Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-09-2018 Item 10 Public Hearing - Appeal filed by Renton Partners of the Tree Commitees Decision of 435 Marsh StreetMeeting Date: 1/9/2018 FROM: Michael Codron, Community Development Director Prepared By:Kyle Bell, Associate Planner SUBJECT:REVIEW OF AN APPEAL (FILED BY RENTON PARTNERS, LLC) OF THE TREE COMMITTEE’S DECISION TO DENY REMOVAL OF ONE FICUS STREET TREE LOCATED IN THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY AT 435 MARSH STREET ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. RECOMMENDATION Adopt a Resolution (Attachment A)upholding the appeal of the Tree Committee’s decision to deny the removal of the ficus street tree, thereby granting final approval to remove the street tree based on findings of consistency with the General Plan, Zoning Regulations and applicable City Standards. SITE DATA Applicant Renton Partners, LLC Representative Ten Over Studio ARC Approval September 11, 2017 Zoning C-R General Plan General Retail Site Area ~0.31 acres Environmental Status Categorically exempt from environmental review under CEQA Guidelines section 15332 (In-Fill Development Projects) DISCUSSION The project applicant,Renton Partners, LLC,submitted an application for a project to demolish an existing building and to construct a new four-story mixed-use building with commercial/retail at the ground level (1,100 sq. ft.) and eight residential units, located within the Commercial Retail (C-R) zone at the corner of Marsh & Carmel Streets. As part of that application, the applicant requested removal of one ficus street tree located on Marsh Street to “reinforce the architectural rhythm of the primary building façade,” and to provide a consistent urban landscape with the planting of six new street trees (two along Marsh Street and four along Carmel Street). The City Arborist recommended that the ficus tree remain, due to its healthy condition, and this species’ ability to withstand heavy pruning. Packet Pg 215 10 Background 1. Architectural Review Commission On September 11, 2017, the Architectural Review Committee (ARC) reviewed the project proposal, which included the removal of a ficus tree along Marsh Street. The City Arborist recommended preservation of the ficus tree based on the established criteria for tree removals identified in the Tree Ordinance (Attachment B). The ARC found the project consistent with the General Plan, Community Design Guidelines, and applicable City standards, granting approval of the project including the removal of the ficus tree. The ARC expressed that ficus trees have been problematic around town and if the subject tree were to be preserved, significant maintenance would be required to prevent the tree from negatively impacting the building. The ARC acknowledged that the ficus tree has already begun to damage the newly installed sidewalk and curb and concluded that the project provides a higher quality design with the inclusion of the compensatory six replacement trees. The ARC unanimously approved the project 4:0 (Attachment C, ARC Meeting Minutes and Staff Report).According the City’s Tree Ordinance Section 12.24.090E.2c:“If the city arborist has recommended denying the application and the ARC has approved the application, the Tree Committee shall review the ARC’s decision.” 2. Tree Committee On October 23, 2017, the Tree Committee reviewed the removal request. The Tree Committee evaluated the request based on the criteria identified in the Tree Ordinance Section 12.24.090D.2:When the city arborist cannot authorize a tree removal, the request shall be reviewed by the Tree Committee, which may authorize removal if it finds one of the following circumstances; (1) The tree is not causing undue hardship. Normal routine maintenance does not constitute a hardship, i.e., cleaning of gutters, leaf raking, pruning or root intrusion into a failed sewer lateral, etc.; or (2) Removal would not promote good arboricultural practice; or (3) Removal would harm the character of the environment of the surrounding neighborhood. The Tree Committee was unable to make the required findings to remove the ficus tree based on the criteria listed above because the tree is in a healthy condition, with the ability to withstand heavy pruning, and contributes to the existing canopy and character along Marsh Street and the surrounding neighborhood. The Tree Committee denied the removal of the tree 5:3 (Attachment D, Draft TC Minutes). According the City’s Tree Ordinance Section 12.24.090E.2c;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. Appeal Filed by Applicant On November 1, 2017, the applicant submitted an appeal of the Tree Committee’s decision. In the appeal letter, the applicant asserted that the request meets the requirements of the Tree Ordinance for removal (Attachment E). The applicant provided a response to each of the criteria Packet Pg 216 10 for tree removals subject to Tree Committee review.The applicant’s responses are summarized as follows; (1) The tree has damaged relatively recent concrete work for the sidewalk and may likely continue causing damages if preserved. (2) The project provides replanting of six trees along the perimeter of the project site, thereby contributing to a more substantial urban forest. Removing the subject tree would allow new trees to grow to a mature size providing a better defense against disease or death from old age, and allow for subsequent ficus removal without losing the entire canopy. (3) Lastly, the removal of the ficus tree will improve the environment of the surrounding neighborhood by replacing a single tree with six new trees and allow the entire site to feature a high quality and architecturally significant mixed-use project. 1. General Plan Consistency The Land Use Element provides policies that encourage mixed use projects within commercial districts (LUE 3.8.5), especially near major activity nodes and transportation corridors (LUE 2.3.6), in which may provide revitalization of commercial areas to coordinate, complementary retail uses, and provisions for housing on upper floors (LUE 3.8.4). The project provides a commercial component on the ground floor along Marsh Street along the entrance to downtown, the project provides the opportunity to revitalize the existing property and enhance the visual experience of residents and visitors traveling Downtown by all modes of transportation. The Downtown Concept Plan, recently adopted in 2017, highlights the significance of providing housing in a more walkable urban environment close to jobs and services that may foster an economically and culturally diverse downtown (Goal 1.2). Encouraging flexible mixed-use development throughout the downtown area (Goal 3.2) with special attention on the downtown’s gateways through improved street design, architecture, and public spaces that announce your arrival (Goal 1.4). One of the top ten priorities identified during the public outreach regarding public improvements downtown was to; maintain a healthy downtown street tree canopy; evaluate and replace tree grates annually to ensure obstructionǦfree sidewalks as well as proper tree health and growth capacity. The project is consistent with the vision of the Downtown Concept Plan for the subject property as described in Block #41, and provides the opportunity to replace a tree that is damaging the sidewalk with six new street trees that may enhance the pedestrian experience and views toward the property, contributing to the health and vitality of the downtown street tree canopy. The Circulation Element describes the policies for streetscapes provided to promote the city’s visual quality and character of corridors by retaining mature trees in the public right-of-way, whereas also emphasizing the planting of California native tree species of sufficient height, and spread to create the desired streetscape canopy, shade, and buffering from adjacent uses (CE 9.2.6). The replacement of the non-native ficus tree would provide the opportunity to provide six California native species consistent with the intent of the Tree Ordinance, Community Design Guidelines, and the General Plan. 2. Staff Analysis The City’s Tree Ordinance does not establish any alternate criteria for the City Council to evaluate a request for a tree removal where the Tree Committee and the ARC provided Packet Pg 217 10 conflicting determinations. However, the City’s General Plan and municipal code policies related to tree removal and development provide additional guidance. The City Council should review all information available and make a determination after hearing public testimony and correspondence associated with the project. The staff recommendation to remove the tree was provided after evaluating the purview of each advisory body in consideration of consistency with the City’s General Plan. The Tree Committee’s purview is to act as an advisory body to the Public Works Director and the City Council on all matters related to trees in San Luis Obispo. 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. The Tree Committee’s purview is to act on all matters related to trees; however, their criteria to remove a tree does not include considering aspects of a development project which may meet other General Plan policies or programs. The ARC’s purview is to evaluate development projects on a comprehensive basis including but not limited to; site design, architecture, landscaping, and parking. The ARC may interpret the Community Design Guidelines with some flexibility in their application to specific projects, in order to better implement other guidelines and General Plan policies. The ARC evaluated the project as a whole and determined that the project met the design objectives of the Community Design Guidelines for the neighborhood including the removal of the ficus tree. The ARC determined that the removal of the tree provides for a higher quality design when compared to the alternative of re-designing the project around preservation of the tree. The staff recommendation is consistent with the ARC determination in balancing design guidelines and the multiple city policies and programs related to infill development, housing objectives, and mixed-use development. CONCURRENCES The project has been reviewed by the Public Works department. Their conditions have been incorporated into the resolution in support the project if incorporated conditions of approval are adopted. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The project is categorically exempt under Class 32, In-Fill Development Projects; Section 15332 of the State California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, because the project is consistent with General Plan policies for the land use designation and is consistent with the applicable zoning designation and regulations. The project site occurs on a property of no more than five acres substantially surrounded by urban uses that has no value as habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species as the site is located on a developed property and is served by required utilities and public services. The project has been reviewed by the City Public Works Department, Transportation Division, and no significant traffic impacts were identified, based on the size and location of the project. Packet Pg 218 10 FISCAL IMPACT There is no fiscal impact realized by the City in the approval or denial of the appeal. The cost of removing the tree and installing replacement trees, if the appeal is upheld, is borne by the applicant. ALTERNATIVES 1. Continue consideration of the project if more information is needed to make a decision. 2. Deny the appeal, thereby preserving the ficus tree. This is not recommended because the ficus tree is damaging the sidewalk, six replacement trees are proposed, and the project facilitates City objectives for mixed-use development and housing downtown. Attachments: a - Draft Resolution (Approval) b - Tree Regulations c - ARC Minutes & Report d - TC Draft Minutes e - Appeal Letter Packet Pg 219 10 R ______ RESOLUTION NO. _______ (2018 SERIES) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA, UPHOLDING AN APPEAL TO THE TREE COMMITTEE DECISION TO DENY A TREE REMOVAL REQUEST AS REPRESENTED IN THE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT AND ATTACHMENTS DATED JANUARY 9, 2018(435 MARSH STREET APPL- 1250-2017) WHEREAS,on September 11, 2017, 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, approving the design of a new four story mixed-use project located at 435 Marsh Street (ARCH-0652-2017), Renton Partners, LLC, applicant; and WHEREAS, on October 23, 2017, the Tree Committee of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing, denying the request to remove one ficus tree located in the public right-of-way at 435 Marsh Street associated with the development project, Renton Partners, LLC, applicant; and WHEREAS, On January 9, 2018, 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, pursuant to a proceeding instituted under the appeal of the Tree Committee’s decision (APPL-1250-2017), Renton Partners, LLC, applicant/appellant; 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 WHEREAS, notices of said public hearings were made at the time and in the manner required by law; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the 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: 1. The tree has the potential to cause damage to the property due to very invasive nature of ficus treeroot systems, which may lead to buckling sidewalks and curbs as well as damages to underground utilities and drains. 2. As conditioned, the removal of the subject tree will promote good arboricultural practice by removing a single non-native species, and replacing with six California native trees which provides additional diversity of species in the neighborhood to defend against disease and segment the life-spans of the existing canopy. Packet Pg 220 10 Resolution No. _______________ (2018 Series) Page 2 R ______ 3. As conditioned, removing the tree will not harm the character or environment of the surrounding neighborhood because the replanting plan includes six native tree species of sufficient size and spread contributing to provide a more substantial urban forest. Consistent with the Circulation Element to create the desired streetscape canopy, shade, and buffering from adjacent uses improving the appearance along the corridor (CE 9.2.6). SECTION 2.Environmental Review. The project is categorically exempt under Class 32, In-Fill Development Projects; Section 15332 of the State California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, because the project is consistent with General Plan policies for the land use designation and is consistent with the applicable zoning designation and regulations. The project site occurs on a property of no more than five acres substantially surrounded by urban uses that has no value as habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species as the site is located on a developed property and is served by required utilities and public services. The project has been reviewed by the City Public Works Department, Transportation Division, and no significant traffic impacts were identified, based on the size and location of the project. SECTION 3. Action. The City Council does hereby uphold the appeal of the Tree Committee’s decision, thereby granting final approval of the project including the removal of the ficus tree located in the public right-of-way at 435 Marsh Street, subject to the following conditions: 1. The building plan submittal shall include six new 24-inch box street trees with tree wells, grates and guards in accordance with City Engineering Standards. Tree species and sizes and all associated planting requirements shall be per City Engineering Standards, and shall incorporate the use of structural soils, subject to the approval of the City Arborist and Community Development Director, as appropriate. 2. The Owner/Applicant shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City or its agents or officers and employees from any claim, action or proceeding against the City or its agents, officers or employees, to attack, set aside, void, or annul, in whole or in part, the City's approval of this project. In the event that the City fails to promptly notify the Owner/ Applicant of any such claim, action or proceeding, or that the City fails to cooperate fully in the defense of said claim, this condition shall thereafter be of no further force or effect. Upon motion of _______________________, seconded by _______________________, and on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: The foregoing resolution was adopted this 9th day of January 2018. ____________________________________ Mayor Heidi Harmon Packet Pg 221 10 Resolution No. _______________ (2018 Series) Page 3 R ______ ATTEST: ____________________________________ 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 of ______________, _________. ______________________________ Carrie Gallagher City Clerk Packet Pg 222 10                                                                                                     !   "      #     $   %                   &     '         &       (            )       )                    #   *  *%+   $     %              &    (       %                %)          )    ,                         '      %                     %       (            "               &        ) -./+!     / $012 /  1'3$4 -./+! $''5323     $5 Packet Pg 223 10         )                   6    #       $                                                                      (            )       )           '                   (                ) 7                       ) 7                         ( 7                                   , ) 7        ,                            8  "      9$9'%             ( $           &    #-*: -  $''5313#  )    ;        &  -./+!     / $012 /  1'3$4 -./+! $''5323     '5 Packet Pg 224 10     #-*) '        9     &&) 1             ) 5              &  &)  <         ) 0     &      #-* =     !  $        >            '                   >   *"      $                                                     ' &                       ,          7! 7                                                 ?6   #                    >                     @! -  - &+   $           &                         &       &       -./+!     / $012 /  1'3$4 -./+! $''5323     15 Packet Pg 225 10      '7                                                                           :/$<55A$: ;'3$3; -./+!     / $012 /  1'3$4 -./+! $''5323     55 Packet Pg 226 10 Packet Pg 227 10 Packet Pg 228 10 Packet Pg 229 10 Meeting Date: September 11, 2017 Item Number: #1 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT SUBJECT: Review of a four-story mixed-use development that includes eight residential units and approximately 1,100 square feet of commercial space with associated tree removals, and a 20% mixed-use parking reduction. The project is categorical exemption from environmental review. PROJECT ADDRESS:435 Marsh Street & BY:Kyle Bell, Associate Planner 1210, 1218 Carmel Street Phone Number: 781-7524 e-mail:kbell@slocity.org FILE NUMBER: ARCH-0652-2017 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 Renton Partners, LLC Representative Ten Over Studio Complete Date August 17, 2017 Zoning C-R General Plan General Retail Site Area ~0.31 acres Environmental Status Categorically exempt from environmental review under CEQA Guidelines section 15332 (In-Fill Development Projects) SUMMARY The project applicant, Renton Partners, LLC, is proposing to demolish an existing non-historic building and construct a new four-story mixed-use building with commercial/retail at the ground level (1,100 sq. ft.) and eight residential units to be subdivided for individual sale under the Minor Subdivision application SBDV-0936-2017, located within the Commercial Retail (C-R) zone at the corner of Marsh & Carmel Streets. The project has been designed to be consistent with the Community Design Guidelines (CDG) and is requesting a 20% mixed-use parking reduction, no other exceptions have been requested as part of this application. Packet Pg 230 10 r ARCH-0652-2017 435 Marsh Street Page 2 1.0 COMMISSION’S PURVIEW The ARC’s role is to review the project in terms of its consistency with the General Plan, Zoning Regulations, Community Design Guidelines, and other applicable policy documents. 2.0 PROJECT INFORMATION Site Information/Setting Site Size ~0.31 acres Present Use & Development Retail Commercial, formally occupied by Landis Auto Service Topography Relatively Flat Access Marsh Street & Carmel Street Surrounding Use/Zoning North: C-R (Offices and Restaurant) South: R-4 (Multi-family & Single Family Residences) East: C-R (Offices) West: C-R (Car Wash and Auto Repair) Project Description A summary of significant project features includes the following (Attachment 2, Reduced Project Plans): 1. Site Plan: New four-story mixed-use building (22,434 sq. ft.), with parking garages interior to the site. x Eight residential units x Two commercial/retail tenant spaces (1,100 sq. ft.) x Ficas tree removal x 20% mixed-use parking reduction 2. Design: Mission architectural design that includes the following details and materials; x Two new commercial entrances oriented toward Marsh Street x Design features included; upper level balconies, detailed cornices, concrete bulkheads, aluminum clad storefront systems, detailed columns and glass storefronts x Materials include; Stucco, Mission style roof tile with exposed faux rafter beams, decorative tile trim along entrances, Project Statistics Item Proposed 1 Ordinance Standard 2 Street Yard setback 0 feet 0 feet Side Yard Setbacks 5.75 feet 0 feet Max. Height of Structure(s) 42 feet 45 feet Coverage (buildings & paving) 46% 100% Density 11 11.1 Floor Area Ratio (FAR) 1.67 3.0 Parking Spaces 21 (20% parking reduction) 26 Notes: 1. Applicant’s project plans 2. City Zoning Regulations Packet Pg 231 10 ARCH-0652-2017 435 Marsh Street Page 3 3.0 PROJECT ANALYSIS The proposed improvements must conform to the standards and limitations of the Zoning Regulations and Engineering Standards, and be consistent with applicable CDG. Staff has evaluated the project against relevant standards and guidelines and found it to be in substantial compliance, as discussed in this analysis. Consistency with the Community Design Guidelines The CDG establish the intent of the development objectives for commercial projects that consider San Luis Obispo’s small town scale and demonstrate sensitivity to the design context of the surrounding area. The CDG establish the intent of the development standards for infill development projects to be compatible in scale, siting, detailing, and overall character with adjacent buildings and those in the immediate neighborhood. Site Plan:The CDG state that site planning should create a pleasant, comfortable, safe, and distinct place for residents. New development should respect the privacy of adjacent residential uses through appropriate building orientation and structure height (CDG 5.4A). New development should provide a transition between the street and the project through definition of the building entries, walkways and landscaping (CDG 2.1D). The project orients the commercial uses along Marsh Street and provides residential units on the upper levels. The applicant has proposed to provide majority of the residential parking within the individual garages and parking for the commercial uses on the ground level accessed from Carmel Street. The project would consolidate the existing driveways on both Marsh and Carmel Streets to one driveway on Carmel Street.The project’s parking area is not a dominant visual element of the site and is screened by a structure that is oriented toward the major street frontage. Building Design:A building’s design should provide a sense of human scale and proportion. Horizontal and vertical wall articulation should be expressed through the use of wall offsets, recessed windows and entries, awnings, full roofs with overhangs, second floor setbacks, or covered arcades. (CDG 3.2). Designs should demonstrate a consistent use of colors, materials, and detailing throughout all elevations of the building. Elevations which do not directly face a street should not be ignored or receive only minimal architectural treatment (CDG 3.1.B.3). The structure demonstrates consistent use of colors, materials, and detailing throughout all elevations of the building. The design utilizes vertical wall articulation, offsets, and recessed windows to relieve the form and mass of the building. The project includes pedestrian-scale features including storefront windows, planter boxes, light fixtures, and balconies. All elevations are visually interesting and receive interesting architectural treatments that enhance views of the structures from all views on and off site1. 1 Community Design Guidelines Chapter 5, Section 5.4 C.1: Façade and roof articulation. A structure with three or more attached units should incorporate wall and roof articulation to reduce apparent scale. Changes in wall planes and roof heights, and the inclusion of elements such as balconies, porches, arcade, dormers, and cross gables can avoid the barracks-like quality of long flat walls and roofs. Packet Pg 232 10 ARCH-0652-2017 435 Marsh Street Page 4 Street Trees: The applicant has requested removal of one large ficus street tree, located on Marsh Street, to “reinforce the architectural rhythm of the primary building façade,” and to provide a consistent urban landscape with the planting of six new street trees (two along Marsh Street and four along Carmel Street). The City Arborist recommended that the ficus tree remain, due to its healthy condition, and this species’ ability to withstand heavy pruning. The City Arborist has reviewed the project plans and recommends Conditions No. 33 and 34 which require that the project construction plans address any necessary foundation design to accommodate the root system of the tree, and coordination regarding tree protection and trimming practices. ARC Discussion Item #1:Based on the City Arborist’s review of the project and tree removal request, it is Staff’s recommendation to retain the existing ficus street tree. The ARC should discuss 1) the applicant’s request to remove the ficus tree and the City Arborist’s recommendation to retain the tree and 2) proposed Conditions No. 32 and 33 (Attachment 1). If the ARC disagrees with the City Arborist’s recommendation and approves removal of the ficus street tree, the Tree Committee will consider the applicant’s request pursuant to the Tree Ordinance2. Trash Enclosure: The CDG state that required trash enclosures should be located away from public streets and primary building entrances so that their use does not interfere with on-site parking or circulation areas, and adjacent uses. The trash enclosure has been located along Carmel Street adjacent to the driveway. Condition No. 4 requires design improvements to the trash enclosure as viewed from the public right-of-way by requiring the enclosure to be designed with high quality materials to match the architecture of the project3. Consistency with the Zoning Regulations The project design complies with building setbacks, lot coverage, density, and building height requirements for the Commercial Retail (C-R) zone (see Section 2.0 Project Statistics). The Zoning Regulations 17.08.72 Mixed Use Projects state that the design of mixed use projects shall consider potential impacts on adjacent properties and designed compatible with the adjacent and surrounding residential neighborhood. Parking: The project requires 26 vehicle parking spaces (20 spaces for eight residential units and 6 spaces for 1,100 square feet of commercial space –based on a request for a more intensive use requirement of 1/200 rather than 1/300). The applicant is requesting a 20% parking reduction, resulting in the provision of 21 vehicle spaces onsite. The project qualifies for a parking reduction of 20% because the project includes commercial and residential uses and it is 2 Tree Ordinance Section 12.24.090.E.2.c: If architectural review is required for the development, the architectural review commission shall approve or deny the application: (1) 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. 3 Community Design Guidelines Chapter 6.1F.3 Miscellaneous Design Details.If space constraints or excessive site slope mandate that a trash/recycling enclosure be installed in a street yard, then it should be: located so it gates do not face the street; finished with high quality materials to match the architecture of the project buildings; and utilize surrounding landscaping to further screen and enhance its appearance. Screening techniques such as trailing vines on walls, berming along side and rear walls, and overhead trellises are all encouraged. Packet Pg 233 10 ARCH-0652-2017 435 Marsh Street Page 5 anticipated that the times of peak parking demand would not coincide4, parking is adequate for the proposed project and all uses on-site. Condition No. 6 includes a requirement that the property owner must submit a running total of the site’s parking requirements and hours of operation with the submittal of any building permit for tenant improvements, and/or each business license. 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The project is categorically exempt under Class 32, In-Fill Development Projects; Section 15332 of the State California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, because the project is consistent with General Plan policies for the land use designation and is consistent with the applicable zoning designation and regulations. The project site occurs on a property of no more than five acres substantially surrounded by urban uses that has no value as habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species as the site is located on a developed property and is served by required utilities and public services. The project has been reviewed by the City Public Works Department, Transportation Division, and no significant traffic impacts were identified, based on the size and location of the project. 5.0 OTHER DEPARTMENT COMMENTS Comments from the other City departments have been incorporated into the Draft Resolution as conditions of approval. 6.0 ALTERNATIVES 6.1. Continue the project with direction to the applicant and staff on pertinent issues. 6.2. Deny the project based on findings of inconsistency with the General Plan, Zoning Regulations, Community Design Guidelines, or other policy document. 7.0 ATTACHMENTS 1. Draft Resolution 2. Reduced Project Plans Available at the Community Development Department:Project Plans Available at ARC Hearing: Colors and Materials Board 4 Zoning Regulations Sections 17.16.060.B and C:Where two or more uses share common parking areas, the total number of parking spaces required may be reduced by up to 10% with approval of an administrative use permit and by approving an administrative use permit, the Director may reduce the parking requirement for projects sharing parking by up to 20%, in addition to the sh ared parking reduction, for a total maximum parking reduction of 30%, upon finding that the times of maximum parking demand from various uses will not coincide. Packet Pg 234 10 Minutes - DRAFT TREE COMMITTEE Monday, October 23, 2017 Regular Meeting of the Tree Committee Commission CALL TO ORDER A Regular Meeting of the Tree Committee was called to order on Monday, October 23, 2017 at 5:03 p.m. in the Corporation Yard Conference Room, located at 25 Prado Road, San Luis Obispo, California, by Vice Chair Ben Parker. ROLL CALL Present:Alan Bate, Sean O’Brien, Ben Parker, Angela Soll, Rodney Thurman, Jane Worthy, Chair Scott Loosley Staff: Ron Combs, City Arborist and Lisa Woske, Recording Secretary PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA Daryl Grigsby, Public Works director, discussed the CalPERS and City’s fiscal health response plan and the challenges that will be faced providing service levels in the face of increasing contributions. He reported that Public Works Dept. needed to achieve a $1.5 million reduction and that Council would be reviewing options to address. Will Powers, resident, confirmed that management salaries would match any employee salary cuts and/or contribution concessions. Dr. Powers proceeded to discuss a filed complaint regarding the spindly trees planted on Ramona behind California Fresh shopping center. Staff agreed to research parameters. Sandra Lakeman, resident, felt the agenda cover sheet should include tree species type for each removal address listing. CONSENT AGENDA CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES 1. Consideration of August 28, 2017 Minutes DRAFTParker,Park Angela Soll, Angela Soll oosleyosley rist and Lisa rist and Lisa WoskeWo S NOT OS NOT ON THE AGETHE RAWorks director, discussorks director, discuss he challenges that wilhe challenges tha ributions. He reportedibutions. He reported on and that Councon and that Co onfirmedonfirmed tiotio Packet Pg 235 10 DRAFT Minutes – Tree Committee Meeting of October 23, 2017 Page 2 It was clarified that Chair Loosley was not in attendance at that meeting. ACTION:MOTION BY COMMITTEE VICE CHAIR PARKER, SECONDED BY COMMITTEE MEMBER O’BRIEN, to approve the September 25, 2017 minutes of the Tree Committee as amended. Motion passed 7-0 on the following roll call vote: AYES: BATE, LOOSLEY, O’BRIEN, PARKER, SOLL, THURMAN WORTHY NOES: NONE PUBLIC HEARINGS BUSINESS ITEMS 2. Tree Removal Applications -364 Los Cerro Dr. (4 eucalyptus) Paul Collins, applicant, discussed the removal request and was concerned about the Tree B leaning towards his neighbor’s house, past limb failure of Tree A and Tree C failing and noted Tree D was too close to the house. He stated the nearby oaks would thrive with the removals. Barbara Collins, applicant, reported that Robert Hill, Natural Resource Manager, favored removal, as did David Hensinger and referenced his letter of support. Mr. Combs reported he could not make the necessary findings for removal approval. Public Comments: Chair Loosley opened the public hearing. Jules Rogoff, 330 Los Cerros, noted that previous eucalyptus in the development had been removed and favored the removal request. He was also concerned about fire hazard. Will Powers favored removal. Chair Loosley closed the public hearing.DRAFTptus) ussed the removal reqed the removal re towards his neighbor’s his neighbor d noted Tree D was td noted Tree D uld thrive with the remuld thrive with the r , applicant, reported tapplicant, reported t vored removal, as didvored removal, a eported he coeported he c Packet Pg 236 10 DRAFT Minutes – Tree Committee Meeting of October 23, 2017 Page 3 The Committee discussed the item and outlined which trees should be removed and which retained and agreed that the existing oaks would thrive if some trees were removed. They favored replacement plantings of Coast Live Oaks. ACTION: MOTION BY COMMITTEE VICE CHAIR PARKER, SECONDED BY COMMITTEE MEMBER SOLL, to approve the removal of Trees A & B, based on promoting good arboricultural practice, requiring two 15-gallon trees to be chosen from the Master Street Tree list and planted within 45 days of tree removals. It was further moved to deny the removal of Trees C & D, as the necessary findings could not be made. Motion passed 7-0 on the following roll call vote: AYES: BATE, LOOSLEY, O’BRIEN, PARKER, SOLL, THURMAN WORTHY NOES: NONE -435 Marsh (Ficus) Jim Rendler, applicant, discussed the removal request in terms of upcoming development and ADA requirements. He noted it was an older tree that was surrounded by several other trees and that it would be replaced with six trees onsite. He did not think pruning and retaining the tree would be healthy for the tree or work with the design. He noted ARC has approved the plans. Steve Sinton, project member, discussed incorporating Mexican sycamore. Mr. Combs stated he could not make his necessary findings to allow removal. The Committee recognized a letter from Allan Cooper in support of retaining the tree and indicating that he did not think Mexican sycamore was a good replacement species. Public Comments: Chair Loosley opened the public hearing. James Lopes, resident, also referenced the letter from Allan Cooper and stated he agreed with the contents and thought the developer could accommodate the tree in a re-design. Ms. Lakeman also supported Mr. Cooper’s position and stated Save Our Downtown supported Mr. Cooper’s position as well. She felt there needed to be a tree-saving initiative across the county to retain older trees and the oxygen output they provided.DRAFTRKERKE ed the removal requesed the remova ements. He noted it wments. He noted i er trees and that it woes and that it wo pruning and retaining pruning and retaining design.design.He noted ARCHe noted oject memberct member, discus, discus stated he could not mstated he could no ttee recognizedttee recognize ating that hating that h cies.cies. Packet Pg 237 10 DRAFT Minutes – Tree Committee Meeting of October 23, 2017 Page 4 Pam Orth, resident, did not think a 42’ building should be right on the sidewalk and felt the design should incorporate the tree. Bill Cochran, resident, was concerned about citywide tree removals due to development in general and felt this tree should be retained. Will Powers felt developers got extremely high allowances regarding tree removals and felt this tree should be retained. Chair Loosley closed the public hearing. Ms. Soll discussed the ARC approval process re development and O-lot line entitlement. She noted she needed to vote in favor of removal, as a representative of the ARC since they approved the development plan that included removing the tree. The Committee discussed the removal request for the healthy tree and expressed great frustration that the ARC approved the project before the Tree Committee could review. There were divided comments. Ms. Worthy noted the uniform Ficus corridor at the city entryway was an asset and that Ficus trees can withstand substantial pruning. Mr. O’Brien and Mr. Thurman could not make the necessary findings for removal. Mr. Parker felt pruning would harm the character of the tree and make it lopsided. ACTION: MOTION BY COMMITTEE MEMBER O’BRIEN, SECONDED BY COMMITTEE MEMBER WORTHY, to deny the removal request, based on inability to make any of the necessary findings for removal. Motion passed 5-3 on the following roll call vote: AYES: BATE, LOOSLEY, O’BRIEN, THURMAN, WORTHY NOES: PARKER, SOLL -1266 Monterey (Carrotwood) Dave Regan, applicant’s representative, discussed the removal request and stated the roots were lifting the sidewalk and that the sewer line had to be replaced. He noted the tree was only in fair health. Mr. Combs stated he could not make his necessary findings and noted the roots would be pruned by Street Dept. on rotation.DRAFTof of the develthe d equest for the healthyequest for the hea RC approved the projRC approved the proj s.Ms. Worthy Ms. Wor nnotedote t sset and that Ficus treand that Ficus tre d Mr. Thurman could n Mr. Thurman could n er felt pruning would her felt pruning wo OTION BY COMMITOTION BY COMM TEE MEMBER TEE MEMBER W OROR make any of the make any of th g roll call vg roll call v Packet Pg 238 10 DRAFT Minutes – Tree Committee Meeting of October 23, 2017 Page 5 The Committee reported that Allan Cooper’s position letter also favored retaining this tree. Public Comments: Chair Loosley opened the public hearing. Dr. Powers did not favor removing the tree. Ms. Orth and Mr. Cochran did not favor removal and felt the tree added to the street appeal. Mr. Lopes supported Mr. Cooper’s letter comments and favored retaining the tree. Chair Loosley closed the public hearing. The Committee discussed the item and felt the tree could be maintained. They also encouraged the owner to plant a tree in the empty tree well on the side of the property. ACTION: MOTION BY COMMITTEE MEMBER BATE, SECONDED BY COMMITTEE VICE CHAIR PARKER, to deny the removal request, based on inability to make any of the necessary findings for removal. Motion passed 7-0 on the following roll call vote: AYES: BATE, LOOSLEY, O’BRIEN, PARKER, SOLL, THURMAN WORTHY NOES: NONE -131 Serrano Heights (Coast Live oak) Mr. Thurman stated he would be abstaining due to a conflict of interest. John Brooks, applicant, discussed the removal request and felt the tree presented a fire hazard, was too close to the house and in the way of the retaining wall he needed to build to shore up property. He would replace it with another Coast Live oak. Mr. Combs could not make his necessary findings for removal. Public Comments: Chair Loosley opened the public hearing.DRAFTfelt the tree could be felt the tree could tree in the empty treetree in the empty tree MITTEE MEMBER BATTEE MEMBER PARKER,RKER,to deny thto deny th he necessary findingshe necessary findings all vote:all vote: BATE, LOOSLEY, OTE, LOOSLEY, O WORTHYWORTHY NONEONE no Heightsno Heights Packet Pg 239 10 DRAFT Minutes – Tree Committee Meeting of October 23, 2017 Page 6 Dr. Powers noted he was unable to view the tree. Chair Loosley closed the public hearing. The Committee discussed the item and felt the tree stabilized the hillside and that the canopy could be pruned and removing the shrubbery and undergrowth would address any fire concerns. They encouraged the applicant to return with retaining wall plans to request tree removal at that time. ACTION: MOTION BY COMMITTEE MEMBER O’BRIEN, SECONDED BY COMMITTEE VICE CHAIR PARKER, to deny the removal request, based on inability to make any of the necessary findings for removal. Motion passed 6-0- 1 on the following roll call vote: AYES: BATE, LOOSLEY, O’BRIEN, PARKER, SOLL, WORTHY NOES: NONE ABSTAIN: THURMAN NEW BUSINESS MILL STREET Maintenance Request for City Bus Route There was no City representative to speak to the item. The Committee discussed the request to accommodate the double-decker bus and encouraged City Transit to look into re-routing and other alternatives that would avoid having to affect the Mill Street trees. OTHER: Mr. Combs noted that the California Urban Forest Council seminar would be held at the Corporation Yard on December 7, 2017. OLD BUSINESS Final revisions were made to the Major Street Trees list. ACTION: MOTION BY COMMITTEE MEMBER THURMAN, SECONDED BY COMMITTEE MEMBER WORTHY, to forward the finalized Major Street Trees list to Council for approval. Motion passed 7-0 on the following roll call vote: AYES: BATE, LOOSLEY, O’BRIEN, PARKER, SOLL, THURMAN WORTHY NOES: NONEDRAFT ARKER,ARK est for City Bus Rouor City Bus Rou ive to speak to the iteive to speak to t e doublee double--decker bus decker bus alternatives that woulrnatives that woul the Californthe Califor embeembe Packet Pg 240 10 DRAFT Minutes – Tree Committee Meeting of October 23, 2017 Page 7 ARBORIST REPORT Mr. Combs reminded the Committee about the Arbor Day event being held on Saturday, November 4 at Laguna Lake from 10 a.m. to noon. He also discussed the development of a sustainable Urban Forest Management Plan and reported that efforts were being coordinated with Cal Poly classes to review = efficiency and inventory, ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 7:15 p.m. The next regular meeting of the Tree Committee is scheduled for Monday, December 11, 2017 at 5:00 p.m., at the Corporation Yard, 25 Prado Road, San Luis Obispo, California. APPROVED BY THE TREE COMMITTEE ON XX/XX/2017 DRAFTornia. ornia XX/XX/XX/201XX7 Packet Pg 241 10 Packet Pg 242 10 Packet Pg 243 10 Packet Pg 244 10 Packet Pg 245 10 Packet Pg 246 10 Packet Pg 247 10 Packet Pg 248 10 Packet Pg 249 10 Packet Pg 25010 Packet Pg 251 10 Page intentionally left blank. Packet Pg 252 10 JAN 4 THENewspaper of the Central Coast G —� MBUNE 3825 South Higuera • Post Office Box 112 • San Luis Obispo, California 93406-0112 • (805) 781-7800 In The Superior Court of The State of California In and for the County of San Luis Obispo AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION Fhe3fiflg M OF Sf n LWS 013ISPO AD # 3448398 LUIS OBISPO CITY COUNCIL CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO TICE of PUBLIC HEARING OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK n Luls Obispo City Council invites ested persons to attend a public an Tuesday, January 9. 2r}1s, at .m, in the City Hail council Cham - 0 Palm Street, Sen Lula Obispo. STATE OF CALIFORNIA nia, relative to the following: ss. VIEW QF Al Ap AL FILED8YCounty of San Luis Obispou ,Pc� _orrcee ncr+.lCiAH TD ❑E- I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of the tfa TMtr 1auaLta Rte '' r- "` "` '"" MARSH STREET A S�D�LATE� WITH County aforesaid; I am over the age of eighteen and not T E pal ROPOSE4 otavEt.OP�fe�ir of interested in the above entitled matter; I am now, and at THE SUBJECT PROPERTY - all times embraced in the publication herein mentioned A public hearing to consider an appeal was the principal clerk of the printers and publishers of p P p p tiled re Renton itteWsFartnders, LLC regarding the Tree Committee's decision to not allow THE TRIBUNE, a newspaper of general Circulation, the removal of one street tree located at 435 Marsh Street associated will) a devel- printed and published daily at the City of San Luis opment project that was previously aP- Obispo in the above named county and state; that notice proved by the Architecluml Review Com- Incorporating a recommendatlan at which the annexed clippings is a true copy, was misslon to the Tree Committee to remove the sub - published in the above-named newspaper and not in any jest tree. supplement thereof — on the following dates to wit; For more information, you are Invited to 8611 Df Me DECEMBER 30, 2017, that said newspaper was duly contty Development Departmee nt at (805) 781 and regularly ascertained and established a newspaper of 7175 or by email at kr�ell slocity.arg general circulation by Decree entered in the Superior The City Council may also discuss other hearings or business items before or atter Court of San Luis Obispo County, State of California, on the items listed above. If you challenge the June 9, 1952, Case #19139 under the Government Code proposed project in court, you may be limit- ed to raising only those issues you or of the State of California. someone else raised at the public hearing described In this notice, or in written corre- delivered to the City Council at, I certify (or declare) under the penalty of perjury that the spondence or prior to, the public hearing, fOregdl g i true and correct. Reports for this meeting will be available for review in the City Clark's office and on. line atwvyrw alp�ritv•ore on Wednosday. Jan- uary 3, 2018• Please Call the City Clerk's S1 Of Principal erk (Signature pl Olfice, at (805) 781-7100 for more informa. tion. The C4 Council meeting will be talo - DATED: DECEMBER 27, 2017 vised INN on Charter Cable Channel 20 and live streaming on www slocltv.orn. AD COST: $176.32 Carrie Gallagher City Clerk city of San Luis Obispo 344639BDecember 30, 2017 435 Marsh StreetTree Committee AppealAPPL-1250-2017Review of an appeal of the Tree Committee’s decision to deny removal of one ficus street tree located in the public right-of-way at 435 Marsh Street associated with the proposed development of the subject property.January 9, 2018Applicant/Appellant: Renton Partners, LLC Recommendation2Adopt the Draft Resolution upholding the appeal, therebygranting final approval to remove the street tree based onfindings of consistency with the General Plan, ZoningRegulations and applicable City Standards Existing Site Photos Project Description4Removal of one ficus streettree and planting six newstreet trees, associated with adevelopment project.Development consists of anew four-story mixed-usebuilding including 1,100 s.f. ofcommercial space and eightresidential units. 5 Background6The City Arborist reviewed the project and recommended thatthe ficus tree remain, due to its healthy condition, and thisspecies’ ability to withstand heavy pruning.On September 11, 2017, the ARC granted approval of the of theproject including the removal of the tree.On October 23, 2017, the Tree Committee denied the removalof the tree.On November 1, 2017, the applicant, Renton Partners, LLC,filed an appeal of the Tree Committee’s decision. Appeal Letter 7The appellant’s letter provides a response to each of thethree criteria for tree removals subject to the TreeCommittee review.1.Hardship due to damage to the sidewalk.2.Removal would promote good arboricultural practicedue to variety and diversity of tree species contributingto a larger urban canopy.3.Removal would not harm the character of theneighborhood due to the new trees and the high qualitymixed-use project. Staff Analysis8TheTreeCommittee’sdecisiontopreservethetreewasconsistent with the criteria listed in the Tree OrdinanceThe ARC’s decision was based on implantation of theCommunity Design Guidelines and General Plan PoliciesThe recommendation to remove the tree was provided inconsideration of consistency with the General Plan relatedto infill development, housing objectives, and mixed-usedevelopment. Recommendation9Adopt the Draft Resolution upholding the appeal, thereby granting final approval to remove the street tree based on findings of consistency with the General Plan, Zoning Regulations and applicable City Standards 12 Alternative13Revised condition #3Hours of operation for the project shall not be outside the hours of 8:00 a.m. – 12:00 a.m. Sunday through Wednesday and no later than 1:30 a.m. Thursday through Saturday.