Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/19/1999, 7 - REQUEST FOR A TENTATIVE MAP TO CREATE A 10-UNIT RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM SUBDIVISION (TR 138-99;680 FOOTHILL BLVD) councit "RtiD. 199 j acEnbA nEpout ��. - - --- CITY O F SAN LUIS O B I S P O FROM: Arnold Jonas, Community Development Director Prepared By: Pam Ricci, Associate Planner SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR A TENTATIVE MAP TO CREATE A 10-UNIT RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM SUBDIVISION (TR 138-99; 680 FOOTHILL BLVD). CAO RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Draft Resolution "A" approving the tentative map which creates a ten-unit residential condominium subdivision located on the north side of Foothill Blvd., west of Ferrini Road, with conditions, as recommended by the Planning Commission. DISCUSSION Situation The applicant, Rick Porter, is requesting approval of a tentative map to allow the creation of a 10-unit residential condominium project which has been named "Cerro Vista Cottages". Site development and building design for a 10-unit residential project has already been approved by the Architectural Review Commission(ARC). Working drawings for the project have been submitted for a building permit and issuance of that permit is imminent. The proposed tentative map will create the lot lines which will allow units to be independently sold. Planning Commission Review of Tentative Map On September 22, 1999, the Planning Commission on a 5-0-2 vote (Chairperson Ready refraining due to a potential conflict of interest, and Commr. Loh absent), recommended approval of the tentative tract map to the City Council, based on findings, and with 13 conditions. Commission discussion focused on the timing of the construction of the proposed sound wall at the rear of the property, the preservation of an Ash tree and a Liquidamber tree, the potential for the downstairs room to be used as an additional bedroom, and the location of the proposed affordable dwelling unit. The attached Planning Commission report further describes the project and evaluates various issues. Sound Wall With its review of the project, the Architectural Review Commission (ARC) added a condition which required the installation of a noise wall along the north and west property lines of the site. The Planing Commission was concerned about the timing of the installation of the walls and added a condition requiring the rear property line sound wall to be constructed prior to new building construction. 7-1 Council Agenda Report—Cerro Vista Cottages Tentative Tract Map -TR 138-99 Page 2 Tree Preservation Concerns were voiced that two existing trees that were shown to be retained on plans, a large ash tree on the west side of Unit No.8, and a 20-inch Liquidambar in front of Unit No.1, were in danger of being removed because of their proximity to the proposed units. The Commission modified the wording of Condition No. 3 to allow the Public Works Director to select appropriate compensatory planting for the ash tree should conditions require its removal. Downstairs Bedroom The Planning Commission discussed whether the living room or study area proposed at the ground level of units would be considered a third bedroom. Given the small size of the units, and the motivation to have more than parking and a stairwell entry on the ground floor, the ARC supported the provision of the living area as shown. However, to insure that the living area is utilized for its intended purpose and not used as a third bedroom, the ARC required that the entry actually open into this space, rather than to the threshold of the stairwell. The Planning Commission modified Condition No.l l to add Provision 'T" requiring the project CC&Rs to disclose that the downstairs rooms in the units shall not be used as a bedroom per City requirements. Affordable Dwelling Unit Originally project plans proposed 10 two-bedroom units. When asked for the project's Inclusionary Housing proposal, the applicant submitted a letter indicating that Unit 6 would become a three-bedroom unit and be the designated affordable unit. The Planning Commission reviewed and accepted this proposal. Density Attachment 5 is a letter from a neighbor Mary Parker which notes concerns with other apartment projects in the vicinity and opposes any increase in the population density at the project site. The Planning Commission and ARC considered the concerns of Ms. Parker and other neighbors in rendering their separate decisions supporting the project. The maximum allowed density at the R-4 site is 11.4 units. The proposed project with 9 two- bedroom units and one three-bedroom unit have an equivalent density of 10.5 units which.is in conformance with allowed density. The proposed tentative map does not affect allowed density, but rather creates lot lines to allow the sale of individual units. CONCURRENCES The requirements of various City departments are incorporated into recommended conditions of approval. 7-2 Council Agenda Report—Cerro Vi"sta Cottage`s Tentative Tract Map -TR 138-99 Page 3 ALTERNATIVES 1. The Council may approve the tentative map, with changed conditions. �. The Council may deny the subdivision if it finds it inconsistent with the general plan or the.planned development preliminary map (Draft Resolution "B"). 3. The Council may continue discussion if additional information is needed.. Direction should be given to staff and the applicant. ATTACHMENTS Attachment '1 - Draft Resolutions Attachment 2 - 9-22-99 Planning Commission follow-up letter&.Resolution No. 5267=99. Attachment 3 - Draft Minutes of the 9-22-99 Planning Commission meeting Attachment 4 - Planning Commission Staff Report with attachments for the 9-22-99 meeting Attachment 5 - Letter from neighbor Mary Parker dated 9=16-99 Distributed to Council: Large-scale tentative map subdv\TR 138-99(CC report).doc 7_3 . Draft Resolution"A" RESOLUTION NO. (1999 Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO APPROVING THE TENTATIVE MAP FOR A 10-UNIT RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM SUBDIVISION AT 680 FOOTHILL BOULEVARD (TR 138-99;COUNTY TRACT MAP NO.2338) WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on September 22, 1999, and recommended approval of Tentative Tract Map 138-99; and WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing on October 19, 1999, and has considered testimony of interested parties, the records of the Planning Commission hearing and action, and the evaluation and recommendation of staff; and. . WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the proposed subdivision is consistent with the General Plan, the Zoning Regulations, and other applicable City ordinances; and WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the draft Negative Declaration of environmental impact with Mitigation Measures as prepared by staff and reviewed by the Planning Commission. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. The City Council finds and determines that the project's Negative Declaration with Mitigation Measures adopted on April 19, 1994 adequately addresses the potential significant environmental impacts of the proposed project. The Council hereby determines that the past Negative Declaration with Mitigation Measures is adequate. SECTION 2. Findings. That this Council, after consideration of the Tentative Tract Map 138-99, and the Planning Commission's recommendations, staff recommendations, public testimony, and reports thereof, makes the following findings: 1. The design of the subdivision with its ten lots is consistent with the density and housing policies of the City's General Plan. 2. The site is physically suited for the type and density of development allowed in the R-4 zone and will comply with all applicable City development standards, as conditioned by the Architectural Review Commission (ARC). The ARC approved a minor exception to setback standards (from 14' to 10') to allow front porches of units along Foothill Blvd. to encroach into the street yard. 3. The design of the subdivision will not cause serious health problems or result in significant environmental impacts as outlined in the Negative Declaration with Mitigation Measures prepared for the project(ER 10-94). 7-4 Resolution No. (1999 Series) Page 2 4. The Public Works Department has assured that the design of the subdivision will not conflict with easements for access through(or usage of property within)the proposed subdivision. SECTION 3. Conditions. The tentative map for Tract 138-99 (County Tract Map No. 2338) is approved subject to the following conditions, and one code requirement: Conditions 1. Each lot shall be served with separate water, gas, electric, telephone and cable TV services to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works. A common sewer may be provided to serve all lots. The on-site sewer system shall be privately owned and maintained. 2. The subdivider shall dedicate a 6-foot wide public utility easement and 10-foot wide street tree easement adjacent to Foothill Boulevard. 3. The large evergreen Ash on the west side of the property is to remain and be protected. The Liquid Amber near the front of the property should also be retained. All other trees may be removed. However, in the event that the Ash tree cannot be retained,it may be removed and replaced to the approval of the Public Works Director. 4. The developer shall install tree protection fencing prior to the start of any work (including clearing & grubbing, site clean-up and demolition), to the satisfaction of the City Arborist. Tree protection fencing shall remain intact until the final inspection is approved or upon release by the City Arborist. 5. All boundary monuments, lot comers and centerline intersections, BC's, EC's, etc., shall be tied to the City's Horizontal 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. All coordinates submitted shall be based on the City coordinate system. A 3.5" diameter computer floppy disk, containing the appropriate data compatible with Autocad (Digital Interchange Format, DXF) for Geographic Information System (GIS) purposes, shall be submitted to the City Engineer. 6. The final map shall use the International System of Units (metric system). The English System of Units may be used on the final map where necessary (e.g. - all record data shall be entered on the map in the record units, metric translations should be in parenthesis), to the approval of the Director of Public Works. 7. A public pedestrian easement shall be dedicated adjacent to the driveway to accommodate a sidewalk at the back of the driveway ramp, per City standards. 7-5 Resolution No. (1999 Series) Page 3 8. Additional drainage easements should be created along the Easterly and Westerly property lines where the rear yards drain toward the street. The 20-foot wide access easement through the center of the site shall also include an easement for drainage and utilities. 9. The subdivider shall mitigate potential noise impacts on future residents of the project by constructing all units in accordance with State standards for maximum interior noise levels, as recommended by Initial Study ER 10-94. 10. The project's overall energy efficiency shall exceed applicable State standards by an amount equal to or greater than the energy savings which would be attributed to provision of solar water heating. 11. Subdivider shall prepare conditions, covenants, and restrictions (CC&R's) to be approved by the Community Development Director prior to final map approval. CC&R's shall contain the following provisions: a. Creation of a homeowners' association to enforce the CC&R's and provide for professional, perpetual maintenance of all common areas including private driveways, drainage, on-site sewer facilities, parking lot areas, walls and fences, lighting, and landscaping. b. Grant to the city the right to maintain common areas if the homeowners' association fails to perform,and to assess the homeowners' association for expenses incurred, and the right of the city to inspect the site at mutually agreed times to assure conditions of CC&.R's and final map are being met. c. No parking except in approved, designated spaces. d. Grant to the city the right to tow away vehicles on a complaint basis which are parked in unauthorized places. e. No outdoor storage of boats, campers, motorhomes, or trailers nor long-term storage of inoperable vehicles. f. No outdoor storage by individual units except in designated storage areas. g. No change in City-required provisions of the CC&R's without prior City Council approval. h. 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. 7-6 Resolution No. (1999 Series) Page 4 i. Provision of appropriate "no parking" signs and red-curbing along interior roadways as required by the City Fire Department. j. CC&R's shall not prohibit location of solar clothes drying facilities in private yards which are substantially screened from view. k. State that the adjacent property is zoned R-4 and may in the future be developed with more intensive land uses than presently exist on the site. 1. The CC&R's shall disclose that the downstairs rooms in the units shall not be used as a bedroom per City requirements. 12. Subdivider shall install a unit identification plan with directory at the project's entrance, to the approval of the Community Development Director. 13. The rear property line sound wall shall be constructed prior to new building construction. Code Requirement 1. The applicant shall pay park-in-lieu fees consistent with SLO Municipal Code Section 16.40.080. Upon motion of , seconded by , and on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: the foregoing resolution was adopted this day of 1999. Mayor Allen Settle 7-7 Resolution No. (1999 Series) Page-5. ATTEST: Lee Price, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: G. rge ' n, Attorney TR`UM9 wortu dos-approve map).doc -8 Draft Resolution `B" RESOLUTION NO. (1999 Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO DENYING THE TENTATIVE MAP FOR A 10-UNIT RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM SUBDIVISION AT 680 FOOTHILL BOULEVARD (TR 138-99;COUNTY TRACT MAP NO.2338) WHEREAS, the Planning commission conducted a public hearing on September 22, 1999, and recommended approval of Tentative Tract Map 138-99; and WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing on October 19, 1999, and has considered testimony of interested parties, the records of the Planning Commission hearing and action, and the evaluation and recommendation of staff, and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the proposed subdivision is not consistent with the [General Plan], [the Zoning Regulations], and other applicable City ordinances; and WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the draft Negative Declaration of environmental impact with Mitigation Measures as prepared by staff and reviewed by the Planning Commission. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. Findings. That this Council, after consideration of Vesting Tentative Tract Map 138-99, and the Planning Commission's recommendations, staff recommendations, public testimony, and reports thereof, makes the following findings: [Council specifies findings] SECTION 2. Denial. The tentative map for Tract 138-99 (County Tract Map No. 2338) is hereby denied. Upon motion of , seconded by , and on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: the foregoing resolution was adopted this day of , 1999. 7-9 Resolution No. (1999 Series) Page 2 Mayor Allen Settle ATTEST: Lee Price, City deik APPROVED AS TO FORM: Jeffrey G. Jorgensen, City Attorney TR 138-99(Porte? condos-deny map).doc 7=10 A tachment 2 city of sAn X15 oBispo 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 September 28, 1999 Steve Frank 440 Country Club Drive San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 SUBJECT: TR 138-99- 680 Foothill Boulevard Request for tentative map approval for a 10-unit residential condominium subdivision Dear Mr. Frank: The Planning Commission,at its meeting of September 22, 1999, recommended that the City Councit approve your request, based on findings and subject to conditions, as noted in the attached resolution. The action of the Planning Commission is a recommendation to the City Council and, therefore, is not final. This matter has been tentatively scheduled for public hearing before the City Council on October 19, 1999. This date, however, should be verified with the City Clerk's office at (805) 781-7102. If you have any questions, please contact Pam Ricci at (805) 781-7168. Sincerely, Ron d G. WhisZan Development Review Manager cc: SLO County Assessor's Office Richard Porter 846 Higuera Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Attachment: Resolution No. 5267-99 © The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services programs and activities" _1 Telecommunications Device for the Deaf(805)781-7410. SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 5267-99 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo did conduct a public hearing in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on September 22, 1999, pursuant to a proceeding instituted under application TR 138-99, Steven Frank/Richard Porter, applicant. ITEM REVIEWED: Request for tentative map approval for a 10-unit residential condominium subdivision. DESCRIPTION: On file in the office of Community Development Department, City Hall. GENERAL LOCATION: 680 Foothill Boulevard WHEREAS, said Commission as a result of its inspections, investigations, and studies made by itself, and in behalf of testimonies offered at said hearing has established existence of the following circumstances: Findings 1. The design of the subdivision with its ten lots is consistent with the density and housing policies of the City's General Plan. 2. The site is physically suited for the type and density of development allowed in the R-4 zone and will comply with all applicable City development standards, as conditioned by the Architectural Review Commission (ARC). The ARC approved a minor exception to setback standards (from 14' to 10') to allow front porches of units along Foothill Blvd. to encroach into the street yard. 3. The design of the subdivision will not cause serious health problems or result in significant environmental impacts as outlined in the Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for the project (ER 10-94). 4. The Public Works Department has assured that the design of the subdivision will not conflict with easements for access through .(or usage of property within) the proposed subdivision. 7-12 Resolution No. 5267-99 Page 2 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that TR 138-99 be approved, subject to the following conditions: Conditions 1. Each lot shall be served with separate water, gas, electric, telephone and cable TV services to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works. A common sewer may be provided to serve all lots. The on-site sewer system shall be privately owned and maintained. 2. The subdivider shall dedicate a 6-foot wide public utility easement and 10-foot wide street tree easement adjacent to Foothill Boulevard. 3. The large evergreen Ash on the west side of the property is to remain and be protected.The Liquid Amber near the front of the property should also be retained. All other trees may be removed. However, in the event that the Ash tree cannot be retained, it may be removed and replaced to the approval..of the Public Works Director. 4. The developer shall install tree protection fencing prior to the start of any work (including clearing & grubbing, site clean-up and demolition),to the satisfaction of the City Arborist. Tree protection fencing shall remain intact until the final inspection is approved or upon release by the City Arborist. 5. All boundary monuments, lot corners and centerline intersections, BC's, EC's, etc., shall be tied to the City's Horizontal 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. All coordinates submitted shall be based on the City coordinate system. A 3.5" diameter computer floppy disk, containing the appropriate data compatible with Autocad (Digital Interchange Format, DXF) for Geographic Information System (GIS) purposes, shall be submitted to the City Engineer. 6. The final map shall use the International System of Units (metric system). The English System of Units may be used on the final map where necessary (e.g. - all record data shall be entered on. the map in the record units, metric translations should be in parenthesis), to the approval of the Director of Public Works. 7. A public pedestrian easement shall be dedicated adjacent to the driveway to accommodate a sidewalk at the back of the driveway ramp, per City standards. 8. Additional drainage easements should be created along the Easterly and Westerly property lines where the rear yards drain toward the street. The 20-foot wide access easement through the center of the site shall also include an easement for drainage and utilities. 7-13 Resolution No. 5267-99 Page 3 9. The subdivider shall mitigate potential noise impacts on future residents of the project by constructing all units in accordance with State standards for maximum interior noise levels, as recommended by Initial Study ER 10-94. 10. The project's overall energy efficiency shall exceed applicable State standards by an amount equal to or greater than the energy savings which would be attributed to provision of solar water heating. 11. Subdivider shall prepare conditions, covenants, and restrictions (CC&R's) to be approved by the Community Development Director prior to final map approval. CC&R's shall contain the following provisions: a. Creation of a homeowners' association to enforce the CC&R's and provide for professional, perpetual maintenance of all common areas including private driveways, drainage, on-site sewer facilities, parking .lot areas, walls and fences, lighting, and landscaping. b. Grant to the city the right to maintain common areas if the homeowners' association fails to perform, and to assess the homeowners' association for expenses incurred, and the right of the city to inspect the site at mutually agreed times to assure conditions of CC&R's and final map are being met. c. No parking except in approved, designated spaces. d. Grant to the city the right to tow away vehicles on a complaint basis which are parked in unauthorized places. e. No outdoor storage of boats, campers, motorhomes, or trailers nor long-term storage of inoperable vehicles. f. No outdoor storage by individual units except in designated storage areas. g. No change in City-required provisions of the CC&R's without prior City Council approval. In. 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. i. Provision of appropriate "no parking" signs and red-curbing along interior roadways as required by the City Fire Department. j. CC&R's shall not prohibit location of solar clothes drying facilities in private yards which are substantially screened from view. 7-14 Resolution No. 5267-99 Page 4 k. State that the adjacent property is zoned R-4 and may in the future be developed with more intensive land uses than presently exist on the site. I. The CC&R's shall disclose that the downstairs rooms in the units shall not be used as a bedroom per City requirements. 12. Subdivider shall install a unit identification plan with directory at the project's entrance, to the approval of the Community Development Director. 13. The rear property line sound wall shall be constructed prior to new building construction. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council, approval of the proposal. The foregoing resolution was approved by the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo on motion by Commr. Senn, seconded by Commr. Peterson, and on a separate roll call vote: AYE S: Commrs. Jeffrey, Whittlesey, Senn, Peterson and Cooper NOES: None ABSTAIN: Commr. Ready ABSENT: Commr. Loh Arnold B. Jonas, Secretary Planning Commission Dated: September 22, 1999 7-15 Draft Planning Commission Minutes Attachment 3 September 22, 1999- Page 3 Commissioners Peterson and Jeffrey accepted the suggested amendments to the motion. AYES: Commissioner Peterson, Jeffrey, Whittlesey, Senn, Cooper, and Chairman Ready NOES: None REFRAIN: None The motion carried 6-0-0. Commissioner Loh was absent. COMMENT AND DISCUSSION: 4. Staff—Agenda Forecast: October 13 — Three Road Abandonments, General Plan Direction on an Auto Sales Proposal, and Broad St. PD/Annexation. October 27 — One Road Abandonment, Judson Terrace Proposal, Prado Road Alignment, and Historical District Rezone. 2. 680 Foothill Boulevard: TR 138-99: Request for tentative map approval for a 10- unit residential condominium subdivision; R-4 zone; Steven Frank, applicant. Chairman Ready refrained from participation due to a potential conflict of interest. Vice Chairman Jeffrey conducted the hearing. Planning Technician Codron presented the staff report and recommended a Planning Commission recommendation to the City Council of approval of the tentative map based on findings and subject to conditions. Commissioner Senn asked if there are any unresolved City staff or applicant issues. Manager Whisenand replied no. Commissioner Cooper asked if there was discussion about the possibility of a ground- level bedroom conversion. Planning Technician Codron stated that initially the project plans showed the front door opening into a foyer; the ARC conditioned the project plans to require that the front door open into the main room to help eliminate this concern. Commissioner Peterson had staff explain where the sound wall will be located. There were no further comments or questions and the public comment session was opened. 7-16 Draft Planning Commission Mi.._.as September 22, 1999-Page 4 PUBLIC COMMENT: Steven Frank, 440 Country Club Drive, project engineer, concurred with the findings and conditions and asked that the Commission recommend project approval to the City Council. Mark Rawson, 444 Higuera Street, project architect, stated the one three-bedroom unit is an affordable dwelling unit. He described the floor plan and stated the affordable unit was chosen to have three bedrooms because it was felt it would be more desirable. He referred to Condition 3, page 5, and stated Public Works felt because of the proximity of the tree to the dwelling, they are not sure whether the tree can be saved. He asked that the condition be modified to reflect if the tree cannot be saved, a tree replacement will occur to the satisfaction of the City Arborist. Ed Hasenkampf, 169 and 173 Ferrini Road property owner, wanted to be assured the sound wall was included and asked what the height of it would be. He requested the sound wall be constructed before any major construction starts. Mr. Rawson stated the sound wall will be six feet in height, constructed of reinforced concrete. Mr. Hasenkampf asked if this plan will be more obstructive to views that the original plan submitted. Mr. Rawson stated this project will have a greater setback from the property line and will be one foot lower than the original plan. Mr. Frank noted there is a substantial foundation and concrete structure at the back of the property that will need to be demolished prior to construction of the sound wall. Mr. Rawson stated Mr. Porter has graciously accepted the idea of placing the sound wall prior to the construction of the units in the spirit of cooperation with the neighbors. Seeing no further speakers come forward, the public comment session was closed. COMMISSIONER COMMENT: Commissioner Senn moved to recommend to the City Council approval of Tentative Map TR 138-99 based upon the findings and conditions as stated with the addition (1) of Condition 13 which would reflect that the rear property sound wall will be constructed as a part of the initial phase of the construction-demolition so as to minimize impact on surrounding properties. (2) that the CC&Rs acknowledge that adiacent property is zoned R-1 and that there may be more intense development on adjacent property in the future and (3) and that Condition 3 be modified so that in the event that it is determined by the Public Works Department that the evergreen ash cannot be effectively retained, 7-17 Draft Planning Commission Mie rtes September 22, 1999- Page 5 it may be removed and a tree replacement program satisfactory to the Public Works Director be substituted in its place. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Peterson. Commissioner Cooper suggested including a condition reflecting that the ground floor den cannot be used as a bedroom. Commissioner Senn did not accept the amendment due to enforcement concerns. Commissioner Whittlesey felt Commissioner Cooper's suggestion could be addressed through the CC&Rs. Commissioner Senn and Peterson accepted the amendment to the motion to include an Item L which will address that the CC&Rs disclose prohibition against bedroom use in the ground floor den. AYES: Commissioners Senn, Peterson, Whittlesey, Cooper, and Vice Chairman Jeffrey NOES: None REFRAIN: Chairman Ready The motion carried 6-0-1. Commissioner Loh was absent. ADJOURNMENT: With no further business before the Commission, the meeting adjourned at 8:04 p.m. to the next regular meeting scheduled for October 13, 1999, at 7:00 p.m. in Council Chambers. Respectfully submitted, Leaha K. Magee Recording Secretary 7-18 . Attachment 4 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT ITEM#2 BY: Pam Ricci, Associate Planner PF . TING DATE: September 22, 1999 FROM: Ron Whisenand, Development Review Manage FILE NUMBER: TR 138-99 (County Tract Map No. 2338) PROJECT ADDRESS: 680 Foothill Blvd. SUBJECT: TR 138-99 - request for a tentative map to create an ten-unit residential condominium subdivision on the north side of Foothill Blvd., west of Ferrini Road. SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION Recommend that the City Council approve the tentative map, based on findings, and subject to conditions. BACKGROUND Situation The applicant, Rick Porter, is requesting approval of a tentative map to allow the creation of a 10-unit residential condominium project which has been named "Cerro Vista Cottages". The project is a planned unit development or fee simple type of condominium where individual lots, often referred to as "postage stamp" lots,are created. With this type of condominium,the property owner has title to the unit and the small plot on which it sits, as well as record interest in the project's common areas. Site development and building design for a 10-unit residential project has already been approved by the Architectural Review Commission (ARC) as discussed below. Working drawings for the project have been submitted for a building permit and issuance of that permit is imminent. The proposed tentative map will create the lot lines which will allow units to be independently sold. Previous Review On October 5, 1998, the ARC: reaffirmed the previously-approved Negative Declaration for the project (an earlier subdivision and architectural plans had been approved for the site in 1994): granted final approval to the project for a 10-unit residential development, based on findings, and with 7 conditions, and 6 code requirements; and approved a street yard setback exception to allow entry features of the two units facing the street to encroach slightly into the street yard. The Commission added a condition at the meeting which required the installation of a sound wall along the north and west property lines of the site. A majority of the Commission felt that the revised project consisting of all detached living units was a better design than previously approved plans. Other reasons that the Commission supported the project were that it was consistent with density standards and proposed less 7-20 Tract Map No. 138-99 Page 2 building coverage, more open space, more guest parking and a lowered overall building height than the previously-approved project. Several neighbors attended the meeting and spoke out on a variety of concerns including parking, traffic and noise. Several of those who spoke had been actively involved during the review of the previous project. Most of the speakers mentioned concerns that the housing would ultimately be occupied by students. Data Summary Address: 680 Foothill Blvd. Applicant: Richard H. Porter Representative: Steve Frank Zoning: High-Density Residential (R-4) General Plan: High Density Residential Environmental status: The City Council approved a Negative Declaration with Mitigation Measures for the previously proposed project on the site on April 19,1994. Project action deadline: October 9, 1999 Site Description The fairly flat, rectangular site contains 20,690 square feet (0.47 acre) of lot area. It is presently developed with a house and a triplex that will be removed to accommodate proposed development The site is surrounded by houses and apartments. Proiect Description The ten, detached two-bedroom units are proposed on either side of a 16-foot wide private driveway. Each unit has a two-car garage and four guest parking spaces are provided. A paved turnaround area is provided at the end of the driveway. Each unit has its own ground level private yard area. Two common open space areas are proposed; one, located between Units 3 and 4, is improved with paving and benches, and the other, located between Units 7 and.8, is landscaped. Living units are in a more compact form than those previously proposed to both maximize the number of units and open space provided in the project. To minimize building coverage, units are designed with most of the living space above garages. Proposed units, with only a total of 900 square feet of floor area each, are quite small. The project designer wanted to create some entry space at the ground level and still keep building footprints compact. To have.some sense of connection between the two levels of the building, the designer created a ground floor living room or study just off the entry that is linked with the bulk of the upper floor living spaces through a staircase. The biggest difference between the currently proposed project and plans previously approved for the site in 1994 is that there are 10 units total, rather than 8, and all of the units are detached. These changes at first glance would seem to be an intensification of the site that would be 7-21 Tract Map No. 138-99 Page 3 considered detrimental in teras of previously-raised issues with density and massing. However, the ARC in approving the project development plans found in comparing the two projects that there were actually improvements in terms of less building coverage (33% v. 37%), more available guest parking (4 spaces v. 2 spaces), lower building height (25' v. 26') and more open space provided. Previously-approved project plans in 1994 showed four two-story buildings each containing two 2-bedroom units. The applicant, who has developed other similar residential projects in the City, has found that detached units are more desirable and marketable today. EVALUATION Section 66474 of the California Government Code specifies the findings for approval of a tentative map. These findings include: A. The proposed tentative map is consistent with the General Plan; B. The site is physically suitable for the type and density of development; C. The design of the subdivision will not cause substantial environmental damage or cause serious public health problems; and D. The design of the subdivision will not conflict with public easements through or within the property. The General Plan land use designation for the subject property is High Density Residential with a maximum allowable density of 24 units per acre. The project site with an area.of 0.47 acres has a maximum allowed density of 11.4 units (0.47 acre x 24 units/acre = 11.4 units). All of the proposed two-bedroom units have an equivalent density of 1.00 unit: Therefore, proposed project density is 10 units and conforms with the site's R-4 zoning. In addition to compliance with General Plan density provisions,the development will meet goals and policies of the City's Land Use and Housing Elements. In general, these policies encourage residential development with varying densities and characteristics. The proposed development will provide housing opportunities that meet these policies and objectives including an affordable housing unit consistent with the City's incusionary housing ordinance (see attached drag agreement). The property is zoned R-4, which is the most intensive residential zoning within the City. The purposes of the R-4 district are to "provide housing opportunities for smaller households desiring little private open space and to provide various types of group housing. It is further intended to allow for concentrations of housing close to concentrations of employment and college enrollment, in areas largely committed to high-density residential development." The applicant's proposed development complies with the purpose of the R-4 zoning district. In addition to meeting the purpose and intent of the R-4 zoning district,, the proposed development will comply with all applicable parking, height, and coverage requirements of the City's Zoning Regulations. The project also complies with all applicable yard standards with one exception. In its consideration of the project, the ARC approved a minor exception to setback 7-22 Tract Map No. 138-99 Page 4 standards (from 14' to 10') to allow front porches of units along Foothill Blvd. to encroach into the street yard. The development as conditioned will comply with the City's condominium regulations. The project complies with storage area requirements (shown in garages) and more than amply provides qualifying private and common open space areas. In lieu of required solar collectors for water heating, the applicant intends to provide equivalent energy savings to meet the intent of the requirement. Plans submitted for a building permit include more insulation and high-efficiency water and space heating equipment to achieve additional energy savings which will ultimately be to the approval of the Chief Building Official. As a condition of the building permit for the project, a solid waste recycling plan for recycling discarded materials, such as concrete, sheetrock, wood, and metals, from the construction site is required to the approval of the Community Development Director. Individual units as detached residences would have their own waste wheelers for garbage and recycling bins. OTHER DEPARTMENT COMMENTS The comments from other departments have either been incorporated into conditions or code requirements of the previous ARC approval, or are incorporated into recommended tentative map conditions. ALTERNATIVES The Commission may continue consideration of the tentative map if additional information is necessary to make a recommendation on the map to the Council. The Commission may also recommend denial of the tentative map, if findings for approval can not be supported. State law limits the City's authority to reduce the number of units in a project which meets minimum standards of local ordinances. Unit reductions may be imposed only if the proposed project would have a specific, adverse effect upon the public health or safety [Govt. Code Sec. 65589.56)]. The laws do not limit authority to require changes which do not affect the number of units,such as the size of individual units, site planning, unit appearance,etc. RECOMMENDATION Recommend that.the City Council approve the tentative map for TR 138-99 (County Tract Map No.2338),based on the following findings,and subject to the following conditions: Fin ' s 1. The design of the subdivision with its ten lots is consistent with the density and housing policies of the City's General Plan. 2. The site is physically suited for the type and density of development allowed in the R-4 zone and will comply with all applicable City development standards, as conditioned by the Architectural Review Commission (ARC). The ARC approved a minor exception to setback 7-23 Tract Map No. 138-99 Page 5 standards (from 14' to 10') to allow front porches of units along Foothill Blvd. to encroach into the street yard. 3. The design of the subdivision will not cause serious health problems or result in significant environmental impacts as outlined in the Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for the project (ER 10-94). 4. The Public Works Department has assured that the design of the subdivision will not conflict with easements for access through (or usage of property within) the proposed subdivision. Conditions 1. Each lot shall be served with separate water, gas, electric, telephone and cable TV services to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works. A common sewer may be provided to serve all lots. The on-site sewer system shall be privately owned and maintained.. 2. The subdivider shall dedicate a 6' wide public utility easement and 10' wide street tree easement adjacent to Foothill Blvd. 3. The large evergreen Ash on the west side of the property is to remain and be protected. The Liquidamber near the front of the property should also be retained. All other trees may be removed. 4. The developer shall install tree protection fencing prior to the start of any work (including clearing & grubbing, site clean-up and demolition), to the satisfaction of the City Arborist. Tree protection fencing shall remain intact until the final inspection is approved or upon release by the City Arborist. 5. All boundary monuments, lot comers and centerline intersections, BC's, EC's, etc., shall be tied to the City's Horizontal 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. All coordinates submitted shall be based on the City coordinate system. A 3.5" diameter computer floppy disk, containing the appropriate data compatible with Autocad (Digital Interchange Format, DXF) for Geographic Information System (GIS) purposes, shall be submitted to the City Engineer. 6. The final map shall use the International System of Units (metric system). The English System of Units may be used on the final map where necessary (e.g. -all record data shall be entered on the map in the record units, metric translations should be in parenthesis), to the approval of the Director of Public Works. 7. A public pedestrian easement shall be dedicated adjacent to the driveway to accommodate a sidewalk at the back of the driveway ramp, per City standards. 7-24 Tract Map No. 138-99 Page 6 8. Additional drainage easements should be created along the Easterly and Westerly property lines where the rear yards drain toward the street. The 20-foot wide access easement through the center of the site shall also include an easement for drainage and utilities. 9. The subdivider shall mitigate potential noise impacts on future residents of the project by constructing all units in accordance with State standards for maximum interior noise levels, as recommended by Initial Study ER 10-94. 10. The project's overall energy efficiency shall exceed applicable State standards by an amount equal to or greater than the energy savings which would be attributed to provision of solar water heating. 11. Subdivider shall prepare conditions, covenants, and restrictions (CC&R's) to be approved by the Community Development Director prior to final map approval. CC&R's shall contain the following provisions: a. Creation of a homeowners' association to enforce the CC&R's and provide for professional, perpetual maintenance of all common areas including private driveways, drainage, on-site sewer facilities, parking lot areas, walls and fences, lighting, and landscaping. b. Grant to the city the right to maintain common areas if the homeowners' association fails to perform, and to assess the homeowners' association for expenses incurred, and the right of the city to inspect the site at mutually agreed times to assure conditions of CC&R's and final map are being met. c. No parking except in approved, designated spaces. d. Grant to the city the right to tow away vehicles on a complaint basis which are parked in unauthorized places. e. No outdoor storage of boats, campers, motorhomes, or trailers nor long-term storage of inoperable vehicles. f. No outdoor storage by individual units except in designated storage areas. g. No change in city-required provisions of the CC&R's without prior City Council approval. h. 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. i. Provision of appropriate "no parking" signs and red-curbing along interior roadways as required by the City Fire Department. 7-25 Tract Map No. 138-99 Page 7 j. CC&R's shall not prohibit location of solar clothes drying facilities in private yards which are substantially screened from view. 12. Subdivider shall install a unit identification plan with directory at the project's entrance, to the approval of the Community Development Director. Attached: Vicinity map Reduced copy of tentative map Project plans approved by the ARC on 10-5-98 Letter from applicant regarding inclusionary housing requirement ARC 146-98 follow-up letter 10-5-98 ARC Minutes Initial Study ER 10-94 with attached noise analysis subdv\TR 138-99(Portercondos).doc 7-26 PF CMRO ROMAUMOE5 — E Y / Y El ju M R aFiy w •' . ELi R .•�ry� y.•� � caa 0 FOOTM LL R-4 �Y �W��.��i C-� A�V Y• 9 : 'a elf�..5"�Y•4R F • .y't . M.�•, IL \Aunfty 630 Foothill A 0 60 120 180 Feet TR 13399 7-27 K O y ° O f = m r Z < p y 0 Z D r m r T T P b c °o °0 0 m a a 1! N Z S m n p r D u 0 0 D > O > < m > ) D m PTO ) m m O O P ) T r 0 Ar > O P . • (A r y u0i P L m - Z y o 0 i m > > 0 y E = O v ii=. i m N v v y m 2 2 A o m m m y Z O p Z N n T P i P O m 0 y m m m T V m T D r m O > >r m T > 0 m N e • p < y O a < 2 T Z 9 m > P ) O e m y a y r O .r > r m Oy •' u x O m H p m 0 0 O 'T I o y P Z > m y P y D c yy a J T > m T r T ° TOMO p P p A ° D a - A Ol o m >2 0 m m m > O - x r > ym_ P 1 r r I ) e y p .� m OAi > y ) < x sii e i Z > m m 2Oz p = 'a n �' i 1 a e x Y F - c p o- �A il� I v� t E,r ii;• i < r Sy 0 *z m 0 O LJ f• = x o O P= s.0y a m Or B y O H � N89S3'00'4l 99.00' t CD —__ i L'_ i• -� - _Ear 118 \\ a IMIZ hi r -nd� h' r ! © I � OI A I I I T J m > , m m D0 -1M a m F P Z D v o rm 'o ch 0 Li� 1 N 0 Z S 0 1 0 o e N j I m ai { ZD \ l J lZ F r1 _ � 0 a I,^ . e V O N n Z T o III r a 1 c w r D.Z O Z m C �J `y 'y' To : o rl ° N C5-D Z / o m p P r �— • 0 = r- Or A m fTl K TOOZ 0 m m m i , ,o 0T -nZ 0 Z I I w 6d i r> co- � coo N < . mo W m cym pp i D Z D ��1 I I dafr s•o0'E 9/. 0 0 m 12,,TATER Z 1 FOOTHILL BOULEVARD S� 1P'VCG¢,TER F P ` ' I •VR���` �� � moi` kms` 1j,? ! � r �`rte� '.n ;` •ems a � mom gin IN i r r r zw 2 �-. .,. � �, _ f•� 'f 3� irk Or io. is[.�i���rSirL�'.►,-� •.'� �- ids-f'���.�.��I 1 __ a1.�5� rlitLraj 0 l m d 33 L 3 �T Ail v. :I o x a y 0 9 m K '� p • � _ �n $ NN 1 m 6 �t 'J m O Np •G' �[N�O b m � � �. L O q Nb ✓( OD 9 mIq D rc LL $ C co .32 co h R � k 7-30 v =- IN LU �� .1,1� v.�r I ���J J 3 •I� Y CL -a - 3P i. LLI 4] a / m O r - a t � I 7-31 s d ri —_ 1 �NL r II N I s m a to LL Jw - S I 1 7Sid .- 7-1 %S Hill H, :7..- .. __ _ .:. 'mit T .— :w� �•F �'� Yo ti N . 7-32 s La FIA ARCHITECTURAL P R O D U C T I O N SERVICES July 7, 1999 Pamela Ricci,Associate Planner Community Development Department City of San Luis Obispo Re:Draft Agreement for Inclusionary Housing Agreement 680 Foothill Blvd.,San Luis Obispo Project— 10 condominium residential units Dear Pam, In accordance with the Inclusionary Housing Requirement and in order to meet the requirements for this project,the project developer will construct the required number of affordable dwelling units determined as follows. Based on Table 1,General Plan Housing Element,Affordable Housing Requirements,this project will construct 5%moderate cost Affordable Dwelling Units(ADU).For this ten unit project this will require that one unit be constructed as an ADU. All ten units on site will be constructed of equal quality and construction.There will be one affordable unit, to be located on the site plan currently shown as unit 6.The size of the unit is approximately 1002 sf and will contain 3 bedrooms.Terms of affordability will be moderate based on the latest edition of the Table 2 Rent/Sales Affordability Standards for San Luis Obispo.This is anticipated to be the year 2000 published edition.All units will be constructed at the same time.It is anticipated that construction will commence in the fall of 1999 or early 2000.If possible we would ask that the city expedite processing of this application as an incentive. Thank- u, Mark Rawson,AIA APS Architects,Inc. APS ARCHITECTS , INC . 7_33 444 Higuera Strem Ste.201 San Luis Obispo.CA 93401 Tel:(805)541-6294 Fax:(805)541-2739 Architects:Randolph L.Rea.AW•Mark D. Rawson.AIA•Michael Peachey city1� 1S oBispo 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 October 14, 1998 Mark Rawson 444 Higuera Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 SUBJECT: ARC 146-98: 680 Foothill Boulevard Dear Mr. Rawson: The Architectural Review Commission, at its meeting of October 5, 1998, Commission took the following actions on the project: A. Reaffirmed the City Council's prior approval (April 19, 1994) of a Negative Declaration of environmental impact; and B. Granted fmal approval to the project, based on the following findings, and with the following conditions and code requirements. Findings 1. The project complies with the property development standards for the R-4 zone. 2. The proposed scale and design of buildings will be compatible with surrounding residential uses. 3. The project is consistent with General Plan policies which promote the intensification of infill sites and goals to provide a variety of housing types in the community. 4. The project is consistent with goals contained in the City's Architectural Review Guidelines which encourage projects that meet their intended purposes and make good use of the available site. Conditions 1. To address density concerns, main building entries to units shall open directly into ground floor living spaces identified on plans as "formal living or study" areas, rather than into the threshold of the stairwell. 7-34 The 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. ARC 146-98 Page 2 2. The applicant shall modify elevations to better articulate building entries with a small porch or architectural projection. Details of enhanced unit entries shall return to Planning staff for review and approval. 3. To address the concern that the project's street elevation seems to turn its back on public views of the site, the applicant shall reverse the floor plans of Units 1 & 6 so that the more interesting building sides with entries faces the street. 4. The applicant shall install one inverted-"U" style bicycle rack at each of the two common open space areas to accommodate project guests. 5. The final orientations of building walls and window sizes and locations shall be studied by the applicant in more detail with working drawings to minimize overlook concerns to the approval of Planning staff. 6. Submit a more refined landscaping and irrigation plan with plans submitted for a building permit with the following: • retention of the large evergreen ash tree on the west side of the lot; • retention of the Liquidamber tree at the front of the site, if feasible; • installation of 24-inch box street trees (Evergreen Pear); • notes indicating compliance with City requirements to protect existing trees during construction; • design focus on the rear property line planting, development of the two open space areas, and the placement of shrubs and groundcover in conjunction with the suggested revisions to the elevations and entry locations facing the street; and • fencing details and site lighting information. 7. The applicant shall submit additional information regarding the installation of sound walls and landscaping along the north and west property lines of the site to mitigate the transmission of sound and light to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director. Code Requirements 1. The applicant shall install tree protection fencing prior to the start of any work (including clearing& grubbing, site clean-up and demolition)to the satisfaction of the City Arborist. Tree protection fencing shall remain intact until the final inspection is approved or upon release of occupancy by the City Arborist. 2. The demolition of the existing triplex triggers the Utilities Department Sewer lateral Abandonment Policy. This policy states that the sewer lateral must be abandoned at the main prior to demolition unless the lateral is intended for reuse and it passes a video inspection. If the sewer lateral is intended for reuse, the owner shall submit a 7-35 ARC 146-98 Page 3 VHS video tape documenting the internal conditions of the pipe. 3. A water allocation is required. 4. Water and wastewater impact fees shall be paid at the time building permits are issued. 5. The existing fire hydrant (H-07-11, old dry-barrel type) shall be upgraded to the newer wet-barrel hydrant. 6. The buildings shall be constructed to comply with State standards for interior noise levels as discussed in ER 10-94. C. Approved a street yard setback exception to allow a minimum of a 10-foot street yard for the entry features of Units 1 & 6 along Foothill Boulevard, based on the following findings: • the proposed setback exceptions are minor in nature since they apply only to the entry features of units; • the better articulated entry features will enhance the appearance of the project when viewed from Foothill Boulevard. The decision of the Commission is final unless appealed to the City Council within ten working days of the action. An appeal may be filed with the City Clerk by any person aggrieved by a decision of the Commission. While the City's water allocation regulations are in effect, the Architectural Review Commission's approval expires after three years if construction has not started, unless the Commission designated a different time period. On request, the Community Development Director may grant a single one-year extension. If you have questions,please contact Pamela Ricci at 781-7168. Sincerely, Ron d Whisen d Development Review Manager RW:mk cc: Richard Porter 7-36 ARC Minutes October 5, 1998 Page 2 Conditions: 1. Replace proposed lawn area with native groundcovers, shrubs and trees. awn area is I s all be reduced7in sizerom what was onginally proposed. 2. icate plant materials that will cover area shown on project plans as "bark" 3. Subm design of backyard fencing for review and approval by City s 4. Install a si foot wide integral sidewalk and incorporate a foot wide sidewalk along the back of the e i ting driveway ramp, per current City r irements. Code Requirements: 1. One tree is required for e ry 35 lin feet of street frontage. Commr. Rawson seconded the h AYES: Stevens , Rawson, Illingw , Parker NOES: No ABSENT: en, Loh REFRA Regier motion passed. 2. ARC 146-98: 680 Foothill Boulevard: Review of a proposal to develop ten detached single family residences; R-4 zone; Mark Rawson, applicant. Commr. Rawson refrained from participating in the discussion of this item due to a potential conflict of interest_ Pam Ricci, Associate Planner, presented the staff report, recommending: final approval of the project, based on findings, and with conditions and code requirements; reaffirming the City Council's prior approval of a Negative Declaration; and approving a street yard setback exception. Randy Rea, representative, provided a summary of the project history. He explained that the proposed project: minimized windows facing the north; had a similar design concept and colors to Morro Vista; and was planned to allow for condo ownership. He noted the elevations that were labeled rear were really the side elevations rather than the elevations facing the adjacent property line. He agreed with staffs ideas regarding entries and street yard encroachments7.37 ARC Minutes October 5, 1998 Page 3 Anna Barbosa, 234 Ferrini Street, stated the neighborhood is totally overwhelmed with students. She noted that some recent projects on N. Chorro, that were presented at hearings to be for individual homeowners, were now mostly occupied by students. She felt the main project issues were with parking and traffic. Eloise Hasenkampf, 169 Ferrini, indicated that she wrote the protest letter distributed to the ARC and would like to see a sound wall developed along the parking lot. Al Bonin, 140 Ferrini, said parking is a real neighborhood issue. Tom Weatherman, 670 Foothill, was concerned that he didn't receive a notice. Edna Scum, 290 Ferrini, felt noise and traffic issues should be considered. She also stated that she did not receive a notice. Jean Leleaux expressed concern with safety for children and traffic. Ed Hasenkampf, 169 Ferrini, asked about the demographics for the occupied Morro Vista, cited as being a similarly-designed project . Steve Delmartini supported the development of new housing. He mentioned that not all students drive cars to Cal Poly. He noted the project is consistent with City standards. Eloise Hasenkampf noted that the Foothill site zoning had changed since they originally purchased their adjacent property. Edna Scum explained issues with students in the neighborhood. Eleanor Bonin stated most students have cars and the neighborhood has existing parking problems. COMMISSION COMMENTS: Commr. Illingworth commented that it was a better project than previously approved in terms of neighborhood issues. He would like to see a sound wall with more substantial landscaping as a buffer. He expressed concern with the number of units because of past project history. Commr. Parker liked the appearance and massing of the 10-unit project. He agreed with minimizing the units facing the north property line. He suggested a more substantial buffer between the site and adjacent property to the north. Commr. Stevenson liked the concept of single family residences in a multi-family zone. He was critical of the alley design and questioned the marketability of the units. He suggested looking at eight units with larger floor plans. 7-38 ARC Minutes October 5, 1998 Page 4 Commr. Regier said he preferred the direction of the project in terms of architecture and design, but agreed with some of Commr. Stevenson's comments. Commr. Parker said he sees a market for single family detached condos. Commr. Stevenson stated that high density residential along Foothill Boulevard could be expected. Commr. Illingworth said he sees the project getting better and smaller in scale. Commr. Stevenson suggested making larger, more interesting units as single family homes. Commr. Regier stated he was torn regarding the project because of its past history and Council's action to reduce the number of units to eight from ten. Commr. Illingworth suggested looking at larger units. Commr. Regier recommended using the previous project as a baseline. He felt it was proceeding in the right direction in terms of architecture. Commr. Illingworth moved to approve the project as follows: A. Reaffirmed the City Council's prior approval (April 19, 1994) of a Negative Declaration of environmental impact; and B. Grant final approval to the project, based on the following findings, and with the following conditions and code requirements. Findings 1. The project complies with the property development standards for the R-4 zone. 2. The proposed scale and design of buildings will be compatible with surrounding residential uses. 3. The project is consistent with General Plan policies which promote the intensification of infill sites and goals to provide a variety of housing types in the community. 4. The project is consistent with goals contained in the City's Architectural Review Guidelines which encourage projects that meet their intended purposes and make good use of the available site. 7-39 ARC Minutes October 5, 1998 Page 5 Conditions 1. To address density concerns, main building entries to units shall open directly into ground floor living spaces identified on plans as "formal living or study" areas, rather than into the threshold of the stairwell. 2. The applicant shall modify elevations to better articulate building entries with a small porch or architectural projection. Details of enhanced unit entries shall return to Planning staff for review and approval. 3. To address the concern that the project's street elevation seems to turn its back on public views of the site, the applicant shall reverse the floor plans of Units 1 & 6 so that the more interesting building sides with entries faces the street. 4. The applicant shall install one inverted-"U" style bicycle rack at each of the two common open space areas to accommodate project guests. 5. The final orientations of building walls and window sizes and locations shall be studied by the applicant in more detail with working drawings to minimize overlook concerns to the approval of Planning staff. 6. Submit a more refined landscaping and irrigation plan with plans submitted for a building permit with the following: • retention of the large evergreen ash tree on the west side of the lot; • retention of the Liquidamber tree at the front of the site, if feasible; • installation of 24-inch box street trees (Evergreen Pear); • notes indicating compliance with City requirements to protect existing trees during construction; • design focus on the rear property line planting, development of the two open space areas, and the placement of shrubs and groundcover in conjunction with the suggested revisions to the elevations and entry locations facing the street; and • fencing details and site lighting information. 7. The applicant shall submit additional information regarding the installation of sound walls and landscaping along the north and west property lines of the site to mitigate the transmission of sound and light to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director. Code Requirements 1. The applicant shall install tree protection fencing prior to the start of any work (including clearing & grubbing, site clean-up and demolition) to the satisfaction of the City Arborist. Tree protection fencing shall remain intact until the final inspection is approved or..upgt�, release of occupancy by the City Arborist. ARC Minutes October 5, 1998 Page 6 2. The demolition of the existing triplex triggers the Utilities Department Sewer lateral Abandonment Policy. This policy states that the sewer lateral must be abandoned at the main prior to demolition unless the lateral is intended for reuse and it passes a video inspection. If the sewer lateral is intended for reuse, the owner shall submit a VHS video tape documenting the internal conditions of the pipe. 3. A water allocation is required. 4. Water and wastewater impact fees shall be paid at the time building permits are issued. 5. The existing fire hydrant (H-07-11, old dry-barrel type) shall be upgraded to the newer wet- barrel hydrant. 6. The buildings shall be constructed to comply with State standards for interior noise levels as discussed in ER 10-94. C. Approved a street yard setback exception to allow a minimum of a 10-foot street yard for the entry features of Units 1 & 6 along Foothill Boulevard, based on the following findings: • the proposed setback exceptions are minor in nature since they apply only to the entry features of units; • the better articulated entry features will enhance the appearance of the project when viewed from Foothill Boulevard. Commr. Parker seconded the motion. AYES: Illingworth,Parker,Regier NOES: Stevenson ABSENT: Aiken,Loh REFRAIN: Rawson The motion passed. 3. station including removal eaLTOFy 311 ne; n roducts Co., applicant. oe Peggy 7basedon ciate Planner, presented the report recommending final approval to the projecings anLarry Tidtive, ed the project and explained a cealed gutter system. Commr. Pa height of the building. 7-41 city of San tins OBISPO Illi;ll�lilllllli ,; 'i�ii,; ���� INITIAL STUDY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT SITE LOCATION 6' gU t"G0A: 7111d. APPLICATION NO. 711149( PROJEffCTDESCRIPTION GML%o n c/ 4Klliv� 1 � c r. '[ v.}�TJr G In L4, re✓ v n� an 3 Udi 1 7�1c ) rA(J[ 000-1g_ APPLICANT G�t Por 4ir^ STAFF RECOMMENDATION: y XNEGATIVEDECLARATION /\ MITIGATION INCLUDED EXPANDED INITIAL STUDY II REQUIRED ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT REQUIRED PREPAREDBY � "� W <Cc�a �� DATE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT/DIRECTOR'S ACTION: f� 1 DATE AlrGl7� Nt 4-1, 40ee. .s 7' mor ArA6(d G..4S rcc�r SUMMARY OF INITIAL STUDY FINDINGS L DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT AND ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING IL POTENTIAL IMPACT REVIEW POSSIBLE ADVERSE EFFECTS A. COMMUNITY PLANS AND GOALS ................................................... A e B. POPULATION DISTRIBUTION AND GROWTH.......................................... /V o n e C. LAND USE ....................................................................... 06,4e D. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION .............................................. #614 If E. PUBLIC SERVICES ................................................................ Nr60 c F. UTILITIES........................................................................ Yes s # G. NOISE LEVELS ................................................................... H. GEOLOGIC&SEISMIC HAZARDS&TOPOGRAPHIC MODIFICATIONS .................... I. AIR QUALITY AND WIND CONDITIONS............................................... Mgt J. SURFACE WATER FLOW AND QUALITY .............................................. 04A e K PLANT LIFE...................................................................... No+tr L ANIMAL LIFE..................................................................... ilo4 c M. ARCHAEOLOGICAL/HISTORICAL ................................................... $j6Ae N. AESTHETIC ...................................................................... 1�k,6E O. ENERGY/RESOURCEUSE .......................................................... NDAc P. OTHER .......................................................................... /VOAC. IIL STAFF RECOMMENDATION 7-42 *SEE ATTACHED REPORT se e5 I. DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT AND ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING The applicant proposes to demolish a house and a triplex, and to construct eight residential condominium units (planned unit development). The proposed structures would have a total floor area of approximately 7,500 square feet. The units would be located in four two-story buildings containing two 2-bedroom units each. Private and common open space areas would be provided, as required by City regulations. The site is a 20,690 square foot parcel with 99 feet of frontage on Foothill Blvd. The site slopes up from the street at about 2%. Several mature trees are located on the site; no other notable vegetation is present. The site is surrounded by houses and apartments, most of which are one or two stories in height. In addition to environmental review, the project includes review by the City's Architectural Review Commission, and review of a planned unit development tentative tract map by the Planning Commission and City Council. II. POTENTIAL MIPACT REVIEW A. Community Plans and Goals The proposed project is consistent with City land use policies and regulations. No significant effects will occur. The project is located in an area designated for high density residential land use by the City's General Plan. The maximum allowable density in high density residential area is 24 units per acre. The applicant's proposed eight units will result in a density of 17 dwelling units per acre and will be well within the allowable,General Plan density range. It should be mentioned that the draft Land Use Element map indicates the are should remain in high density residential land use in the future. In addition to compliance with General Plan density provisions, the development will meet goals and policies of the City's Land Use and Housing Elements. In general, these policies encourage residential development with varying densities and characteristics. The proposed development will provide those housing opportunities that meet these policies and objectives. B. Population Distribution and Growth The project will be consistent with adopted City policies and regulations relative to residential growth management. No significant adverse effect will occur. C. Land Use The site adjoins low-density residential development at the rear of the site. Although there is .some potential for noise conflicts, this is not judged by staff to constitute a significant land use compatibility impact given the planned high density development planned for this area adjacent to a major City arterial. 7-43 Environmental Analysis - TR/ARC 10-94 February 4, 1994 Page 2 D. Transportation and Circulation The project will have access to Foothill Blvd., a four lane arterial street, via a centrally located driveway. The driveway would be located approximately 150 feet from the nearest intersection,. Ferrini Road. City Engineering staff has concluded that no significant traffic hazards or congestion problems will occur as a result of the project. E. Public Services Existing public service capacities are adequate to handle the project, with the exception noted below under utilities. No significant adverse impact will occur. F. Utilities The safe annual yield from all sources of municipal water supplies has been exceeded in recent years, and an extended drought period has reduced the City's available reserves of water. In response to this situation, the City has adopted water conservation regulations for users currently connected to the municipal water system, and has adopted allocation/retrofitting regulations which are intended to compensate for increased demand from new connections. These regulations are expected to fully mitigate cumulative effects on municipal water supply which . might otherwise occur. Existing utility infrastructure appears adequate to serve the proposed project, with one exception: an additional fire hydrant will be required at the project's street frontage. Mitigation of this deficiency is required by City ordinance as a condition of permit issuance, and no significant impact will occur. G. Noise Levels Noise levels at the front half of the site exceed the level considered normally acceptable for residential use by the City's Noise Element. The attached acoustical study indicates that relatively simple mitigation measures will provide noise levels which are consistent with those standards, for both interior and private outdoor areas. 7-44 Environmental Analysis - TR/ARC 10-94 February 4, 1994 Page 3 Noise impacts are potentially significant. Refer to the attached report dated 12/21/92 for additional analysis. Mitigation includes: . Interior Noise Levels Standard mitigation measures outlined on pages 1-4 and 1-5 of the Acoustical Design Manual of the Noise Element for 5 dB increments beginning at 60 dBA. Future noise levels in the common recreational area are expected to remain within the requirements of the City's Noise Element, and no mitigation measures are required. H. Geologic and Seismic Hazards and Topographic Modifications No significant effects are expected. All future residential structures will need to be constructed in compliance with all applicable building codes. I. Air Quality and Wind Conditions No significant effects are expected. The project is smaller than the threshold identified by the County Air Quality Management District for special studies or mitigation measures. J. Surface Water Flow and Quality No significant adverse effects are expected. K. Plant Life Removal of several mature-trees from the site is not judged to constitute a significant adverse effect. The trees to be removed do not appear to constitute significant wildlife habitat, and greater number of trees will be replanted. L. Animal Life No significant effect is expected. M. ArchaeologicaMEstorical No historic or prehistoric sites have been identified in the immediate vicinity of the project site. No significant effect is expected. 7-45 Environmental Analysis - TR/ARC 10-94 February 4, 1994 Page 4 N. Aesthetic Construction of the proposed two-story structures may affect the views from nearby houses and apartments. Approximately 12 houses and apartments are located within 100 feet of the site, where the effect will be the greatest. Mid-range to long-range views of Cerro San Luis or Bishop Peak slopes and ridge lines could be affected, depending on the location and orientation of the affected units. Short-range views of nearby trees and structures will be affected for all nearby units. Views of the site from Foothill Blvd. and other nearby streets will also be affected. The effect on these views will be lessened by several factors: - The mid-range and long-range views of hillsides are relatively wide. Attractive views on either side of the structures will remain from locations feet or more away from the structures. No formal policies or objective tests have been adopted by the City for evaluating the level of impact on view blockages which should be considered a significant adverse effect on the environment. Nor is it clear that there will be serious.public controversy regarding the level of significance, as referenced in Section 15604(h) of the CEQA Guidelines. It needs to be pointed out that the project involves a reduction of units (ten to eight) and overall height (three stories to two) from that project which received a mitigated negative declaration on September 04, 1992. Numerous public hearings were conducted on an earlier project on this site. The current proposal has taken into consideration many of the aesthetic concerns that have been previously raised by neighbors and the City's Architectural Review Commission (ARC). The current proposal will require review by the ARC as well in order to assure aesthetic quality. O. Energy/Resource Use The project will be required to meet energy efficiency standards established by State law. No significant adverse effect is expected. P. Other No other adverse effects are expected. . 7-46 . Environmental Analysis - TR/ARC 10-94 February. 4, 1994 Page 5 111. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the.Director approve a mitigated negative declaration for the proposed project, incorporating the recommended mitigation measures from the attached noise analysis. 7-47 July 31, 1992 Architectural Production Services 1088 Higuera St. San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 ATTN: W. Randy Rea SUBJECT: Noise Investigation, for 680 Foothill Blvd., City of San Luis Obispo Dear Mr. Rea: At your request,we have conducted an investigation of the levels of noise at the site from traffic on Foothill Blvd. Noise measurements were made during the late afternoon on July 29, 1992 at two locations on the property (Figure 1). Three 5-minute Leq's were measured at Station 1 at the edge of the sidewalk at the front of the lot,and three 5-minute Leq's were measured at Station 2 located near the westerly front comer of the existing residence, 75 feet northerly from Station 1. Instrumentation used in the measurements and terminology used in this report are summarized in Attachment A- 1. 1. Existing Noise Levels The day-night weighted level (Ldn), the standard scale used in the City's Noise Element, is essentially the same as the average noise level(Leq)during the peak-hour of traffic. The procedure used in this evaluation has been to measure 5-minute Leq's,count the number of vehicles passing the meter during the period of measurement, and adjust the measured Leq to the peak-hour Leq using the ratio of the hourly traffic volume during the measurement to the peak-hour volumie. The City's Noise Element,Technical Reference Document,Appendix A,lists the existing average .daily traffic on Foothill Blvd. as 21,000 trips. Assuming 10%of trips occur during the peak hour, this value equates to 2,100 vehicles per hour or 175 vehicles in a 5-minute period. This procedure avoids the problem of seasonal variations in traffic that are probably significant in this area because of Cal Poly traffic. The results of the measurements are summarized as follows: Noise Levels (dBA) Number Adj.to Peak-Hour Station PeriI� Max. Min. of Vehicles Peak Hour Leq(dBA) 1 4:20-4:25 69.2 78.8 50.4 82 +3.3 72.5 4:26-4:31 69.6 80.1 52.7 99 +2.5 72.1 4:32-4:37 68.7 80.3 48.8 85 +3.1 7,8 Average 72.1 - 2 4:39-4:44 56.8 69.2 42.0 83 +3.2 60.0 4:45-4:50 59.4 . 74.6 41.6 109 +2.1 61.5 4:51-4:56 57.6 70.4 40.7 81 +3.3 Q ,Q Average 60.8 Environmental Services P.O. Box 6297, Los Osos, CA 93412 805/5281!W rir -41 _FME= Z CD J. jr 4 RL e) S Ll In CA K1. am Z co A 10"o --- 09, o\ 4 %0 cn C) T-4 tj I I . at dgp S9 cl 0 < C 0 c 0 0 0 0 4% = E.. LI 00 C) C) C3 00 ID 0 E w r I rig NO 0 V1 p 0 G rl C) X50 7. S40 . ... .... ..... q-.Qc sc m a VHP SL-.. a 1'I a 11 1 11 J.a a! 7-49 Of the noise levels reported above,the peak-hour Leq's, which are equivalent to Ldn, are the levels used in the remainder of the analysis. The maximum and minimum values are recorded by the meter,and are reported as a matter of interest 2. Future Noise Levels without Project Structures Noise levels at the site will increase with future increases in traffic on Foothill Blvd. The Noise Element, Technical Reference Document, Appendix A, lists the future average daily traffic on Foothill Blvd. as 34,000 trips. This increase of 62% in traffic will increase noise levels by 2.1 dBA. Based on this information,the future, peak-hour noise levels at Station 1 and Station 2 are estimated as follows: Station Noise Level (dBA) 1 74.2 2 62.9 The level at Station 1 is at the edge of the sidewalk adjacent to Foothill Blvd., and it is unaffected by existing features such as landscaping and adjacent structures (i.e., free field conditions). The level at Station 2 is affected by existing features,primarily on adjacent properties that will remain with project implementation. Measurements at other locations on the frontal portion of the property were not trade because of the effects of existing features that will be removed However,it should be noted that noise levels near the east property line will be reduced by up to 3 dBA by the barrier effect of the sorority house on the adjacent lot. The effects of this structure have been estimated in contouring future noise levels on Figure 1. The noise levels shown on Figure 1 are for future, peak-hour levels of traffic (Leq). They may also be considered Ldn levels, as,for typical hourly traffic distributions as one would expect on Foothill Blvd.,the Ldn is essentially the same as the peak-hour Leq. 3. Future Noise Levels with Project Structures a. Progosed Structures The effects of the structures to be constructed at the site are summarized as follows: • Increased Height: Noise levels tend to increase with increasing height because of decreased ground attenuation and increased effect of reflectivity off the road surface. Based on the range of increase in Table 2-1 of the Noise Element,Policy Document, of 3 dBA and our past experience with measurements, increased noise levels with increased height are estimated as follows: Structural Level Incrzased Noise Level (dBA) Ground Level (garages) 0 Second Level(residential) +2 Third Level(residential) +3 • Barrier Effects of Structures: The structures themselves will block about half the traffic noise along the west wall of Buildings 1, 2 and 3 and along the east wall of Buildings 4,5 and 6. This will reduce the noise levels from the contoured(free field) values by 3 dBA. 3 7-50 Noise reductions along the internal driveway will vary from 3 dBA near the front,. increasing to about 5 dBA near the common recreational area as barrier effects increase. The resulting future noise levels (Ldn) at the outside walls of the structures within the 60 dBA contour(free field) are shown on Figure 1 for each structural level. Values for other points along these walls can be interpolated or extrapolated from the values shown. b. Outside Activity Areas The future noise level at the westerly boundary of the common recreational area without the proposed structures is 62.9 dBA. The proposed structures will reduce the sound pressure level at this point in half which results in a noise level of 59.9 dBA,just within the standard of 60 dBA (Ldn). Noise levels in the central and easterly portions of the common recreational area will be less, generally in the range of 55 to 59 dBA with the lowest levels being close to the north wall of Building 1 where barrier effects are at a maximum. 4. Mitigation Measures a. Interior Noise Levels Standard mitigation measures are provided on pages 1-4 and 1-5 of the Acoustical Design Manual (copies of pages are enclosed) of the Noise Element for 5 dB increments beginning at 60 dBA. The application of these measures can be determined by comparing the values shown on Figure 1 for each structural level to the requirements for the increments in the Design Manual- b. anualb.Outside Activi1y Areas Futurenoise levels in the common recreational area are expected to remain within the requirements of the City's Noise Element,and no mitigation measures are required. Should you have any questions please call me at 528-2187. The Noise Element was only recently adopted, and some clarifications may be required as we gain experience in implementing its requirements. Sincerely, Donald O. Asquith 4 7-51 5. Is the outdoor activity area sloped or not at approximately the same grade as the noise source (with the exception of aircraft noise)? C. Standardized Mitigation Packages The following or a suitable alternative approved by the Building Official shall be required when the future noise exposure is as shown. Interior Mitigation 1. 60 - 65 dB Ldn/CNEL a. Air conditioning or a mechanical ventilation system b. Windows and sliding glass doors mounted in low air infiltration rate frames (0.5 cfm or less, per ANSI specifications) C. Solid core exterior doors with perimeter weather stripping and threshold seals 2. 65-70 dB Ldn/CNEL a. Same as No. la-c b. Exterior walls consist of stucco or brick veneer. Wood siding with a 12" minimum thickness fiberboard ('soundboard') underlayer may also be used. C. Glass in both windows and doors should not exceed 20% of the floor area in a room. d. Roof or attic vents facing the noise source should be baffled (see Appendix C in Acoustical Design Manual for an example of a suitable vent treatment). e. For aircraft noise exposure, same as ard plus: 1) Fireplaces should be fitted with tight-fitting dampers and glass doors. 2) Solid sheeting with a minimum thickness of 1/2" should underlay roofing materials. 3) Sky lights should not be allowed in occupied rooms. 3. 70-75 dB Ldn/CNEL a. Same as No. 2a-e b. The interior sheetrock of exterior wall assemblies should be attached to studs by resilient channels. Staggered studs or double walls are acceptable alternatives. ' IMMODucnoN 1-4 Pott 11, NOISE ELEMENT cENPLAmW9201141.PLN Acousmcat. DEsmGN MAmyl'—L52 C. Window assemblies should have a laboratory-tested STC rating of 30 or greater. (Windows that provide superior noise reduction capability and that are laboratory-tested are sometimes called "sound-rated" windows. In general,these windows have thicker glass and/or increased air space between panes. In contrast, standard energy-conservation double-pane glazing with an 1/8" or 1/4" air space may be less effective in reducing noise from some noise sources than single ane glazing). d. For aircraft noise exposure, same as 3a-c, plus: 1) Fireplaces should not be allowed. 2) Solid sheeting with a minimum thickness of 1/2" should underlay roofing materials. 3) Ceilings should be attached to joists by resilient channels. 4) Sky lights should not be allowed in occupied rooms. PART II, NotsE 1 LEmEtzr 1-5 INTRODucnoN AcoumwAL DEstcN MmuAL GENPt.4N\vno17 l53 Attachment 5 RECEIVED SEP 2 0 1999 GOY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO September 16, 1999 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Pam Ricci Community Development Department 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Re: Application Number TR 138-99 680 Foothill Dear Ms Ricci: I'm sorry that I can not attend the meeting September 22; it is Open House at the Sigh School. I oppose any finther development or increase in population density at 680 Foothill_ This neighborhood is already experiencing the negative impact of single family dwellings immediately adjacent to apartments. My home has apartments directly in back of us,trash is thrown over the fence every weekend. At least two weekends a month the parties are so loud they wake us up, necessitating a call to the police. Vulgar language is shouted on a daily basis. It is definitely not an environment conducive to raising a family. The traffic on Foothill makes it difficult to pull out from Ferrini on to Foothill. Additional dwellings and traffic are not needed. I would appreciate any effort on your part to preserve our neighborhood. Your attention to my concerns is appreciated. Sincerely, Mary N. Parker 539 Cerro Romauldo San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 7-54