HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/25/1993, Item 1 - 1190 Laurel - Tract 13-93 and PD 13-93: Subdivision and planned development rezoning �ai���►bI��IVlllllll�P°����IU city of san •tins ogispo
M
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT nEM NUMBER:.
FROM: Arnold Jonas, Community Development Director
BY:, Judith Lautner, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: Tract 13-93 and PD 13-93: Subdivision and planned development rezoning, to
create 46 residential lots, a recreation area and private streets, on the
southwesterly corner of Southwood Drive and Laurel Lane:
CAO RECOMMENDATION
Introduce
1) an ordinance approving the planned development overlay zoning and preliminary
development plan; and
2) Adopt a resolution approving the map with conditions, as recommended by the Planning
Commission.
DISCUSSION
Background
The City Council approved a rezoning of the property from M-S to R-3-S on August 20, 1991.
Now the applicants want to change the zoning from R-3-S to R-3-PD, and subdivide the site into
46 small residential lots, a small park site, and private streets. The Planning Commission
reviewed the request on April 14, 1993, and on a 4-2 vote (Cross and Peterson voted no, Senn
abstained) recommended approval of the requests.
Previous review
The attached Planning Commission staff report outlines most of the issues related to this project.
At the Planning Commission hearing, discussion focussed on six areas, some of which were not
discussed in that report:
1. The wall. Commissioners and neighbors had difficulty with the appearance of the
proposed sound and privacy wall facing Laurel Lane. The representatives displayed_ an
alternative design at the meeting, that mitigated the concerns of most of the
commissioners. The alternative design is now incorporated into the revised plans, which
have been distributed to Council members. Features of the new design include:
* Six-foot minimum setback, and six-foot maximum height. The previous design
had a four-foot setback from the sidewalk, and some sections of the wall were as
high as 11'.
*
Eight-foot-deep'sections. A minimum of 40% of the wall is to be at least 8' back
from the sidewalk; and trees will be planted in these areas.
��u��H��IIIIIUIIIh ��Il� city of San Luis OBISpo
C® CIL AGENDA REPORT T
1190 Laurel Lane
Page 2
* A wider section in the middle. Approximately mid-block, a curved section of
wall increases the wall setback to 12'.
* Berms. Earth berms are to extend up the wall, at least three feet in height,
leaving at most three feet of visible wall. Planting is to extend up this berm.
One commissioner (Cross) strongly objects to any walls in any residential projects, and
voted against the proposal for that reason.
2. The undergrounding. After extended discussion, Commissioners voted to require full
undergrounding of overhead utilities along the Laurel Lane frontage. However, most of
the commissioners were concerned about the effect this condition might have on the cost
of the dwellings. The project design includes several features that should reduce its cost
to buyers, including small lots, smaller homes with limited amenities, "zero-lot line"
design to increase usability of the small lots, a grid-pattern of streets and lots,, and
narrow private streets. The developer estimates the cost of undergrounding at$150,000.
While not accepting this number as exact, commissioners nevertheless recognized that
undergrounding utilities would add significantly to the cost of the project.
The Public Works Director is recommending that the undergrounding be done at this
time, because otherwise it will be many years before it happens. The City's ordinance,
regulating the placement of utilities, says that undergrounding is to take place with street
widening. Laurel Lane, however, is already widened to its maximum width.
If above-ground utilities are undergrounded as part of this project, then the result will
be that overhead lines will remain along the westerly side of Laurel Lane from Orcutt
Road to the southerly edge of the site, then re-emerge at Southwood Drive, continuing
uphill to Johnson Avenue. It is possible that the O-S-zoned site immediately to the south
of this one will be developed in the near future. Undergrounding could be required as
a condition of that development as well. The result would then be that a section of
Laurel Lane, from the northerly corner of the Morris and Garritano site to Southwood
Drive, would be free of power lines. The remainder of the street is virtually fully
developed, and is unlikely to be redeveloped soon. There would likely be no mechanism
for undergrounding the remainder of the power lines on this street, without funding
assistance from PG&E, for the forseeable future.
The Planning Commission specifically asked that the Council look at alternatives to
requiring undergrounding at this time,if reasonable alternatives exist. One commissioner
(Peterson) voted no on the approval motion because he was opposed to the
undergrounding condition. Staff has identified the following actions the Council may
take:
� ilmbflInNWI City of sari Lais OBISPO -
®HONG@ COUNCIL. AGENDA REPORT
Tract 13-93 and ru 137YJ
) 1190 Laurel Lane
Page 3
* Require the developer to install conduits only at this time. The developer is
amenable to this option. The Public Works Director is concerned that 1)
standards may change, making the installation useless at a later date, and 2) it
will be several years before Laurel Lane is likely to receive the funding to have
the utilities placed underground.
* Require the developer to pay the cost of installing conduits or pay for conduits
and utility lines. This would be equivalent to installing the conduits now, but
would avoid the problem with changing standards.
* Re-order priorities. placing Laurel Lane higher on the list. PG & E assists with
undergrounding of utilities on arterial streets. Laurel Lane is an arterial street,
but it is not high on the list of priorities for undergrounding. The City Council
could move it up the list, if appropriate.
* Make no undergrounding requirements. The City may allow Laurel Lane to
remain as is, until such time as funding is available for undergrounding the entire
street.
3. To fence or not to fence. Commissioner Hoffman proposed a condition that would
require the Conditions, Covenants, and Restrictions (CC&R's) for the project to prohibit
interior fencing. The commission was divided on the issue of eliminating side-and rear-
yard fencing, and ultimately was unable to pass a motion that included such a
requirement. However, the commission as a whole felt the idea warranted discussion in
the Council staff report.
Commissioners in favor of the no-fencing rule felt it would eliminate the rabbit-warren
appearance of many newer subdivisions, promote community, makethe the yards seem
larger, and promote neighborhood watch programs. Commissioners opposed felt that
open yards would be difficult for families with small children or pets to use, that they
would eliminate privacy and could cause aesthetic problems, that families may be
annoyed by dogs running through yards, and in general that buyers would not find such
a restriction acceptable, however admirable the intention.
The following condition can be added if the Council chooses to impose such a restriction:
7.(m) No fencing of any land may be installed, beyond the sound and privacy walls
along Laurel Lane and Southwood Drive.
Alternatively, as a compromise, the Council could require that fencing be limited in
�_ height or location.
IoN11111WRIg city of San OBISpo -
�` COUNCILS AGENDA PEPT
TxHut 13-93 and ra 1-3-93
1190 Laurel Lane
Page 4 -'
4. Pathways across the site. Some commissioners favored requiring pedestrian paths
through the project site, again to encourage a sense of community and to provide
alternative travel lanes. In this case, the most logical place for a path would be where
one exists today - diagonally across the property.. The path is used by citizens heading
to and from Sinsheimer Park, Sinsheimer School, the YMCA, and by residents of the
Southwood apartments next door. Commissioners also suggested paths across rear yards,
in concert with the "no-fence" rule discussed above.
The representative said the applicant would be amenable to pathways that made logistical
sense, but questioned the value of paths through rear yards that had no specific
destination. The commission as a whole did not support requiring pathways.
5. Affordable housing proposal. Although the homes are likely to be less expensive than
average detached homes in this community, there is no guarantee that they will be
affordable to low-or moderate-income persons. Adoption of the draft Land Use Element
will allow the City to require some provision for moderate- or low-income housing in
every residential project. At this time, however, unless a density bonus is requested, it
would be inappropriate to require a developer to provide such housing without some sort
of compensation.- Staff has suggested a trade-off. four of the homes (approximately
10%) would be reserved for sale to moderate-income families, as defined by State law,
in exchange for a fee waiver equal in value to $50,000, to offset the loss to the -
developer. This suggestion is discussed further in the Planning Commission staff report,
attached. The Planning Commission recommends inclusion of such a trade (see
recommended condition no. 24), but did not necessarily support restricting sale of these
homes perpetually. Depending on how the contract is designed, the number of persons
who would benefit from these affordable homes would range from four (if the initial
sales price only is controlled) to a large number (if the controls are perpetual). The
Planning Commission and staff support the condition as worded, to allow flexibility in
1. developing controls.
6. Mixed-use potential.- Some members of the Planning Commission recalled that when
the property was rezoned to R-3-S, the intent of the "Special Considerations" overlay
zone was to ensure that any project on the site would be a mixed-use project (the
"Mixed-use" overlay zone had not yet been adopted at that time). The minutes show that
the commission did discuss making such a requirement, but upon learning that the R-3-S
zone cannot include commercial uses, the commission ultimately recommended that the
"S" overlay be applied to the site to assure "compatibility with and buffering from
adjacent land uses, to mitigate Laurel Lane traffic and noise impacts,so secure necessary
public infrastructural improvements, and provide adequate screening of residential uses
from Laurel Lane." The ordinance that was eventually adopted included this direction.
The project design meets the S"-zone requirements.
1 /1
11
�,,,►ai�iiuulilll�Ilil18111 MY o 'san`Lais OBISPO
MOM %MM%Mo CIL AGENDA REPORT
1190 Laurel Lane
Page 5
7. Some minor changes. Staff has made a few minor changes to the conditions that were
approved by the Planning Commission. The changes are highlighted in the resolution
and are for clarification only.
Significant impacts
The environmental initial study found no significant impacts to come from this project, as
modified by mitigation.
FISCAL BOACT
If the Council adopts the conditions recommended by the Planning Commission, then
approximately $50,000 in revenue would not be received by the City. If the power lines are not
undergrounded as part of this project, then the City may later be funding all or part of the cost
of that work.
ALTERNATIVES
The City Council may deny the requests, if findings are made that are consistent with State law..
The property owner may then apply for another residential project on the site.
The City Council may continue the requests. Direction should be given to staff and the
applicants.
Attached:
Draft resolutions and ordinance
Planning Commission report and attachments - April 14, 1993
Planning Commission minutes - April 14, 1993
Ordinance no. 1198 (adopting R-3-S zoning)
_5
RESOLUTION NO. (1993 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF .SAN LUIS OBISPO
GRANTING APPROVAL OF TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 2132
LOCATED AT 1190 LAUREL LANE
BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis
Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. Findings. That this council, after
consideration of the tentative map of Tract 2132 and the Planning
Commission's recommendations, staff recommendations, and reports
thereof, makes the following findings:
1. The design of the tentative map and proposed improvements
are consistent with the general plan.
2. The site is physically suited for the type and density of
development allowed in the R-3 zone.
3. The design of the subdivision and the proposed improvements
are not likely to cause serious health problems, substantial
environmental damage or substantially and unavoidably injure
fish or wildlife or their habitat.
4. The design of the subdivision or the type of improvement
will not conflict with easements for access through, or use
of property within, the proposed subdivision.
5. The Community Development Director has determined that the
proposed subdivision will not have a significant effect on
the environment and has issued a negative declaration of
environmental impact for the project, which is hereby
approved.
SECTION 2. Conditions. The approval of the tentative map
for Tract 2132 is subject to the following conditionst
Relationship to planned development:
1. Approval of this subdivision is contingent upon the adoption
of the planned development rezoning of the included property
to the R-3-PD district as requested by application PD 13-93 .
Density:
2. The maximum density allowed on each lot is 2.00 dwelling
units, as defined by the zoning regulations. Lots may be
developed with more than one dwelling unit if this density
Resolution No. (1993 Series)
Tract 2132
Page 2
is not exceeded, and if all property development standards
are met for the additional unit.
Transportation:
3. The subdivider shall install a concrete pad and transit
shelter, "P" pole sign and trash receptacle along the Laurel
Ln. frontage, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. The
location shall be approximately twe `_s lengths 80 feet
southerly of the Laurel/Southwood intersection, within the
public R/W area behind the sidewalk (no bus turn-out is
required) .
4. The subdivider shall pay a maximum of $50, 000 towards local
area traffic improvement facilities prior to recordation of
the final map, as determined by the City Engineer.
Anticipated improvements include a traffic signal at
Southwood Drive and Laurel Lane, a traffic signal at Laurel
Lane and Orcutt Road, railroad signal relocation and street
widening at Orcutt Road.
5. The City is expected to adopt a new traffic impact fee
sometime in mid-1993 . Upon adoption of traffic impact fees,
the fees specified above may be credited towards any traffic
impact fees if incorporated into the traffic impact fee list
of projects. The subdivider shall pay all applicable
traffic impact fees prior to recordation of the final map.
6. A bulletin board or information kiosk shall be installed in
the recreation area. Information on ridesharing, transit,
bicycle routes, other alternative transportation methods,
plus recycling information shall be posted on this board or
kiosk as it becomes available to the homeowners'
association.
Homeowners' association:
7. The subdivider shall establish covenants, conditions, and
restrictions for the regulation of land use control of
nuisances and architectural control of all buildings and
facilities. These CC&R's shall be approved by the Community
Development Department and administered by the Laurelwood
homeowner's association. The subdivider shall include the
following provisions in the CC&R's for the Tract:
a. A homeowners' association shall be created to enforce
the CC&R's and provide-for professional, perpetual
maintenance of all common areas, including private
streets, sewer mains, drainage facilities, parking
I��
Resolution No. (1993 Series)
Tract 2132 . '
Page 3 J
lots, walls and fences; lighting, recreation area, and
landscaping in a first class condition.
b. The homeowners' association shall maintain all public
right-of-way frontage improvements (on Laurel Lane and
Southwood Drive) , rather than individual lot owners.
C. There shall be no provisions in the CC&R's that
prohibit use of private clotheslines in rear yard
areas.
d. The City shall be granted the right to maintain the
common areas and rights-of-way if the homeowners'
association fails to perform, and to assess the
homeowners' association for expenses incurred, and the
right to inspect the site at mutually agreed times to
assure conditions of CC&R's and the final map are being
met.
e. There shall be no parking except in approved,
designated spaces.
f. The City shall have the right to tow away vehicles on a
complain basis, which are parked in unauthorized
places.
g. Garages shall be' available for parking at all times.
h. There shall be no outdoor storage of boats, campers,
motorhomes, or trailers, nor long-term storage of
inoperable vehicles.
i. There shall be no outdoor storage by individual
homeowners except in designated storage areas.
j . The homeowners' association shall file with the City
Clerk the names and addresses of all officers-of the
homeowners' association within 15 days of any change in
officers of the association.
k. Appropriate "no parking" signs and red-curbing shall be
installed and maintained along interior streets as
required by the City Fire Department.
1.; There shall be no change in city-regulated provisions
of the CC&R's without prior approval by the Community
Development Director.
Resolution No. (1993 Series)
Tract 2132
Page 4
Public works improvements:
8. All interior streets shall have structural sections based on
a soils report recommendation, and that meet City standards,
subject to the approval of the City Engineer.
9. All sidewalks constructed along the private streets must
meet all handicap access requirements and therefore must be
a minimum of 4'-0" wide (excluding the. curb width) . All
said sidewalks must maintain a minimum of 4'-0" clearance
around any fire hydrant, street light pole, sign pole and
any other street furniture or obstacle.
10. All entrances to this site (including the Laurel Ln.
driveway) shall be constructed as street type entrances, to
the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
11. The subdivider shall plant street trees along all streets
(public and private) per City standards and to the
satisfaction of the City Arborist.
Tree Species
Laurel Lane. . . . . . . . .Coast Live Oak/London Plane
Southwood Dr. . . . . . . .Evergreen Pear/Chinese Pistache
Private streets. . . . .Choose from Master Street Tree List
Special consideration shall be. given to the street tree
planting scheme along the Laurel Ln. frontage.
Specifically, it will be necessary to provide
an
8'x_ 8' planting area adjacent to the back of sidewalk.
12. The subdivider shall dedicate street tree easements along
all public street frontages to the satisfaction of the City
Engineer.
13. a. All water mains shall be public and shall be
constructed per City standards to the satisfaction of
the City Engineer and Utilities Engineer.
b. All sewer mains within the private streets to the
point of connection at the public main in Laurel Lane,_
shall be privately owned and maintained by the
Homeowners' Association.
C. All on-site storm drainage facilities shall be
privately owned and maintained by the Homeowners'
_. Association.
Resolution No. (1993 Series)
Tract 2132
Page 5
14. The subdivider shall dedicate all private streets as a
public water system easement, to the satisfaction of the
City Engineer and Utilities Engineer. Said easement shall
exempt the City from all responsibility for the replacement
of any decorative pavements (other than City standard
asphalt concrete pavement) used on any private streets.
15. Each lot shall be served by individual services (water,
sewer, gas, electric, telephone and cable TV) to the
satisfaction of the City Engineer and Utilities Engineer.
Piping shall be installed to make use of reclaimed water for
landscaping purposes, to the approval of the Utilities
Engineer and Public Works Director.
16. All water services shall be sized accordingly to provide the '
flows required for fire sprinklers, to the satisfaction of
the Utilities Engineer and Fire Marshal.
17. The Subdivider shall dedicate a 6' wide public utilities
easement along all street frontages (public and private) .
18. The subdivider shall install all the necessary underground
conduits and structures, and underground the existing
overhead facilities along all public street frontages, to
the satisfaction of the City Engineer and utility companies.
19. All boundary monuments, lot corners and centerline
intersections, BC's, EC's, etc. . . , shall be tied to the
City's control network. At least two control points shall
be used and a tabulation of the coordinates shall be
submitted with the final map or parcel map. A 5-1/4"
diameter computer floppy disk, containing the appropriate
data for use in autocad for Geographic Information System
(GIS) purposes, is also required to be submitted to the
City Engineer.
20. The subdivider shall provide the City Engineer with a
detailed hydraulic analysis which indicates the effects of
the proposed development on adjacent and downstream
properties. The analysis must address the existing storm
drain facilities and creek capacities. The proposed
development cannot create a situation which increases
flooding potential downstream.
21. The subdivider shall dedicate vehicular access rights to the
City, along all public street frontages, except for approved
driveway accesses (private 'streets) .
Resolution No. (1993 Series)
Tract 2132
Page 6
Sound wall:
22. The sound wall along Laurel Lane and Southwood Drive shall
be set back at least 6' from the sidewalk, and a minimum of
40% of the frontage shall be set back at least 8' , and shall
be a combination of a wall and 31-high-minimum earth berm,
with tree planters. A section of the wall, located
approximately in the middle of the Laurel Lane block, shall
be set back from 6' to 12' or more. The area between the
sidewalk and the wall shall be planted. with a variety of
drought-tolerant screening plants. The wall shall be
designed, following the recommendations of an acoustical
engineer, to address potential reflective sound affecting
property across the street, to sound levels determined
acceptable in the City's general plan. Design shall be to
the approval of the Community Development Director or
Architectural Review Commission.
Addressing:
23. An addressing plan, including names for the private streets,
shall be submitted for approval by the Community Development
Director.
Affordable housing:
24. Four dwellings, roughly 10 percent of this project, shall be
affordable to moderate-income families (families with a
maximum income of 120% of the median) . To offset loss of
profit to the developer, the City hereby waives or reduces
fees for traffic-related improvements. or waives 20% of
development review and building plan check fees, provided
that in no case is the waiver less than $50, 000. To ensure
the continued affordability of the units, resale controls
shall be established with profits beyond a certain equity
deposited into an affordable housing fund, negotiated with
and managed by the Housing Authority.
l—II
Resolution No. (1993 Series)
Tract 2132
Page 7
on motion of ,
seconded by and on
the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this day
of , 1993 .
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
APPROVED:
t tto ney
RESOLUTION NO. (1993 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
DENYING APPROVAL OF THE TENTATIVE MAP FOR TRACT 2132,
ON THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF LAUREL LANE AND SOUTHWOOD DRIVE
(CITY FILE NO. TR• 13-93)
BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis
Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. Findings. That this council, after
consideration of public testimony, the subdivision request Tract
2132, the Planning Commission's recommendation, staff
recommendations and reports thereon, makes the following findings:
1. The design of the tentative map and the proposed
improvements are not consistent with the general plan.
SECTION 2. The tentative map for Tract 2132 is hereby
denied.
On motion of
seconded by and on the following roll
call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this day
of , 1993.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
;eAPR RO D:
_ At or
1_�3
' 1
t
ORDINANCE NO. (1993 SERIES)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
AMENDING THE ZONING REGULATIONS MAP TO CHANGE
A SEVEN-ACRE SITE ON THE SOUTHWESTERLY CORNER OF LAUREL LANE
AND SOUTHWOOD DRIVE FROM R-3-S TO R-3-PD,
ALLOWING SOME EXCEPTIONS TO YARDS AND LOT SIZES (PD 13-93)
WHEREAS, the City Council has held a hearing. to consider
the planned development request PD 13-93; and
WHEREAS, the City Council makes the following findings;
Findings
1. The project provides facilities or amenities suited to a
particular occupancy group, specifically first-time buyers
with children, which would not be feasible under conventional
zoning.
2. The project provides more affordable housing than would be
possible with conventional development. Specifically, the
creation of a grid-system street and lot design, with narrower
streets and smaller lots, with pre-approved standard
expandable home designs, allows a development that resembles
a conventional single-family subdivision to be built at lower
cost.
3 . Features of the particular design, specifically the smaller
lots, zero-lot-line configuration, smaller side- and
streetyards, sound walls, narrow private streets, and grid
layout, achieve the intent of conventional standards. for
privacy, usable open space, adequate parking, and
compatibility with neighborhood character, as well as or
better than the standards themselves.
4. No useful purpose would be served by strict compliance with
the fence height regulations.
BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as
follows:
SECTION 1. The. Planned Development preliminary map PD 13-93 is
hereby approved, with thefollowing exceptions:
Exceptions
The following - variations in development standards are hereby
approved:
1. Five-foot-wide sideyards where up to ten-foot wide yards would
normally be required.
7
-� Ordinance no. (1993' Series)
Tract 2132 (City file no. Tr 13-93)
Page 2
2. Streetyards of 18! rather than 201 .
3. Lots averaging 4,500 square feet, where 6, 000 square feet
minimum is normally required.
4. Fence heights up to 6' where 31- 4' is normally allowed.
SECTION 2 . The Planned Development preliminary map PD 13-93 is
subject to the following conditions:
conditions
The preliminary map is subject to the all of the conditions
attached to the approval of Tract 2132 (City file Tract 13-93) .
SECTION 3. This ordinance, together with the names of
councilmembers voting for and against, shall be published once in
full, at least (3) days prior to its final passage, in the
Telegram-Tribune, a newspaper published and circulated in this
city. This ordinance shall go into effect at the expiration of
thirty (30) days after its final- passage.
INTRODUCED AND PASSED TO PRINT by the Council of the City of San
Luis Obispo at its meeting held on the day of
1993, on motion of , seconded by _
and on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
.ABSENT:
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
ARPROVED:
yAto ey
1��5
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT ITEM # 1
BY: Judith Lautner, Associate Planner MEETING DATE: April 14, 1993
Whitney Mcllvaine, Associate Plan r
FILE NUMBER: PD 13-93 and Tract 13- 3 unty file Tract 2132)
PROJECT ADDRESS: 1 190 Laurel Lane
SUBJECT: Development of small-lot subdivision, creating 46 residential lots and a recreation area,
on the southwesterly corner of Southwood Drive and Laurel Lane.
RECON 1ENDATION
Review the environmental study and recommend approval of'the planned development rezoning and
subdivision to the City Council.
BACKGROUND
Situation
The applicants want to create 46 small residential lots and a 112-acre recreation area on a vacant, seven-
acre site. To allow smaller-than-normal lots, yard reductions, and fence height exceptions, the
applicants have requested a planned-development rezoning, to change the zoning of the site from R-3-S
to R-3-PD. The review process includes:
*. Environmental review. This review has been completed. A negative declaration, with mitigation,
was granted by the Community Development Director on March 24.
* Planned development rezoning. This overlay zone allows deviations from normal property
development standards, such as building heights, yards, and lot sizes. Density bonuses may also
be granted through the, planned development process, but are not requested in this case.
* Subdivision. A subdivision is required to create the 46 individual lots and common area lots (which
include the recreation area and the private streets).
* Architectural review. Architectural review is required of the design of the individual homes, as
well as any improvements in the recreation area. Application for architectural review has not yet
been made.
Data Summary
Address: 1190 Laurel Lane
Applicant/property owner: Stanley and Elizabeth Bell
Representative: Mike Multari, Crawford Multari & Starr
Zoning: R-3-S.
General Plan: Medium-high-density residential
Environmental status:.Negative declaration, with mitigation, granted March 24, 1993
Project action deadline: Subdivision map act deadline for Planning Commission action: April 19,
1993; _Permit streamlining_deadline for CC action: August 28, 1993
PD 13-93 and Tract 13-93 —
1190 Laurel Lane
Page 2
Site description
The seven-acre trapezoidal site fronts on the southwesterly corner of Southwood Drive and Laurel Lane.
The site slopes to the west at about 4% and is undeveloped and devoid of significant vegetation.
Adjacent to the west is an apartment complex. On the northerly side of Southwood is a large office
building and a bowling alley. Sinsheimer Park, a district park that contains ball fields, tennis courts,
and a swimming pool, is less than a block from the site. Adjacent to the south of the site is a
manufacturing and office building. The site is across Laurel Lane from a medium-high-density
residential condominium development. The block above that development contains a neighborhood
shopping center (Laurel Lane Shopping Center).. Sinsheimer Elementary School is on Augusta Street;
northwest of and about two blocks from the site.
Project Description
The project is the division of one large lot into 46 residential lots and one common lot that contains
private streets and a recreation area. The subdivision is to be similar to a standard "single-family"
subdivision, except.that the average lot size is smaller (4,500 square feet) and the streets are narrower
and private. The streets and lots are laid out in a straightforward grid pattern, allowing for the most
efficient use of land area. Any alteration to this site planning approach would require a major redesign
of the project. Plans for the four home designs include future bedroom and family room additions.
EVALUATION
1. Some development standards are modified. The applicants' plan is to provide homes suitable for
fust-time homebuyers with modest incomes. The applicants propose to achieve this goal by creating
small lots with relatively small homes, which can be expanded in the future. To maximize use of
the lots, the homes are to be placed 18' from the street property line rather than the 20' normally
required. Sideyards are proposed to be a minimum of 5', while normally these yards vary from 5'
to 10', depending on the height of the building wall. A "zero-lot line" configuration is proposed:
Each lot would include a 5'-wide easement along one property line, which would be for the use of
the adjacent lot. Fencing would define the edge of the easements along with the wall of the house.
This arrangement, which is seen best in the sample site plan showing pian 4 (lot 31), creates a 10'-
wide minimum sideyard as well as a small backyard.
In addition to the exceptions to yard standards noted above, a wall height exception is needed, for
a block wall that extends around two sides of the site. The wall is to mitigate traffic noise and
provide privacy for homeowners adjacent to Laurel Lane and Southwood Drive.
2. Findings can be made to approve the exceptions. Property development standards and lot sizes
can be approved as part of the planned development overlay rezoning. To approve a planned
development rezoning, the Planning Commission and City Council must be able to make at least one
of the following findings about the project:
1. It provides facilities or amenities suited to a-particular occupancy group (such as the elderly or
families with children) which would not be feasible under conventional zoning.
f �I�
PD 13-93 and Tract 13-93 - -
1190 Laurel Lane
Page 3
Comment: The project is designed to attract medium-income families with children. The homes �\
may also be attractive to college students or to "empty-nesters", looking for smaller homes and -
limited maintenance.
2. It transfers allowable development, within a site,from areas of greater environmental sensitivity
or hazard to areas of less sensitivity or hazard.
Comment: The site does not contain any areas of environmental significance.
3. It provides more affordable housing than would be possible with conventional development.
Comment: There are aspects of the project that may result in lower housing prices: These
items are discussed further below.
4. : Features of the particular design achieve the intent of conventional standards (privacy, usable
open space, adequate parking, compatibility with neighborhood character, and so on) as well
as or better than the standards themselves.
Comment: The zero-lot-line configuration results in wider sideyards than are normally provided;
the five-foot yards allow the buildings to be spaced for maximum efficiency. The 18'
streetyards allow adequate room for vehicle to be parked in the driveway without overhanging
the sidewalk or curb. The combination of smaller lots with the yard reductions allows a higher-
density development to simulate a lower-density development, with the privacy, useable yards,
and.separate lots that appeal to families with children. Therefore, the design does achieve the
intent of conventional standards at least as well as the standards themselves.
5.. It incorporates features which result in consumption of fewer materials, or less energy or water
than conventional development.
Comment: The private streets, because of their reduced width, will use less paving material.
It does not appear that the buildings themselves will consume fewer materials or use less energy
or water than conventional development.
6. The proposed project provides exceptional public benefits such as parking, open space,
landscaping, public art, and other special amenities which would not be feasible under
conventional development standards.
Comment: The project will include substantial landscaping at the street frontage, which will be
a benefit to passers-by. However, virtually any development on the site would be likely to do
the same. Other aspects of the project are for the benefit of the individuals who will live there.
3. The view from Laurel Lane will be of walls and the rear of the homes. Because Laurel Lane
is an arterial street, entrances to the homes will be from the private streets off Southwood Drive (or
C Street). Traffic noise from Laurel Lane necessitates some sort of sound barrier along the Laurel -
Lane and Southwood Drive frontages. The result is that the homes will face inward and a wall is
- proposed that will face the streets. A wall height exception is required for this wall, because it is
from 6' to 11' high where walls are normally allowed to be only 3' high. Some effort has been
made to mitigate the "walled community" effect-
Na
PD 13-93 and Tract 13-93 _
1190 Laurel Lane
Page 4
* The sound wall will have 8'-wide indentations (4' deep), to accommodate the Coast live oak and
London plane street trees.
* The planting area in front of the wall is to be 4' wide, allowing some screen planting.
A street elevation of a row of six homes has been.included in the commissioners' packets. This
elevation shows vegetation as it is expected to look five years after it is planted. Views of the rear
of the homes indicate the variety of rooflines and detailing proposed. The appearance of the homes,
as seen from Laurel Lane, is interesting. The wall, however, appears imposing, particularly where
it reaches a height of 11' (near Southwood). Some alternatives to this plan are:
+ Use of earth berms instead of the wall.. A berm that would match the wall in sound mitigation
effectiveness would have to be at least 6' high. If it were to slope down on either side at a 2:1
ratio, the minimum depth of the berm would be 26' (assuming a 2' flat area on top). To create
such a berm would require adjusting the depths of all the lots, to allow some rear yard area for
those lots with frontage on Laurel Lane. It appears that it would be possible to do, but would
result in the creation of even smaller lots.
+ Use of berm and wall. A combination of wall and berm would use less space and create more
planting area. The noise study shows one version of this alternative, and finds it effective in
reducing outdoor noise.
+ Wall on top of a berm. The applicant, responding to this concern, has suggested a shorter wall
placed on top of an earth berm. A sketch of this alternative is attached to this report. This
design would be an improvement, but would not result in a.lower wall or greater distance from
the sidewalk to the wall. .
+ Two walls. with a sloped planting area between. A 3' or 4' wall could run parallel to the
sidewalk, and a second 6' wall could be placed several feet back, level with the pad elevation.
Earth would be retained by the first wall, and would slope up to the second. This alternative
would allow a lower wall at the street, and the wall beyond would never be higher than 6'. A
sketch of variations of this wall is attached to this report.
The combination of berm and wall or two walls seem the most reasonable alternatives. In either
case, a larger setback should be used. To create a larger setback, the interior streets could be
narrowed or approximately one foot could be taken off the length of each lot. Because of the
openings for the interior streets, the wall is not as imposing on the Southwood Drive side, and may
be acceptable as drawn.
4. Cost-cutting methods are endorsed by HUD and other organizations. A recent article in a ,
planning magazine identified several "development standard reforms" that can assist in lowering the
cost of developing housing, thereby increasing affordability. A table summarizing these reforms
is attached to this report. Elements that are incorporated in this project are:
* reduced street width. The streets have a 36.5' right-of-way, with sidewalk on one side and a
32'street width which allows parking on one side only. The table suggests a range of 20 to 30'.
It appears that the street could be narrowed to 30' or 28', with two 11' (or 10') travel lanes and
one 8' parking lane. The-subdivider may not receive.a significant cost savings from this change,
e
PD 13-93 and Tract 13-93
1190 Laurel Lane
Page 5
but the narrower streets could make up for a wider landscaped area along Laurel Lane. Neither
the Public Works nor the Fire Departments have a problem with the reduced street width. J
*_ sidewalk on one side. As noted above, there are sidewalks only on one side of the project,
which are 4' wide. The table suggests the sidewalk could be 3' wide for this type use.
However, requirements for wheelchair access preclude any width smaller than 4'.
* lot sizes are reduced. Average lot sizes are 4,500 square feet, where 6,000 square feet is the
minimum required by the subdivision regulations. This size is consistent with the
recommendations in the table.
* lot width reduced. The 45' average width is 15' smaller than the normally-required 60'.
* setbacks reduced. Setback reductions are discussed above, under "Some development standards
are modified". Proposed setbacks are consistent with.recommendations in the table.
* zero-lot-line configuration proposed. The efficiencies of this design are discussed above.
While the intent of the project developers is to provide modest "starter" homes by incorporating
cost-cutting design elements, there is no assurance that any of the units would be affordable to low-
or moderate-income households. The Housing Authority indicates the type of affordable units most
needed are two and three bedroom family homes. Unfortunately, while the City supports affordable
housing where possible, it does not yet have general plan standards requiring developers to either j
provide such housing or pay into a fund for its creation.
If the Planning Commission wants to assure that some of the homes will meet affordability
standards, a reasonable option is to require that 4 dwellings, roughly 10 percent of this project, be
affordable to moderate-income families. To offset any potential loss of profit to the developer, the
City could waive or reduce fees for traffic-related improvements (estimated at $50,000-$85,000) or
for development review and building'plan check (estimated at $175,000).. To ensure the continued
affordability of the units, staff recommends resale controls be established with profits beyond a
certain equity deposited into an affordable housing fund, managed,by the Housing Authority. The
subdivider is open to this kind of arrangement, provided his savings from fee waivers amount to at
least$50;000, approximately the loss expected. The City Council will need to make a determination
if the loss of revenue is adequately offset by the provision of four perpetually affordable homes.
5. The school district is concerned. The subdivision was sent to the San Luis Coastal School District
for review. The school district representative feels the project will have a significant impact on
schools in the area, and recommends that the project be denied or modified to mitigate those
impacts. State law says that a project cannot be denied on the basis of school impacts alone, except
where.the project involves a rezoning that changes the uses allowed on the site.
If the higher court upholds the voters' approvaf of Measure A, then funding for'the school district
will be adequate for the forseeable future. If, however, the current challenge to the measure is
successful, additional funding will be needed. State law prohibits local jurisdictions from charging
fees for school funding, because the school district is a governmental agency withits own.powers
to raise funds. At this time, the district has not exhausted possible funding mechanisms. The City's
ability to require modifications to the project to assist the school district are severely limited. , ��
PD 13-93 and Tract 13-93
1190 Laurel Lane
Page 6
,! Correspondence with the district is attached to this report. The latest letter from the district asks
that the City require that bedroom additions be considered "delayed construction" for the purpose
of collection of school fees, since additions with a floor area of less than 500 square feet are exempt
from these fees. The City Attorney feels such a condition would unfairly burden this development
as opposed to others in the city, where additions can be made without the fees. To impose such a
condition would require that the City define "delayed construction", and make a determination that
this subdivision meets the definition and therefore is required to pay additional school fees. Without
an ordinance defining "delayed construction" and imposing requirements on such construction, the
Attorney's office does not recommend imposing condition such as that recommended by the school
district.
6. The project is below the density allowed. The expected built-out density, including later bedroom
additions, will be at or below the minimum density allowed in the R-3 zone. Although this density
can be seen as consistent with the land use element (LUE), a higher density might lead to more
affordable dwellings. Higher-density areas also help in the development of efficient transit systems
and more efficient use of infrastructure.
If all lots were developed with four-bedroom homes (which is unlikely, because some of the designs
will expand to a maximum of three bedrooms only), then the overall density of the site would be
13.14 dwelling units per acre,just over the minimum allowed in the R-3 zone. Average density per
lot would be 2.00 units. (A dwelling unit is defined as a two-bedroom dwelling. Density increases
or decreases as the number of bedrooms in a dwelling changes.) If the lots were developed up to
the maximum 18 dwelling units per acre, allowed by the R-3 zone, then the average density per lot
would be:
7 acres X 18 units per acre = 126 dwelling units
126 dwelling units/46 lots = 2.74 dwelling units per lot.
Although the lots are small, there is potential for converting some of the homes into duplexes or
adding small accessory'apartments. The potential for adding units needs to be defined, so that
future lot owners will know up front if they can add units, as well as bedrooms, to their lots. Tract
and planned development conditions can stipulate the maximum development potential of each lot.
Staff has identified the following alternatives:
* Allow no additional units. Conditions can stipulate that no more than four bedrooms in one
dwelling are allowed on any one lot.
* Allow conversions only. A condition may allow homes to be converted into duplexes, with a
maximum density per lot.
* Allow_separate units. Separate accessory.apartments could be allowed, again up to some
maximum density.
' A maximum density for each lot of 2.0 units seems appropriate for this development, with all
additions to conform to property development standards for the R-3 zone, including parking. l
—0 1
PD 13-93 and Tract 13-93
1190 Laurel Lane
Page 7
7. Site drainage is adequate. The site drains naturally to the southwest corner. An existing storm
drain then conveys water to Sydney Creek. To avoid cross-lot drainage, the developer is proposing
to grade the entire site so that each lot.will drain to its street frontage. Streets A and B would drain
to C, which drains to an existing drop inlet at the low end of the site. The,grading plan requires
13 of the lots nearest Southwood Drive to have side yard retaining walls, ranging in height from 3
to 4.5 feet. The difference between proposed cut and fill indicates that roughly 1,800 cubic yards
of soil would be removed from the site. Grading as proposed is consistent with the City's Grading
Ordinance.
8. Parking is adequate. Garage and guest spaces total 116, not including parking on the private
streets. Required parking in an R-3 zone is calculated according to the number of bedrooms per
unit. Proposed floor plans include two, three, and four bedroom models. Assuming the ultimate
mix.resulted in a three bedroom average, the project would require 115 spaces (46 dwellings X 2.5
spaces per dwelling).
ALTERNATIVES
The Planning Commission may recommend denial of the planned development and subdivision, if it
finds the proposal inconsistent with the land use element or other City policies.
The Planning Commission may continue consideration, with.direction to the applicant and staff.
OTHER DEPARTMENT COMMENTS J
Comments from other departments have been discussed above, incorporated into the project, or are.
incorporated in the recommended conditions below.
RECOMMENDATION
Review the initial study and recommend approval of the planned development rezoning and subdivision,
based on the following findings and subject to the following conditions:
Planned Development Rezoning
Findings
1. The project provides facilities or amenities suited to a particular occupancy group, specifically
first-time buyers with children, which would not be feasible under conventional zoning.
2.. The project provides more affordable housing than would be possible with conventional
development. Specifically, the creation of a grid-system street and lot design, with narrower
streets and smaller lots, with pre-approved standard expandable home designs, allows a
development that resembles a conventional.single-family subdivision to be builuat lower cost.
3. Features of the particular design, specifically the smaller lots, zero-lot-line configuration, smaller
-_'_-side- and streetyards, sound walls; narrow private streets, and grid layout, achieve the intent of
conventional standards for privacy, usable open space, adequate parking, and compatibility with
neighborhood character, as well as or better than the standards themselves. �..•a a
PD 13-93 and Tract 13-93 --
1190 LaurelLane
Page 8
4. No useful purpose would be served by strict compliance with the fence height regulations.
Exceptions
The following variations in development standards are hereby approved:
1. Five-foot-wide sideyards where up to ten-foot wide yards would normally be required.
2. Streetyards of 18' rather than 20'. .
3. Lots averaging 4,500 square feet, .where 6,000 square feet minimum is normally required.
4. Fence heights up to 11' where 3' is normally allowed.
Subdivision:
Findings
1. The design of the tentative map and proposed improvements are consistent with the general plan.
2. The site is physically suited for the type and density of development allowed in the R-3 zone.
3. The design of the subdivision and the proposed improvements are not likely to cause serious health
problems, substantial environmental damage or substantially and unavoidably injure fish or
wildlife or their habitat.
4. The design of the subdivision or the type of improvement will not. conflict with easements for
access through, or use of property within, the proposed subdivision.
5. The Community Development Director has determined that the proposed subdivision will not have -
a significant effect on the environment and has granted a negative declaration of environmental
impact.
Conditions
Relationship to planned development:
1. Approval of this subdivision is contingent upon the adoption of the planned development rezoning.
Density:
2. The maximum density allowed on each lot is 2.00 dwelling units, as defined by the zoning
regulations. Lots may be developed with more than one dwelling unit if this density is not
exceeded, and if all property development standards are met for the additional unit.
Transportation:
PD 13-93 and Tract 13-93 —
1190 Laurel Lane
Page 9
3. The subdivider shall install a concrete pad and transit shelter, "P" pole sign and trash receptacle
along the Laurel Ln. frontage, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. The location shall be
approximately two bus lengths southerly of the Laurel/Southwood intersection, within the public
R/W area behind the sidewalk (no bus turn-out is required).
4. The subdivider shall pay a maximum of$50,000 towards local area traffic improvement facilities
prior to recordation of the final map, as determined by the City Engineer. Anticipated
improvements include a traffic signal at Southwood Drive and Laurel Lane, a traffic signal at
Laurel Lane and Orcutt Road, railroad signal relocation and street widening at Orcutt Road.
5. The City is expected to adopt a new traffic impact fee sometime in mid-1993. Upon adoption of
traffic impact fees, the fees specified above may be credited towards any traffic impact fees if
incorporated into the traffic impact fee list of projects. The subdivider shall pay all applicable
traffic impact fees prior to recordation of the final map.
6. A bulletin board or information kiosk shall be installed in the recreation area. Information on
ridesharing, transit, bicycle routes, and other alternative transportation.methods shall be posted
on this board or kiosk as it becomes available to the homeowners' association.
Homeowners' association:
7. The subdivider shall establish covenants, conditions, and restrictions for the regulation of land use
control of nuisances and architectural control of all buildings and facilities. These CC&R's shall
be approved by the Community Development Department and administered by the Laurelwood
homeowner's association. The subdivider shall include the following provisions in the CC&R's
for the Tract:
a. A homeowners' association shall be created to enforce the CC&R's and provide for
professional, perpetual maintenance of all common areas, including private streets, sewer
mains, drainage facilities, parking lots, walls and fences, lighting, recreation area, and
landscaping in a first class condition.
b. The homeowners' association shall maintain all public right-of-way frontage improvements
(on Laurel Lane and Southwood Drive), rather than individual lot owners.
c. There shall be no provisions in the CC&R's that prohibit use of private clotheslines in rear
yard areas.
d. The City shall be granted the right to maintain the common areas and rights-of-way if the
homeowners' association fails to perform, and to assess the homeowners' association for
expenses incurred, and the right to inspect the site at mutually agreed times to assure
conditions of CC&R's and the final map are being met.
e. There shall be no parking except in approved, designated spaces.
f.- The City shall, have the right to tow away vehicles on a complain basis, which are parked
in unauthorized places.
1 a '
PD 13-93 and Tract 13-93
1190 Laurel Lane
Page 10
g. Garages shall be available for parking at all times.
h. There shall be no outdoor storage of boats, campers, motorhomes, or trailers, not long-term
storage of inoperable vehicles.
i. . There shall be no outdoor storage by individual homeowners except in designated storage
areas.
j. The homeowners' association shall file with the City Clerk the names and addresses of all
officers of the homeowners' association within 15days of any change in officers of the
association.
k. Appropriate "no parking" signs and red-curbing shall be installed and maintained along
interior streets as required by the City Fire Department.
1. There shall be no change in city-regulated rpovisions of the CC&R's without prior approval
by the Community Development Director.
Public works improvements:
8. All interior streets shall have structural sections based on a soils report recommendation, subject
to the approval of the City Engineer.
9. All sidewalks constructed along the private streets must meet all handicap access requirements and
therefore must be a minimum of 4'-0" wide (excluding the curb width). All said sidewalks must
maintain a minimum of 4'-0" clearance around any fire hydrant, street light pole, sign pole and
any other street furniture or obstacle.
10. All entrances to this site (including the Laurel Ln. driveway) shall be constructed as street type
entrances, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
11. The subdivider shall plant street trees along all streets (public and private) per City standards and
to the satisfaction of the City Arborist.
Tree Species
Laurel Lane.........Coast Live Oak/London Plane
Southwood Dr........Evergreen Pear/Chinese Pistache'
Private streets.....Choose from Master Street Tree List
Special consideration shall be given to the street tree planting scheme along the Laurel Ln.
frontage. . Specifically, it will be necessary to provide a jog in the proposed wall around each
street tree which provides an 8'x 8' planting area adjacent to the back of sidewalk:
12. The subdivider shall dedicate street tree easements along all public street frontages to the
satisfaction of the City Engineer.
13. All water mains shall be public and shall be constructed per City standards to the satisfaction of
the City Engineer and Utilities Engineer. 1..�5
PD 13-93 and Tract 13-93 -
1190 Laurel Lane.
Page 11
14. The subdivider shall dedicate all. private streets as a public water system easement, to the
satisfaction of the City Engineer and Utilities Engineer. Said easement shall exempt the City from
all responsibility for the replacement of any decorative pavements(other than City standard asphalt
concrete pavement) used on any private streets.
15. Each lot shall be served by individual services (water, sewer, gas, electric, telephone and cable
TV) to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and Utilities Engineer._
16. All water services shall be sized accordingly to provide the flows required for fire sprinklers, to
the satisfaction of the Utilities Engineer and Fire Marshal.
17. The Subdivider shall dedicate a 6' wide public utilities easement along all street frontages (public
and private).
18. The'subdivider shall install all the necessary underground conduits and structures for the future
undergrounding of the existing overhead facilities, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and
utility companies.
19. All boundary monuments, lot corners and centerline intersections, BC's, EC's, etc..., shall be tied
to the City's control network. At least two control points shall be used and a tabulation of the
coordinates shall be submitted with the final map or parcel map. A 5-1/4" diameter computer
floppy disk, containing the appropriate data for use in autocad for Geographic Information System
(GIS) purposes, is also required to be submitted to the City Engineer.
Sound wall.-
20.
all.20. The sound wall along Laurel Lane and Southwood Drive shall be set back at least 8' from the
sidewalk, and earth shall be mounded up against the wall, creating a minimum Y-high berm. The
area between the sidewalk and the wall shall be planted with a variety of drought-tolerant
screening plants. Alternatively, the wall may be replaced by two shorter walls, with one near the
sidewalk, and one at the pad elevation of each lot. Design shall be to the approval of the
Community Development Director.
Addressing:
21. An addressing plan, including names for the private streets, shall be submitted for approval by
the Community Development Director.
ALTERNATIVE CONDITION:
If the commission chooses to require some affordable housing units,.then the following condition,
modified as determined by the commission, should.be added:
* Four dwellings, roughly 10 percent of this project, shall be affordable to moderate-income families
(families with a maximum income of 120% of the median). To offset loss of profit to the
--- developer, the City hereby waives or reduces fees for traffic-related improvements or waives 20%
of development review and building plan check fees, provided that in no case is the waiver less
than $50,000. To ensure the continued affordability,of the units, resale controls shall be
PD 13-93 and Tract 13-93
1190 Laurel Lane
Page 12
' established with profits beyond a certain equity deposited into an affordable housing fund,
managed by the Housing Authority.
Attached:
vicinity map
applicant's description of development
initial study
noise study
alternative wall design - applicant
alternative wall design - staff
correspondence with school district
table of development standard reforms
JOHNSONIr
"I
Rz
�l:Ytrt r Win•
PF °
Ir 0
\\\v`1/ Y ♦`\�» ��N!••�••'•i,•~NNN••��N•^�•�r,N••X„�N� r-
♦ire•• N���YNN„•• XNX�N„ •I
�\ GXNN•NXW •. „i ••^•.N.NX� 0 a
~ _3-P � \ ♦ XN•'i rN�i•••.Ni••'•N��N•�N��i•••�
•w X�X� NN,,�.NNlX• � r�
G ' • •' N X •• •••••,•��,. G
O\
ox 0
O
O O
R
C O \o
J
O ^ o o Y q
� " D
` I f C O C o y
a-S .� o o
f� _ ✓ �' J O '� O ' O
J -
\ � O O O O
VICINITY MAP -PD/TR 13-93 NORTH
. 1190 LAUREL
Laurelwood Homes
'Preliminary Development Plan
A. Legal Description
See Tentative Tract Map
B. Statement of Objectives
There is a need for housing in San Luis Obispo which is affordable to persons and families
of modest income, including first home buyers. The intent of this project is to provide
relatively small "starter" homes.for this market. They are designed so that the houses can
be added on to easily, efficiently and attractively as the owners' income and/or family
grows.
To achieve this,we propose to divide the property into relatively small lots(generally in the
4400 to 5000 square foot range; a few lots are larger). Four basic models are proposed.
These houses will be 2-3 bedrooms to start. However, they are designed so that at least
one additional bedroom and/or family room can be added on.
This approach allows families to purchase a small house on their own lot and, as income
and/or needs for more space increase, the original house can be expanded. This approach
decreases initial costs while allowing additional incremental investment.
On several of the lots, we have shown easements along one side yard, granted from one
property to its neighboring one. This type of arrangement allows for more useable,open
space than conventional five-foot sideyards on adjacent properties.
C. Intentions Regarding Sales .
The project involves the construction and sale of homes on individual lots.
D. Schedule
Start—up: Late 1993 or early 1994. The tract improvements will be installed initially with
at least four models. Construction of homes will be determined by demand and the pace of
sales.
E. Project Information Summary
Forty-six (46) detached, single family homes.
The following table summarizes the modelsand density (initial density and maximum
theoretical if all units are increased to the maximum) for the expected mix of models. The
site plan (Tentative Map) reflects an arrangement of models that matches this mix.
w
1
Laurelwood Homes
Preliminary Development Plan
January 28, 1993
Bedrooms in Unit Expansion Max#of Unit
Model Amount Original House Equivalencies Option Bedrooms Equivalencies
1 12 2 12 1 B 3 1.5X12= 18
2 12 2 12 IBR+Fam 3 1.5X12= 18
3 11 3 16.5 Fam 3 1.5X11 = 16.5
4 11 . 3 16.5 1 BR+Fam 4 2 X 11 =22
46 57 74.5
Thus, in this scenario; density varies from about 8.1 units/acre to 10.6 units/acre.
However,we will allow lot purchasers to choose among the four models. Thus, it is possible that
this even mix will not be realized. in the most extreme case, all owners would choose Model 4
which is the largest. That hypothetical situation would result in a maximum density of 92 unit
equivalencies or about 13 units per acre. The maximum allowed in the R-3 zone is 18 unitstacre.
Coverage: Approximately 23% given the likely mix of models; maximum
possible coverage if all purchasers choose the largest model is 29%.
Open Space: Between 77 and 71% of the site will be left open. Of this,
approximately 21% of the site will be in rights-of-way. The
remainder of the open space (50 -56% of the lot)will be in private
yards or the common recreation area.
Grading: See Tentative Map (shows existing contours, finished floor
elevations, elevation at front property corners,and street grades).
Lot Size: 7 Acres
F. Planned Development Criteria
1. The project is designed with small, "expandable" houses on small lots and is
intended to address particularly the needs of young families, including first time
home buyers. The units are designed to be "starter" homes; but ones that can be
added to as family situations change.
2. Although not likely to be affordable to "low income" households, as defined by the
State, some units may be affordable to "moderate income" ones. All units are
intended to be relatively inexpensive and aimed for the small family, first time
buyer.
3. The proposed approach of small houses on small lots achieves better privacy and
more open space than a conventional condominium project. This approach also
provides a product preferred by many small families: their own house with their
own yards and gardens. The project provides all required parking.
--�
Laurelwood Homes
Preliminary Development Plan
January 28, 1993
4. The principal public benefits are attractive homes in a price range to realistically be
considered "starter" homes.
G. Exceptions to Usual Standards
1. Height of front yard fences on Laurel Lane. To. provide privacy and noise
protection, a combination of berm, wall and landscaping is proposed along Laurel
Lane. Although these will function as rear yards, they are considered the street
yard for purposes of the zoning ordinance.
2. Lot size,lot width and sideyard setbacks. The proposal is for small, detached units
on relatively small lots. The usual minimum lot size is 6000 square feet;lots in this
PD will vary from about 4400 to 5000 and larger. Minimum width in the R-3 zone
is 60 feet; typical lots widths in this PD will be about 45 feet. Clearly, the concept
requires some flexibility in these standards.
3. Private street. Private accessways are proposed in the PD (Labeled Streets A, B
and Q. Sections for these are shown on the Tentative Map. They do meet
standards for private drives,but do not meet full standards for public streets.
H. Site Plan and Related Exhibits (enclosed)
I. Adjacent Land Uses
See the Tentative Map for location of nearby uses. The site is an excellent one for housing:
it is near the elementary school, Sinsheimer Park, the YMCA, and a neighborhood
shopping center. The site is proximate to jobs, including offices and manufacturing
activities to the south on Laurel Lane,the light industrial area on Orcutt near Broad Street,
and the officeilight manufacturing area across the street on Southwood. Other nearby uses
include high and medium-high density condominiums and apartments. Public transit is
provided on Laurel Lane, Orcutt and Johnson.
3 ,-a3,
_ J
1 +
a
04
N = Vii! i Iti{FEI i a
o A.
- ill
11�.
1 " � I' !i:t II n � i ' ��iJ!S�it 1 i Z '•Q ¢ it
! ! l •a j
if I E13 I a
N: 1
v 5.
♦111• Ox 1101 a.I1 t1Ya
Y OO .4O M Y 0I N O 11x 1Y1013
nn00 �• I -1—
T
all 1 1 0 -
1 M Y:I Y• O II I a 1 1 T) `
•I:
-,�;_.yrl(a�.1r �.L 1 �1 � VIII i.::`�O B � 1" I 1 •, '�' '•
t ;.y 1 t iWWWp A 1 :j, M II
1 I
/1 r
p, � 1 "J � a !� •' :;. to
f6 :�l I 1 i �• 1t
Ju
is
°` 1 ani a G � I �. 8 eJf '! 8". � L ty ) ___ '• I QIi ,11 z° )
1 M1i II 1 Z
a1 r i p j• • I' z'
ca �� II � � it •�9_. :� `a •i � � �z
^a %,, a d h ! •� \t�j 1J :J 0 6. it I• 1 � a�a: 1 I; <z
'14 ------- - - ly
I:
�
♦1111iY1 OMIYn1:Y iMY 11 ON 1Il'It 1 'i:
' xe1aY1)allxoa I 11.la a•1•a211 a. il11• I::
] Vi
I;
I
CIt! of San LUIS. OBISPO
4 INITIAL STUDY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
SITE LOCATION 1190 Laurel Lane - APPLICATION NO133
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
46 i '
/ area, private \ / �IL tile
APPLICANT Stanley Bell
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
X NEGATIVE DECLARATION MITIGATION INCLUDED
EXPANDED IN STUDY REQUIREDENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT REQUIRED
PREPARED BY DATE MIX7 T11 T993
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR'S ACTI r\1 A. DATE
T1 (�
SUMMARY OF INITIAL, STUDY FINDINGS
I.DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT AND ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
It.POTENTIAL IMPACT REVIEW POSSIBLE.ADVERSE EFFECTS
A. COMMUNITY PLANS AND GOALS ................................................... yEsit
B. POPULATION DISTRIBUTION AND GROWTH...........................................
C. LANDUSE ...........................................................................
D. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION ................................................
E. PUBLIC SERVICES ...................................................I............
...
F. UTILITIES.................................................................._.......
G. NOISE LEVELS ..................................................................... yESk
H. GEOLOGIC&SEISMIC HAZARDS&TOPOGRAPHIC MODIFICATIONS ..................
i
L
I. AIR QUALITY AND WIND CONDITIONS...............:.........:....:.................. NONL
J. SURFACE WATER FLOW AND QUALITY ........................ ..........
NONEW
KPLANT LIFE.............................................._................... .
NUNZL ANIMALLIFE......................................................................
M. ARCHAEOLOGICAL/HISTORICAL ..................................................... NUNE
N. AESTHETIC ......................................................................
NO NE*
O. ENERGY/RESOURCEUSE ..............................................................
C `
P. OTHER .......................................,.....................................
Ill.STAFF RECOMMENDATION
• � 133
'SEE ATTACHED REPORT seas
ER 13-93
Environmental Initial Study
1190 Laurel Lane -'
PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The project is the division of one large lot into 46 residential
lots and one common lot that contains private streets and a
recreation area. The subdivision is to be similar to a standard
"single-family" subdivision, except that the average lot size is
smaller (4, 500 square feet) and the streets are narrower and
private. '
The seven-acre trapezoidal site fronts on the southwesterly corner
of Southwood Drive and Laurel Lane.. The site slopes to the west at
about 40, is undeveloped and devoid of significant vegetation.
Adjacent to the west is an apartment complex. On the northerly
side of Southwood is a large office building and a bowling alley.
Sinsheimer Park, a district park that contains ball fields, tennis
courts, and a swimming pool, is less than a block from the site.
Adjacent to the south of the site is a manufacturing and office'
building. The site is across Laurel Lane from a medium-high-
density residential condominium development. The block above that
development contains a neighborhood shopping center (Laurel Lane
Shopping Center) . Sinsheimer Elementary School is on Augusta
Street, northwest of and about two blocks from the site.
POTENTIAL IMPACTS'
Communitv Plans and Goals
Zoning: The property is zoned R-3 (Medium-high-density
residential) . This designation is intended for "smaller households
desiring little private open space. . . ", according to the zoning
regulations. The development is a subdivisionthat creates lots
with single homes and resembles a lower-density subdivision, but
the lots . and homes are smaller than average. The project is
consistent with the purpose stated in the zoning regulations.
Density: The site is designated for medium-high-density
residential development. The General Plan Land Use Element (LUE)
says (section C. 2 .a) :
The City should establish minimum as well as maximum density
and property development standards for all residential land
use classifications:
Low density shall be from 4 to 7 dwelling units per net acre;
Medium density shall be from 7 to 12 dwelling units per net
acre;
Medium-high density shall be from 13 to 18 dwelling units per
net acre;
High density shall be from 19 to 24 units per net acre.
ER 13-93
1190 Laurel Lane
Page 2
The site is designated medium-high-density residential, requiring
density from 13 to 18 dwelling units per acre. The proposal is to
build homes that contain two to three bedrooms, expandable to three
or four bedrooms. Buyers would choose a house plan from four basic
plans, so the actual mix cannot be determined at this time. If all
buyers choose homes that may be expanded to four bedrooms, then the
maximum density possible would be 13 .14 dwellings per net acre. It
is more likely that 'the buildout density will be between ten and
twelve units per net acre, which is lower than the minimum for this
zone.
"Net area" is defined as that area that does not include streets,
in a standard subdivision. Because the streets in this subdivision
are private, they are included in the area.. If they were excluded,
then the likely density would be about 13 units per acre (maximum
density, not counting streets and park, would be 14 . 5 units per
acre) . Therefore, the project essentially meets the general plan
minimum density noted above:
Conclusion: Less than significant.
Density on individual lots: The zoning regulations normally allow
more than one residence to be built on an R-3 lot. The density
regulations limit the number of bedrooms, but not the number of
separate dwelling units. There is potential for adding units to
the individual lots in this project. As noted above, the overall
density of the project is below the maximum, even if all lots
contain four-bedroom dwellings.
If lot owners are allowed to convert their homes into duplexes or
add apartments, the neighborhood created by this project would
eventually contain a mix of duplexes and single homes. The overall
density would remain within R-3 limits, and the resulting
development would still meet the intent of the zone.
However, with a development like this, where streets and recreation
areas are private and are included in the "net area" of the site,
determining allowed maximum density for each lot can be
problematic. Each lot may be allowed the same maximum number of
dwelling units (based on bedrooms, as defined in the zoning
regulations) , or the size of. individual lots may be used to
determine how many bedrooms may be built on each. The total
allowed density must not exceed the maximum allowed for the entire
seven-acre site, including any density bonuses granted as part of
the plannea development approval.
conclusion: May be significant.
/-35
ER 13-93
1190 Laurel Lane
Page 3 -
Recommended mitigation:
* Staff reports must include discussion of allowed density on
individual lots, and the potential for adding apartments to
lots. Techniques for determining maximum density must be
offered. For example, all lots could be limited to a maximum
density of 2 dwelling units, as defined bythe zoning
regulations.
Property" development standards: The proposal is to .create lots
that average 4,500 square feet in area, while the subdivision
regulations require 6, 000 square foot minimum lot sizes. Homes are
proposed to be set back 18' from the private street property line,
while the zoning regulations normally require 20' setbacks. Homes
are to have five-foot side yards, where for some of the designs a
sideyard of 10.5' would normally be required. A 5'- to 6'-high
wall is to be placed on the Laurel Lane property line. Fencing at
the street property line is normally required to be no higher than
three feet. The proposal, then, does not meet all standard
property development or subdivision standards.
However, the applicants have requested approval of a planned
development rezoning. The zoning regulations say (Section
17 . 50.030.B) :
Under an approved development plan, lot size and
configuration,. yards, height, coverage and parking may be
specified for the project without conformance to the standards
of the underlying zone.
Therefore, exceptions to these standards may be considered as part
of the planned development review, and approved if the required
findings can be made. If the findings cannot be made, then the
City Council must deny the planned development rezoning and the
project must be redesigned to meet the standards.
Conclusion: Less than significant.
Transportation and Circulation
The project is expected to generate about 463 trips per day, and
about 46 trips per peak hour (between 4 and 6 p.m. ) , based on
estimates developed by the Institute of Traffic Engineers (Trip
Generation, 4th edition) . Since Southwood ,Drive dead-ends about
one block west of the project, all of this traffic is expected to
be added to the existing levels on Laurel Lane.
Current traffic on Laurel Lane, a four-lane arterial, averages -
9,460 trips per day, or about 890 trips per peak evening hour. The
_____ project represents. an increase of about 5%, or about .the same as
ER 13-93
1190 Laurel Lane
Page 4
one and one-half year's increase in traffic - on a city arterial
street (circulation Study, by DKS Associates, 1988, notes that
average traffic increases on SLO arterials are about 3 . 2% per
year. ) . The "level of service" at the intersections at Johnson
Avenue and .Orcutt Road are currently determined to be "A", which
means there is "little or no delay. Most vehicles arrive during
the green phase and do not stop at all. " {Description from Highway
Capacity Manual, Trahsportation Research Board, 1985. )
The City Engineer has reviewed the proposed street layout, and has
determined that left turns from or into the project are not likely
to create problems for. motorists in the area.
While the project's contribution to existing traffic is expected to
be small, cumulatively the effects of various projects in the area
and beyond are expected to lower intersection and street levels of
service, especially at the intersection of Laurel Lane with Orcutt
Road. Traffic levels within the city typically increase at 'a rate
that is at least twice that of the population.
Conclusion: May be significant.
Recommended mitigation:
* To encourage transit use, a bus shelter must be installed on
Laurel Lane, to the approval of the City's Transit Manager.
* The applicant shall fund a portion of traffic improvement
facilities anticipated to be needed in the near future,
including signalization of the Laurel Lane and Orcutt Road
intersection, to the approval of the City Engineer, or shall
pay traffic impact fees, if adopted prior to recordation of
the final map.
A bulletin board or information kiosk shall be installed in
the recreation area. Information on ridesharing, transit,
bicycle routes, and other alternative transportation methods
shall be posted on this board or kiosk as it becomes available
to the homeowners' association.
Public services
Schools:. Most of the elementary-age students living at the site
will attend Sinsheimer School. Junior high students are expected
to attend Laguna Middle School, and high school students will
attend the San Luis Obispo Senior High. Sinsheimer school is
currently 45 students over capacity, Laguna Middle School is 51
students over capacity, and the high school is 341 students under
capacity, according to school district officials, as reported in
r
I
ER 13-93
1190 Laurel Lane ~1
Page 5 -
the Environmental Impact Report for the Land Use and Circulation
Element updates (1992) .
The project is expected to .generate 25 children, or 17 additional
students, based on average student-to-home ratios in the Edna-Islay
area, an area that attracts families similar to those this project
is expected to attract. This number will deplete further existing
school capacities. (Current enrollment exceeds capacity by 188. )
Funding for new schools and expansions currently comes from a $1.50
per square-foot developer fee on all residential development in the
district. The school district says that this fee is not adequate
to pay the costs of developing additional classroom space, however. .
To assist with the cost, voters approved a bond measure- (Measure A)
in 1991, that would provide over $76 million for various expansion
and improvement programs. That measure was challenged. in court and
validated by the lower court. The challengers appealed that
decision to an appeals court. . A ruling from that court is expected
by June 1993 . If the school district wins the appeal and any
subsequent appeals, the school district should be able to
accommodate the new students generated by this project. If
Measure A fails, then a new funding source will have to be
developed to accommodate the enrollment increases. New sources can
be generated by "requirements for developers to enter into
mitigation agreements with the school district, or participate in.
.financing mechanisms such as the Mello-Roos Community Facilities
District,.
Conclusion: Less than significant_
Noise levels
Outside noise: Laurel Lane is a wide, busy street. The draft
noise element (Brown-Buntin Associates, 1991) provides . data on
traffic noise on major streets. This report documents noise levels
of about 65 dB along the curb of Laurel Lane, decreasing to about
60 dB approximately at the rear of the houses (about 30' from the
street property line) . Noise levels on the lots closest to Laurel
Lane, then, will be highest in the rear yards, and do not presently
exceed 65 dB. Lots on. the interior of the project will be
subjected to noise .levels of less than 60 dB.
Outside noise levels between 50 and 60 dB are considered "generally
acceptable" , according to the Guidelines for the Preparation and
Content of Noise Elements of the General Plan, prepared by the
California Department of Health Services (1990) . Therefore, the
rear yards of the lots along Laurel Lane, with no sound barriers,
would exceed generally acceptable levels of outdoor noise, while
interior lots would receive "generally acceptable' levels.
ER 13-93
1190 Laurel Lane
Page 6
The proposal includes construction of a block wall along Laurel
Lane, turning the Southwood Drive corner, and ending at the entry
to B Street. The wall . is proposed to be 51- 61 high, and would be
located along the property line, behind a V planter strip. This
wall will need to be lower at the corners, to allow visibility for
drivers approaching the .intersections. Therefore, in those
locations it will be a maximum of three feet high.
A solid block wall will usually reduce noise levels by 5 dB,. if
correctly located. A preliminary calculation, prepared in
accordance with Table 4-1 of the draft noise element
("Determination of Noise Barrier Effectiveness") ,. indicates that a
V-611 wall may be sufficient to reduce noise levels in the Laurel
Lane rear yards to below 60 dB. However, exact grades of the rear
yards and the top of wall elevations are not known, and the
effectiveness of the barrier at intersection corners will be
diminished because of the lowered height. Preliminary,calculations
indicate that sufficient noise reductions are obtainable with a
wall approximately as proposed. However, because of the factors
discussed above, the wall as designed may. not reduce noise levels
to an acceptable level.
Conclusion: May be significant.
Recommended mitigation:
* An acoustical engineer must be consulted to assure that the
wall will reduce outdoor noise levels to an acceptable level
(60 dB maximum). A copy of the engineer's report and
recommendations must be provided to the Community Development
Department for review prior to final action on the wall design
by the Architectural Review Commission.
Interior noise: The building code requires that interior noise be
reduced to 45 dB. Standard construction techniques will normally
achieve this goal. This level of interior noise is considered
acceptable.
Conclusion: Less than significant.
Surface water flow and quality
The lots are designed to drain to the streets. Streets. A and B
drain to street. C, which drains to an existing drop inlet on '!C"
Street, - near the westerly property line of the site. The inlet
will convey water to Sydney Creek. Sydney Creek runs under the
railroad tracks (through a 9' X 8' culvert) , through the rear yards
of lots on McMillan and Duncan, -and ultimately blends into Acacia
Creek on the west side of Broad Street.
ER 13-93
1190 Laurel Lane
Page 7
Currently, Sydney Creek does not overflow during heavy rains. The
project runoff will increase flow by about one-tenth of one
percent, according to recent calculations by the project engineer.
The City Engineer finds that the increase in flows downstream from
this project will be insignificant.
Energy. or resource. use
The project is expected to generate use of about 18 acre-feet of
water per year when occupied. Since the site is vacant and not
irrigated, there is no water use presently. The new use, then_ ,
represents a water use increase.
The City's Water All Regulations allow water to be allocated
to new development only when such water allocation does not affect
the city's supply. This. can happen only if the new use replaces a
similar use of a similar size, or if. water is provided by, some
other means to replace that used. one method, allowed by the
regulations, to obtain additional water is to retrofit existing
plumbing fixtures. The City allows a developer to replace fixtures
to save approximately twice as much water as the new development is
expected to use. The net effect on 'the city's water supplies
should be beneficial. >
With these regulations in force, water- allocated to new development
will not. have a detrimental effect on the available supply.
Conclusion: Not significant.
RECOMMENDATION
Grant a negative declaration of environmental impact, with the
following
Mitigation measures:
1. Staff reports. must include discussion of allowed density on
individual lots, and the potential for adding apartments to
lots. Techniques for determining maximum density must be
offered. For example, all lots could be limited to a maximum
density of 2 dwelling units, as defined by the zoning
regulations.
2 . To encourage transit use, a bus shelter must be installed on
Laurel Lane, to the approval of the City's Transit Manager.
3 . The applicant shall fund a portion of traffic improvement
facilities anticipated to . be needed in the near future,
including signalization of the Laurel Lane and Orcutt Road
intersection, to the approval of the City Engineer, ., or shall
ER 13-93
1190 Laurel Lane
Page s
pay traffic impact fees, if adopted prior to recordation .of
the final map.
4 . A bulletin board or information kiosk shall be installed in
the recreation area. Information on ridesharing, transit,
bicycle routes, and other alternative transportation methods
shall be posted on this board or kiosk as it becomes available
to the homeowners' association. +
5. An acoustical engineer must be consulted to assure that the
wall will reduce outdoor noise levels to an acceptable level
(60 dB maximum) . A copy of the engineer's report and
recommendations must be provided to the Community Development
Department for review prior- to final action on the wall design
by the Architectural Review Commission..
Monitoring
1 Staff reports will include detailed discussions of density and
options.
213, The staff recommendation to the Planning Commission and City
4 Council will include conditions that repeat these mitigation
measures. Improvement plans and. building plans will not be
approved until all conditions are met. C C & R's for the
homeowners' association will be required to include a
reference to the purpose .of the kiosk or bulletin board, and
a requirement for the association to maintain information on
all forms of transportation.
5 Community Development Department staff will require submittal
of the noise study before the project is scheduled for final
architectural review.
1
ER 13-93
Subdivision and planned development rezoning to create
46 residential lots, a recreation area, and private
streets, on the northwest side of Laurel Lane, below
Southwood Drive
1190 Laurel Lane
The following measure is included in the project to mitigate potential adverse
environmental impacts. Please sign the original and return to my office ,as
soon-as- possible.
1. Staff reports must include discussion of allowed density on individual
lots, and the potential for adding apartments to lots. Techniques for
determining maximum density must be offered. . For example, all lots
could be limited to a maximum density of 2 dwelling units, as defined by
the zoning regulations.
2. To encourage transit use, a bus shelter. must be installed on Laurel
Lane, to the approval of the City's Transit Manager.
3. The applicant shall fund a portion of traffic improvement facilities
anticipated to be needed in the near future, including signalization of
the Laurel Lane and Orcutt Road intersection, to the approval of the
City Engineer, or shall pay traffic impact fees, if adopted prior to
recordation of the final map.
4. A bulletin board or information kiosk shall be installed in the
recreation area. Information on ridesharing, transit, bicycle routes,
and other alternative transportation methods shall be posted on this
board or kiosk as it becomes available to the homeowners' association.
5. An acoustical engineer must be consulted to assure that the wall will
reduce outdoor noise levels to an acceptable level (60 dB maximum). A
copy of the engineer's report and recommendations must be provided to
the Community Development Department for review prior to final action on
the wall design by the Architectural Review Commission.
Monitoring:
1 Staff reports will include detailed discussions of density and options.
2,3, The staff recommendation to the Planning Commission and City
4 Council will include conditions that repeat these mitigation measures.
Improvement plans and building plans will not be approved until all
-, conditions are met. C C & R's for the homeowners' association will be
required to include a reference to the purpose of :the kiosk or bulletin
board, and a requirement for the *association to maintain information on
all forms of transportation.
r
C 5 Community Development Department staff will require submittal of the
noise study before the project is scheduled for final architectural
review.
- aAV�O�
Arnold Jonas, lector
Community Deve ment
4.o le Bell
l" ant
Elizab h Bell
Applicant
l-�f3
David Lord, MArch, Ph.D. 299 Albert Drive
Acoustical Consultant San Luis Obispo,CA 9340$ ~'
(SOS)549-8046
March 29, 1993
Noise Analysis
for the proposed
Laurelwood Homes Project
Laurel Lane and Southwood Drive
San Luis Obispo, California 93401
Prepared for:
Crawford Multari & Starr
641 Higuera St. Suite 302
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Description:
The dimensions, locations and layout used in this noise analysis are taken from the plans
and sections prepared by Steven P. Caminiti, Landscape Architect, and by Jeffrey J.
Emrick, Civil Engineer, both dated January 28, 1993. The identified noise source is
the present and future vehicular traffic on Laurel Lane, a four lane road, and on
Southwood Drive, a two lane road. The centerline of Laurel Lane is shown
approximately 60 feet to the east of the residential units. The centerline of Southwood
Drive varies from approximately 40 feet to 60 feet north of the residential units.
I have inspected the site and conducted on-site noise surveys as described below, with
regard to land use, potential noise conflict and noise mitigation measures.
Noise Criteria:
Noise criteria used to evaluate the site are contained in the 1975 Noise Element City of
San Luis Obispo, and correlated with the current draft revised Noise Element. Figure
1-2, page 1.18 of the Noise Element tabulates land use compatibility for new
development near transportation noise sources, and indicates whether mitigation is
1
required. For residential land use, mitigation is required when transportation noise is
above Ld„ 60 dB. For residential uses, outdoor activity areas shall not exceed Ld„ 60 and
interior spaces shall not exceed.Ld„ 45 dB. Above Ld„ 60 dB, barriers must be erected
between the site and prominent noise sources to make the outdoor environment
tolerable.
The 1975 Noise Contour Map for San Luis Obispo shows part of the site to be on or
above the Ld„ 60 dB. contour, relating to noise from Laurel Lane. The current draft
revised Noise Element (Table 3-4, p. 3-19) indicates an estimated 60 dB, 71 feet from
the centerline of Laurel Lane. These contours are derived from traffic data and a
computer model, and do not necessarily represent actual measured values.
Table A-1, Road Traffic Data, of the Noise Element indicates Laurel Lane to have an
average speed of 40 m.p.h., and a peak hourly traffic flow of 600 day / 120 night. Four
percent of traffic flow is due to trucks during day, two percent at night.
Measured Existing Noise Levels:
Sound level measurements were performed on the site. Measurements were made with
an A.N.S.I:calibrated, Type 1 integrating sound-level meter, set to measure dbA (A-
weighted decibel) sound levels (see Appendix). Sound levels were measured at 5 feet
above ground at or near the location of exterior walls of the proposed structure along
the east and north side of the site, facing the identified noise source (see Figure 1). A
complete noise analysis was performed for "location 3" at the corner of Laurel Lane and
Southwood Drive. Other locations (1,2,4,5) on the site were checked for correlation with
noise levels at location 3. Location 3 is the noisiest location due to the acceleration and
deceleration of traffic near that point. The preponderance of traffic noise emanates
from Laurel Lane, with traffic noise from Southwood Drive a secondary source. The
primary noise source is discussed in further detail below:
noise analysis,page 2
Laurel Lane Traffic Noise: Traffic noise on Laurel Lane past the site was
measured eight different times of day to derive the Ld„ value. Laurel Lane
traffic noise is characterized by occasional heavy traffic during rush hour
periods, with traffic accelerating past the site, including an estimated 5
percent diesel-engine trucks / busses. The speed limit on Laurel Lane is
posted 40 m.p.h. The measured noise value at location 3 is Ldn 64.9 dB
approximately 60 feet from the centerline of Laurel Lane. (Sample and
summary noise measurements shown in Figure 3.) Noise levels at other
locations on site were found to be 1 to 3 dB lower.
Future Noise Levels:
Laurel Lane Traffic Noise: According to the draft Noise Countour Data
(Table 3-4, p. 3-19), future noise levels at 60 feet from the street centerline
will be between 60 and 65 dB Ld,,.
Traffic Noise Mitigation
A six foot grouted masonry noise barrier or equivalent is required between noise sources
on Laurel Lane and Southwood Drive and the residential outdoor living areas in order
to reduce outdoor noise levels below Ld„ 60 dBA.
Two possible noise barrier configurations were checked by drawing a "straight line along
the noise path from the probable greatest noise source (two feet above the roadway) to
the exterior wall of the dwelling unit. (Fig. 4) Each configuration is adequate for noise
mitigation.
Unit Planning Recommendations:
The following noise mitigation measures for the unit planning and design is
recommended for second stories: To avoid noise problems in habitable spaces, the
layout of dwelling units should be planned in such a way as to use bathrooms, corridors,
closets, storage, and other non-habitable spaces as "noise buffers" facing Laurel Lane to
the east.
_noise analysis,page 3
Construction Recommendations:
Construction recommendations apply only to second story facades in proximity to the --
prevailing Laurel Lane noise source. Only the walls, windows, soffits, eaves and roofs of
habitable spaces directly facing the noise source are affected. All other facades and
surfaces can be of ordinary construction insofar as noise transmission is concerned.
The following construction specification will result in a 45 dl3A or less interior noise
level along the critical side of the dwellings:
Walls and Roofs: The second story east.elevations of dwelling unit nearest
the noise source shall have wall, ceiling and roof construction with an
S.T.C. (Sound Transmission Class) rating of 30 or greater. For instance,
wood siding 2" x 4" stud walls with R-11 batt insulation and 1/2" gypsum
board screwed to resilient strips on the interior will provide an S.T.C.
rating of-30 or greater.
All soffit or eave or dormer vents or doors or windows or skylights or other,
roof or wall penetrations above the first floor adjacent to the noise source
shall be acoustically rated and designed.
Common acoustic leaks, such as electrical outlets, pipes, vents, ducts, flues
i
and other breaks in the integrity of the wall, ceiling or roof construction
above the first floor on the east side shall receive special attention during
construction. All construction openings and joints on second story walls on
the east side of the site shall be insulated, sealed and caulked with a
resilient, non-hardening caulking material.' All such openings and joints
shall be airtight in order to maintain sound isolation.
Window Construction: East-facing windows above the first floor shall be
of double-glazed construction and installed in accordance with the
recommendations of the manufacturer. The windows shall be fully
gasketed, with an S.T.C. rating of 35 or better, as determined in testing by
an accredited acoustical laboratory. An example of such a window is the
horizontal slider window by Peerless, series 6001HS, Model Number
6001125125HS, tested by Riverbank Acoustical Laboratories, which has an
S.T.C. of 37 (see References). Other manufacturers may have similar or
superior products.
Ventilation: Operable windows may be necessary to meet the fire safety
egress requirement on the east side of the dwelling units. On the "noisy
side" of the dwellings, the interior nois6 levels with the window open will
noise analysis,page 4 _
/_Y7
1
periods, it is assumed that all operable windows and doors on the east side
of the residences may be voluntarily shut. T his'will require ventilation to
be available to all habitable spaces in accordance with Section 1205 of the
Uniform Building Code. The following excerpt is quoted for reference:
"If.interior allowable noise levels are met by requiring that windows be
unopenable or closed, the design for the structure must also specify a
ventilation or air conditioning system to provide a habitable interior
environment. The ventilation system must not compromise the_dwelling
unit or guest room noise reduction." [Appendix, Chapter 35, State.Building
Code section 3501]
Mechanical ventilation or operable windows on walls perpendicular to the
noise source, or operable skylights facing away from the noise source, are
options that will satisfy the ventilation requirement,
References:
1. Catalog of S.T.C. and LLC. Ratings for Wall and Floor/Ceiling Assemblies,
California Department of Health Services, Sacramento, California. .1987.
2. Acoustical and Thermal Performance of Exterior Residential Walls, Doors and
Windows N.B.S. Building Science Series 77. National Bureau of Standards. 1975.
3. Barry, T.M., and J.A. Reagan, FHWA highway traffic noise prediction model,
FHWA-RD-77-108, December 1978.
4. Federal Highway Administration, Procedures for abatement of highway traffic noise
and construction noise, FHPM 7-7-3, May 14, 1976.
5. Appendix Chapter 35, "Sound Transmission Control' of the Uniform Building
Code, as amended; also section 1205 on mechanical ventilation.
6. California Noise Insulation Standards, State Building Code, Part 2, Title 24,
CCR.
7. Peerless Products, Inc, P.O. Box 2469, Shawnee Mission, KS 66201, contact Mr.
John W. Johnston, Jr., (913) 432-2232, ext. 105.
noise analysis,page S
�!7
' f
S. Noise Element, San Luis Obispo County General Plan. Vol 1.Policy
Document / Acoustical Design Manual. Vol 2. Technical Reference
Document. May 5, 1992.
9. Noise Element, Noise Contour Map, City of San Luis Obispo. 1975.
10. Draft Noise Element, City of San Luis Obispo, 1991, Table 3-4, p. 3-19.
11. Wilson, Charles, Noise Control, Measurement, Analysis and Control of Sound
and Vibration. Harper and Row. New York. 1989.
Appendix:
dBA: A-weighted sound level. The ear does not respond equally to all frequencies, but
is less sensitive at low and high frequencies than it is at medium or speech range
frequencies. Thus, to obtain a single number representing the sound level of a noise
containing a wide range of frequencies in a manner representative of the ear's response,
it is necessary to reduce the effects of the low and high frequencies with respect to the
medium frequencies. The resultant sound level is said to be A-weighted, and the units
are dBA. The A-weighted sound level is also called the noise level.
_Lda This index is based on the human hearing response to steady noise and time-varying
noise. Ldo also accounts for the fact thatthere is more sensitivity to noise during the
night than during the day. The Ldn index uses A-scale Leq noise levels with a 10 dB
penalty added to noise which occurs during the night hours (from 10 p.m. to 7 am.). It
is considered to be a reliable single-number index of human response to noise. .
Lcq Equivalent Sound Level An energy average based on A-weighted measurements. It
is a single-number descriptor of time-varying noise used in noise codes, environmental
impact statements, and other documents. L,.q is obtained by averaging the mean-square
sound pressure over the desired time interval and converting back to decibels. Common
averaging times include one hour, one day, and one year. Since it is an energy average,
it differs from the arithmentic average of the sound levels and the median level. High
readings tend to dominate the L�9. Readings that are 20 dBA or more below the peak
level make only a small contribution to 1-169
C.N.E.L. Community noise equivalent level is a scale that takes account of all the A-
weighted acoustic energy received at a point, from all noise events causing noise levels
above some prescribed value. Weighting factors are included that place greater
importance upon noise events occurring during the evening hours (7:00 p.m. to 10:00
p.m.) and even greater importance upon noise events at night (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.).
noise analysis,page 6
��ivy
t
L. The maximum loudness of any series of noise events.
L,50 The sound level exceeded 50% of the time. Corresponds to the median average
level of noise in a particular setting, over time.
Precision of Sound Level Meters. The American National Standards Institute (ANSI)
specifies several types of sound level meters according to their precision. Types 1,2, and
3 are referred to as "precision," "general-purpose," and "survey" meters, respectively.
Most measurements carefully taken with a type 1 sound level meter will have an error
not exceeding 1 dB. The corresponding error for a type 2 sound levet meter is about 2
dB. The sound level meter used for this report is a Larson-Davis Laboratories Model
820. This meter meets all requirements of ANSI s1.4, IEC 651 for Type 1 accuracy and
includes the following features:
110 dB dynamic range for error free measurements.
Measures FAST, SLOW, Unweighted PEAK, Weighted PEAK, Impulse,
L.q, LDOD, LOSHA, Dose, Time Weighted Average, SEL, Lmax, Lmin,
Ld,.
Time history sampling periods from 32 samples per second up to one
sample every 2.55.
Calibration of the meter is made before and after all field measurements.
Sound Transmission Class (S.T.C.) The measure of sound transmission through
elements of the building shell, such as a wall, door or window construction is the sound
transmission coefficient or S.T.C. The S.T.C. in a specified frequency band is the
fraction of the airborne sound incident on the partition that is transmitted by the
partition and radiated on the other side.
noise anatysit page 7
' r
:
:
,
L
J '
i
i
,
• L
i
,
•
4 •�,
� ' 0
:
• O,
� 3
. S
Noise Measurement Locations : 13
I 2 3
0
0 0 '
Laurel Lane
Figure 1. Diagram of Site Showing Location of Noise Measurements (not to scale).
Primary Noise measurements were taken at Location 3.
noise analysis,page 8 _
4j>
4
:
t O
Table 3-4 ; 3
Present Noise Contours its
1
60 dB
65 d
Laurel Lane
Z
:
_ 1
ti o
Table 3-4 t0
is
Future Noise Contours
i�
i
Laurel Lana._.
Figure 2. Noise Contour Data from Draft Noise Element, Table 3-4.
�_.' noise analysis,page 9
Location: Laurel Lane and Southwood Drive
San Luis C io,CA
type; traffic noise weight. ABC
date: 11-Mar-93 temp.: 62 deg
time: 8:30 a.m, wind. <5 mph
screen: no
levet, dB period definition
Leq 66 10m equivalent sound level
SEL 83.2 10m sound exposure level
Lmax 81.8 10m maximum sound level
Lmin 39.4 10m minimum sound level
Ln(10) 71 10m sound level exceeded 10 percent of the time.
Ln(20) 67 10 m sound level exceeded 20 percent of the time.
Ln(30) 62.5 10m sound level exceeded 30 percent of the time.
Ln(50) 58.2 10m .sound level exceeded 50 percent of the time.
Ln(70) 54.2 10m sound level exceeded 70 percent of the time.
Ln(90) 46.2 10m I sound level exceeded 90 percent of the time.
Laurel Lane and Southwood Drive
San Luis Obispo, CA
11-Mar-93
Measured DAY SPL 68.0 dBA TIME: 7:45
Measured DAY SPL 66.0 dBA TIME: 8:30
Measured DAY SPL 64.0 dBA TIME: 12:15
Measured DAY SPL 64.5 dBA TIME: 13 :45
Measured DAY/EVE. SPL 58.0 dBA TIME: 19:30
Measured NIGHT SPL 54.0 dBA TIME: 22:15
Measured NIGHT SPL 55.2 dBA TIME: 23:00
Measured -NIGHT SPL 54.0 dBA TIME: 6:45
Day/Night Level Calculation:
Average 24hr SPL 60.5 dBA LEQ 24 .hrs 63.3 dBA
Average Day SPL 64.1 dBA LEQ Day 65.1 dBA
Average Night SPL 54.4 dBA LEQ Night 54.4 dBA
DNL 64.9 dBA Day/Night Level
Community Noise Equivalent Level Calculation-
Average 24hr SPL 60.5 dBA LEQ 24 hrs 63 .3 dBA
Average Day SPL 65.6 dBA LEQ Day 65.9 dBA
Average Eve. SPL 58.0 dBA LEQ Eve. 58.0 dBA
Average Night SPL 54.4 dBA LEQ Night 54.4 dBA
C.N.E.L. 65.1 dBA
Figure 3. Noise Measurement Sample and Noise Measurement Summary .
noise analysis,page 10
/-�3
` I
N 0 I
I
I
� 3 3
U � � rr�s •rr��* r I
��r�rirr r
-�_rrrr+rrr+• finished floor
«rr�
too
Laurel Lane / ---- 15'-6' ----�
I
H I
0 y m I
I
U 3 Cc
L0 r�logo
Qto
rrr rr-,r rrrrr�
o o
"So
rrrr finished floor
Laurel Lane A- -+mom----.
Figure 4. Section Through Noise Barrier Alternatives.
noise analysis,page 11
m
V
n N LC N N N CCU) C'137 Cc9 N N IV O' .� N Nj
C0
N [Oto LO Go 40 4M
10 O! CA N
CO 40
. m P l7 CO CO -w CO CO a -
CI r NCO) r W n N N Q M QOV
to
N v N OT N N N r N r O CO b O1 et N m
T
m
�• C "0 O T N O N N (DLf) C+�3 t0 at .0 O 01 r v 10 IA LOW N r r Q7T C) Q
_ m
O
a
O mCO 90 Ln .0 cm _
CL 0 NC4 C) CO CA T r' T r CT. T H N N N CO MIN.
v -4 O m �
o Q {CSC y
G G F- _
rM Z O y a...
U O V .Z E ^ t
'q OZ O0U .M U ti. ' ¢ c
u� w u' J9 C m
m FO = 13
Fa- O w ~ m c ^ ^ -¢ < m m CD
Z u• q T c > 0
�. O o .-, o to .. 0 = <
LLICCr Co T Y 16 - .3 p Q t .. L C ^ _
0 ca Cd
F' T N NCm Et ° 8 � ..
mZ = O C O CON 6 p C 0C
NT O 0 T) p O > C O
tt
C ` p mT = =
U) 0
O.
� O 2 0
OCO p ChO Q < (D p
O
cc 03 . ( O -CS0 M
ca CO O0 'O CL0 e6L Cmo
U ° co Oc0 >CO Ec
TTCOIJ 80
T
> Cr T v T
cc
O O C < `1 0 601 �s �Cy
Ca Co C 0 CA = �cis y CO J CE 2 y U Co o CO CO U)
Z NN CO CO COe� C+N� CO O < IV � OC VO• t00 �'>'. , t0 to
N N N N N N N "�>;.E
r IA P Ch r C�j III 1:-' C6 r . . . ,w?a?rrt CV N
CC�� CC�� ((�� Ih n o1 T ; to PIL
01 N N N N N N N N N N N N N 64
., N N N
CO
•vi:.:o:Gs
Figure S. Noise Contour Data from Draft Noise Element (for reference only).
noise analysis,page 12 '
i
i!L
i
i
---.SouTH Woof ✓1N\l ',A . _ - ..
ori;-dor-o� Y%ALL ✓'�!L tnc moo' A3ovE.
---
_ �ravrh✓bj �
u1 o rsf-C4Se_
_ San Luis Coastal Unified School District
1499 SAN LUIS DRIVE
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401-3099
TELEPHONE (805) 543-2010
.
March 10, 1993 tit CEIVEL
MAR 1 51993
N LUI'S
SPO
Ms. Judith Lautner
COMMUPN iY DEV-1 n°
........ Associate Planner
Community Development Department
City of San Luis Obispo
P.O. Box 8100
San Luis Obispo,CA 93408
Re: Tract 2132 (City File No. TR 13-93)
Dear Ms. Lautner:
San Luis Coastal Unified School District wishes to express its concern regarding the proposed
development called Laurelwood Homes. San Luis Coastal Unified School District is an
impacted school district with its kindergarten through 8th grade facilities utilized in excess of
their design capacity. The district believes this project will generate a minimum of 46 new
students. The project has the potential to generate far more students because 1) there are
provisions for additional future bedrooms which means more students after the project's
initial approval; 2) the project is very attractive for family housing contrary to the City's
position that this project will become student housing; and 3) the District does not have
resources to provide for housing existing students yet must accept new students.
Developer fees are presently levied at the rate of$1.50 per square foot on residential
construction. This amount does nut fully instigate the impact of student growth, providing
only one-third of the facility costs based on 1989 construction costs. The future bedrooms
designed into each of these pians can easily be added after initial construction. All of the
future bedrooms fall below the 500-square-feet threshold set in the Government Code for
residential additions, making such construction exempt from paying the developer fee. Had
the extra bedroom been included in the original construction, the square footage would be
assessable.
It is the position of San Luis Coastal Unified School District that the student impact from the
development must be mitigated. We have been advised by our counsel that, with the
passage of A.B. 1287, the City cannot require a fee to be paid to mitigate the project under -
the Mira, Murrietta, or Hart decisions; but that the City may require the impact be mitigated,
reduce the project scope, or not approve the project.
C\c\LARLWOODSLO /r
District Superintendent,EDWIN DENTON;Ed.D.
Miss Judith Lautner
March 10, 1993
Page 2 -
San Luis Coastal Unified School District requests that the City of San Luis Obispo not
— - approve the Laurelwood Homes project unless its impacts upon the school district, both
immediate and potential, are mitigated.
Sincerel ,
RO
Sincere
GSTON
Assistant Superintendent,Business
RLL:mkh
cc 'Steve Hartsell,Schools Legal Service
Q\C\LARLW0OD.SL0
If'lljll'I'tl P!Ii�H`Inti
iii N11N!18E�I►ll��l,;II;;;;`�l��h,;I iltlLi'� of sAn tuts OBIS
PO
990 Palm Street/Post Office Box 8100 • San Luis Obispo, CA 93403.8100
26 March 1993
Rory Livingston, Assistant Superintendent, business
San Luis Coastal Unified School District
1499 San Luis Drive
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3099
SUBJECT: Tract 2132 {Laurel Lane housing project)
Dear Mr. Livingston,
..Thank you for your letter of March 10, commenting on a proposal to
create a 46-home subdivision on Laurel Lane and Southwood Drive
{Tract 2132) . I have called your office twice, ,since receiving the
letter, hoping to speak with you more about the impacts this
project may have upon City schools. Whitney, McIlvaine, who is
reviewing this project with me, also left a message for you to call
her.
We afire interested in your answers to the following questions:
1. on what did you base your estimate that the project would
generate at least 46 students?
Comment:. We developed our estimate of 17 students (25
children total) from the 1990 census figures .for the Edna-
Islay area. Generation rates projected by the "Assessment of
future development and .student enrollment" (Strong, 1986) ,
commissioned by the school district, are lower than the ones
we used.
2. If the City were to require the developer to mitigate impacts
on schools, what mitigation measures would you suggest?
Comment: Our understanding of State law and subsequent court
cases is that the only possible mitigation the City can .
require is the provision of temporary school buildings in
certain cases. In a case such as this one, where the project.
is not a rezoning but simply a development,. we also believe
that it cannot be denied on the basis of its impacts on
schools. If you have an understanding of the law that differs
from this, please let us know.
OThe City of San Luis Obispo is commi;ted-to include the disabled in all of its services,-prograrrs-artd-arivities. kao
Telecommunications Device for the Deaf(805) 7bt-7410.
Livingston
Tract 2132
Page 2
We look forward to hearing from you. You can reach us at the above
address or at 781-7166 (me) or 781-7175 (Whitney) .
Sincerely,
Judith Lautner, Associate Planner
Community Development Department
cc: Whitney Mcilvaine, Associate Planner
Ron Whisenand, Development Review Manager
Cindy Clemens, Assistant City Attorney
San Luis Coastal Unified School District
1 4 9 9 SAN LUIS DRIVE
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA-93401-3099
TELEPHONE (805) 543-2010
e +
ffECEIvht
- .. APR - 21991
_April 1, 1993
I> CITY lm v LUna,IS o61SPC
Ms. Judith Lautner, Associate Planner
........ Community Development Department
City of San Luis Obispo
P.O. Box 8100
San Luis Obispo, CA 934038100
Re: Tract 2132 (Laurelwood Homes)
Dear Ms. Lautner.
I apologize for not having returned your calls. just as it is for the City, this is a budget
development time which takes up a considerable portion of my time. I have not been_:._.,.
unaware of your attempts to contact me.
Responding to your letter of March 26, 1993, let me answer your second question first.
Recognizing the size and scope of the project, it is not feasible to form or create a Mello-Roos
district to mitigate the impact. What the district would request is for the City to condition
the project for a two- or three-year period following occupancy so that any additions be
considered "delayed construction" and subject to the levy of school fees. In our review of the
applicant's plans, it is clearly indicated that future additions by individual owners to the
project are a component of the project concept and building design at the time of the City's
anticipated approval. For that reason, San Luis Coastal Unified School District cannot
support the argument that the future expansion would be "additional construction' and thus
exempt from payment of school fees if less than 500 square feet. Rather, the District argues
strongly that the square footage is in reality "delayed construction' since it is incorporated in
the initial plan design. It is likely that, in marketing the project, the applicant will
demonstrate the "expandability" of the housing. A primary market would be growing
families which means school-aged children.
In responding to your initial question, let me first advise you that, for planning purposes, the
City should not be using "Assessment of Future Development and Student Enrollment"
(Strong, 1986). In fact, I would recommend disposing of that report. Instead, you should use
a thick report supplied to the Planning Department on several occasions prepared by Sage
Institute, September 1988, "San Luis Coastal Unified School District Facilities Master Plan." If
you are unable to locate this document, please advise and we will provide another copy. In
Section 11, page 6 of this report, based on Sage's work, the district-wide student generation
District Superintendent,EDWIN DENTON,Ed.D.
-- •_- Ms. Judith Lautner
April 1, 1993
Page 2
factor for new,single-family homes is .65 students per home. This is based on 1988 data, and
we have found the reality to be greater in developments designed with family attractiveness —=-
in mind.
Both the Country Club and Arbors developments exceeded that thresliold. The number of
students generated from the Country Club development surprised the district. That type of
development, with its high cost, tends to have more mature owners and yields fewer
students: In actuality, 25% (150) of Los Ranchos Elementary School's 600 students come from
the Country Club development. The Housing Authority developed 10 units in Edna-Islay,
from which Los Panchos School received 10 students. I do not have the number of middle
and high school students from these areas, but I don't expect them to be as significant
because we are just beginning to see the large numbers, by grade, reach middle school.
The Villa Rosa project is currently under construction in the city. I am expecting a large
elementary school population to appear due to the affordability and size of these units. The
Laurelwood project, by the same developer, appears to be "affordable" family-type housing
given its dose proximity to schools and parks. I expect there will be families with school-
aged children. Hence, I am conservatively estimating 1 child per unit K-12.
If you have any further questions, please call. During the week of April 5-9, however, I may
be difficult to reach. The week following I will be more accessible.
W
VINGSTON
Assistant Superintendent, Business
RLL:mkh
QWMAuw000.M
i
TABLE 3.DEVELOPMENT STANDARD REFORMS
Capital Standards
Standard Rational/Benefits Suggested Guidelines
Reduce street-width requirements Reduces direct capital costs for pavement and Widths under 20 h.may be sufficient';typical
cut and fill.'Reduces incidental costs associ- range is 20-30 ft.depending upon design
ated with utility installation,and maintenance capacity,availability of off-street parking and
costs? intensity of development.''I classifica.
tions may be developed for neighborhood
streets carrying lower average daily traffic
volumes,such as subcollectors,access streets,
and special purpose streets(alleyways,
marginal access streets,and divided streets).'
M cul de sae grid turnaround Reduces pavement costs,but should ensure 30-ft.radius is adequate for most vehicles;radii
-streetwxiths , "-..adequate mobility for emergency vehicles. exceeding 40 ft.should be discouraged.'
'Hammerhead'T-or Y-shaped turnarounds can i
r - ensure adequate mobility while avoiding
.. .
wasteful lot layout of cul-de-sacs.'
Modify curb and gutter requirements Can reduce capital costs,but inadequate Swales,mountable or roll-over curbs can be
construction standards can increase operation used as an alternative to vertical or concrete
and maintenance costs over time. barrier curbs.'
Modity'sidewalkstcsndards = Reduces direct capital costs for pavemet;can Require sidewalks on one side of street only
increase_development potential of a She.- use of alternative pedestrian systems such as
pathways;use of less expensive paving mate-
..:_
rials such as bituminous concrete?-'Width
should be limited to 3 ft.for residential streets
_-- and 4 ft.for collectors and subcollectors.'
Infrequently used sidewalks can be replaced
with pathways linking development clusters.'
-- Modify stomtwater management Reduces direct construction costs,ongoing Allow natural s:ormwater management sysiems'j
requirements maintenance requirements. Replace prescriptive system design require.
mens with performance standards.'Allow
detentioNretention basins,precast structures.'
Reduce manholes/inlets by increasing spacing
between structures or replacing with curved i
pipe sections,'Ts".and'Ys'?
ModrfyYaiidscapirig standards Reduces direct capital costs and,since :".. Reduce tree caliper to 1-2 inches.=Require but-
aesthetic standards are inherently subjective, fers only around intensely developed areas or
-
W.remove a source of delay and collusion.: parking areas rather than entire site perimeter.=
Mod' g i
Modify parkin standards Reduces capital costs and avoids 1.25-2.5 spaces depending on number I
overconsumption of land otherwise available of bedrooms'Widthvlength of stalls from
for housing. 7.5'x 15'10 8'x 16.4'Parking lanes requiring an j
8-foot width may not be needed where off-street i
parking is available.'Base standards on
number of bedrooms rather than units;allow a
portion of stalls to be devoted to compact cars.'
v
Reduce right-of-way widths Increases development potential and enhances 35-50 ft'Use of easements or sidewalks/
SMT
r efficiency of infrastructure. bicycle paths for utilities can be a useful
alternative to right-of-way requirements?
Modify sanitary sewer installation Reduction in capital costs for piping and Reduce pipe lengths through curvilinear design
standards manholes. and replace manholes with clean-outs where pos.
sible.'600-to 800-toot spacing between man-holes
can be acceptable with adequate cleanout
devices.'Consider use of 4-6 inch diameter
distribution lines and 3-inch laterals.'Replace site
inspection with television cameras.'Common
laterals can be used to reduce pipe length.'
Modify water supply and service Reduces capital costs for pipe tenths and Consider plastic pipes for distribution lines,
_requirerrierrts: : diameters as well as operational costs. corporation stop assembly connections,and
--- multiple service connections.'
---
44
TABLE 3.CONTINUED
Supply Standards
Standard RationaUBenefits Suggested Guidelines
Zone sufficient land for all housing Allows market or government agencies to Highly variable depending upon local
types,including medium and high provide adequate supply of housing sufficient conditions.
densities to accommodate demand.Directly authorizes
construction of low-cost housing.
.^.-.,_w--.yam v �• -.-�;•ei-S'�-'--.--.._ i-:>:�-�___.vv' -`�_+.�._':.".:.:: ,.r=•,-
Reduce rnmimum lot sizes_ Y ti•. 4s me'
,.+^,y .;�,Large lot sties impede construction of . 2,000-6,000 sq.fL : Some'districfseliminate
l•--
,, alter,3mgle=tamely hornes;; -minimum lot size and regulate only units pe
gross acre.with'standards ianging froirt2tV"
S6 unitslacre' One_half acre considered
excessive for affordable housing?
s _ _.— ----
Reduce or modify minimum floor area Allows home size to be determined by market. Lot coverage:40-50%maximum'Develop-
or lot coverage requirements ers or local governments often downsize or
increase height of units,or place smaller
homes on larger lots than minimum to
preserve open space.'
Reduce or eliminate minimum site = OrcGnanees requiring minimum site,size acres em_u ?
_ Ldered Oicessitie
sizes for PUD/__aster devetopments-. discourage use of PUD/duster
_ -., may t1e hard to trod >=z :t. .-,.�.-� T�:.,. x��-..,-. •� .-.—fes... ,
_. .._... _.. —a.. -u•....+._�..... v�..:"_a_-.._._+�..-_..w_-...._`�'__r�..Y'_Y-.:.-s.._�.._.!.i... .—'�-.vrw'=•�a.�'i�.0 s:.�.scs`' .+
Reduce minimum lot width Permits smaller lot sizes and increased 0-60 ft.` -
densities.
• i>•:.. . --•:i�c: u+... �-• 'mss� i".i' aei3.:
ReCuce tot Vonfage'tequirements Reduces pavement stormwateco
r nVol,and -�-32-60 iL3
installation costs.Permits smaller lot size 411 .
Reduce front,side,and/or rear setback Reduces pavement,service line,site clearance, Front:
requirements. and landscaping costs.Permits smaller lot 0-5 fL`
sizes. Site buildings perpendicular or at angles to the
street;complement narrow front setbacks with
rear parking and alleys'
Side:0 ft.(zero-lot line)-10 ft.;reduction to 0 ft.
is generally accompanied by 10 ft.for other lot
line.'
Rear.0-5 ft.;larger setbacks sometimes used
to accommodate parking at rear of tots
Alloy duster,izero* lot fine,or 2'IoV - ---Allows developers to maintain gross density of _';The most common standard is'0 tt ori one
herringbone lot conftgurations.= `lot'and to concentrate development on r and 10 ft on the other.'=-
-- - ig
nonsensitive portions of as a rifian'ces. r=:_> ����;t- I=
efftdertcy of site infrastruduie.
1
Notes:
'United States Department of Housing and Urban Development,Office of Policy Development and Research,Affordable Housing Development Guidelines far
State and Local Government(Washington,D.C.,Nov.1991).
'Pennsyhrania Department of Community Affairs,Reducing Barriers to Affordable Housing, Planning Series No.10(Harrisburg,Pa.,Jan,1991).
'Florida Department of Community Affairs,Tectiniral Memo 5(Oct.1990).
1 I 'Welford Sanders and David Mosena,Charging Development Standards brAHordabte Housing.PAS Report No.371(Chicago:APA,1982).
Welford Sanders,Judith Getzels.David Mosena.and JoAnn Butler.Affordable Single-Family Housing:A Review of Development Standards,PAS Report
No.385(Chicago:APA,1984).
'Citing Bucks County Planning Commission,Performance Streets,A Concept and Model Standards for Residential Streets(Doylestown,Pa..1980);American
Society of Civil Engineers,at al.,Residential Streets.2d ed.,1990.
'Citing David Ustokin and Carol Walker, The Subdivision and Site Paan Handbook(New Brunswick,N.J.:Rutgers University,Center for Urban Polity `
Research,1989).
45
II II III III II I III I II II I III I III I II III I II III I II III�II II II II II III II II tl 11 11 111 1111 l 111 11 11 111 11 11 111
SIMON PUGLISI Co
April. 5, 1993
LAURELWOOD HOMES
AREA CALCULATIONS
PLAN 1
Basic Home 1070 sf
Br #3 add 162 sf
TOTAL 1232 sf
PLAN 2
Basic Home 1194 sf
Br #3 add 115 sf
Family add 287 sf
TOTAL 1596 sf
_ PLAN 3
Basic Home 1230 sf
Br #3 add 130 sf
Family add 217 sf
TOTAL 1577 sf
PLAN 4
Basic Home 1497 sf
Br #4 add 143 sf
Family add 252 sf
TOTAL 1892 sf
226 ENCANTO AVENUE . SHELL BEACH . CA . 93449 . TELEPHONE & FAX: 805 113-0151
Planning Commission Minutes
April 1.4, 1993 '1
Page 2
Ron Whisenand, Development Review Manager, indicated additional legal noticing of this
item was not required and, due to the cost, preferred to place a public notice in the
Telegram-Tribune newspaper only.
Chairman Karleskint closed the public comment period.
MINUTES:
The minutes of the regular meeting of February 24, 1993 and special meeting of January
13, 1993 were approved as amended.
ELECTION OF COMMISSION CHAIRPERSON AND VICE-CHAIRPERSON:
Chairman Karleskint opened the nomination period.
Moved by Commr. Hoffman and seconded by Commr. Senn to nominate Barry Karleskint
as Chairperson and Dodie Williams as Vice-Chairperson.
Moved by Commr.Whittlesey and seconded by Commr. Hoffman to close the nomination
period.
Upon general consent, Barry Karleskint and Dodie Williams were unanimously elected to
serve as Chairperson and Vice-Chairperson respectively.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
1. Actions Relating to Property at 1190 Laurel Lane: Requests to approve a
subdivision and planned development rezoning to create 46 residential lots, a
recreation area, and private streets, on the northwest side of Laurel Lane, below
Southwood Drive; R-3-S zone; Stanley Bell, applicant.
A. Planned Development Rezoning PD 13-93: A request to approve a
planned development rezoning to change the zoning from R-*-S to R-3-PD.
B. Tract 2132 (City File No. TR 13-931: A request to create 46 residential
lots.
Commr. Senn stepped down because he had a possible conflict of interest.
/47
r-,
Planning Commission Minutes
April 14, 1993 -
Page 3
udy Lautner, Associate Planner, presented the staff report, recommending approval of
a subdivision and planned development rezoning to create 46 residential lots, a recreation
area and two private streets on the southwest corner of Laurel Lane and Southwood
Drive, and approve the exceptions. She discussed the exceptions to. the development
standards recommended approval of these exceptions. She requested the Commission,
consider a waiver of fees if four of the homes (10% of the development) were offered to
the Housing Authority for management.
Commr. Cross briefly discussed the history of past.zoning of this property and expressed
concern for the cost of undergrounding utilities and wanted some guarantee of"affordable
housing".
Ron Whisenand, Development Review Manager, indicated specific wording would have
to be included in the General Plan to allow the City Council to require lower-cost housing
without some compensation to the developer.
Commr. Hoffman discussed ARC review and setback conditions.
Commr. Whittlesev expressed concern with not fully utilizing the density of the R-3 zone
on this property.
Commr. Wlliams discussed the staff recommendation to reduce lot sizes by 1 foot to
allow for a greater setback for the surrounding wall.
Chairman Karleskint asked if the site could be plumbed to make use of reclaimed water
in the park or even for individual yards.
Commr. Cross asked about public access to Laurel Lane and verified transit will be
placed on the corner rather than in the middle of the block.
Chairman Karleskint stated the Commission had received letters from the SLO. Unified
School District and Southwood Chalet Homeowners Project indicating support of the
project and stating concerns regarding the wall and the number of school-age persons
expected to live at the site.
Michael Multari, 641 Higuera, representing Stan Bell, discussed the project and its intent
to provide lower-cost housing by developing smaller homes on smaller lots. He felt the
location was excellent, saying work are areas nearby, it was adjacent to established
neighborhoods, a shopping center, park, and school within walking distance. The houses
are designed to allow for room additions. Lot sizes will be 4,500 to 5,000 sq. ft. In
addition, there will be a private recreation area, basketball court, tot lot facility, bus shelter
Planning Commission Minutes
April 14, 1993
Page 4
and an information kiosk. Multari stated the homes will be priced at approximately
$150,000-180,000. He expressed concerns regarding the undergrounding requirement
(Condition 18) and felt the state limits what cities can require of developments that have
an impact on nearby schools.
Multari addressed neighborhood concerns and proposed changing the height of the wall
to 3' high on 3' berm and an 8' setback from street frontage for 40 percent of the length.
He did not support a walkway through the middle of the development but did propose
positioning the wall back approximately 12' from the sidewalk in the middle, with
landscaping to make it aesthetically attractive. He also indicated the developer would be
amenable to prepiumbing the site to make use of reclaimed water.
Commr. Cross again questioned the term "affordable housing" and expressed concerns
regarding the wall. He did not want this development wall to look like the wall located on
Los Osos Valley Road near the Laguna area.
Mike Multari stated that the wall setback could not be any farther back than what is
proposed or it would cancel out homes. He felt that when the vegetation grew, the wall
will be attractive.
The Commission discussed the recommendation for the transit stop to be located at the
corner rather than mid-block.
Commr. Whittlesey felt the project satisfied requirements for an R-2 zone lot rather than
an R-3. She suggested the development include a few 2-story homes.in their plan.
Mike Multari indicated they wanted the homes to be expandable within the R-3; once this
begins to happen; the development will indeed satisfy the R-3 zone density standards.
Commr. Whittlesey requested clarification of the breakup of the wall, berm and wall
height.
Commr. Williams verified lots 39 and 40 would lose a portion (4 ft.) of their yard for the
wall setback on Laurel.
Chairman Karleskint declared the public hearing open..
Morgan Philbin, 1201 Laurel Lane and President of Southwood Chalets Association,
spoke in support of the project and expressed concerns about the wall. HeJelt the wall
should not exceed 6' and the planting area in front should be at least 10'. The
J,
Iw !
l �
4
Planning Commission Minutes
April 14, 1993
Page 5
Association was concerned that this wall would become a magnet for graffiti and would
reflect sound back to the adjacent neighborhood.
Rose Shapley, 1207 Laurel Lane, sketched her ideas of the chalkboard, recommending
the homes be at a lower elevation than the street, and did not support the wall because
she feared sound reflection.
Gary Felsman spoke in support of the project but was concerned for the safety of the
children. He suggested bike lanes be installed on Southwood and benches along Laurel
Lane.
Mark Marne, 1161 Laurel Lane, felt the overall project was a good one. He was
concerned with the wall and the potential for plant material not growing well on 2:1 berms.
He recommended turning the houses around and eliminating the wall.
Matt Jansen 2056 Hope Street (speaking on behalf of a friend living on Laurel) discussed
traffic, the private recreation area, and the aesthetic look of the wall.
_ Commr Cross asked,if a mixed-use project had been consideration for the site.
Mike Multari stated the developer had looked at that option, but decided that the
neighborhood already contains a mix of uses.
Jeff Emdck.Engineering Development Associates,representative,discussed drainage and
how a lowered elevation would result in sloping rear yards and views from Laurel Lane
into those yards.
Commr. Whittlesey asked about reflective noise from the wall.
Mike Multari said a noise analyst can address this question.
Chairman Karleskint declared the public hearing closed.
Commr. Hoffman felt the project was well designed and proposed no fences be allowed
between homes to create one big back yard. He felt this would make all the yards seem
larger, would provide easy access, more room to play, and he encouraged the
Commission to consider this new condition for future developments.
Commr. Williams felt the project was well designed and was supportive of investigating
materials used for building the wall to create a baffling effect. She also supported a
percentage of the development be reserved for low-income families.
/-Zb
Planning Commission Minutes
April 14, 1993 J
Page 6 -
Commr. Cross clarified the affordable housing to be given to the Housing Authority would
be provided by the City in waiving fees. The details would be worked out with George
Moylan, Executive Director of the Housing Authority, and with the project developer. He
also agreed with Commr. Hoffman's idea of no fencing allowed and felt that the
Commission should consider possible solutions to eliminating walls.
Commr. Whittlesey asked about requiring the lots to be owner-occupied to eliminate any.
potential renter issues. She supported the idea of no privacy fences and wanted some
form of guarantee the homes would remain affordable.
Commr. Peterson supported the project and was favorable to the less intense use of R-3.
He felt the wall had been softened substantially and did not support the idea of no fences.
Chairman Karleskint spoke in support of this project and providing housing for first time
buyers. He did not support the idea of no fences between yards but felt it should be
considered as a condition for future developers. He was hopeful that ARC and the
developer would consider alternatives to the wall, look for baffling of reflective sound, and
landscaping.
Commr. Cross suggested allowing small fences for children in the front yards.
The Commission discussed the privacy fencing, considering liability.issues, safety issues,
neighborhood sharing and whether or not they should make this a condition as it would
be changing the style of the development.
Commr. Hoffman requested that the Commission include no privacy fencing as a
condition; if the developer did not like it, he could request Council to remove the
condition.
The Commission suggested various changes to the recommended exceptions, findings,
and conditions.
Upon questions., Wayne Peterson, City Engineer, stated that the undergrounding
assistance is now required pf PG&E on all arterial streets. However, Laurel Lane is a low-
priority arterial.
Moved by Commr. Hoffman, and seconded by Commr. Whittlesey to approve the planned
development based on findings and conditions as modified by-,the Commission and given
in the staff report.
Planning Commission Minutes
April 14, 1993
Page 7
Commrs. Williams and Karleskint said they could not support the-Condition requiring no
fencing.
comms: Peterson said he could not support Condition 18 requiring undergrounding.
VOTING: AYES: Commrs. Hoffman, Whittlesey
NOES: Commrs. Williams, Cross; Peterson, Karleskint
ABSENT: Commr. Senn
The motion failed.
Moved by Commr. Williams, and seconded by Chairman Karleskint to approve the
planned development with ,removal of the fencing condition and subject to all other
findings and conditions as modified and stated in the staff report.
VOTING: AYES: Commrs. Williams, Karleskint, Hoffman, Whittlesey
NOES: Commrs. Cross, Peterson
ABSENT: Commr. Senn
The motion passed.
Commr. Hoffman recommended discussion of the no fencing issue and the cost of
undergrounding in a communication to the City Council.
Moved by Commr. Hoffman and seconded by Commr. Cross that the staff report to the
Council include a discussion of no fencing for future projects, to provide a better sense
of community, affordability, security through neighbor watch programs and visibility.
Motion carried by general consent.
Moved by Chairman Karleskint, and seconded by Commr. Peterson to have Council look
at moving Laurel Lane up on the priority list for undergrounding.
Motion carried (general consent, Commr. Cross voting no).
2. Planned Development PD 144-92: A request to amend the zoning map to allow
for mixed uses of group residential and apartments; 690 Henderson, C-T zone;
King Ventures, applicant.
This item continued without discussion until May 12, 1993
l--Aa
ORDINANCE NO. 1198 (1991 SERIES)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
REZONING PROPERTY AT 1190 LAUREL LANE
FROM M-S TO R-3-S (GP/R 1500)
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission and the City Council have
held hearings to consider the appropriate zoning on the subject
property in accordance with Section 65800 et. seq. of the
California Government Code; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has found the rezoning to be
consistent with the General Plan and recommends City Council
approval of the rezoning; and
WHEREAS, the text amendment has been evaluated according to
the California Environmental Quality Act and the City' s
Environmental Guidelines, and has been granted a negative
declaration (ER 1-91) ; and
WHEREAS, the proposed rezoning promotes the public health,
safety, and general welfare.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of San
Luis Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. Findings.
1. The proposed "R-3-S" zoning will more effectively acheive
general plan goals since it will allow the City review
specific development proposals to ensure compatibility with
adjacent uses, encourage affordable housing and help balance
the City's jobs/housing supply.
2 . The "S" (special considerations) overlay zone is applied to
this property to ensure compatibility with and buffering from
adjacent land uses, to mitigate Laurel Lane traffic and noise
impacts, to , secure necessary public infrastructural
improvements, and provide adequate screening of residential
uses from Laurel Lane.
SECTION 2 . Environmental Determination. The proposed rezoning
has been evaluated under the city's Environmental Guidelines and
the California Environmental Quality Act, and, will not have a
significant adverse impact on the environment (ER 1-91) . The City
Council hereby affirms the Community Development Director's
negative declaration.
SECTION 3. Zoning Man Amendment. The Community Development
Director shall amend the Zoning Map for property located at 1190
Laurel Lane to change the designation from M-S to R-3-S, as shown
Exhibit "B. "
0-1198 . .
Ordinance No. 119$ (1991 Series)
Page 2
U
SECTION 4. Publication. This ordinance, together with the
names of councilmembers voting for and against, shall be published
once in full, at least (3) days prior to its final passage, in the
Telegram-Tribune, a newspaper published and circulated in this
city. This ordinance shall go into effect at the expiration of
thirty (30) . days after its final passage.
INTRODUCED AND PASSED TO PRINT by the Council of the City
of San Luis Obispo at its meeting held on the 20th day of
August 1991, on motion of Councilwoman Pinard
seconded by Councilwoman Rappa , and on the following roll call
vote:
AYES: Councilmembers Pinard, Rappa and r`_ayor Dunin
NOES: None
ABSENT: Councilmembers Reiss and Roalman
- c
.►mac � — -
Mayor Ron unin
ATTEST:
CitV Clerk
APPROVED:
G��i�fl�✓' /C�.�-rte' � .. _
City Administra ive Officer
i
i A o ni('
Community Devekorlment, Director
Attachment: Exhibit "C" , Zoning Map amendment 1-7
Jo L\IJ✓1\, .,.Ori •. 'I'� Ora ' / •`• .\
/ Ou r•! ! 1 w+.. i
� / � w .. r fes' '..�4 •':r :� •.•.• (r
If
Sit
1
Je
ti,�'I• Iij� I X11 'A=.V ��i.�1•
In 41'�QO , %' `:•%'` tib;
••• } `mak, 'yi-:Ask
k •x. rs,_..t 1 ez., `• I'
Zdv
y;`• �a L 4"Y v.s x�x�,41 � ,�y+4� aq Vii: O//�I,
g 'F�'. a tKti'1• �r��Y�r. ,"4T i�,� ,,,,• M1 / �I _
n—� \ �' 'F�•_i }" ruY2 t iruY`vmt145t'G'' 2^.� I.e
J YV/;V �tt�s ez3 uK, •Fw4 k P e}t 01 1
�y..1/,�, f '4 �94'4a }t3i4 9 19`-1 /� •.• -2.I'r, •M' sc
�•�-'x�'�-,ni� rr'rv.1,:.,yr�`,.Taf� �c,.��-j�'a,.�: 4r"'k � v -a'�_••�'�.•` .
on:
ci',y,�.� eh'faU .3i3� irt�. � \\ (r, •-
mr •
rim": /�
•� V
\` f^�:€+`�'.;., "r ��id 3 rs� l-�.n'".�'wya'1�y°.:p •f.•r � � �� \ Q \ �\,
4'
• r,k. -'a...�"'�3^ -�� r�F�S�:,.>i'd" �� at�,x��ti"•�'' I w �i \tor• �, ,,
vfl i� .iv k � 1 ,�5 !% ,� •• ��Ol °
V./
2 w t'ti6�4� hi'L••,Y5.1
;v, �i1w ,.7 � ♦ f R °\Q•' -O�N \ °•L \
a - O
O Ny
O_ \ C
/
co 0
o
�• Bn^IARWOOD
K-,E-R --15-L
N VICINITY MAP GP/ R 1500 -
. / 7-5
,:;
MEED."_ - AGENDA
DATE ITEM#.
r,
H
i
POST ;
MANAGEMENT ��
COP>FSM:
❑•De-am AcEm FYI
iCauncd CDD DUL
FM/ORIG.
O ❑ FIN.D1R.
May 6, 1993 AO 0 FIRE l--TIFF
�tiI$Y O Fw D1R.
❑ POLi(tCK
REC DUL
LJ�C READF.Lc' UTILDUL
Mr. Stan Bell
160 Silver Shoals
Shell Beach, CA 93449
Dear Mr. Bell :
On behalf of the Southwood Chalets Board of Directors I
would like to thank you, Mr. Puglesi; and Mr. Multari for
taking the time to review your new development with the
.Board. Your attendance demonstrated a true willingness to
work with the Association and make suggested changes to your
plans to enhance the neighborhood. They sincerely
appreciate the efforts you have made and look forward to
your new project .
Again, thank you for your interest and concern.
Sincerely,
Z "-Nth
hwood Chalets
AssociationManager
RECEIVED
MAY 2 4 1993
/:00/p,
CITY CLERK
SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA
2251 Broad Street, Suite.C, San Luis Obispo, California 93401 Phone(805) 543-8341
MLITING AGENDA
AVILA DATE Li92ITEM #
BEACH
REALTY
INCORPORATED
COPiS
❑' Action F11
May i s, 1993 (rcoascl 49INL
DSR.
�cAO DIR.
12'ACAO ❑ FRE .r r.
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPOAIMRINEY 1-1MID.-K
990 Palm Street fid"� `{�O��C. ❑ POLKEa-L
❑ t 4GPi I.MAIM Cl RIC DIR
San Luis Obispo, California 93401 : ❑� /rae ;rL El LMLD,�
Dear Staff: _
As you may know, I represent the owners of Southwood Project, a
California Limited Partnership, dba Parkwood Village Apartments,
your neighbor.
First of all, I would like to tell you that we are generally in
support of Stan Bell 's project. However, several concerns have
come to light now that I have recently seen the layout of the
subdivision.
Four of the concerns that we have are that we had an agreement with
TRW regarding sharing the cost of the block wall landscaping that
runs between Parkwood Village and your proposed subdivision. This
cost was to be reimbursed to us at the time of construction of the
TRW property. Also at the time of construction, TRW was to
maintain the shrubs and bushes that we had planted on the. TRW
property.
Third, is the issue of the drain pipe that needed to be installed
to collect all of the surface run off on your property at the
southeast corner of your property. As you may know, there is a
catch basin with a large corrugated metal pipe running to the
creek. This,was installed at- the time--of our construction so that
our parking lot and landscaping would not have to be dug up at a
future point in time for its installation. I am not sure whether
or not this was at entirely our cost or if there was a shared
responsibility at the time of the TRW construction. Also, we are
concerned about future maintenance, especially during construction,
as we do not want it filled with -mud or debris and have water over
run our property. .
Fourth, is the maintenance of the private drive in the easement
along the southern property line.
I would like the City to address the concern of maintenance of the
landscaping, the storm drain and driveway in the conditions of
approval of this project to be at the expense of. this new project.
MAY i R tout
v3L{3
CITY CLERK POM Ojjice BOX Z8.3 is051 5444MM VO
J
S .AN LUIS OBISPO. 4 San Luis Obispo.C4&WM Far(MS)544-1177 OLI
City of San Luis Obispo
May 18, 1993
Page Two
Also, I believe the park fees are still owing as to this lot on the
original subdivision. Lastly, I believe there is a traffic signal
agreement to be entered into with the new owners.
If you have any information regarding these four issues, please do
not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
AVILA BEACH REALTY, INC.
Patr ck N. Smith
President
:sln
fn:swood\city
l
I TING AGENDA
WE ITEM #.
�iil�IIIIIILII IIII.I������II���II�I�11111I1IIII III at of sAn-tuis OBISPO
990 Palm Street/Post Office Box 8100 • San Luis Obispo, CA 93403.8100
COPIPSTO:
❑''D�,iotes Action ❑ FYI
t� Coundl ET/CDD DIR
M E M O R A N D U M O ❑ FIN.D:R
ACAO ElFIRECHIEF
ATTOA jzy 13 FW DIELCLc^tK/ORIG. ❑ POLICE CK
May 21, 1993 ❑ uGMTT -24 ❑ wGDIR
❑ L gF FF, O i3T7LD1.1
TO: City Council
VIA: John Dunn, City Administrator
ID
FROM: Arnold Jonas, Community Development Director
BY: Judith Lautner, Associate Planner^
SUBJECT: Tract 13-93 (County file no. 2132)
1190 Laurel Lane
Revised conditions
After transmission of the staff report on this project, to be heard
by the Council at its May 25 meeting, two issues remained
unresolved. The following paragraphs discuss the undergrounding
and affordable housing issues and recommend changes to two
conditions.
1. Underaroundincr. The minimum length of utility undergrounding
that may be funded through the Public Utility Commissions
Rule 20A is 500 feet. The property frontage is 700 feet. The
Public Works Director is recommending that 500' be funded
through the PUC funds, which will not affect other
undergrounding projects in the city, and that 2001 be funded
by the developer. Therefore, staff recommends that condition
18 be replaced by:
18 . The subdivider shall fund 2/7 of the cost of placing
existing overhead utilities, along the Laurel Lane
frontage, underground, and the City, using PUC Rule 20A
funds, shall pay 5/7 of the cost. The Public Works
Director shall determine how and when the work will be
done, with the aim that it be completed along with other
project improvements.
2. Affordable housing. The staff report failed to include a
discussion of current policy on fee waivers. Based on a 1991
policy document, staff is' now making a change to the
affordable housing recommendation.
There is no policy requiring affordable housing at present.
While the draft land use and housing elements include policies
OThe City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services, programs and activities..
�� Telecommunications Device for the Deaf(805)781-7410.
City Council Memorandum
Tract 2132 (city file 13-93)
Page-2 -
that
age-2 -that will require developers to provide some affordable
housing units or contributions toward affordable projects, the
present general plan elements do not. Therefore, there is no
legal justification for requiring the developer to provide
affordable units as part of this project.
But there is a policy on some fee waivers. In 1991, the CC
adopted a resolution (Resolution 7030) establishing
development review fees, and including the provision that "any
project owned or actively managed by the San Luis Obispo
Housing Authority shall be exempt from all development review
fees. " Therefore, if four of the units are managed by the
Housing Authority, a portion (4/46) of development review fees
should be waived. Staff estimates the waiver (of planning and
engineering development review fees) would be about $1, 000.
According to Council policy, other types of fees and costs are
not subject to the waiver requirement. To establish a greater
fee waiver would involve a change in current policy.
Staff is recommending a change. obviously, a waiver of $1,000
will not offset the loss to the developer. To be consistent
with the above policy, staff now recommends that condition no. 11
24 be deleted. If the developer is interested in providing
some long-term affordable units, he may wish to work with the
City (including the Housing Authority) to obtain grants.
Alternatively, if the developer agrees, condition 24 may be
modified to read as follows:
24. Four dwellings, roughly 10 percent of this project, shall
be affordable to moderate-income families (families with
a maximum income of 1200 of the median) . The City hereby
waives development review fees for these four lots,
consistent with Resolution no. 7030. To ensure the
continued affordability of the units, resale controls
shall be established, with profits beyond a certain
equity deposited into an affordable housing fund,
negotiated with and managed by the Housing Authority.
The City council may act as originally recommended. In spite
of previous policy, the Council may choose to subsidize some
of. the units in this project, as previously recommended. If
the Council feels the provision of affordable for-sale homes
is worth the loss of some fees, staff recommends that a
portion of utility undergrounding costs or traffic impact fees
be waived, as such waivers would delay capitol projects rather
than affect revenues for everyday City operations.