HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-04-2017 Item 16, Codron�_OUNC€L MEETING: LI-9-I?
ITEM NO.: '.
Council Memorandum
April 3, 2017
TO: City Council
FROM: Michael Codron, Community Delopment Director
VIA: Katie Lichtig, City Manager
Prepared By: Rachel Cohen, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: Item #16: 71 Palomar, Agenda Correspondence Summary Response
APR 0 4 2017
CLERK
City staff is providing the following as a summary response to agenda correspondence for Item
#16 (71 Palomar) on the April 4, 2016, agenda. The following information is based on themes, or
repeated questions received prior to Monday, April 3.
1. Issues/Concerns with the Rincon Arborist Report and Biological Evaluation
Following initial public comment on the project and Initial Study of Environmental Impact,
the City decided to reevaluate certain aspects of the project. The City contracted with
Rincon Consultants, Inc., to provide a peer review of the biological section of the
environmental document and to provide a new arborist report. The Rincon arborist report
was discussed at a Tree Committee meeting, and errors that were noted by members of the
Committee were corrected. The Rincon arborist report provides sufficiently detailed
information and assessments of individual trees for use by staff, the Tree Committee, and
the Architectural Review Committee (ARC) to evaluate the proposed tree removals based
on City Code, policies and precedent.
The biological section of the Initial Study, peer reviewed by Rincon, contains sufficient
information for the City to evaluate impacts the project may have on avian species per the
Migratory Bird Treaty Act. The Migratory Bird Treaty Act and proposed mitigation
measures for the project protect all bird species, especially during nesting season, but do
not protect the habitat when they are not there. This site has not been identified by the City
as a specific habitat area (COS 7.3.2), or designated as a wildlife corridor (COS 7.3.3). The
US Fish and Wildlife Service does not list the site as a Critical Habitat for Threatened and
Endangered Species.
Most importantly, the recommended mitigation measures assume that a wide variety of
birds, even those of local concern, could be found on the site. Pre -construction surveys,
and limitations on the time when tree removal can occur, are required to ensure that active
nesting sites are not disturbed.
Item #16: 71 Palomar, Agenda Correspondence Summary Response Page 2
2. Tree Removal Incousistent with City Policy
The Tree Regulations do not provide criteria or establish a list of tree types that are to be
preserved. The City's Municipal Code outlines a process by which trees may be considered
for removal as part of a development project. This process has been followed and the
proposed tree removals (55 of 59 trees) were approved by the ARC, with appropriate
mitigation.
The ARC's approval was consistent with the recommendations of the City Arborist.
Removal of 55 trees would be allowed with 2:1 replacement planting. In total, 110 trees
will be planted, including 34 on-site and 76 off-site, with first priority being the location
of new trees in the neighborhood to help address the loss of canopy associated with tree
removals.
3. Rehabilitation and Relocation of the Historic Structure
As a Certified Local Government (CLG), the City of San Luis Obispo is certified by the
National Park Service and the Office of Historic Preservation to conduct accurate and
complete analysis of proposed historic rehabilitation projects. The City has an agreement
to maintain this certification and fulfill the requirements of a CLG, including following the
appropriate review process, maintaining professional expertise, training, and yearly
reporting. These processes were all followed during the course of review of this project.
Each component of the project (new development, repositioning, rehabilitation, removal
of additions) was evaluated by the CHC and found consistent with the City Historic
Preservation Ordinance, Secretary of Interior Standards, and Historic Preservation
Program Guidelines. The CHC made findings that removal of the non -historic additions
was consistent with the Secretary of Interior Standards for Rehabilitation because they have
not acquired historic significance in their own right. Additionally, the project is consistent
with SOI Standards for new construction on historic properties since the new construction
is subordinate to and compatible with the scale, size, massing and architectural features of
the Master List Sandford House. The setting of the property has been significantly altered
with the urbanization and construction of housing along Palomar Avenue and Luneta
Drive. The historic evaluation also noted that there was no evidence that the site included
any formal gardens and no trees were identified as contributing to the historic significance
of the resource. With the modified design and site plan, the CHC found that the proposed
project will maintain the prominence of the Sandford House by preserving the house on-
site and retaining key views of the home's main elevations along Palomar Avenue.
4. Status of Luneta Drive
Under the current Circulation Element of the City's General Plan, Luneta Drive 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.
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 Drive closed and directed staff to return to
Council with a recommendation. This work effort is currently underway which includes
Item #16: 71 Palomar, Agenda Correspondence Summary Response Page 3
the following: preliminary analysis and draft recommendations have been completed, the
next neighborhood meeting is scheduled for April 13th to review & discuss the analysis and
draft recommendation, and Planning Commission and City Council hearings are scheduled
for this summer although exact meetings dates have not yet been selected.
As required, the City must apply the policies and regulations applicable at the time the
project is deemed complete. Consistent with this requirement, the project has been
conditioned to construct the required Luneta Street connection and all frontage
improvements (curb, gutter, sidewalk, bike lanes, etc.). The condition does allow these
improvements to be deferred pending the City's review of the Luneta Street connection
component of the Circulation Element. As part of that review, the City will need to evaluate
the potentially significant environmental impacts of any permanent policy changes to the
Circulation Element which will necessarily consider the outcome of this project's review.
Going forward, the applicant is responsible for and conditioned to complete one of the two
following options:
1) If the Circulation Element remains as is, the applicant will install the road and
frontage improvements per the General Plan, connecting Luneta Drive to Palomar
Avenue as a two-way vehicular road; or
2) If the Circulation Element is modified, install an alternative design selected by
Council that includes frontage improvements along Luneta Drive, but does not
connect Luneta Drive to Palomar for vehicular traffic
5. 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. 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.
On January 201h and 22nd of 2017, the sewer overflowed near the subject site, which is
discussed in Council Agenda Report for a Council study session on this topic on Tuesday,
April 4, 2017. Replacement and rehabilitation of private sewer laterals in poor condition,
as required by this project, will reduce inflow and infiltration in the collection system and
peak flow rates.
The project will be required to offset the additional sewer flow as a mitigation measure of
the project. As a result, the impacts of this development will be mitigated, and the potential
for overflows will not be made worse by this project. The project developer is required to
submit projected sewer flow data so that prior to permit issuance, the City can determine
an appropriate offset. The offset will be sized to ensure that the inflow and infiltration
reduction in the City's wastewater collection system will be at least as much as the normal
wastewater flows expected to occur with development of the project. This will mitigate the
project's impact and will not exasperate the problem.
Item #16: 71 Palomar, Agenda Correspondence Summary Response Page 4
6. Parking/Street Parking
The City's parking standards, contained in the Municipal Code, base parking calculations
on the number of bedrooms and not on the projected number of residents. The Municipal
Code requires the project to provide 61 parking spaces; the project provides 63 spaces.
Comments have been raised regarding the availability of street parking in the
neighborhood. Street parking is made available on a first come basis and the City does not
manage street parking unless it is within a Parking District. Part of the neighborhood is
within the Palomar Parking District. Those streets outside the District are available for
anyone to park. Since the project meets the City's standards for parking and there are no
obligations of the project proponent to address on -street parking there are no further
mitigations that can be required of the project.
7. Traffic
The General Plan EIR includes a traffic study of land uses approved in the General Plan
and this project is consistent with the land use evaluated in that traffic study. More detailed
traffic studies are typically required when land use change is being proposed or when
projects have traffic peaking characteristics that could lead to inconsistencies with General
Plan policies on acceptable traffic conditions. Projects that generate less than 100 peak
hour trips are not considered to have those type of peaking characteristics. This project is
estimated to generate 20 peak hour trips based on the Institute of Transportation Engineers
(ITE) Trip Generation Rates therefore it was determined that the traffic study conducted as
part of the general plan EIR was adequate.
8. Type of Housing
Commenters have noted that the project will be student housing. Although it is unlawful to
evaluate a project based on the familial status of those who may live in a proposed
residential project, the City does have policies that speak to providing student housing:
• LUE Policy 2.6.4 The City shall encourage the development of housing likely to
attract faculty, staff, and students to locate close to Cal Poly. The City shall work
with Cal Poly to facilitate faculty and staff owning or renting housing in adjacent
neighborhoods
• LUE Program 2.11.1. Preferences: The City shall evaluate student housing
preferences and consider revising development standards to better meet them in
multifamily housing near campus.
9. Zoning of the Site
The site has been zoned for High Density Residential Development since the 1960s and
the zoning has not changed during major General Plan updates in 2004 and 2015. An aerial
photograph of the area from 1974 (see below) shows the project site, with Valencia
Apartments and the old Tropicana student housing projects to the north and south of the
site, respectively. The Tropicana is no longer student housing, but was recently retrofitted
for senior housing. In the aerial photo, much of the surrounding low-density residential
area remains un -subdivided and undeveloped.
Item #16: 71 Palomar, Agenda Corres
6
dence Summary Response Page 5
I� "• Irl�I�
IL