units per acre. The net size of the site is 1.19 acres which allows for 28.56 total density units (d.u.). The applicant is proposing to include 7% of the total units as affordable for very low-income which provides the development with a 25% density bonus. Per state law, projects that provide affordable housing are allowed up to a 35% density bonus (Zoning Regulations Section 17.90.040, Standard incentives for housing projects). 25% of 28.56 is 7.14 (which rounds up to 8) for a total density calculation of 36.56. 7% of the original density is 1.99, and the applicant is proposing to set aside 4 studios (2 d.u.) for very-low income. As proposed, the density is consistent with State law and the City’s Zoning Regulations. 4.2.2 Parking: The Affordable Housing Incentives Parking Requirements (Zoning Regulations, Section 17.90.040.K) allows projects that include affordable units the following parking ratios: 1 space per studio and 1-bedroom and 2 spaces per 2- and 3-bedroom residential units. Using this parking ratio, the project requires 61 spaces and the project provides 63. The proposed parking is consistent with the City’s Zoning Regulations. 2 CDG Section 5.4. ARC1 - 9Packet Pg. 299 16 ARCH-2193-2015 71 Palomar Avenue Page 10 4.3 Community Design Guidelines (CDG) As noted above in Section 2.0, the CHC and the ARC provided feedback regarding design elements of the proposed project. These comments as well as the CDG were used to evaluate the project (Attachment 3, Project Plans). Staff’s analysis is provided below. 4.3.1 Site Plan: The CDG’s state that multi-family projects should create a pleasant, comfortable, safe, and distinct place for residents, without the project "turning its back" on the surrounding neighborhood. New development should respect the privacy of adjacent residential uses through appropriate building orientation, structure height, and should separate the units into structures of six or fewer units.3 The proposed project design consists of six separate multi-family structures; five of the buildings contain four units and one building has thirteen units. The structures along Luneta Drive maintain similar setbacks to the adjacent multi-family complex (Valencia Apartments) to the west of the site and are designed with architectural elements such as window placement and shed and gabled roofs that keep the project from turning its back to the neighborhood (Attachment 3, Project Plans, Sheets A2.2, A3.5, A3.6, A4.1, & A4.3). Clear paths to each of the units are highlighted by their placement in relation to the public right-of-way, landscaping and the Historic Sandford House (Attachment 3, Project Plans, Sheet L-1). The proposed setbacks, height and landscaping provide privacy for the site as well as eliminate overlook into private space of neighboring property. The project’s parking area does not visually dominant the site because two levels of parking are provided under Buildings A and B. All parking for the project is accessed from Palomar Avenue eliminating vehicular access to the site along Luneta Drive adjacent to single family residences. 4.3.2 Building Design and Architecture: The CDG states that the exterior design of multi- family projects should be derived from architectural styles in the surrounding neighborhood. Often, these types of projects are adjacent to single family neighborhoods, and care in design should ensure that the height and bulk of the higher density projects do not impact adjacent lower density residential areas.4 The CDG further discuss that multi-family structures consider façade and roof articulation, scale, and balconies, porches, and patios. Another important component of architectural compatibility is use of authentic and quality finish materials and architectural details. The applicant has submitted detail sheets of the finishes and architectural details of the project (Attachment 3, Project Plans, Sheets A7.0, A8.0, & CB-1). In addition to the CDG, the CHC and the ARC also provided comments related to the Building Design and Architecture. Below is an analysis and response to the guidelines and advisory body comments. Façade and Roof Articulation5: The project is consistent with the CDG and provides 3 Community Design Guidelines, Chapter 5.4 A&B: Site Planning and Parking 4 Community Design Guidelines, Chapter 5.4 C: Multi-family project architecture. 5 Community Design Guidelines, Chapter 5.4 C(1): Façade and Roof Articulation. A structure with three or more attached units should incorporate significant wall and roof articulation to reduce apparent scale. Changes in wall planes and roof heights, and the inclusion of elements such as balconies, porches, arcades, dormers, and cross gables can avoid the barracks-like quality of long flat walls and roofs. Secondary hipped or gabled roofs covering the entire mass of a building are preferable to mansard roofs or segments of pitched roof applied at the structure's edge. Structures (including garages and carports) exceeding 150 feet in length are discouraged. ARC1 - 10Packet Pg. 300 16 ARCH-2193-2015 71 Palomar Avenue Page 11 significant wall and roof articulation. The proposed architecture of the project incorporates agrarian elements such as gabled and shed roofs that complement the Sandford House and provide a more authentic architectural form. The peaked roof design reflects the rooflines of the Sandford House and creates more open space between the Historic House and the new structures. Scale and Massing6: The project is consistent with the CDG and includes several smaller buildings as opposed to a few large buildings. The individual structures are similar in height and massing to the single family residences located south of the site and have similar setbacks from the street. The six apartment buildings (four, 2-story structures; two 4-story structures built into the hill) have a maximum height of 35 feet from average natural grade. The Sandford House remains the prominent structure on the site because the four-story structures sit below the Sandford House due to its location on the downslope and the 2-story structures provide well-articulated roofs with a setback of approximately 40 feet from the historic house. The CHC directed that the ARC should consider a reduction in scale and massing to ensure the new development does not overwhelm the prominence of the Historic Sandford House. Additionally, at the conceptual review, the ARC provided feedback that the applicant should consider various architectural modifications. Below are ARC’s comments and brief discussions on how the applicant responded. 1. Reduce the number of the bedrooms, especially in the structures closest to Luneta and putting single level structures at Luneta. The ARC may discuss options of how the project may be further reduced in scale, but cannot require a reduction in the number of units per the State Housing Density Bonus Law (see Section 3.5.4 above). The closest single family structures include many two-story structures. Additionally, the project is immediately adjacent to other high density development that is two-stories in height. As such, the applicant has maintained two-story buildings as part of their design to be compatible with the adjacent structures. 2. Provide individuality between the buildings. 6 Community Design Guidelines, Chapter 5.4 C(2): Scale. Because multi-family projects are usually taller than one story, their bulk can impose on surrounding uses. The larger scale of these projects should be considered within the context of their surroundings. Structures with greater height may require additional setbacks at the ground floor level and/or upper levels (stepped-down) along the street frontage so they do not shade adjacent properties or visually dominate the neighborhood. Large projects should be broken up into groups of structures, and large single structures should be avoided. Figure 3: Examples of the façade and roof articulation within the project ARC1 - 11Packet Pg. 301 16 ARCH-2193-2015 71 Palomar Avenue Page 12 The applicant has included modifications to the architectural design of the buildings per the comments provided by the ARC. Building F has been modified to include hipped roofs at a 3:12 slope rather than the gable roofs at a 4:12 slope on building E, changed window patterns, bump-outs, trim patterns and colors to add individuality between the buildings facing Luneta Drive (Attachment 3, Project Plans, Sheets A4.3 & A4.1). 3. Lower the perceived elevation/height of the structures along Luneta and the Sandford House. By modifying the roof design of building F, the actual height of the building was lowered 2.5 feet. The highest point of the roof shifted from the face of the building to the center of the building, thus reducing the height of the face of the building significantly from approximately 28 feet to approximately 18 feet (Attachment 3, Project Plans, Sheets A4.3 & A4.1). 4. Provide second-story off-sets or some other element to break up the two-story planes. The modification to the design of building F also reduced the width of the two-story element from approximately half the elevation to roughly 10 feet wide. Throughout, the applicant added trim/bellyband, switched to horizontal siding and changed colors to reduce the visual height of the two story elements. 5. Provide more setbacks and articulation along the north elevation of the project, especially the northeast corner (east elevation, right corner). Figure 4: Added trim, horizontal siding and color changes break up the two-story plans of the unit; previous (left); revised (right) ARC1 - 12Packet Pg. 302 16 ARCH-2193-2015 71 Palomar Avenue Page 13 The project includes significant changes to the north elevation in order to increase the setbacks, break up large planes and address the northeast corner. These changes include, splitting building B into two separate masses, increasing the number of setbacks in order to avoid any long unbroken planes. The northeast corner was revised to create two separate elements on either side of the corner (Attachment 3, Project Plans, Sheets A3.5 & A3.6). 6. Provide wider walkways between the buildings. No changes were proposed for the walkways. The distance between building C/D & E/F is approximately 17 feet. The covered porches project into this width by approximately 5 feet on each side which still leaves 7 feet between the faces of the two porches. The distance between buildings B & C/D is a minimum of 13 feet. However, since the porch only projects 5 feet into the width on one side, there is 8 feet of uncovered space between the buildings. Figure 6: Revised north elevation (top); Previous north elevation (bottom). The revised façade and eaves of the structure are more articulated. Dashed lines highlight some of these changes. Figure 6: Revised east elevation (left); Previous east elevation (right). Dashe d lines highlight changes. ARC1 - 13Packet Pg. 303 16 ARCH-2193-2015 71 Palomar Avenue Page 14 Balconies, Porches and Patios7: The project includes front porch entries, common space patios and buildings A and B include a few balconies. These elements add architectural interest to the design of the structures and help to break up the massing and add human scale. As proposed the project is consistent with the CDG. Materials and Architectural Features: The ARC provided feedback on the colors, material and architectural features of the project. The applicant has included additional information within the project plans that shows the use of durable materials with details on plans of the fit and finish of all the materials, shows the proposed exterior light fixtures and has updated the plans to give a better representation of the proposed colors. 4.4 Tree Removal As noted in the project description (Section 3.2 above), the project is proposing the removal of 55 trees in order to develop the project. Removal of the trees is to allow the repositioning of the historic Sandford House, the construction of 33-residential units and to connect Luneta Drive to Palomar Ave. If the Luneta Drive connection is revised (as discussed above in Section 4.1), some of the proposed trees slated for removal may be retained. 4.4.1 Tree Regulations Chapter 12.24 of the City’s Municipal Code sets forth the City’s Tree Regulations. Included within these regulations is the procedure for requesting the removal of trees as part of a development project. The Code states: E. Tree Removal with a Development Permit. 1. To remove a tree from any parcel in the city as part of property development by subdivision, building permit or other entitlement, the developer shall clearly delineate trees proposed to be removed as part of the development application and approval process. All development applications which include tree removals shall include the following documents: a. A site plan showing the location and species of any tree proposed for removal; b. All information to support the reason for removal; c. Any other pertinent information required. 2. Review of the application to remove a tree with a development permit shall proceed as follows: a. The city arborist shall inspect the property and recommend approving or denying the application; 7 Community Design Guidelines, Chapter 5.4 C(3): The use of balconies, porches, and patios as part of multi-family structures is encouraged for both practical and aesthetic value. These elements should be used to break up large wall masses, offset floor setbacks, and add human scale to structures. Multi -family units with individual access to the street sidewalk should have individual covered porches. ARC1 - 14Packet Pg. 304 16 ARCH-2193-2015 71 Palomar Avenue Page 15 b. If no architectural review is required for the development, the tree committee shall approve or deny the application; c. If architectural review is required for the development, the architectural review commission shall approve or deny the application: i. If the city arborist has recommended denying the application and the architectural review commission has approved the application, the tree committee shall review the architectural review commission’s decision; ii. If the tree committee concurs with the city arborist’s recommendation to deny the application when the architectural review commission has approved the application, the city council shall review the matter for final action. The Tree Regulations do not provide criteria or establish a list of tree types that are to be preserved other than stating the city values trees as an important part of the natural and economic environment and efforts shall be made to preserve them whenever possible and feasible. When reviewing requests for tree removal permits, the city shall discourage removing desirable trees and shall consider approving removal of desirable trees only as a last resort alternative for the applicant (Section 12.24.090.A). The City’s General Plan has a goal to “Protect, preserve and create the conditions that will promote the preservation of significant trees and other vegetation, particularly native California species” (COSE 7.4) and has the following policy for protection of significant trees: Significant trees, as determined by the City Council upon the recommendation of the Tree Committee, Planning or Architectural Review Committee, are those making substantial contributions to natural habitat or to the urban landscape due to their species, size, or rarity. Significant trees, particularly native species, shall be protected. Removal of significant trees shall be subject to the criteria and mitigation requirements in Chapter 8.6.3. Oak Woodland communities in the Greenbelt and in open space areas shall be protected. The City Arborist supports the removal of 55 of the 59 trees and is recommending mitigation and conditions of approval in exchange for their removal. Rincon’s Arborist Report identifies that 41 trees on site are either dead or in poor or fair condition. In addition, as noted above, the General Plan supports the protection of trees within the City. The General Plan also supports infill development within the City. Historically the City has recognized the necessity for tree removals for new development in order to support General Plan policies and Major City goals such as housing. Removing older trees from the City’s urban forest and replanting with new trees provides an opportunity to integrate younger age trees into the urban forest to replace the older trees as they die off. The new tree planting will also allow for more diversity of age, species, flowering, fruiting and habitat within the urban forest. The City Arborist determined based on his review and the information provided by two certified arborists that 55 trees could be removed with sufficient mitigation that requires two trees to be replanted for every one tree removed, due to the significant loss of canopy, and that the four remaining trees be retained and considered for Heritage Tree designation. ARC1 - 15Packet Pg. 305 16 ARCH-2193-2015 71 Palomar Avenue Page 16 Staff is recommending Condition No. 10 which requires the project to retain a Blue Gum Eucalyptus at the southwest corner of the site, the Norfolk Island Pine and Canary Island Palm in front of the Historic Sandford House and the Mexican Fan Palm at the northeast corner of the site as shown on the landscape plans (Attachment 3, Sheet L-1) and each shall be considered for Heritage Tree designation. Additionally, staff is recommending Condition of Approval No. 11 which requires that the applicant plant at a minimum three 36-inch box trees and two 15-gallon trees on the project site or adjacent property on which the property owner of 71 Palomar has an access and landscaping easement to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director and the City Arborist. The City Arborist has included within the Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Review mitigation measures for the tree removals.8 Mitigation is as follows: The project is required to plant two trees for every one tree that is removed (the “replacement trees”). The developer shall plant as many of the replacement trees on the site as feasible. The remaining required replacement trees shall be planted and/or distributed as follows in order of priority: a) trees shall be planted offsite in the neighborhood in existing City tree wells, City parks, and/or City property; and/or b) the developer shall make a financial donation to the Urban Forest Tree Bank for the purchase of 15 gallon trees to be used in local tree planting projects. The final tree planting and replacement plan shall be included as part of the building plans and approved by the City Arborist. With a 2:1 planting, the project will not only replace the 55 trees that are removed but will also add an additional 55 trees to the City’s urban forest for a total of 110 trees. The applicant will plant at least 34 trees on-site and 76 trees off-site. 4.4.2 Heritage Trees Section 12.24.160 of the Tree Regulations discusses that the City recognizes the important role trees have played in the history and development of San Luis Obispo and recognizes that a wide variety of trees can grow in its unique and temperate climate. As such there is a voluntary program in which property owners may submit a tree to be considered for Heritage Tree designation. Questions on the process of this program have been raised during the course of the review of this project. In June 2017 the City’s Attorney’s office composed a memo that provided an interpretation of the code and determined that the Heritage Tree designation process requires property owner consent. In the case of 71 Palomar, the property owner has not provided consent, and therefore pursuing the Heritage Tree designation is inappropriate and not allowed by our adopted code (Attachment 9, Heritage Tree Memo). 4.4.3 Cultural Landscape During the CHC review and the Tree Committee review, committee members and the public brought up the Cultural Landscape/Setting of the site. A historic evaluation of the project was 8 City of San Luis Obispo Municipal Code, Section 12.24.090.I: Approval Conditions. In approving an application for tree removal, the director, the tree committee, the architectural review commission or the city council may require planting of replacement trees and may require a bond ensuring that replacement trees shall be planted and maintained. ARC1 - 16Packet Pg. 306 16 ARCH-2193-2015 71 Palomar Avenue Page 17 completed that analyzed the Historic Sandford House and its setting. In that report it was identified that, the setting for the Sandford House retains some but not all of its original integrity. The immediate area around the residence remains open space, providing a semblance of the historic setting associated with the property. The building maintains its historic orientation atop a small slope facing east over the town of San Luis Obispo. While there is no known formal garden or landscaping plan associated with the property, expansive lawns remain around the residence to the east, west, and south. More broadly, the setting has experienced significant urbanization. Since the 1960s, urbanization has slowly enclosed the property with 1970s-era apartment buildings to the north and west and modern single-family residences to the east and south. The size of the property itself has also been altered from 15.80 acres to today’s 1.17 acres. The integrity of setting is significantly diminished (Attachment 7, Initial Study – Historic Evaluation: Attachment 4). The CHC considered the Historic evaluation and public comment in their deliberations and the majority voted in support of the project and recommended the ARC give consideration to the City Arborist’s recommendations for protection of trees. 4.4.4. Tree Committee Review On December 12, 2016 the Tree Committee was asked to receive public comment and provide individual input to staff and the ARC on the environmental document (MND) and two arborist reports during the 30-day public review period for the proposed project. Comments provided by the Tree Committee and the public are provided in the attached Draft Minutes (Attachment 11). Based on feedback received from the Tree Committee and the public, Rincon Consultants was requested to review their Arborist Report and provide any corrections or changes. The revised report is attached (Attachment 10). The revised Arborist Report did not recommend any changes to the MND. A further discussion of the environmental review and response to comments is provided below in Section 5.0. 5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW An Initial Study was completed for the proposed project in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) is recommended for adoption (Attachment 7). The MND finds that with incorporation of mitigation measures, potential impacts to air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, hydrology/water quality, and utilities/service systems will be less than significant. A MND and Addendum was completed by Oliveira Environmental Consulting in March 2016 and June 2016 following changes to the design of the project. New information was shared with staff that resulted in the Community Development Director’s decision to revisit the MND. Rincon Consultants was selected by the City as a third-party consultant to peer review the MND and to prepare an arborist report and focused evaluations on the aesthetic and biological impacts of the proposed tree removals. The Arborist Report, Aesthetic Analysis and the Biological Peer Review are included as attachments to the MND attached (Attachment 7, MND – Attachments 6, 7 & 8)). The peer review and evaluations included policy analysis of potential impacts and made recommendations for additional mitigation measures. Based on the analysis and recommended mitigation, staff updated the MND. The MND was re-released for a 30-day public review period from November 15, 2016 to December 19, 2016. ARC1 - 17Packet Pg. 307 16 ARCH-2193-2015 71 Palomar Avenue Page 18 Public comment was received on the analysis of the MND and, although not required for a MND, responses to those comments are compiled in Attachment 8. Comments were also received on the technical accuracy of the supplemental Arborist Report completed by Rincon Consultants. Rincon has reviewed their report based on those comments and submitted a revised document (Attachment 10, Revised Arborist Report). The revised report does not recommend a change in the recommendation provided in the MND. Staff has provided summaries of the potential impacts and recommended mitigation measures, as well as a discussion on aesthetics below. All mitigation measures have been incorporated into project conditions of approval (Attachment 1, Draft Resolution). Aesthetics A supplemental Aesthetics Analysis was provided by Rincon Consultants that analyzed various views toward the proposed project site in conjunction with City policies and CEQA thresholds regarding viewsheds. The Aesthetics Analysis determined that the project was consistent with General Plan policies and would not result in significant degradation of the visual character of the site and its surroundings, and this impact would be less than significant impact and does not require mitigation (Attachment 7, MND – Aesthetic Analysis: Attachment 6). Pursuant to Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines, potentially significant aesthetic impacts would occur if development of the project site would: a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista; b. Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited 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 the site and its surroundings; and/or d. Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area. Below is a brief discussion of these points. A more thorough analysis is provided in the attached Aesthetic Analysis (Attachment 7, MND – Aesthetic Analysis: Attachment 6). a. The project site is located in an urban area of the City characterized by residential and commercial development amongst natural features such as mature trees, and Cerro San Luis and Bishop Peak. The project site is aesthetically prominent from adjacent roadways due to the existing historic structure and trees onsite, but is not within a City designated scenic vista (COSE Figure 11). When viewed from various other public viewpoints in the vicinity of the site, including public trails on Cerro San Luis and surrounding roadways, the project site blends in with the surrounding uses and vegetation and does not stand out as visually prominent or unique and the addition of the proposed apartment buildings, would conform to views of the surrounding urban area. As such, the project would not result in a significant adverse effect on a scenic vista and this potential impact would be less than significant. b. The project is not located along any State designated scenic routes. According to the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) California Scenic Highway Mapping System (2011), the closest officially designated State scenic highway to the project site is State Route 1. The ARC1 - 18Packet Pg. 308 16 ARCH-2193-2015 71 Palomar Avenue Page 19 project site is located approximately 0.4 mile west of State Route 1 and is not visible from the highway. As such, the project would not damage any scenic resources within a scenic highway and there would be no impact. c. The Aesthetic Analysis identified that the proposed development would involve more intense structural development on the site than existing conditions, and proposes the removal of most of the existing mature trees from the site. Despite retaining some of the existing mature trees on the site, the proposed development and overall amount of trees removed would result in a less natural appearance of the site when compared to existing conditions as newly landscaped trees would be shorter in height than the proposed 35-foot structural development unlike the existing trees. Although the project would change the aesthetic character of the site, it would not significantly degrade the character as it would include high-density residential development with a maximum height of 35 feet that is consistent with adjacent high-density development and would retain the visually prominent Sandford House. Additionally, the project includes design elements such as peaked roof lines, separate structures to break up the massing of the proposed multi-level residential structures, inclusion of over 30 landscaped trees, four existing trees, and other landscape features, and agrarian style architecture to complement the Sandford House. With these design and landscape features, the project would comply with City General Plan policies aimed at preserving scenic views and the character of prominent visual features within the City, as well as the City’s Community Design Guidelines which are intended to ensure that future development is consistent with the City’s expectations relating to the quality and character of site and building design, and to protect scenic resources and views, from public rights-of-way. As such, the project would not result in significant degradation of the visual character of the site and its surroundings, and this impact would be less than significant impact. d. The project would result in development of a site that contains minimal existing sources of artificial light and where existing lights are shielded by vegetation on and around the site. Existing sources of nighttime lighting in the vicinity of the site include streetlights along Palomar Avenue and Luneta Drive, spillover lighting from surrounding single- and multi- family residential development, and light from the headlights of vehicles traveling on the surrounding roadways. Development of the project site would result in an increase in ambient nighttime lighting through the increased residential development and associated exterior lighting and interior lighting spillover. The project is required to conform to the Night Sky Preservation Ordinance (Zoning Regulations Chapter 17.23), the City’s Community Design Guidelines as well as City General Plan Policies 9.2.1 and 9.2.3 which include provisions for preventing light intrusion to preserve safety, and outdoor lighting stipulations to avoid light and glare impacts. As such, impacts associated with the creation of new sources of light and glare would be less than significant. Air Quality The project would generate construction-related emission exceeding San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District (SLOAPCD) thresholds, and may create a dust nuisance. Air Quality Mitigation: Comply with SLOAPCD recommended mitigation below identified thresholds. ARC1 - 19Packet Pg. 309 16 ARCH-2193-2015 71 Palomar Avenue Page 20 Biological Resources Mature landscaping present at the project site provides tree and shrub habitats that have the potential to support wildlife habitat for urban-adapted avian or bat species. A Biological Assessment provided by Rincon Consultants (Attachment 7, Initial Study – Biological Peer Review: Attachment 7) identified that several large trees on the site are suitable habitat for various raptor species such as the Cooper’s hawk (Accipiter cooperii) (on the Federal Watch List and a species of local concern), the common red-tailed hawk and the barn owl. Additionally, the State Fully Protected and local species of concern white-tailed kite (Elanus leucurus) could also nest at the site while foraging in the open grasslands located less than 1,000 feet to the south. White-tailed kite has been documented by the CNDDB within 3.5 miles of the proposed project site. Most of the mature landscaping would be removed prior to construction of the project, and impacts to nesting birds are considered potentially significant but mitigable. The project site also contains potential roosting habitat for pallid bat (Antrozous pallidus) (a State and Local Species of Special Concern). Pallid bat has been documented by the CNDDB approximately one mile south of the project site and this species may utilize the structures on the project site as roosting areas. Structures that occur within the project site that can be utilized by special status bats include the Sandford house, sheds, enclosed carports, and other living areas. The demolition of existing structures and the movement of the Historic Sandford house and the removal of the mature landscaping would happen prior to the construction of the project, and impacts to pallid bats are considered potentially significant but mitigable. No significant trees or designated heritage trees have been identified on the portion of the site to be developed. 55 small to fully mature native and non-native landscaping trees would be removed as part of the proposed project development. The landscape plan indicates a robust planting scheme that includes evergreen shade trees, landscape median trees (Luneta Drive median), deciduous flowering shade trees, hedges, shrubs, lawns and ground cover species. The City Arborist has reviewed the tree removals and determined that there will be a less than significant impact in the total tree canopy for the area with mitigation. Biological Resource Mitigation: Nesting Birds: Prior to commencement of construction, to avoid conflicts with nesting birds, construction activities shall not be allowed during the nesting bird season (February 1 to Sep tember 15). For construction activities occurring during the nesting season, surveys for nesting birds covered by the California Fish and Game Code and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act shall be conducted by a qualified biologist no more than 14 days prior to vegetation removal. Roosting Bats: Prior to construction, a qualified biologist shall conduct a survey of existing structures within the project site to determine if roosting bats are present. The survey shall be conducted during the non-breeding season (November through March). The biologist shall have access to all interior attics, as needed. If a colony of bats is found roosting in any structure, further surveys shall be conducted sufficient to determine the species present and the type of roost (day, night, maternity, etc.) If the bats are not part of an active maternity colony, passive exclusion measures may be implemented in close coordination with CDFW. ARC1 - 20Packet Pg. 310 16 ARCH-2193-2015 71 Palomar Avenue Page 21 Tree Removal: The project is required to plant two trees for every one tree that is removed (the “replacement trees”). The final tree planting and replacement plan shall be included as part of the building plans and approved by the City Arborist. Cultural Resources The proposed project and the Applied Earthworks Evaluation was reviewed by the (CHC) on March 28, 2016 and on June 27, 2016 for compliance with the City Historic Preservation Ordinance, the Historic Preservation Program Guidelines, and the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties. The CHC determined that the proposed repositioning, rehabilitation and adaptive reuse of the Sandford House, and the construction of the new residential units with incorporation of the mitigation measures, to be in conformance with SOI Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties and City standards. Therefore, impacts are considered to be mitigated to a level of less than significant. Cultural Resources Mitigation: Preservation of Archeological Resources. A formal monitoring plan will be prepared and approved by the City prior to building permit approval. The plan will need to include a summary of the project and expected ground disturbances, purpose and approach to monitoring, description of expected materials, description of significant materials or features, protocols for stoppage of work and treatment of human remains, staff requirements, and a data recovery plan to be implemented in case significant deposits are exposed. Removal of Non-Original Additions. Extreme care shall be taken during the removal of the non- original additions to avoid damaging the original building walls. Any non -repairable or missing materials revealed upon removal of the addition directly attached to the Sandford House shall be replaced in-kind to match existing stucco. Any historical wood-sash windows found during demolition shall be preserved for reuse on the Sandford House where appropriate. Relocation of the Sandford House. The elevation of the existing Sandford House on the site shall be maintained as closely as possible to the historic siting of the original house. The reconstructed foundation and platform porch on the house in its new location shall retain the amount of height and exposure that the existing house exhibits. A stair height similar to that which currently exists shall also be maintained. Sandford House Window Replacement. Modern replacements for the first-floor solarium windows shall minimally consist of window sash that is of the appropriate proportion to fit into the original openings. Multi-light versions which replicate the original multi-light windows located throughout other areas of the residence should be used to the maximum extent feasible in the event that the original window design for the solarium cannot be confirmed. Low Impact Cleaning and Paint Removal. Only the gentlest methods of paint removal, and stucco cleaning or removal shall be used on or around the Sandford House. High -pressure water blasting; sand or other hardened material blasting; or chemical paint strippers that damage wood grain or erode metals shall not be used unless specifically approved by the City. Massing, Location, and Architectural Features of the Proposed New Construction. The applicant shall maintain the architectural relationship between the new construction and historic residence and ARC1 - 21Packet Pg. 311 16 ARCH-2193-2015 71 Palomar Avenue Page 22 the design for the new apartment buildings shall respect the dominance of the Sandford House on the property using scale and massing. New construction shall not be over-detailed or designed to draw attention away from the Sandford House. Hydrology and Water Quality The project site is located within the San Luis Obispo Creek watershed area. Due to its size and location, the project is subject to the Drainage Design Manual (DDM) of the Waterways Management Plan (WWMP) and newly adopted Post Construction Requirements for storm water control. With the implementation of the BMPs identified in the project Stormwater Control Plan, water quality impacts will be reduced. With the required incorporation of these measures, and adherence to the stormwater facilities operations and maintenance recommendations provided in the Stormwater Control Plan, impacts will be reduced to less than significant levels. Hydrology and Water Quality Mitigation: The project will implement the Stormwater Control Plan prepared for the proposed project including design features, recommended BMPs for water quality control, and operations and maintenance standards for maintaining stormwater quality via the proposed underground storage chambers for on-site stormwater detention. Utilities and Service Systems The project proposes additional wastewater flow in a wet weather capacity constrained portion of the City’s wastewater collection system which is identified in the City’s Wastewater Collection System Infrastructure Renewal Strategy as sub-basin B.2. Utilities and Service Systems Mitigation: Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy, the developer is required to identify, demonstrate or implement off-site sewer rehabilitation that results in quantifiable inflow and infiltration reduction in the City’s wastewater collection system in sub-basin A1, A2, A3, A4, B.2 or B.3 in an amount equal to offset the project’s wastewater flow increase. 6.0 OTHER DEPARTMENT COMMENTS The requirements of the other departments are reflected in the attached Draft Resolution as conditions of approval and code requirements, where appropriate. 7.0 ALTERNATIVES & RECOMMENDATION 7.1. Continue the project with direction to the applicant and staff on pertinent issues. 7.2. Deny the project based on findings of inconsistency with the General Plan, Zoning Regulations, or Community Design Guidelines. 8.0 ATTACHMENTS 1. Draft Resolution 2. Vicinity Map 3. Reduced Project Plans 4. CHC Resolution 6-27-2016 5. CHC Minutes 6-27-2016 ARC1 - 22Packet Pg. 312 16 ARCH-2193-2015 71 Palomar Avenue Page 23 6. ARC Conceptual Review Minutes 8-1-2016 7. Mitigated Negative Declaration with attachments 8. Response to Comments 9. Heritage Tree Memo 10. Revised Arborist Report by Rincon Consultants 11. Tree Committee Draft Minutes 12-12-2017 Included in Commission member portfolio: project plans Available at ARC hearing: color/materials board ARC1 - 23Packet Pg. 313 16 Packet Pg. 314 16 Packet Pg. 315 16 Packet Pg. 316 16 Packet Pg. 317 16 Packet Pg. 318 16 Packet Pg. 319 16 Packet Pg. 320 16 Packet Pg. 321 16 Packet Pg. 322 16 Packet Pg. 323 16 Packet Pg. 324 16 Packet Pg. 325 16 Packet Pg. 326 16 Packet Pg. 327 16 Packet Pg. 328 16 Packet Pg. 329 16 Minutes ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION Monday, January 30, 2017 Regular Meeting of the Architectural Review Commission CALL TO ORDER A Regular Meeting of the Architectural Review Commission was called to order on Monday, January 30, 2017 at 5:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber, located at 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, by Chair Wynn. ROLL CALL Present: Commission Members Brian Rolph, Amy Nemcik, Allen Root, Angela Soll, and Chair Gregory Wynn. Absent: Vice-Chair Ehdaie Staff: Community Development Deputy Director Doug Davidson, Associate Planner Rachel Cohen, and Recording Secretary Monique Lomeli. Other staff members presented reports or responded to questions as indicated in the minutes. PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA David Brodie, San Luis Obispo, protesting the removal of groves of trees due to the potential hardships newly planted trees would suffer in the rapidly changing climate. Camille Small, San Luis Obispo, requesting more involvement of the Tree Committee in all projects involving tree removal; stated interest in affordable housing for students; suggested the City seek out developers who can work within the parameters of properties rather than make exceptions. --End of Public Comment-- APPROVAL OF MINUTES Minutes of the Architectural Review Commission meeting of December 5, 2016 ACTION: MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SOLL, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER ROOT CARRIED 4-0-1-1 to approve the minutes of the Architectural Review Commission for the meeting of December 5, 2016. Page 1, last paragraph: “…in response to Commissioner Soll’s Root’s inquiry…” Page 3, paragraph 2: “Odile Aryal…” Packet Pg. 330 16 Minutes – Architectural Review Commission Meeting of January 30, 2017 Page 2 PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. 71 Palomar Avenue. ARCH-2193-2015; Review of the rehabilitation, adaptive reuse, and repositioning of the Master List Historic Sandford House and the construction of a new 33- unit, multi-family residential project, with a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Review; R-4 zone; LR Development Group, applicant. Associate Planner Rachel Cohen presented the staff report with use of a PowerPoint presentation. Applicant Representative Thom Jess provided a brief presentation. Public Comments: David Brodie, San Luis Obispo, reminded the Commission of information requested at the August 1st conceptual review and stated the site can better serve the community with more a thoughtful design. Pam Racouillat, San Luis Obispo, expressed opposition to the removal of trees and requested preservation of the natural resources on site. Jacqueline Williams, San Luis Obispo, voiced opposition to the removal of healthy trees from the site and stated concerns over the adequacy of the arborist reports. Peter Crough, San Luis Obispo, requested the public hearing be postponed pending a new arborist report. Jody Vollmer, San Luis Obispo, voiced concerns over the size of the proposed development reducing the residential feel of the neighborhood and requested the Commission carefully consider all negative impacts. Allan Cooper, San Luis Obispo, urged the Commission to postpone the public hearing, pending a proper tree inventory. James Papp, San Luis Obispo Cultural Heritage Committee, expressed support of the project. David Hafemeister, San Luis Obispo, urged the Commission to postpone the public hearing on basis of bad data and raised issue regarding parking spilling over into the neighborhood. James Gates, San Luis Obispo, voiced concerns with health and safety issues. Dr. Edward Benson, San Luis Obispo, expressed opposition to the removal of trees. Bob Mourenza, San Luis Obispo, stated he does not feel the project is consistent with the General Plan in terms of preserving, restoring, and enhancing historical and cultural resources. Packet Pg. 331 16 Minutes – Architectural Review Commission Meeting of January 30, 2017 Page 3 Carolyn Smith, San Luis Obispo, expressed concerns regarding the removal of mature vegetation. Lydia Mourenza, San Luis Obispo, provided comments in written correspondence and encouraged the Commission to reconsider mitigations, specifically related to environmental impacts. Betty DeHaan, San Luis Obispo, spoke regarding the historical significance of the site, safety hazards due to traffic, and lack of adequate parking. Alexis Mourenza, San Luis Obispo, voiced opposition to high-density based upon evidence presented in written correspondence. Truitt Vance, Structural Engineer for the project, offered his expert opinion and support for the project. Steve Delmartini, San Luis Obispo, expressed support for more housing and opined the removal of trees is not inconsistent with the development of the City thus far. Grant Robbins, San Luis Obispo, voiced support for student housing and expressed favor toward development requesting no exceptions or variations from the City’s regulations. Cheryl Mclean, San Luis Obispo, spoke regarding the revised tree inventory and provided written correspondence. Roberto Monge, San Luis Obispo, requested the Commission consider the quality of life provided by the cultural landscape of the property. Mila Vujovich-La Barre, San Luis Obispo, voiced opposition to the project on the proposed site, urged the Commission to preserve the location of the Sanford House and require a design more compatible with the neighborhood. Camille Small, San Luis Obispo, spoke regarding inadequate parking and the removal of trees. Scott Loosley, San Luis Obispo, stated the historical significance of the site’s landscape, expressed disagreement with the biological assessment, and urged the Commission to reconsider the relocation of the house on site. Lauren Reel, Project Developer, addressed concerns expressed by previous public comments and spoke regarding the Housing Accountability Act, stating the site is not qualified as a cultural landscape. Mr. Reel responded to issues with occupancy and stated the project is in compliance with City regulations and CEQA. --End of Public Comment--- Packet Pg. 332 16 Minutes – Architectural Review Commission Meeting of January 30, 2017 Page 4 Recessed at 6:48 p.m. and Reconvened at 7:00 p.m. Associate Planner Cohen, briefly clarified the official zoning of the property and referenced the PowerPoint slide to illustrate the four trees to be preserved. Jake Hudson, Transportation Manager, clarified the Luneta Drive conceptual layout, outlining two options for the public right-of way. Community Development Director Michael Codron acknowledged the genuine response from the community and responded to public comments, providing a contextual summary of the project to date. Richard Dolton, Rincon Consultants, provided an explanation of the intent of the environmental review process and stated the criteria used for the development of reports included in the agenda packet. Chair Wynn disclosed ex parte communication with Bob and Lydia Mourenza during a site tour of the external property, regarding height, biology, noise, and parking. He also had a conversation with Tree Committee Chair Matt Ritter regarding Mr. Ritter’s arborist report. Commissioner Soll disclosed she recently had a conversation with Commissioner Root regarding the project. Commission Comments and Discussion: Associate Planner Cohen responded to Commission inquiries. Commission discussion followed regarding the validity of the Rincon report and the significance of the trees on site. Assistant City Attorney Jon Ansolabehere provided an explanation of the Tree Committee’s purview and a brief history of the legal requirements involved in denying a housing project, cautioning the Commission to exercise sufficient discretion. Chair Wynn restated staff recommendation, stating the applicant has complied with all requests and guidelines with no request for exceptions and expressed interest in approving the project. Following deliberation, Commissioner Soll voiced disagreement with information presented in the environmental reports, stating it is her opinion that the environmental impacts are not less than significant. Commissioners Rolph stated general support for the project, mentioning concerns with the size of the bedrooms. Packet Pg. 333 16 Minutes – Architectural Review Commission Meeting of January 30, 2017 Page 5 Commissioner Nemcik stated general support for the project. Commissioner Root commented on the need for revisions to zoning regulations and voiced general support for the project. Deputy Director Davidson provided information on the upcoming outreach program designed to develop updated zoning regulations. ACTION: MOTION BY COMMISSIONER ROLPH, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER NEMCIK, CARRIED 4-1-1 to adopt the Draft Resolution approving the rehabilitation, adaptive reuse, and repositioning of the Master List Historic Sanford House property and the construction of a new 33-unit, multi-family residential project, with a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Review on the following roll call vote: AYES: NEMCIK, ROLPH, ROOT, WYNN NOES: SOLL ABSENT: EHDAIE COMMISSION COMMUNICATIONS & LIAISON REPORTS Deputy Director Davidson provided an agenda forecast. Commissioner Root expressed concerns regarding City parking regulations and stated he would like to see some revisions. Assistant City Attorney Ansolabehere and Director Codron responded, stating the issues will be addressed in the upcoming zoning regulations update. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8:02 p.m. The next Regular meeting of the Architectural Review Commission is scheduled for Monday, February 13, 2017 at 5:00 p.m., in the Council Hearing Room, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California. APPROVED BY THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION: 03/20/2017 Packet Pg. 334 16 Packet Pg. 335 16 Packet Pg. 336 16 Packet Pg. 337 16 Minutes I CULTURAL HERITAGE COMMITTEE Monday, June 27, 2016 Regular Meeting of the Cultural Heritage Committee CALL TO ORDER A Regular Meeting of the Cultural Heritage Committee was called to order on Monday, June 27th, 2016 at 5:32 p.m. in the Council Chamber, located at 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, by Vice -Chair Brajkovich. ROLL CALL Present: Committee Members Sandy Baer, Craig Kincaid, Shannon Larrabee, James Papp, Leah Walthert, and Vice Chair Thom Brajkovich Absent: Chair Jaime Hill Staff: Senior Planner Brian Leveille, Associate Planner Rachel Cohen, Community Development Director Michael Codron, Transportation Deputy Director Tim Bochum, and Recording Secretary Brad T. Opstad PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA David Brodie, San Luis Obispo, established that City lacks sufficient response to climate change despite its prominent impacts that are discussed globally and incessantly. PUBLIC HEARING 71 Palomar Avenue. ARCH -2193-2015; Continued review of the rehabilitation, adaptive reuse, and repositioning of the Master List Historic Sandford House property as part of a 33 -unit multi -family residential project; and, review of a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact with addendum for project modifications since initial review; R-4 zone; LR Development Group, applicant. Committee Member Kincaid proposed making a motion to table discussion on Item 1 until report from Tree Committee is rendered. Senior Planner Leveille endorsed hearing and deliberating on Staff Report and Public Comment prior to voting on whether or not to continue Item. Senior Planner Leveille outlined background of the project, including the reminder that the Cultural Heritage Committee (CHC) had deliberated on and provided direction for it on March 28th. Associate Planner Cohen offered the Staff Report overview for CHC re -familiarization and Deputy Director Bochum provided specific historical background on the area's circulation before Packet Pg. 338 16 focusing specifically on the completion of Luneta Drive. Director Codron clarified that there was not another Tree Committee Hearing on this project slated at present, that one was scheduled, but upon consulting City's Ordinance, Staff found that review of Heritage Tree Designation can only be initiated and authorized by a property owner. Director Codron further stated that in the case of a development proposal, tree removal goes through specific procedures outlined in Municipal Code and, in this case, the City Arborist will be making recommendations to Planning Staff and Architectural Review Commission (ARC) on disposition of trees. PUBLIC COMMENT The following spoke at length as members of the Applicant team: Loren Riehl, Principal Thom Jess, Architect Truitt Vance, Structural Engineer Barry Price, Historic Preservationist Chip Tomati, Arborist Jim Burroughs, Landscape Architect David Brodie, San Luis Obispo, related several facts about Sandford House that contradict information provided in Staff Report. Jerry Rioux, San Luis Obispo, spoke as Director of SLO Housing Trust Fund in recommendation of approval for project. Jody Vollmer, San Luis Obispo, requested preservation of property in its entirety and not allow historic site to be destroyed or modified. Richard Schmidt, San Luis Obispo, presented slide show and urged Committee to view property in totality as a cultural landscape. Dia Hurd, San Luis Obispo, spoke in support of the viewpoint of the Agenda Correspondence which refuted facts presented in Staff Report. Bob Mourenza, San Luis Obispo, spoke as neighbor of site in favor of denying the project outright due to its obtrusiveness. Peter Crough, San Luis Obispo, spoke as neighbor who lives across street from 71 Palomar and who had been heartened by CHC action at prior Review Hearing in finding project had contained too much massing to approve. Al Lipper, San Luis Obispo, spoke in support of fellow neighbors' comments and addressed the issue of Luneta Drive as a through -street being of fuller consideration independent of the project. Minutes — Cultural Heritage Committee Meeting of June 27, 2016 Page 2 Packet Pg. 339 16 Kit Gould, San Luis Obispo, spoke in favor of maintaining the Sandford House's stately presence and its open space's mature trees. David Scarry, San Luis Obispo, spoke in favor of the development's intention to improve the quality of the Sandford House. Gary Nichols, San Luis Obispo, voiced support of project's preservation of House and the opening of Luneta Drive. Roberto Monge, San Luis Obispo, commented on the increase in density of this specific neighborhood to be an intolerable scenario for its residents. Elizabeth De Haan, San Luis Obispo, indicated that even though the project is beautifully designed, the altered neighborhood would resemble another Isla Vista; commented that 71 Palomar would be of high significance to Cal Poly Architecture Department as an academic feature. Lydia Mourenza, San Luis Obispo, informed that Sandford House was the founding cornerstone of the Broad Street & Foothill neighborhoods; reminded that both Housing and Preservation of Cultural Resources share equal footing in importance within General Plan community goals. Mila Vujovich-LaBarre, San Luis Obispo, voiced full support of the research and the assertions regarding the historical significance of the Sandford House and remains convinced the structure should not be relocated. Kirk Lemon, San Luis Obispo, spoke as president of Delta Tau Alumni Corporation on the past efforts to restore House and its Foundation having exhausted funds; voiced support of current proposal. James Lopes, San Luis Obispo, opined that the project is over -planned and over -built for the specific site and does not befit the quality of the Sandford House's historic architecture or setting; advocated for modifying project further, maintaining as many of its trees as possible and not moving the structure. Camille Small, San Luis Obispo, voiced satisfaction with project's design and support for further housing but stated that cutting down 47 of 51 existing trees is immoral. Danny Sullivan, San Luis Obispo, spoke as one-time Cal Poly student who has been able to sustain income sufficient to reside in City and supports the building of more housing for those following same path. Mike Clark, San Luis Obispo, spoke as candidate for City Council who has been approached by various neighborhood groups to discuss preservation and wellness topics; shared experiences on tour of "diamond in rough", 71 Palomar, and his distress in learning trees would be cut down and house relocated to pave way for student housing. Minutes—Cultural Heritage Committee Meeting of June 27, 2016 Page 3 Packet Pg. 340 16 Cheryl McLean, San Luis Obispo, spoke as owner and resident of home in neighborhood since 1974; voiced opposition to relocating Sandford House from off its foundation; urged Committee to vote in favor of both denying project and for site's designation as cultural landscape. Tambra Morgan, spoke from perspective of visitor to San Luis Obispo; presented historical narrative of her own extensive familial lineage as it was affiliated with Sandford House; spoke in opposition to site being altered in any fashion. End of Public Comment Acting Chair Brajkovich called for a short recess. COMMITTEE DISCUSSION Committee Member Papp, in response to unfounded accusations surfacing and circling around the various issues of this project, reiterated the four-part primary responsibility of Committee: 1.) To provide logical and evidence -based decisions over emotional ones; 2.) To stay within its purview; 3.) To follow universe of practice in both region -centric regulations and national preservation practices; and 4.) To respond to established precedent in consistent fashion. Committee Member Papp further stated that the fate of the Sandford House would either be its de -listing, which could be a justifiable conclusion to make, or demolition -by -neglect, unless a developer offered to rehabilitate it; stated that there is no compelling reason that the site could currently be considered a Cultural Landscape in the context of Historical Significance. In response to Committee Member Kincaid's inquiry, Director Codron informed that it was planned for City Arborist to make presentation of findings following a collaborative review of historical perspective of property with Project Arborist. Committee Member Larrabee shared viewpoint that surrounding Sandford House with a large- scale development would denigrate the site to such an extent that it would be impossible to unwind the action, and then yet another cultural resource would vanish forever; voiced disagreement that the only way to preserve House would be to greenlight this particular project at this particular time; opined that the property had not been properly marketed to a buyer with vision to do something creative with it during a time when owners were enjoying low property taxes, and now that their organization is no longer affiliated with Cal Poly, it is now attempting to strictly capitalize on a hot real estate market before any downturn. In response to Director Codron's determination of Committee's stance on Applicant's reduction in massing for House to achieve prominence, Committee Member Larrabee stated dissatisfaction and indicated a preference for a more respectful treatment of property which honored the community by providing more of a buffer between a high-density neighborhood and an established one. ACTION: UPON MOTION BY COMMITTEE MEMBER KINCAID, SECONDED BY COMMITTEE MEMBER PAPP, the Committee voted to approve the Recommendation to the Minutes — Cultural Heritage Committee Meeting of June 27, 2016 Page 4 Packet Pg. 341 16 Architectural Review Commission (ARC) to find the proposed rehabilitation, adaptive reuse, and repositioning of the Master List Sandford House Property as part of a 33 -unit multi -family residential project consistent with the City's Historic Preservation Program Guidelines and Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties; with the added Condition #1: The ARC should evaluate further reduction in scale and massing to ensure the new development does not overwhelm the prominence of the Historic Sandford House and give great consideration to the City Arborist's recommendations for protection of trees; on the following 4:2:0:1 roll call vote: AYES: Kincaid, Papp, Baer, Brajkovich NOES: Larrabee, Walthert ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Hill Acting Chair Brajkovich called for short recess. 2. 570 Higuera Street, ARCH -2699-2016; Review of a remodel and rehabilitation of the Historic Master List Golden State Creamery and the construction of a new 2,880 square foot commercial building within the Downtown Historic District with a Categorical Exemption from environmental review; C -D zone; SLO Creamery LLC, applicant. Associate Planner Cohen provided Staff Report. COMMITTEE DISCUSSION Committee Member Papp inquired whether there was historical record of board and batten use on the site. PUBLIC COMMENT Applicant Representative Damien Mavis indicated that revisions had been made to improve project with some degree of detailing. COMMITTEE DISCUSSION Acting Chair Brajkovich read excerpts from the single received piece of Agenda Correspondence regarding noise issues. Committee Member Papp reminded Chair that these issues were not in Committee's purview. ACTION: UPON MOTION BY COMMITTEE MEMBER KINCAID, SECONDED BY COMMITTEE MEMBER PAPP, the Committee voted to approve the Recommendation to the Architectural Review Commission to find the new commercial building, remodel and rehabilitation to the Master List Golden State Creamery at 570 Higuera Street consistent with the City Historic Preservation Program Guidelines and the Secretary of Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties; on the following 6:0:0:1 roll call vote: Minutes — Cultural Heritage Committee Meeting of June 27, 2016 Page 5 Packet Pg. 342 16 AYES: Kincaid, Papp, Larrabee, Baer, Walthert, Brajkovich NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Hill 3. 694 Islay Street. HIST 3168-2016: Review of a Mills Act Historic Preservation Agreement for the Master List historic Kimball House with a Categorical Exemption from environmental review; R -2-H zone; John Poremba, applicant. Senior Planner Leveille made brief Staff Report presentation regarding the property improvements proposed and the Mills Act Contract process and expectations. COMMITTEE DISCUSSION Acting Chair Brajkovich & Committee Members Papp and Baer asked a few qualifying questions about the Mills Act process. PUBLIC COMMENT None. COMMITTEE DISCUSSION ACTION: UPON MOTION BY COMMITTEE MEMBER PAPP, SECONDED BY COMMITTEE MEMBER BAER, the Committee voted to approve the Recommendation to the City Council to approve an Historic Property Preservation Agreement for the Master List Kimball House located at 690 Islay Street; on the following 6:0:0:1 vote: AYES: Papp, Baer, Kincaid, Larrabee, Walthert, Brajkovich NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Hill ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 10:04 p.m. APPROVED BY THE CULTURAL HERITAGE COMMITTEE: 10/24/2016 Minutes — Cultural Heritage Committee Meeting of June 27, 2016 Page 6 Packet Pg. 343 16 Packet Pg. 344 16 Packet Pg. 345 16 Packet Pg. 346 16 E n v i r o n m e n t a l S c i e n t i s t s P l a n n e r s E n g i n e e r s October 21, 2016January 10, 2017 Rincon Project Number: 16-03127 City of San Luis Obispo Community Development Department 919 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 Attention: Rachel Cohen, Associate Planner Subject: Arborist Report for the 71 Palomar Avenue Project for the City of San Luis Obispo Dear Ms. Cohen: This Arborist Report was prepared for the City of San Luis Obispo’s 71 Palomar Avenue Project. It was prepared to meet the requirements of the City’s Tree Ordinance for tree removals, per Section 12.24.090 E - Tree Removal with a Development Permit. The proposed project involves implementation of a 33-unit multi-family residential project on a property located on a 1.32-acre parcel at 71 Palomar Avenue. The property currently contains the Master List Historic Sandford House, a secondary residential building, a remodeled garage with adjacent carport, expansive lawns, and many mature trees. The project would rehabilitate, relocate, and reuse the historic Sandford House, remove non- historic structural elements, remove almost all of the trees on the site, and replant trees. Figure 1 illustrates the location of the trees and location of the project components. A separate arborist report was prepared by A&T Arborists (dated June 8, 2016) for the 71 Palomar Avenue Project. This report is not associated with that June 2016 report and is a separate report providing analysis based on data collected by Rincon Consultants. Tree numbers from the A&T report are generally consistent with the numbers in this report. City of San Luis Obispo’s Tree Ordinance Per Section 12.24.090 E of the City’s Municipal Ordinance, removal of trees for projects with a development permit is allowed assuming the following documentation is provided: a. A site plan showing the location and species of any tree proposed for removal, b. All information to support the reason for removal, c. Any other pertinent information Heritage Trees Per Section 12.24.160 Heritage Trees, any healthy tree within the city limits may be proposed as a heritage tree. Also per the ordinance, heritage trees shall be trees with notable historic interest or trees of an unusual species or size. Heritage trees are protected and maintained by the city. The City’s Heritage Tree Page Packet Pg. 347 16 Arborist Report City of San Luis Obispo – 71 Palomar Project Page 2 of 9 E n v i r o n m e n t a l S c i e n t i s t s P l a n n e r s E n g i n e e r s (http://slocity.maps.arcgis.com/apps/Solutions/s2.html?appid=74e2e5bf9e534eaabf95b0917d a8bbc7) maps trees that have been proposed and designated as heritage trees by the City. No tree located on the project site has been designated by the City as a heritage tree. It should be noted that this is a voluntary program. Methodology Rincon’s International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) certified arborist, Stephanie Lopez, was on site September 15, 2016 to collect data for the trees at the 71 Palomar site. The trees were not evaluated for heritage status. A proposal for heritage tree designation was not submitted to the city by the applicant at the time of the survey. All trees located within the study area were mapped and visually evaluated for health based on the criteria in Table 1. The evaluation was conducted for the above ground portion of the trees only. Table 1: Overall Condition Rating Criteria Rating Structure Excellent In addition to attributes of a ‘good’ rating, the tree exhibits a well -developed root flare and a balanced canopy. Provides shading or wildlife habitat and is aesthetically pleasing. Good Trunk is well developed with well attached limbs and branches; some flaws exist but are hardly visible. Good foliage cover and density, annual shoot growth above average. Provides shading or wildlife habitat and has minor aesthetic flaws. Fair Flaw in trunk, limb and branch development are minimal and are typical of this species and geographic region. Minimal visual damage from existing insect or disease, average foliage cover and annual growth. Poor Limbs or branches are poorly attached or developed. Canopy is not symmetrical. Trunk has lean. Branches or trunk have physical contact with the ground. May exhibit fire damage, responses to external encroachment/obstructions or existing insect/disease damage. Dead Trunk, limbs or branches have extensive visible decay or are broken. Canopy leaves are non-seasonally absent or uniformly brown throughout, with no evidence of new growth. In addition, the following information was gathered: Scientific and common name, Geographic location of each tree using a Trimble® Geo 7x handheld GPS with integrated rangefinder. Diameter of all trees at 54 inches above natural grade (i.e., Diameter at Breast Height [DBH])) using an English unit diameter tape or caliper. Trees were considered multiple trunks if a split occurred at or below DBH. Where deformity occurs at DBH, measurement was taken immediately below or above deformity, as close to 54 inches above natural grade as possible. Visual estimation of tree height and canopy spread; and General health observations. Tree numbers correspond directly to those in the A&T Arborists report for trees #1-49. Data was collected for 59 trees. This number of trees varies from the A&T Arborists report because data was collected for recently planted trees and oak tree saplings/volunteers. Table 2, below, provides a summary of the data collected for all 59 trees. Packet Pg. 348 16 Arborist Report City of San Luis Obispo – 71 Palomar Project Page 3 of 9 E n v i r o n m e n t a l S c i e n t i s t s P l a n n e r s E n g i n e e r s Table 2: Tree Data Summary Tree ID # Common Name Scientific Name Height (Feet) Canopy Width (Feet) # of Trunks DBH (Inches) DBH (Inches) DBH (Inches) DBH (Inches) Overall Health Remove? Notes 1 Canary Island Palm Phoenix canariensis 50 25 1 38 Good N Ivy at base of trunk, but healthy 2 Norfolk Island Pine Araucaria heterophylla 965 0 40 1 30 Fair Y Lower branches of canopyCanopy in competition with other canopies 3 Pittosporum Pittosporum sp 25 20 2 9 10.5 Good Y 3A Pittosporum Pittosporum sp 20 10 1 11 Good Y 4 Norfolk Island Pine Araucaria heterophylla 60 35 1 29 Good N Some tip die back on branches 5 Willow Salix sp 15 15 3 4 2 3 Fair Y Sparse canopy 6 Pittosporum Pittosporum sp 25 30 4 7 8 7 7 Good Y 7 Mexican Fan Palm Washingtonia robusta 50 15 1 19 Good N 8 Avocado Persea americana 10 10 2 4 9 Poor Y 9 Blue Gum Eucalyptus Eucalyptus globulus 55 30 1 49 Fair Y Previously topped, poorly attached new growth, unsightly 10 Blue Gum Eucalyptus Eucalyptus globulus 55 30 1 45 Poor Y Previously topped, poorly attached new growth, unsightly 11 Blue Gum Eucalyptus Eucalyptus globulus 55 25 1 20 Poor Y Previously topped, poorly attached new growth, unsightly 12 Blue Gum Eucalyptus Eucalyptus globulus 50 30 1 32 Poor Y Previously topped, poorly attached new growth, unsightly 13 Blue Gum Eucalyptus Eucalyptus globulus 55 35 1 26 Poor Y Previously topped, poorly attached new growth, unsightly 14 Canary Island Pinealm PinusPhoenix canariensis 55 15 1 18 Fair Y Dead branches fronds in canopy, canopy in competition with other canopies Packet Pg. 349 16 Arborist Report City of San Luis Obispo – 71 Palomar Project Page 4 of 9 E n v i r o n m e n t a l S c i e n t i s t s P l a n n e r s E n g i n e e r s Table 2: Tree Data Summary Tree ID # Common Name Scientific Name Height (Feet) Canopy Width (Feet) # of Trunks DBH (Inches) DBH (Inches) DBH (Inches) DBH (Inches) Overall Health Remove? Notes 15 Canary Island Pinealm Phoenix Pinuscanariens is 45 20 1 17 Good Y 16 Atlas Cedar Cedrus atlantica 35 25 1 16 Good Y 17 Gray Pine Pinus sabineana 35 25 1 12.5 Good Y Canopy in competition with other canopiesSuppressed 18 Atlas Cedar Cedrus atlantica 35 20 1 13.5 Good Y 19 Atlas Deodar Cedar Cedrus deodaraatlantic a 40 35 1 15 Fair Y 20 Blue Gum Eucalyptus Eucalyptus globulus 50 20 1 43 Poor Y Previously topped, poorly attached new growth, unsightly 21 Blue Gum Eucalyptus Eucalyptus globulus 55 25 1 32 Poor Y Previously topped, poorly attached new growth, unsightly 22 Blue Gum Eucalyptus Eucalyptus globulus 60 25 1 51 Poor Y Previously topped, poorly attached new growth, unsightly 23 Blue Gum Eucalyptus Eucalyptus globulus 40 20 1 23 Poor Y Previously topped, poorly attached new growth, unsightly 24 Blue Gum Eucalyptus Eucalyptus globulus 60 25 1 38 Poor Y Previously topped, poorly attached new growth, unsightly 25 Blue Gum Eucalyptus Eucalyptus globulus 50 20 1 30 Poor Y Previously topped, poorly attached new growth, unsightly 26 Blue Gum Eucalyptus Eucalyptus globulus 55 25 1 36 Poor Y Previously topped, poorly attached new growth, unsightly 27 Blue Gum Eucalyptus Eucalyptus globulus 50 25 1 38 Poor Y Previously topped, poorly attached new growth, unsightly Packet Pg. 350 16 Arborist Report City of San Luis Obispo – 71 Palomar Project Page 5 of 9 E n v i r o n m e n t a l S c i e n t i s t s P l a n n e r s E n g i n e e r s Table 2: Tree Data Summary Tree ID # Common Name Scientific Name Height (Feet) Canopy Width (Feet) # of Trunks DBH (Inches) DBH (Inches) DBH (Inches) DBH (Inches) Overall Health Remove? Notes 28 Privet Ligustrum lucidum 20 20 1 11 Fair Y Black fungus and insect holes on trunk 29 Privet Ligustrum lucidum 25 30 4 5 6 8 5 Fair Y Black fungus and insect holes on trunk 30 Shamel Ash Fraxinus udhei 45 35 1 26 Good Y 31 Ash Fraxinus udhei 50 25 1 19.5 Fair Y Sparse canopy 32 Ash Fraxinus udhei 50 45 1 16.5 Good Y 33 Painted Blue gum Eucalyptus Eucalyptus deglupta saligna 55 40 1 18 Fair N Previously topped 34 Blue Gum Eucalyptus Eucalyptus globulus 60 40 1 38 Fair Y Previously topped, poorly attached new growth, unsightly 35 Blue Gum Eucalyptus Eucalyptus globulus 80 35 1 43 Poor Y Previously topped, poorly attached new growth, unsightly 36 Blue Gum Eucalyptus Eucalyptus globulus 75 45 1 44 Poor Y Previously topped, poorly attached new growth, unsightly 38 Blue Gum Eucalyptus Eucalyptus globulus 80 35 1 46 Poor Y Previously topped, poorly attached new growth, unsightly 38 Blue Gum Eucalyptus Eucalyptus globulus 75 55 1 72 Poor Y Previously topped, poorly attached new growth, unsightly 39 Olive Olea europaea 35 35 1 19 Fair Y Major branch removed previously 40 Myoporum Myoporum sp 15 10 2 3 3 Dead Y Standing dead 412 Myoporum Myoporum sp 20 20 2 4 3 Poor Y Splitting bark on trunk 42 Olive Olea europaea 35 35 2 18 15 Good Y 43 Stone Pine Pinus pinea 35 40 1 27 Poor Y Stressed 44 Olive Olea europaea 30 40 1 16 9 Fair Y Packet Pg. 351 16 Arborist Report City of San Luis Obispo – 71 Palomar Project Page 6 of 9 E n v i r o n m e n t a l S c i e n t i s t s P l a n n e r s E n g i n e e r s Table 2: Tree Data Summary Tree ID # Common Name Scientific Name Height (Feet) Canopy Width (Feet) # of Trunks DBH (Inches) DBH (Inches) DBH (Inches) DBH (Inches) Overall Health Remove? Notes 45 Olive Y Removed, not present 46 Narrow –leafed peppermintIronba rk Eucalyptus nicholiicerba 25 25 1 17 Fair Y 47 Acacia Acacia sp 30 35 1 11 Fair Y 48 Monterey Pine Pinus radiata 35 25 1 13 Good Y 49 Coast Live Oak Quercus agrifolia 15 20 1 6 Poor Y Broken stem, trunk splitting 50 Coast Redwood Sequoia sempervirens 10 10 1 3.5 Good Y Recently planted 51 Coast Redwood Sequoia sempervirens 10 10 1 3 Good Y Recently planted 52 Coast Redwood Sequoia sempervirens 10 10 1 3 Fair Y Recently planted 53 Coast Redwood Sequoia sempervirens 10 10 1 3 Fair Y Recently planted 54 Coast Redwood Sequoia sempervirens 10 10 1 3 Fair Y Recently planted 55 Coast Redwood Sequoia sempervirens 10 10 1 3 Fair Y Recently planted 56 Coast Redwood Sequoia sempervirens 10 10 1 3 Fair Y Recently planted 57 Coast Redwood Sequoia sempervirens 10 10 1 3 Good Y Recently planted 58 Coast Live Oak Quercus agrifolia 5 5 1 3 Fair Y Sapling, under privet canopy Packet Pg. 352 16 Arborist Report City of San Luis Obispo – 71 Palomar Project Page 7 of 9 E n v i r o n m e n t a l S c i e n t i s t s P l a n n e r s E n g i n e e r s Table 2: Tree Data Summary Tree ID # Common Name Scientific Name Height (Feet) Canopy Width (Feet) # of Trunks DBH (Inches) DBH (Inches) DBH (Inches) DBH (Inches) Overall Health Remove? Notes 59 Coast Live Oak Quercus agrifolia 10 10 1 4 Good Y Sapling Packet Pg. 353 16 Arborist Report City of San Luis Obispo – 71 Palomar Project Page 8 of 9 E n v i r o n m e n t a l S c i e n t i s t s P l a n n e r s E n g i n e e r s Observations The tree survey was conducted in September of 2016 when flowers and fruit of trees were not evident. Species of trees were determined based on the plant material that was present at the time of the survey.. Trees #50-59 were recently planted or are saplings/volunteers and data had not been collected on them previously. Tree #45, an olive tree, was not observed and was assumed removed. The majority of the trees are in fair to poor condition. Some of them are stressed due to lack of water, competition with neighboring trees, pests, or have been topped and now have limbs with poor connection to the trunks. Observations of health for each tree are noted in Table 2. Tree Removals and Plantings The removal or retention of trees noted in Table 2 is based on the current design plans prepared by Summers/Murphy and Partners dated June 16, 2016. Based on that plan, four (4) trees will be retained onsite and 55 (12 of which are small, 6 inches or less DBH), will be removed. The Conceptual Landscape Plan shows that over 30 trees will be planted on the property as part of the proposed project. The City’s tree ordinance does not require mitigation plantings for trees that are removed, nor does it recommend a planting ratio for replacement plantings. The tree ordinance provides the director, the tree committee, the architectural review commission or the city council the ability to require replacement trees and may require a bond ensuring that the replacement trees shall be planted and maintained per the tree regulations. While the City’s tree ordinance allows for mitigation plantings for trees that are removed, the ordinance does not establish a regulatory requirement for mitigation plantings, nor does it recommend a planting ratio for replacement plantings. The City Arborist has recommended removal of the trees per the IS-MND and determined that the 2:1 replacement planting would be sufficient mitigation for this project. Due to the number of trees and total loss of canopy the city arborist recommends a 2-1 ratio to be planted on site, adjacent to the site and planting opportunities as near to the site as possible. Conclusion The proposed project would remove 55 trees and replant over 30 trees. To be compliant with the City’s tree ordinance the removals will be reviewed by the City Arborist. There are currently no designated heritage trees on the site. Rincon did not evaluate the trees for heritage status because no such proposal was provided by the applicant. The City’s Heritage Tree Program is voluntary, and none of the trees at the site are currently so designated. The City’s Heritage Tree webpage provides information about the currently designated heritage trees in the City. Based on the available information from that page, the heritage trees are associated with historic buildings/events/properties, have unusual character, or are of an unusual size. While several tall healthy trees are present, none of the trees have unusual character nor are they of unusual size for their species. The Norfolk Island pines are Packet Pg. 354 16 Arborist Report City of San Luis Obispo – 71 Palomar Project Page 9 of 9 E n v i r o n m e n t a l S c i e n t i s t s P l a n n e r s E n g i n e e r s approximately 70 feet in height but can reach as high as 160 feet. The healthy Canary Island palm is approximately 50 feet in height but can reach as high as 75 feet. Furthermore, per the Applied Earthworks, Inc. Update to Archaeological Resource Inventory, Significance Evaluation, and Design Review (May, 2, 2016) prepared for this project, “the original historical landscape and setting have been materially altered by prior development… As a result, the integrity of the historic landscape and setting have been substantially diminished by prior development.” The City Cultural Heritage Committee during their review of the project did not find that the landscaping elements present contributed to the historic nature of the property. Based on these assessments, the trees at the site do not meet the historical context criteria to be classified as heritage trees. It is our opinion that the proposed tree removals are compliant with the tree ordinance. Tree Protection Recommendations Standard practices for protecting trees during construction are recommended for those trees that will be retained on site. The Critical Root Zone (CRZ) should be protected during construction to ensure that the construction activities will not negatively impact the trees. The Critical Root Zone is the extent of the dripline of the tree’s canopy and 5-foot buffer. Fencing should be established at the perimeter of the CRZ for the duration of the project. The fencing should be temporary, a minimum of 4-feet high, and constructed of durable material with stationary posts set at no greater than 10-foot intervals. The fencing should effectively: 1) keep the foliage, crown, branch structure and trunk clear from direct contact and damage by equipment, materials or disturbances; 2) preserve roots and soil in an intact and non-compacted state; and 3) easily identify the CRZ. If work needs to occur within the CRZ, a certified arborist should be on site to monitor the activities and advise about impacts to the CRZ in order to avoid negative effects to the trees’ health and stability. A site specific tree protection plan will be required by the city. The Tree Protection Plan will be completed by a certified arborist and approved by the city arborist for the trees to be retained onsite, prior to commencement of project activities. Thank you for the opportunity to work on this important project. If you have questionsquestions, please contact us at 805-547-0900. Sincerely, RINCON CONSULTANTS, INC. Stephanie Lopez Certified Arborist #WE-10-442A, TRAQ Packet Pg. 355 16 12 3 4 5 6 7 89 10 11 12 13 141516 1718 19 20 2122 2324 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 38 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 474849 50 51525354555657 58 59 3A Luneta Dr Palo m a r A v e Imagery provided by Google and its licensors © 2016. Figure 1Rincon Consultants, Inc. Tree Locations ±0 6030 Feet Acacia Ash Atlas Cedar Avocado Blue Gum Eucalyptus Canary Island Palm Coast Live Oak Coast Redwood Deodora Cedar Gray Pine Narrow-leafed Eucalyptus Mexican Fan Palm Monterey Pine Myoporum Norfolk Island Pine Olive Blue Gum Eucalyptus Pittosporum Privet Stone Pine Willow olive removed Tree Species Arborist Report City of San Luis Obispo - 71 Palomar Project Packet Pg. 356 16 71 PalomarAvenue April 4, 2017 Appellants: Teresa Matthews and Lydia Mourenza 414117- City 4/13117: 9/15: 5/15: First Project Submitted Couneil Neighborhood pre -app MeetinR Meeting 5/15: Outreach 1(30117' ARC with Neighbors Hearing 10115: First Project 12112116: Tree Withdrawn Committee Public Forum 10115: Current 11/15/16: Revised project MND submitted 10120116: Neighborhood 71 3/18/16: MND Meeting Public Review Palma 916/16: Council 3129116: CHC Hearing Direction on GP Amendment $11$: Resubmittal 811119: ARC of Revised Project Conceptual Review 6/1 6: 7/16: Director 7119/16: fi/27116: Ne/6ighborhood 6 117/16: Requests Council CHC MND Meeting Additional Envir. Direction Heanng Addendum Analysis 1soIi '1 4/5/2017 1 Recommendation Adopt a resolution denying the appeal and upholding the ARC's approval of the rehabilitation, adaptive reuse, and repositioning of the Master List Historic Sandford House and the construction of a new 33 -unit, multi- family residential project on 71 Palomar Drive, with a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Review. Desian Review Timeline • CHC Review • Reviewed a 41 -unit multi -family development with four multi-level buildings and March 28 the rehabilitation of the Master List Historic Sandford House. 2016 • The CHC continued the item and provided direction to the applicant. 4W - ACHC 2"d Review Reviewed a revised project that included the rehabilitation of the Historic Sandford House and a newly designed 33 -unit multi -family development that June 27, responded to CHC direction 2016 Voted 4:2 recommending the ARC find the project consistent with Historic Preservation Program Guidelines and Secretary of Interior Standards 4/5/2017 2 N . ,40' CITY OF SHIA LUIS OBISPO 1 CITY OF SgI2 LUIS OBISPO 7, Design Review Timeline • ARC Conceptual Review • Reviewed a conceptual plan of the project and provided feedback to the F1L guv>t . applicant regarding trees, landscaping, architectural elements and materials, 20 16 " scale and massing • ARC Review • Reviewed the proposed multi -family project and the MND of Environmental January Review and considered the CHC's recommendation and the response by the 30 2017 applicant to direction • Voted 4:1 to approve the project as proposed • Appeal • Teresa Matthews and Lydia Mourenza filed an appeal of the ARC's decision to approve the project Site Information � �I ■ 1.32 acres (57,500 square feet) ■ R-4 Zone (High Density Residential) ■ Master List Historic Sandford House 4/5/2017 0 Historic Background: The Sandford House • Excellent example of the Colonial Revival style of American architecture. • Retains notable characteristics such as: • Symmetrically placed window features with a prominent main entryway; and • A neoclassical portico. • The period of significance is between 1895-1930. Historic Background: The Sandford House • Likely constructed in 1895. • In 1930 the solarium was added to the south side of the house and is considered to be historically significant. 4/5/2017 5 Project Description M -41a W-.0sw Project Description ■ Rehabilitation of the historic structure and and adaptive reuse for the proposed project's leasing office and amenity space. 4/5/2017 .1 Project Description NONJHWORIC PORTIONS m SnAd3'm N(NrA K T It x x REMOVED — x x x NON-HISTORICWQfXP .ECC TO 8EM6, X REMOVED— iohtw wh VIEW 1 euro ? X 4JJ VIEW 2j 7 I !j .1 VIEW '1\ 3 x. J x —O MIAL. TO BEREMOVED x -OUTBUILDING TO BE FEMOVEO - HISTORIC PORTION OF SANDFORD HOUSE ALONG WT PORCH TO BE RELOCATED ONSITE Project Description • Removal of the non -historic additions to the main structure. ■ Removal of the non -historic garage, carport and the secondary residential building. 14 4/5/2017 7 Project Description 16 feet 10 feet 35 feet 43% 5 studios (2.5 DU), 16 two -bedrooms (16 DU), and 12 three bedrooms (18 DU) = 36.5 DU 63 66 22 15 feet 10 feet 35 feet 60% 28.56 (24 DU per acre) + 25% (8 DU) density bonus = 36.56 DU 61 66 4 4/5/2017 9 4/5/2017 Project Description Appeal Ms. Matthews and Ms. Mourenza filed an appeal of the ARC's decision stating that the "project has not been properly analyzed and as currently designed will have a significant negative impact on the environment as well as adverse effects on health and safety." Appeal Specifically, the appeal lists the following issues/concerns: 1. Flawed Mitigated Negative Declaration 2. Arborist Reports are Flawed 3. Biological Studies are Flawed 4. Inadequate Aesthetics Evaluation 5. Repositioning of the Historic Sandford House 6. Parking 7. Environmental Review of Safety, Noise and Neighborhood Compatibility 8. Utilities 9. ARC Review and California State Law Appeal 1. Requirement of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for Adverse Changes to a Historic Resource 2. Violation of the City's Tree Regulations and Impacts on Historic Resources 3. Unlawful Segmentation of Environmental Review of Road Improvements (Luneta Drive) 4/5/2017 10 Requirement of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for Adverse Changes to a Historic Resource The Sandford House is a historic resource under CEQA. * The project will not result in substantial adverse change in the significance of the Sandford House. ■ The period of significance is identified as circa 1895-1930. ■ Development of the site will not include any significant adverse impact to the historic resource. ■ Pursuant to the City's Historic Preservation Ordinance, relocation of the Sandford House is supportable. Violation of the City's Tree Regulations and Impacts on Historic Resources ■ The project does not violate the City's Tree Regulations ■ The Arborist Report has been revised of inaccuracies based on public comment. ■ No trees were identified as contributing to the historic significance of the resource. 4/5/2017 11 Unlawful Segmentation of Environmental Review of Road Improvements (Luneta Drive) • Improvements to Luneta Drive are consistent with the General Plan — Circulation Element. • Traffic was analyzed as a part of the Circulation Element EIR for the potential build out of the site. 4/5/2017 12 Wastewater The City completed a Sanitary Sewer Flow Monitoring and Inflow/Infiltration Study in 2012 and the Wastewater Collection System Infrastructure Renewal Strategy (WCSIRS) in January 2016. ■ Replacement and rehabilitation of private sewer laterals in poor condition will reduce inflow and infiltration in the collection system and peak flow rates. • The project is required to offset the additional sewer flow as a mitigation measure of the project. Recommendation Adopt a resolution denying the appeal and upholding the ARC's approval of the rehabilitation, adaptive reuse, and repositioning of the Master List Historic Sandford House and the construction of a new 33 -unit, multi- family residential project on 71 Palomar Drive, with a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Review. 4/5/2017 13 4/5/2017 14 Conditions of Approval Staff has updated the ARC Conditions of Approval within the Draft Resolution to provide further clarity in the requirements expected for the project: • Condition No. 9 requires that the applicant/property owner shall ensure long-term maintenance, protection, and survival of the trees as shown on the final landscape plan for a minimum of five years. • Conditions No. 19 and 42 provide clarity of the developer's responsibility regarding Luneta Drive depending on any amendments to the City's Circulation Element. 4. Inadequate Aesthetics Evaluation Figure 11: 4 . Scenic Roadways and Vistas '1 `- ' -Wr.- *16 v- xY s+�sig CITY OF SHR LUIS OBISPO 4/5/2017 15 4/5/2017 16 1. Flawed Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) An Initial Study and MND was completed for the proposed project in accordance with the CEQA because of the potential impacts to the historic Sandford House. 2. Arborist Reports are Flawed ■ The role of an arborist report is to provide information that can be used by staff and decision makers to evaluate the proposed tree removals based on City Code and policies. The Rincon's arborist report was an independent review from the applicant's arborist report prepared by A&T Arborists. ■ The Arborist Report by Rincon was reviewed and revised based on comments provided by the public and the Tree Committee. ■ The City Arborist supports the removal of 55 of the 59 trees and is recommending mitigation and conditions of approval that require a 2:1 replacement program. 4/5/2017 IFI/ 3. Biological Studies are Flawed • A Biological Assessment completed by Rincon found that mature landscaping present at the project site provides tree and shrub habitats that have the potential to support wildlife habitat for urban -adapted avian or bat species. ■ Mitigation measures have been incorporated into the Environmental Document that assumes that these bird and bat species will be found on the site. ■ Mitigation Measures BI0-1 includes requirements consistent with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act to protect bird species. • Mitigation Measure BI0-2 requires mitigation for Roosting Bats. 4. Inadequate Aesthetics Evaluation ■ A supplemental Aesthetics Analysis was provided by Rincon Consultants that analyzed various views toward the proposed project site in conjunction with City policies and CEQA thresholds regarding viewsheds. • The Study determined that the project was consistent with General Plan policies and would not result in significant degradation of the visual character of the site and its surroundings, and this impact would be a less than significant impact and does not require mitigation. 4/5/2017 18 4. Inadequate Aesthetics Evaluation 4. Inadequate Aesthetics Evaluation 4/5/2017 19 4. Inadequate Aesthetics Evaluation 4. Inadequate Aesthetics Evaluation 4/5/2017 20 5. Repositioning of the Historic Sandford House • An Applied Earthworks evaluation determined the proposed repositioning was consistent with Secretary of the Interior (SOI) standards and City's Historic Preservation Program Guidelines and recommended a series of conditions to ensure the preservation of the historic structure. The CHC also found that the project complied with the SOI standards and the City standards and supported the proposed repositioning of the Master List Historic Sandford House . Repositioning the house would not necessarily preclude the house from being nominated for the National Register of Historic Places. Currently the site is not being considered. 4/5/2017 21 6. Parking The City's parking standards contained in the Municipal Code do not base the calculation on the number of residents, the calculation is based on the number of bedrooms. ■ Municipal Code Chapter 17.90 - Affordable Housing Incentives - provides the following parking requirements: 1. Studio to one bedroom: one onsite parking space 2. Two to three bedrooms: two onsite parking spaces 3. Four or more bedrooms: two and one-half parking spaces ■ The project is consistent with these requirements and provides 63 spaces — 61 parking spaces are required. 7. Environmental Review of Safety, Noise and Neighborhood Compatibility Safety: • The project will include upgrades to the frontage along Luneta Drive including new sidewalks for pedestrian access. * The MND evaluated the traffic generated by the project and found that the additional trips associated with the project were within the level of service allowed for residential streets. Noise: ■ The MND evaluated noise and noted that the Noise Element designates residential uses as noise sensitive. ■ The proposed residential use is consistent with existing residential uses in the project vicinity and would not result in substantial changes to the existing noise environment. 4/5/2017 22 7. Environmental Review of Safety, Noise and Neighborhood Compatibility Change in single-family housing occupants: No information or policies are available to evaluate the impact of new multi -family development on the change in occupancy of single-family units within the same neighborhood. 8. Utilities The proposed project was reviewed by the City's Utilities Department and no resource and/or infrastructure deficiencies were identified. ■ The proposed project would result in an incremental increase in demand on City infrastructure which were anticipated under the recent General Plan Update. ■ The City completed a Sanitary Sewer Flow Monitoring and Inflow/Infiltration Study in 2012 and the Wastewater Collection System Infrastructure Renewal Strategy (WCSIRS) in January 2016 that identified capacity deficiencies in the collection system during peak wet weather. in The developer is required to identify, demonstrate or implement off-site sewer rehabilitation that results in quantifiable inflow and infiltration reduction in the City's wastewater collection system. 4/5/2017 23 9. ARC Review and California State Law The ARC was informed during the review process about the State Housing Density Bonus Law and the Housing Accountability Act. rd Direction was provided that the ARC had the ability to discuss options of how the project may be further reduced in scale, but could not require a reduction in the number of units per State Law unless they could make findings that the project would have a specific, adverse impact upon public health or safety, and there was no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific adverse impact other than reducing the density. Policy Background ■ Land Use Element Housing Element * 2015-2017 Major City Goal w State Housing Density Bonus Law e Housing Accountability Act 4/5/2017 24 Policy Background ■ Land Use Element ■ High Density Residential: Attached dwellings in two and three story buildings, with common outdoor areas and very compact private outdoor spaces. This type of development is appropriate in some locations near Cal Poly, in the Downtown core, near employment concentrations, and near transit corridors and nodes. ■ LUE Policy 226: The City shall promote livability, quiet enjoyment, and safety For all residents. Characteristics of quality neighborhoods vary from neighborhood to neighborhood... ■ LUE Policy 2.2.7: The City shall promote infill development, redevelopment, rehabilitation, and adaptive reuse efforts that contribute positively to existing neighborhoods and surrounding areas. Policy Background Housing Element ■ Goal 2: Housing should be in-line with the Regional Housing Needs Allocation, for the 2014 - 2019 planning period. • Policy 8.1: Affordable housing units should be intermixed and not segregated by economic status and encourage housing developments that meet a variety of special housing needs. ■ Policy 2.17: the City should continue to consider increasing residential densities above state density bonus allowances for projects that provide housing for low, very low and extremely low income households. • Program 6.19: the City should continue to incentivize affordable housing development with density bonuses, parking reductions and other development incentives, including City financial assistance. 4/5/2017 25 Policy Background W State Housing Density Bonus Law California State law encourages the development of affordable housing and provides density bonuses based on the inclusion of affordable units within a project. ■ Government Code section 65915(e)(1) states: In no case may a city, county, or city and county apply any development standard that will have the effect of physically precluding the construction of a development meeting the criteria of subdivision (b) at the densities or with the concessions or incentives permitted by [the Density Bonus Law]. 4/5/2017 26 Policy Background ■ Housing Accountability Act ■ The HAA provides certain protections for housing development projects. ■ The HAA which prohibits a local agency from: V; disapproving a housing development project; 2; conditioning the approval of a housing development project for very low, low or moderate income households which renders the project infeasible; or 3', approving but requiring the housing development project to be developed at a lesser density than allowed by the agency's zoning code unless the agency makes a finding that the project will have a specific adverse impact on the public health and safety and there is no feasible way to mitigate the impact. 4/5/2017 27 Design Scale & Massing Provide individuality between the buildings. Building E Building F milli CITY OF Sqn Luis OBispo Design Scale & Massing ■ Lower the perceived elevation/height of the structures along Luneta and the Sandford House. ' -28 feet -_ �� -18 feet Building E Building F CITY OF Sflji Luis 1: '1 4/5/2017 28 Design ■ Scale & Massing ■ Provide more setbacks and articulation along the north elevation of the project, especially the northeast corner (east elevation, right corner). Revised Previous 4/5/2017 29 �- • F5W CITY OF SHR LUIS OBISPO `4:� c,• Project Description iP7 v.- - .'�� ub Per the General Plan this project is required to complete their frontage improvements connecting Luneta to Palomar. City Council directed staff to evaluate a general plan amendment to keep Luneta closed and return to Council with a recommendation 4/5/2017 30 Analysis: Trees ■ Tree Committee Review ■ On December '12, 2016 the free Committee was asked to receive public comment and provide individual input on the WIND and two arborist reports during the 30 -day public review period for the proposed project ■ Based on feedback received from the Tree Committee and the public, Rincon Consultants was requested to review their Arborist Report and provide any corrections or changes ■ Rincon made corrections to the Arborist Report and did not recommend any changes to the mitigation measures within the MND Trees ■ Heritage Trees ■ Section 12.24 160 The City recognizes the important role trees have played in the history and development of Sari Luis Obispo and recognizes that a wide variety of trees can grow in its unique and temperate climate. ■ There is a voluntary program in which property owners may submit a tree to be considered for Heritage Tree designation, 4/5/2017 31 4/5/2017 E 4/5/2017 .e �s•, S fps ''�f , '•yi'`. • .µy. r. ";ice 1.. 1. 26 . � €.,.. ,�. ,��:. is •.i "`" J�... .� ._ .. �� ���• ";+i � r+. r;a�'.: ;do-• �• �i�a�. � ,�:�:k. � � � W -� w�.. ;=_i��i v, -y5a ry{-:i:•i: N.I. 'f •AL�Y1►� Y• .. • r '•���1l� r1 4/5/2017 m M e• Ji r �M M e• �M l 4:. � r' ~�-- � � r F w� it • �• � . .�: ', . tip'_ i L''• - ijut ra n. J 4/5/2017 1.1 c low_ r .4+ f � • NT i. Fi3 tip . •. r,1' •, gg i wt-' �p' i•• 4/5/2017 12 4/5/2017 14 11 , " V -r , - - - -,I, 0 R T {' .; x ��, 1 �. , �hn �. '� : � , '� -,•sny,� -. r�� '`r %, _� •-y 1 t r ., , �. . ..� r. � i' �'_ -' � .. . . . ' �� ~� ` '. ti}' � .. .. _ `•F 4/5/2017 lu �gJr f 1' Akc. 4/5/2017 20 4/5/2017 21 4/5/2017 23 4/5/2017 25 -Vill, ftP- It, W bad Ai A6 771 I -00, gidEM, ARP" I- I 1 -dmFmff*&wj el, W- k -A 1 '2 �: � • -,�.3 .' -Tt 1 ''S'� f � , iii �'J. :it � n � •q .',. 4/5/2017 30