HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/04/2000, 4 - REQUEST FOR A VESTING TENTATIVE MAP TO CREATE A 10-LOT RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM SUBDIVISION (TR 4-99; 1720 JOHNSON AVENUE). council """p°Dft
i acEnoa Repom
j
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
O
FROM: Arnold Jonas, Community Development Director
Prepared By: Michael Codron,Planning Technician
SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR A VESTING TENTATIVE MAP TO CREATE A 10-LOT
RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM SUBDMSION(TR 4-99; 1720 Johnson Avenue).
CAO RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt Draft Resolution "A" approving the tentative map which creates a 10-lot residential
condominium subdivision located on the northeast side of Johnson Avenue, north of Lizzie
Street;with conditions,as recommended by the Planning Commission.
DISCUSSION
Sitnation
The applicants, Steve and Ilene Sicanoff, are requesting approval of a tentative map to allow the
creation of a 10-lot residential condominium project which has been named "Judge's
Townhouses". Site development and building design for 9 new residential units have received
schematic approval from the Architectural Review Commission (ARC). The Cultural Heritage
Committee reviewed the project and determined that the bungalows proposed for demolition are not
historic. They also determined that the proposed development is conditionally compatible with the
historic Judge's House, and made recommendations to the ARC regarding building design and
colors.
Municipal Code Section 16.16.120 (Council action on tentative tract map.) gives the City
Council the authority to approve, conditionally approve, or disapprove major subdivisions. In
order to approve the vesting tentative map, the following findings must be made by the City
Council:
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 proposed with the
tentative tract map;
3) The subdivision design 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; and
4) The design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict with easements
for access through, or use of property within,the proposed subdivision.
4-1
Council Agenda Report—Judge's Townhouses
Tentative Tract Map-TR 499
Page 2
In addition, the Council must find that the potential environmental impacts are adequately
addressed in the initial environmental study/mitigated negative declaration.
Project Data Summary
Address: 1720 Johnson Avenue
Applicant/property owner: Stephen and Ilene Sicanoff
Representative: Thom Brajkovich
Zoning: R-2 (Medium-Density Residential)
General Plan: Medium-Density Residential
Environmental status: Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact recommended
by the Community Development Director on August 4, 1999.
Project action deadline: 60 days from date of adoption of the Mitigated Negative Declaration.
The Architectural Review Commission is scheduled to consider final approval of the project
during its meeting of April 17.
Planning Commission Review of Tentative Man and ARC Input
On September 8, 1999, the Planning Commission on a 3-2-1 vote (Commissioner Jeffrey
refraining due to a potential conflict of interest, and Commissioner Cooper absent),
recommended approval of the tentative tract map to the City Council, based on findings, and with
conditions. Commission discussion focused on traffic on Johnson Avenue and secondary access
to the site via Fixlini Street. The attached Planning Commission report further describes the
project and evaluates various issues.
Secondary Access
One of the key design features of the subdivision is a 30-foot wide driveway easement that
extends northeast from the site to Fixlini Street. Fixlini Street currently terminates at the San
Luis Coastal Unified School District (SLCUSD) property line, where the school's driveway
interfaces with the street. The proposed driveway easement would provide primary access to the
site for emergency vehicles, and secondary access for residents. A portion of the easement area
would be dedicated to the City for right-of-way. This will allow a public turnaround to be
developed to improve the current right-of-way configuration.
Council consideration of the Tentative Map has been delayed to allow the applicant and
SLCUSD time to negotiate an agreement for the easements. At the SLCUSD Board meeting of
February 15, 2000, the Board officially approved an agreement. The applicant is now working
with City Public Works staff on the specific delineation of the public portion of the easement.
Noise Barrier
With its review of the project, the Architectural Review Commission (ARC) asked the applicant
to revise the grading scheme to achieve lower retaining wall heights throughout the site, and to
4-2
Council Agenda Report—Judge's Townhouses
Tentative Tract Map-TR 4-99
Page 3
allow the building pads to more closely follow the natural grade of the site. The ARC also
provided direction to the applicant on how to best accommodate a noise barrier for the outdoor
use areas on Lots 7 and 8. The applicant has resubmitted plans in substantial compliance with
ARC direction. Attachment #9 includes the noise analysis submitted to the ARC. The
attachment also includes the applicant's latest noise barrier design and a letter from the noise
consultant verifying that the proposed design meets the criteria established by the Noise Element
for residential outdoor use areas.
Tree Preservation
The ARC had concerns that a large eucalyptus tree adjacent to the unit on Lot 8 would have to-be
removed. They required two replacement trees if the tree were not able to be retained. The
applicant does not think the Eucalyptus can be saved and has proposed two Tristania conferta
(Brisbane Box) as replacement trees.
The City Arborist and Planning staff have recently surveyed the property to insure that all
potential tree removals are identified. Additional trees, including Coast Live Oaks, were
identified along the rear property line. Some of the trees identified are less than three inches in
diameter, and may be able to be transplanted. Staff has contacted the applicant to request a
modified site plan showing all oak trees on the site (even if they are less than three inches in
diameter). Staff will report back to the ARC on tree removals when the architectural plans are
reviewed for final approval.
Downstairs Bedroom
The original plans for the project include two stand-alone units on Lots 1 and 8. The floor plans
for these units show one bedroom downstairs, and an additional room that was unlabeled, but
that could be used as a bedroom. Staff has been working with the applicant to revise the floor
plan to comply with the Zoning Regulations density requirements. The latest plan does not
correct the problem, and staff will be recommending that the ARC require the stand alone units
to have a foyer similar to the proposed duplex units in order to ensure compliance with the City's
density provisions.
Affordable Dwelling Unit
The Inclusionary Housing Ordinance requires that one affordable dwelling unit, or an equivalent,
be constructed. as part of the development. The applicant has submitted a letter to the
Community Development Director requesting approval of the apartment on Lot 10 for the
affordability requirement. The Community Development Director and the Planning Commission
have approved this approach. The two-bedroom unit would be located above the proposed three-
car garage,adjacent to the Judge's House.
4=3
Council Agenda Report—Judge's Townhouses
Tentative Tract Map-TR 499
Page 4
Fixlini Street Neighborhood Comment
Members of the Fixlini Street Neighborhood have voiced opposition to the proposed driveway
easement, both to staff in private meetings and to the Planning Commission in the form of a
petition and through testimony at the public hearing. There is a perception among the residents
of the neighborhood that the current situation is dangerous, and that the additional traffic
generated by this project would only make matters worse. However, it is staff s opinion that the
proposed improvements and public right-of-way dedication will significantly improve the
interface between the School District property and the City right-of-way by slowing down traffic
exiting the school site and by providing a public turnaround at the end of the street. In addition,
Public Works staff anticipates additional traffic generated on Fixlini Street by the project to be
insignificant since the Johnson Avenue driveway would be the primary point of ingress and
egress for residents of the project.
Analysis
City Subdivision Regulations require that the layout of streets and lots within a subdivision be
consistent with the densities and types of uses authorized by the General Plan and Zoning
Regulations. The Subdivision Regulations allow for lots within condominium subdivisions to
have any size or shape,subject to review and approval by the Planning Commission and the City
Council (SLOMC 16.36.160 Lot Dimensions). As stated above, the Planning Commission
reviewed the tentative map on September 8, 1999 and supported Council approval of the
subdivision. A copy of the Planning Commission Staff Report and minutes are attached for
Council reference. Dissenting Commissioners primarily focused on issues surrounding the
driveway easement to Fixlini Street.
Environmental Review
The Planning Commission recommended approval of a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the
project with one additional mitigation measure that was recommended by staff. The mitigation
measure was intended to deal with access to the site via Johnson Avenue in the event that the
easement to Fixlini Street was unavailable.
CONCURRENCES
The requirements of various City departments are incorporated into recommended conditions of
approval. The Building Division has requested two additional Conditions of Approval for the
tentative map. Condition#9 of Draft Resolution "A" (Attachment 1) deals with the potential for
cross-lot drainage on units 6, 7 and 8. Condition #10 is intended to insure that the location of
any existing wells on the property are shown on the Final Map.
ALTERNATIVES
1. The Council may approve the tentative map,with changed conditions.
4-4
Council Agenda Report—Judge's Townhouses
Tentative Tract Map-TR 4-99
Page 5
2. The Council may deny the subdivision if it finds it inconsistent with the General Plan
(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 -9-8-99 Planning Commission Resolution No. 5265-99.
Attachment 3 -Minutes of the 9-8-99 Planning Commission meeting
Attachment 4 -Planning Commission Staff Report with attachments for the 8-25-99 meeting
Attachment 5 - Supplemental Planning Commission Staff Report for the 9-8-99 meeting
Attachment 6 -ARC schematic approval letter and conditions for the 10-18-99 meeting
Attachment 7 -Project plans
Attachment 8 -Request from applicant's representative to postpone Council review of project.
Attachment 9 -Noise Analysis and Mitigation Report with modified plan
Attachment 10-Petition from Fixlini Street neighbors and letter from Dennis and Brenda Steers.
Distributed to Council: Large-scale tentative map, grading and utilities plans
councfl\TR 4-99(cc report).doc
4-5
Attachment 1
Draft Resolution"A"
RESOLUTION NO. (2000 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
APPROVING THE VESTING TENTATIVE MAP FOR A 10-LOT RESIDENTIAL
CONDOME*4 U SUBDIVISION AT 1720 JOHNSON AVENUE
(TR 4-99; COUNTY TRACT MAP NO.2340)
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on September 8,
1999, and recommended approval of Vesting Tentative Tract Map 4-99; and
WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing on April 4, 2000 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 Sari Luis
Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. The City Council finds and determines that the project's Negative
Declaration with Mitigation Measures adopted on August 3, 1999, and amended by the Planning
Commission on September 8, 1999, adequately addresses the potential significant environmental
impacts of the proposed project. The City Council hereby adopts the Negative Declaration with
Mitigation Measures.
SECTION 2. Findings. That this Council, after consideration of the Vesting Tentative
Tract Map 4-99, and the Planning Commission's recommendations, staff recommendations,
public testimony,and reports thereof,makes the following findings:
1. The design of the tentative map and the proposed improvements are consistent with the
General Plan and the proposed development plan because the map meets all of the
requirements of the Zoning Regulations and Subdivision Regulations and will support
development typical of areas designated on the General Plan Land Use Map as Medium-
Density Residential.
2. The site is physically suited for the type and density of development allowed in the R-2
zoning district.
3. The design of the subdivision and the proposed improvements, when evaluated in
conjunction with the proposed mitigation measures, are not likely to cause serious health
problems, substantial environmental damage or substantially and unavoidably injure fish or
wildlife or their habitat.
4-6
Resolution No.(2000 Series)
Page 2
4. The design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict with easements
for access through,or use of property within,the proposed subdivision.
5. The initial environmental study and mitigated negative declaration, ER 4-99, concludes that
the project will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment.
SECTION 3. Conditions. The vesting tentative map for Tract 4-99 (County Tract Map
No. 2340) is approved subject to the following conditions, and one code requirement:
1. The project shall comply with all of the requirements of the Residential Condominium
Development Ordinance and the Property Improvement Standards for New Condominium
Projects (SLOMC 17.82.140). Solar collectors for water heating and private storage areas
shall be reviewed and approved by the Architectural Review Commission.
2. The grading and drainage plan shall be modified to include measures to deal with water
draining from the field above the project,to the approval of the Chief Building Official.
3. The following conditions are provided to insure compatibility between the Fixlini Street right-
of-way, the existing school driveway, and the proposed driveway extension to the Judge's
Townhouses project, to the approval of the Public Works Director, the Community
Development Director,and the School District:
a) The existing "Do Not Enter" signs at the end of Fixlini Street shall be removed and
positioned to the northwest of the proposed driveway extension.
b) All existing directional arrows on the driveway surface shall be removed.
c) A table-top/driveway ramp shall be installed northwest of the proposed driveway
extension.
d) Directional signage shall be installed to the northwest of the new table-top/driveway
ramp indicating that two-way traffic is ahead.
e) Directional signage and striping shall be installed so that vehicles exiting the school site
merge into a single lane prior to reaching the new table-top/driveway ramp. The new
table-top/driveway ramp shall be designed to accommodate one vehicle at a time.
4. All mitigation measures included in the Mitigation Agreement signed by the Community
Development Director and the applicant, Stephen Sicanoff dated August 17, 1999, are
hereby included as conditions of approval.
5. A portion of the existing sewer main that serves the School District property and crosses
the project site in an easement is proposed to be abandoned. If this proves feasible, the
School District property shall be reconnected to the existing active gravity sewer system
located in the public right-of-way at the end of Fixlini Street. If this alignment is not
feasible because of the depth of the system serving the School District property, then the
4-7
Resolution No. (2000 Series)
Page 3
existing sewer serving the school shall be realigned in an easement on School District
property, to the approval of the Utilities Director. As the need for this work is driven by the
redevelopment of 1720 Johnson, all costs associated with this work shall be the
responsibility of the developer.
6. The double-check detector check assembly (DCDC) shall be located adjacent to the public
right-0f--way in Johnson Avenue to the satisfaction of the Fire Marshall and Utilities
Engineer.
7. Three separate 2" laterals will be required to serve the ten new residences, with meters
manifolded in groups of 4 or 3 meters per manifold. They need to be sized and placed at
appropriate locations along the Johnson Avenue frontage to minimize the distance to the
units from the water meters,to the approval of the Utilities Engineer.
8. The applicant shall install a gate at the Fixlini entrance which can only be opened by
residents of the complex and Police and Fire Departments, to the approval of the
Community Development Director.
9. A drainage easement shall be created for the cross-lot drainage disposal in.the back yards of
lots 6, 7 and 8.
10. If there is an existing well,then the location shall be shown.
Code Requirements
1. A water allocation is required, due to the additional units. Currently, a water allocation can
only be obtained through the water retrofit program. The City's Water Conservation
division can help in determining the needed allocation and the necessary number of
retrofits. Water Conservation can be reached by calling 781-7258.
2. Water and Wastewater Impact Fees shall be paid at the time building permits are issued.
Both the Water and the Wastewater Impact Fees are based on the number of single family
units being built. The cost of developing an allocation through retrofit could offset a portion
of the required Water Impact Fee according to appropriate City policies.
3. Each lot/unit shall be provided a separate water, gas, electric, telephone and cable TV
service (a common sewer is allowed). Water services shall be manifolded in pairs,
whenever possible, in accordance with City standards.
4. New construction shall meet the setback requirements of the Uniform Plumbing Code
(UPC)table 7-7 for water wells, if a well exists.
5. Lots shall be developed with grades that comply with the Uniform Building Code (UBC)
appendix section 3315.4.
4-8
Resolution No.(2000 Series)
Page 4
6. The subdivider shall pay Park-In-Lieu fees consistent with SLO Municipal Code Section
16.40.80.
7. The subdivider shall meet the Inclusionary housing requirement consistent with the SLO
Municipal Code Section 17.91.
8. Traffic impact fees are required to be paid prior to the issuance of a building permit, with
credit for existing legal units.
9. Fire flow shall be in accordance with Appendix III-A of the 1999 California Fire Code.
The proposed location of the on-site hydrant is adequate. Hydrant shall be installed per
City Engineering Standards.
10. All new construction shall have automatic fire sprinklers installed per the Building Code.
11. Buildings undergoing demolition and construction shall be in accordance with Article 87 of
the 1999 California Fire Code.
Upon motion of , seconded by
and on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
the foregoing resolution was adopted this day of 72000.
Mayor Allen Settle
4-9
Resolution N6.12000 Series)
Page 5
ATTEST:
Lee Price,Cify Clerk
APPROVED AS:TO FORM:
J " e Jor ns Ci - homey
TR 4-99(Judge's-aPPr Map).doc
440
Draft Resolution "B"
RESOLUTION NO. (2000 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
DENYING THE VESTING TENTATIVE MAP FOR A 10-LOT RESIDENTIAL
CONDOMINIUM SUBDMSION AT 1720 JOHNSON AVENUE
(TR 4-99; COUNTY TRACT MAP NO.2340)
WHEREAS, the Planning commission conducted a public hearing on September 8,
1999, and recommended approval of Vesting Tentative Tract Map 4-99; and
WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing on April 4, 2000, 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 4-99, 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 4-99 (County Tract Map No. 2340) is
hereby denied.
Upon motion of ,seconded by ,
and on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
4.11
Resolution No. (2000 Series)
Page 2
the foregoing resolution was adopted this day of , 2000.
Mayor Allen Settle
ATTEST:
Lee Price, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Jeffrey G. Jorgensen, City Attorney
TR 4.99(Judge's-deny map).doc
4-12
Attachment 2
- Revised -
SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. 5265-99
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 8, 1999, pursuant to a proceeding instituted under application
ER and TR 4-99, Steve Sicanoff, applicant.
ITEM REVIEWED:
Request for tentative map approval creating 10 lots for a condominium project, and
environmental review.
DESCRIPTION:
On file in the office of Community Development Department, City Hall.
GENERAL LOCATION:
1720 Johnson Avenue
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 tentative map and the proposed improvements are consistent with
the General Plan and the proposed development plan because the.map meets all of
the requirements of the Zoning Regulations and Subdivision Regulations and will
support development typical of areas designated on the General Plan Land Use
Map as Medium-Density Residential.
2. The site is physically suited for the type and density of development allowed in the
R-2 zoning district.
3. The design of the subdivision and the proposed improvements, when evaluated in
conjunction with the proposed mitigation measures, are not likely to cause serious
health problems, substantial environmental damage or substantially and
unavoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. 4-13
Resolution No. 5265-99
Page 2
4. The design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict with
easements for access through, or use of property within, the proposed subdivision.
5. The initial environmental study and mitigated negative declaration, ER 4-99,
concludes that the project will not have a significant adverse impact on the
environment.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that ER and TR 4-99 be approved,
subject to the following mitigation measures:
Mitigation Measures
1. A detailed soils engineering reportshall to be submitted as part of the grading and
building permit applications. The soils report shall include at a minimum: data
regarding the nature, distribution and strength of the existing soils, conclusions and
recommendations for grading procedures, and design criteria for corrective
measures, when necessary. Grading and building must be designed and performed
in compliance with the soils engineering report.
2. The applicant shall submit a plan for review and approval by the Architectural
Review Commission indicating the method or methods used to reduce the noise
levels on lots 7 and 8 to insignificant levels (less than 60dB Ldn). Compliance with
the Noise Element maximum noise levels shall be verified with a noise analysis
performed by a licensed acoustical engineer.
3. To help reduce the waste stream generated by this project:
a) Site development shall include convenient facilities for interior and exterior
onsite recycling.
b) Demolition and construction shall include a solid waste recycling plan for
recycling discarded materials, such as concrete, sheet-rock, wood, and
metals, from the construction site. The plan must be submitted for approval
by the City's Solid Waste Coordinator or the Community Development
Director, prior to building permit issuance.
c) Recycled-content materials shall be used in structural and decorative building
components and in surfacing wherever feasible.
4. To reduce the potential for impacts to archeological and historic resources:
a) Prepare an updated set of Historic Resources Record Forms (DPR 523); the
Judge's House should be assigned a Primary Number and .Trinomial as
quickly as possible.
b) Removal of the apartment buildings and trees, and all grading activities shall
be monitored by an experienced archaeologist. 4-14
Resolution No. 5265-99
Page 3
c) Alterations in the garden area shall be inspected by the project archaeologist.
d) Subterranean features encountered shall be carefully recorded, thoroughly
documented and adequately sampled.
e) Monitoring work, data recording and sampling shall be summarized and
presented in a comprehensive final report.
5. Applicant must obtain an easement for driveway purposes from the School District.
If applicant in unable to acquire an easement, applicant shall be required to have a
traffic study prepared by a qualified traffic professional and shall resubmit the project
with a new design that addresses any significant traffic impacts identified in the
study. The following issues are to be addressed by the traffic study:
• Estimate the total volume of traffic generated from this project and the adjoining
developed property (1730 Johnson) that uses the common access driveway and
the traffic increase caused by this project.
• Conduct a "gap analysis" of traffic on Johnson Avenue adjacent to the project
driveway during AM and PM peak periods.
• Determine whether sufficient gaps exist to enable project and adjoining property
residents and visitors driving south on Johnson Avenue to tum left into the
project driveway without queuing on Johnson Avenue. And if queues develop,
determine their frequency and duration.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that ER and TR 4-99 be approved, subject to
the following conditions and code requirements:
Conditions
1. The project shall comply with all of the requirements of the Residential
Condominium Development Ordinance and the Property Improvement Standards
for New Condominium Projects (SLOMC 17.82.140). Solar collectors for water
heating and private storage areas shall be reviewed and approved by the
Architectural Review Commission.
2. The grading and drainage plan shall be modified to include measures to deal with
water draining from the field above the project, to the approval of the Chief.
Building Official.
3. The following conditions are provided to insure compatibility between the Fixlini Street
right-of-way, the existing school driveway, and the proposed driveway extension to the
Judge's Townhouses project, to the approval of the Public Works Director, the
Community Development Director,and the School District
4-15
Resolution No. 5265-99
Page 4
a) The existing "Do Not Enter" signs at the end of Fixlini Street shall be removed
and positioned to the northwest of the proposed driveway extension.
b) All existing directional arrows on the driveway surface shall be removed.
c) A table-top/driveway ramp shall be installed northwest of the proposed
driveway extension.
d) Directional signage shall be installed to the northwest of the new table-
top/driveway ramp indicating that two-way traffic is ahead.
e) Directional signage and striping shall be installed so that vehicles exiting the
school site merge into a single lane prior to reaching the new table-
top/driveway ramp. The new table-top/driveway ramp shall be designed to .
accommodate one vehicle at a time.
4. All mitigation measures included in the Mitigation Agreement signed by the
Community Development Director and the applicant, Stephen Sicanoff, are hereby
conditions of approval.
5. A portion of the existing sewer main that serves the School District property and
crosses the project site in an easement is proposed to be abandoned. If this
proves feasible, the School District property shall be reconnected to the existing
active gravity sewer. system located in the public right-of-way at the end of Fixlini
Street. If this alignment is not feasible because of the depth of the system serving
the School District property, then the existing sewer serving the school shall be
realigned in -an easement on School District property, to the approval of the
Utilities Director. As the need for this work is driven by the redevelopment of 1720
Johnson, all costs associated with this work shall be the responsibility of the
developer.
6. The double-check detector check assembly (DCDC) shall be located adjacent to
the public right-of-way in Johnson Avenue to the satisfaction of the Fire Marshall
and Utilities Engineer.
7. Three separate 2" laterals will be required to serve the ten new residences, with
meters manifolded in groups of 4 or 3 meters per manifold. They need to be sized
and placed at appropriate locations along the Johnson Avenue frontage to
minimize the distance to the units from the water meters, to the approval of the
Utilities Engineer.
.8. The applicant shall install a gate at the Fixlini entrance which can only be opened
by residents of the complex and Police and Fire Departments, to the approval of
the Community Development Director.
4-16
Resolution No. 5265-99
Page 5
Code Requirements
1. A water allocation is required, due to the additional units. Currently, a water
allocation can only be obtained through the water retrofit program. The City's
Water Conservation division can help in determining the needed allocation and the
necessary number of retrofits. Water Conservation can be reached by calling 781-
7258.
2. Water and Wastewater Impact Fees shall be paid at the time building permits are
issued. Both the Water and the'Wastewater Impact Fees are based on the
number of single family units being built. The cost of developing an allocation
through retrofit could offset a portion of the required Water Impact Fee according
to appropriate City policies.
3. Each lottunit shall be provided a separate water, gas, electric, telephone and cable
TV service (a common sewer is allowed). Water services shall be manifolded in
pairs, whenever possible, in accordance with City standards.
4. New construction shall meet the setback. requirements of the Uniform Plumbing
Code (UPC) table 7-7 for water wells, if a well exists.
5. Lots shall be developed with grades that comply with the Uniform Building Code
(UBC) appendix section 3315.4.
6. The subdivider shall pay Park-In-Lieu fees consistent with SLO Municipal Code
Section 16.40.80.
7. The subdivider shall meet the Inclusionary housing requirement consistent with the
SLO Municipal Code Section 17.91.
8. Traffic impact fees are required to be paid prior to the issuance of a building
permit, with credit for existing legal units.
9. Fire flow shall be in accordance with Appendix III-A of the 1999 California Fire
Code. The proposed location of the on-site hydrant is adequate. Hydrant shall be
installed per City Engineering Standards.
10. All new construction shall have automatic fire sprinklers installed per the Building
Code.
11. Buildings undergoing demolition and construction shall be in accordance with
Article 87 of the 1999 California Fire Code.
4-17
Resolution No. 5265-99
Page 6
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.
Peterson, seconded by Commr. Senn, and upon a separate roll call vote:
AYES: Commrs. Whittlesey, Senn, and Peterson
NOES: Commrs. Loh and Ready
ABSENT: Commr. Cooper
REFRAIN: Commr. Jeffrey
Arnold B. Jonas, Secretary
Planning Commission
Dated: September 8, 1999
Correction: March 15, 2000
4-18
Attachment 3
SAN LUIS OBISPO
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 8, 1999
CALL TO ORDER/PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
The regular meeting of the San Luis Obispo Planning Commission was called to order
at 5:37 p.m. on Wednesday, September 8, 1999, in Council Chamber of City Hall, 990
Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California.
ROLL CALL:
Present: Commissioners Alice Loh, Charles Senn, Mary Whittlesey, David Jeffrey,
Stephen Peterson, and Chairman Paul Ready
Absent: Allan Cooper
Staff Community Development Director Arnold Jonas, Recording Secretary
Present: Leaha Magee, Associate Planners Glen Matteson and Peggy Mandeville,
Long-Range Planning Manager John Mandeville, Public Works Engineer
Jerry Kenny, Transportation Assistant Jim Hanson, Deputy Public Works
Director Tim Bochum, and Assistant City Attorney Gilbert Trujillo.
ACCEPTANCE OF THE AGENDA:
The agenda was accepted as presented.
ACCEPTANCE OF THE MINUTES:
The Minutes of July 28, 1999, were accepted as presented.
PUBLIC COMMENT ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS:
There were no comments made.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
1. 1720 Johnson Avenue, ER and TR 4-99: Request for tentative map approval
creating 10 lots for a condominium project and environmental review; R-2 zone;
Steve Sicanoff, applicant.
Commissioner Jeffrey refrained from participation due to a potential conflict of interest.
Associate Planner Peggy Mandeville presented the staff report and recommended that
the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council (1) adoption of the mitigated
4-19
Planning Commission Minutes
September 8, 1999-Page 2
negative declaration and (2) approval of the vesting tentative tract map, based on
findings and subject to conditions and code requirements.
There were no comments or questions and the public comment session was opened.
PUBLIC COMMENT:
Tom Brajkovich, project architect, described how the property owners want to develop
and improve the property to provide affordable housing while maintaining open space
around it. He noted that San Luis Coastal School District property borders this site. He
noted that he does not recommend that the current 12% access slope be graded to 7%
to allow for emergency vehicular access off Johnson Avenue, because the adjacent
neighbors do not want the change, which is why the Fixlini easement is being pursued.
He felt the Fixlini easement works better,.takes some impact off Johnson Avenue, and
would act as a secondary access since the easiest route out is down the driveway to
Johnson Avenue. He noted that white striping and speed bumps will be provided to
slow traffic exiting the school district property onto Fixlini Street.
Commissioner Loh asked if the significance of the existing plants around the Judge's
House have been determined.
Mr. Brajkovich stated that the planting around the Judge's House will remain, except for
one palm tree that will be moved towards the front of the property.
Paul Gabriel, 1740 Fixlini Street, said he owns property at 1740, 1758, and 1760 Fixlini
Street. He felt that an access easement for this development will need to be approved
by the school district, and commented on the heavy traffic and speeds in the area and
the narrowness of Fixlini Street. He and his neighbors are strongly against the
easement and Fixlini Street being used as an ingress/egress.
Bonnie McKim, 1442 Lizzie Street, said she was concerned with the secondary Fixlini
Street access actually being used as a primary access, heavy on-street parking impacts
compounded by French Hospital employees parking in the neighborhood, and heavy
peak-hour traffic.
Dennis Stiers, 1719 Fixlini Street, stated he will be impacted by this project more than
anyone else because he lives at the intersection of the proposed easement and the
one-way exit from the school. He demonstrated how people can bypass the stop light
and stop sign which will further impact traffic. He said his home is surrounded on three
sides by concrete and this proposal will completely surround him. He urged the
Commission to require a traffic study on Johnson Avenue and Fixlini Street. Although
this proposal has a Johnson Street address, Mr. Stiers felt all the impact is .going to
occur on Fixlini Street. He urged denial based on the access easement adversely
affecting residents on Fixlini Street.
Steve Sicanoff, applicant, said he has been restoring the Judge's House. When the
property was purchased, he was aware of the old, substandard housing. He wants to
improve the property and the environment and provide needed housing. He explained
that the easement will be gated for emergencytfire access, and will act as an altgrpate
Planning Commission Minutes-
September 8, 1999-Page 3
access. He explained the traffic flow on Johnson Avenue and the minor change from
five units to nine units. He did not see any impact to Fixlini Street.
Commissioner Whittlesey asked for comment on the proposed access gate and
suggested the use of bollards.
Mr. Sicanoff stated they are proposing a button-activated electric gate at either the
property line or at Fixlini Street.
Commissioner Loh felt it would be feasible to allow emergency access on Johnson
Avenue.
Commissioner Whittlesey asked for comment on the possibility of a negative response
from the School Board.
Mr. Sicanoff noted the School Board has indicated favor of the proposal.
Pat Stobel, who lives on the comer of Fixlini and Lizzie Streets, stated traffic and high
speeds are major concerns, especially at peak hours.
Seeing no further speakers come forward, the public comment session was closed.
COMMISSION COMMENT:
Attorney Trujillo provided background information regarding the Subdivision Map Act
requiring a City to use its power of imminent domain to acquire off-site improvements if
it is a condition of subdivision approval. He noted staffs recommendation to include a.
condition requiring the applicant to redesign the project should he fail to obtain the
easement through negotiation.
Commissioner Loh asked how many units would be allowed if a redesign was required
which included re-grading to the satisfaction of emergency vehicular access.
Associate Planner Peggy Mandeville stated that staff has not calculated how many
units could be accommodated if re-grading occurred.
Mr. Sicanoff, having been called forward by the chairman, stated widening or grading
the access would not affect the number of units on the site.
Commissioner Peterson felt requiring a gate would help alleviate neighborhood
concerns.
Commissioner Peterson moved to recommend that the City Council adopt the mitigated
negative declaration and approve the vesting tentative tract map based on findings and
subiect to conditions and code requirements with the additional conditions (1) that the
applicant be required to install a gate at the Fixlini entrance which can only be opened
by residents of the complex and police and fire departments and that the fence be
subject to the approval of the Community Development Director and (2) the additional
4-21
Planning Commission Minutes
September 8, 1999- Page 4
condition as mentioned by the Attorney Trujillo in the amended conditions of approval.
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Senn.
Commissioner Loh requested the motion be amended to restrict Fixlini Street gate
usage to emergency access only; no use by residents.
Commissioner Senn commented that traffic in this area is significant at peak hours of
the day, but this project will not significantly impact the current traffic situation.
The Commission and staff discussed area traffic patterns and safety issues.
Commissioner Senn asked if the proposal with the easement access will create a safer
situation than currently exists.
Transportation Assistant Hanson replied yes.
Commissioner Loh commented on the importance of emergency vehicular access from
Johnson Avenue.
Commissioner Loh's amendment was not accepted.
AYES: Commissioners Peterson, Senn, and Whittlesey
NOES: Commissioner Loh and Chairman Ready
REFRAIN: Commissioner Jeffrey
The motion carried 3-2-1. Commissioner Cooper was absent.
2. Citywide: GPI 126-99: Residential Growth Management Program — Phasing
Expansion Areas; City of San Luis Obispo, applicant.
Chairman Ready refrained from participation due to a potential conflict of interest. Vice
Chairman Jeffrey conducted the hearing.
Associate Planner Glen Matteson presented the staff report and recommended that
the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council (1) adopt the attached
replacement for the Municipal Code's Residential Growth Management Regulations and
(2) by resolution, adopt the attached Phasing Schedule.
Commissioner Peterson asked for clarification on in-fill development when considering
the potential for up zoning areas near downtown and increasing density to avoid sprawl.
Associate Planner Matteson explained that in-fill development is not limited; the
numbers before the Commission are assumption/projections based on the earlier
activity.
Commissioner Senn asked if past in-fill development included the Edna-Islay area.
Associate Planner Matteson replied yes.
4-22
Attachment 4
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
BY: Michael Codron, Planning Technicianlg� MEETING DATE: August 25, 1999
FROM: Ron Whisenand, Development Review Manage(?
FILE NUMBER: ER,TR 4-99 v
PROJECT ADDRESS: 1720 Johnson Avenue
SUBJECT: Subdivision and environmental review of a proposed residential condominium
project for 8 new two-bedroom townhouses and one new two-bedroom apartment on the site of
the historic Judge's House.
SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION
Recommend that the City Council: 1) adopt the mitigated negative declaration; and 2) approve
the vesting tentative tract map, based on findings and subject to conditions and code
requirements.
BACKGROUND
Situation
The applicant has submitted a vesting tentative map for a residential condominium project. The
condos are proposed as a Planned Unit Development (PUD), with individual lot ownership and a
common owned parcel for access and open space.
On August 4, 1999, the Community Development Director approved recommending a mitigated
negative declaration of environmental impact for the project.
The Planning Commission is being asked to make a recommendation to the City Council on the
following items:
1) a negative declaration with mitigation measures, and
2) a subdivision map to subdivide the site into 10 parcels.
Project Data Summary
Address: 1720 Johnson Avenue
Applicant/property owner: Stephen and Ilene Sicanoff
Representative: Thom Brajkovich
Zoning: R-2 (Medium-Density Residential)
General Plan: Medium-Density Residential
Environmental status: Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact recommended
by the Community Development Director on August 4, 1999.
Project action deadline: 60 days from date of adoption of the Negative Declaration. City Council
is expected to take final action on the Negative Declaration in October of 1999.
4-23
TR 4-99 (Tract 2340)
1720 Johnson Avenue (Judge's Townhouses)
Page 2
Site description
In 1980 the City abandoned the Agnes Street and Edna Street rights-of-way bordering the
historic Judge's House property. The original site was made up of four 50' x 140' lots. When
the streets were abandoned, an additional —15,000 square feet of land was added to the
northwest and northeast edges of the property. The site now has an area of approximately .952
acres.
The rectangular-shaped site has an average cross-slope of 11%. Vegetation on the site consists
primarily of grasses and ornamental landscaping. There are several large eucalyptus and pepper
trees on the property, and two large palms. Other tree species include olive and cypress.
The project site is occupied by the Judge's House. According to CHC historic documentation,
the Judge's House was built between 1892 and 1906 for Superior Court Judge E. P. Unangst and
his wife Anita Murray Unangst. It is described as Victorian Eastern Shingle style with Colonial
Revival and Craftsmen modifications. The predominant architectural feature of the two-story
home is the large gambrel wing in which there are two arched windows. On the first floor and on
the porch, the primary building material is quarried local stone, uncut. The frontal approach to
the structure was significantly modified to accommodate the City's street widening project,
approved in 1975. The Judge's House is on the City's Master List of Historic Resources and has
a National Register Rating of 3.
There are three other structures on the lot, containing a total of five one-bedroom apartments.
None of the other structures on the lot are individually listed or identified as contributing in the
City's Historical Preservation Program Guidelines. An Archeological Resources Inventory was
prepared as part of the Initial Study of Environmental Impact and is attached to this report.
Project Description
The project is a map to subdivide the existing a 0.952-acre site into 10 lots. Lot numbers 1
through 8 would each be developed with a two-bedroom townhouse with an attached garage. Lot
9 is a common parcel that includes a private access road and common open space areas,
including a lawn area proposed towards the center of the site. Lot 10 is the Judge's House parcel
which includes the historic Judge's House and a proposed three-car garage with a 2-bedroom
apartment above. Private yards are provided for each of the proposed units. No modifications to
the Judge's House are proposed as part of this project.
In order to accommodate the proposed development, 5 existing one-bedroom units are proposed
for demolition. Significant grading is planned in order to accommodate the new structures. A
retaining wall would be constructed along the rear property line and would extend down the
northwest property line before wrapping around lot 8. The retaining wall would continue around
the private access road adjacent to lot 10 to.maintain the existing grade surrounding the Judge's
House.
Primary access to the site would be via the existing driveway on Johnson Avenue. Secondary
access would be provided through a driveway extension to Fixlini Street. The driveway
extension would be located in a thirty-foot wide easement on San.Luis Coastal Unifigd scbool
TR 4-99 (Tract 2340)
1720 Johnson Avenue (Judge's Townhouses)
Page 3
District property, adjacent to the residence on 1719 Fixlini Street. A ten-foot wide buffer is
proposed between the driveway and the property line of the adjacent residence.
EVALUATION
A. Environmental Review
The Community Development Department prepared an Initial Study of Environmental Impact for
the project in August of 1999. The initial study addresses potentially significant impacts to
geologic hazards, solid waste,cultural resources, and noise. Mitigation measures are recommended
to reduce the potentially significant impacts to insignificant levels. Impacts to other environmental
areas are considered to be less than significant. On August 3, 1999, the Community Development
Director determined that the project qualifies for a mitigated negative declaration of environmental
impact. The initial study and director's determination were published in the Telegram-Tribune and
made available for public review and comment at the Community Development Department at 990
Palm Street. State law (CEQA) requires that the initial study is available for at least a 20 day
review period prior to final action on the project (to be taken by City Council). The public review
period commenced on August 4, 1999.
Potential Traffic and Emergency Vehicle Access Impacts
When the project was originally submitted in January, 1999, the only access point to the site was
via the existing Johnson Avenue driveway. The applicant was notified by staff that the driveway
would have to be modified to comply City ordinances for fire truck access. The existing driveway
on Johnson has a cross-slope of approximately 17% and the Fire Department requires a maximum
slope of 10% for driveways. Grading down the driveway, however, requires the consent of the
neighboring property owner who has refused to cooperate with the applicant.
The applicant was also notified that a traffic study would be required to insure that there were
sufficient gaps in traffic to allow left turns into the site without queuing on Johnson Avenue. Since
there is no left tum pocket on Johnson in this location, queuing would likely disrupt southbound
traffic flow.
As an alternative, and to resolve both of these potential impacts, the applicant was directed to
contact the San Luis Coastal Unified School District and to pursue an easement for secondary
access to the project site via the School District's driveway at the end of Fixlini Street. The
applicant was informed that if this secondary access could be obtained, a traffic study would not be
necessary because southbound traffic on Johnson Avenue could continue to the controlled
intersection on Lizzie Street, rather than wait for a break in the traffic on Johnson. Also,
conforming emergency vehicle access could easily be achieved from the Fixlini Street driveway
because the slopes are less steep in that location. The applicant has submitted the request to the
School District for the easement, and has received positive feedback regarding the proposal. The
request for the easement will be considered by the School Board in September.
The Initial Study/Negative Declaration is based on a project description that includes secondary
access to the project site from the existing Fixlini Street driveway. If the easement is not approved
by the School Board, or if the cost of the easement is prohibitive to the applicant, the ann
TR 4-99 (Tract 2340)
1720 Johnson Avenue(Judge's Townhouses)
Page 4
would have to resubmit the project with a new design that addresses the potential traffic and
emergency vehicle access impacts, and would likely be required to do a traffic study to support the
new design. Additional issues relating to the Fixlini Street driveway are discussed in section"C"of
this report.
B. Subdivision Map Review
The applicant is requesting approval of a vesting tentative tract map to create a Planned Unit
Development(PUD)with nine residential lots and one common lot. Approval of a vesting tentative
map confers a"vested right" to development in substantial compliance with the ordinances,policies
and standards in effect when the application is determined complete and accepted for processing.
The Planning Commission should review the tract map for compliance with the City's Subdivision
Regulations,Zoning Regulations,the development plan,and the General Plan.
1. Subdivision Regulations Compliance
City Subdivision Regulations require that the layout of streets and lots within a subdivision be
consistent with the densities and types of uses authorized by the General Plan and Zoning
Regulations. The Subdivision Regulations allow for lots within condominium subdivisions to
have any size or shape, subject to review and approval by the Planning Commission and the City
Council (SLOMC 16.36.160 Lot Dimensions).
Residential Design
Lots 1 through 8, located along the northwestern and northeastern boundaries of the site, are each
proposed to be developed with one 2-bedroom townhouse. The lots average about 1400 square feet
in area, except lot 5 which is larger at 2500 square feet. The footprints of the townhouses range
from approximately 800 to 1000 square feet. Each lot has a small, private backyard area The
backyards look out over primarily undeveloped School District property. In general,the townhouse
lots are oriented towards the interior of the site, and the historic Judge's House.
Lot 9 includes a common open space area of approximately 875 square feet located on the interior
comer of the project. This area would be developed with a lawn and would be accessible to all of
the residents of the project. Lot 9 also incorporates all of the driveways on the site and a wooded
area of approximately 1700 square feet in the required street yard, adjacent to Johnson Avenue. Lot
10 is the Judge's House parcel and includes the historic structure and a proposed three-car garage,
with a two-bedroom apartment above.
The home designs are intended to complement the architectural character of the Judge's House.
Each of the townhouses would have a covered entry adjacent to an attached garage. A gable-
end extends over the covered entry on each of the units, recalling the large gambrel wing on
the front elevation of the Judge's House. The townhouses are modest, two-story structures,
with a bedroom, bathroom, and two-car garage on the first level, and a living room, kitchen,
bathroom and master bedroom on the second level. Overall, staff supports the design and
layout of lots in the subdivision and expects that the orientation of the proposed structures will
help to create a unique and lively streetscape within the project.
4-26
TR 4-99 (Tract 2340)
1720 Johnson Avenue(Judge's Townhouses)
Page 5
Subdivision Findings
In order to approve the subdivision map, the following findings must be made by the City
Council:
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 proposed with the
tentative tract map;
3) The subdivision design 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; and
4) Thedesign of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict with easements
for access through, or use of property within, the.proposed subdivision.
In addition, the Council must find that the potential environmental impacts are adequately
addressed in the initial environmental study/negative declaration.
2. General Plan Consistency
The General Plan Land Use Element Map designates the project site as Medium-Density
Residential. The Land Use Element provides the following description for medium-density
residential development:
2.4.6 Medium-Density Residential development should be primarily dwellings
having locations and forms that provide a sense of both individual identity and
neighborhood cohesion for the. households occupying them, but in a more
compact arrangement than Low Density Residential. Such dwellings are
generally one- or two-story detached buildings on small lots, or attached
dwellings, with some private outdoor space for each dwelling. ...
Planning staffbelieves.that the proposed project is consistent with this policy, and that it is typical
of other medium-density residential projects in San Luis Obispo.
Another Land Use Element policy relates to this project in terms of street access:
2.2.5 Street Access. New residential developments, or redevelopment involving
large sites, should be designed to orient low-density housing to local access .
streets, and medium- or high-density housing to driveways accessible from
collector streets. Major arterials through residential areas shall provide only
limited private access or controlled street intersections.
This project will have access from two streets. Primary access to the project would be from
Johnson Avenue, a residential arterial street Secondary access would be from a driveway at the
end of Fixlini Street, a local street. Staff believes that the Johnson Avenue driveway wovl dbgthe
TR 4-99 (Tract 2340)
1720 Johnson Avenue(Judge's Townhouses)
Page 6
primary entrance and exit for the site, since it is a less circuitous route. However, during the peak
trip hours, it is likely that southbound traffic on Johnson would bypass the driveway and would
continue to the controlled intersection at Lizzie Street, rather than queue on Johnson to wait for a
break in the traffic to make a left tum into the driveway. The driveway on Fixlini would also be
used by emergency response vehicles since the driveway on Johnson Avenue does not meet present
day standards for fire truck access because it is too steep.
Staff believes that the proposed project and driveway alignment is consistent with Land Use
Element Policy 2.2.5 because a minority of the trips generated from the site are expected to use the
Fixlini Street driveway.
3. Zoning Regulations Compliance
Property Development Standards
Since the Subdivision Regulations allow for lots within condominium subdivisions to have any
size or shape(subject to review and approval by the Planning Commission and the City Council),
staff has evaluated the property development standards for the project relative to the whole
project site. Overall, the project complies with all of the property development standards,
including setbacks, lot coverage, building height, parking and density. The following table
illustrates how the project complies with the property development standards detailed in the
Zoning Regulations.
Property Development Standards Required Proposed
Setbacks Street Yard=20' 20'
Rear Yard=7.5'-10' 10'
Lot Coverage 50%Max 23%
Buildina Height 35' Max
Density 11.41 DUV Max 11 DUV
Parking 123 125
Residential Condominium Development Re ations
Section 17.82.140 of the Municipal Code provides property improvement standards for new
residential condominium projects. These standards relate to private and total open space areas,
storage, laundry facilities and energy conservation.
The open space requirements for this project include a minimum of 250 square feet of private
open space per unit, and a minimum of 750 square feet of total open space (private and
common open space combined) per unit. In order to qualify as open space, the area must have
a minimum dimension of 10 feet in every direction. Each unit in the project has a minimum of
350 square feet of qualifying private open space. In terms of total open space, there is
approximately 890 square feet per unit, for a total of 8,926 square feet. The plans submitted
for the Planning Commission to review have been modified to fully comply with the open
space requirements for the project.
4-28
TR 4-99 (Tract 2340)
1720 Johnson Avenue (Judge's Townhouses).
Page 7
Each unit will have its own laundry facilities and storage areas, however.it is unclear from the
plans whether or not total storage area complies with the requirement of two hundred cubic
feet. This issue will be clarified before the project is reviewed by the Architectural Review
Commission. The ARC will review the proposed storage areas with their review of the
architectural plans and may require modifications to the floor plans if they are found not to
comply.
The Architectural Review Commission will also review the proposed solar water heating
facilities. The location and size of the collectors are not indicated in the project plans,
however, the applicant is aware of the requirement and intends on implementing solar water
heating. A condition is recommended to insure compliance with this requirement.
C. Fixlini Street Driveway Extension
The applicant has made a request to the San Luis Coastal Unified School District for an easement to
construct a new driveway from the project site to the end of Fixlini Street. As discussed previously
in this report, the driveway is necessary to mitigate potential impacts to traffic on Johnson Avenue
and for emergency vehicle access. The easement would include an area approximately 31 feet wide
and 110 feet deep immediately adjacent to the residential property located on 1719 Fixlini Street.
The driveway would be 20 feet wide, which would allow for a ten-foot buffer between the
driveway and the adjacent residence. Planning staff is recommending that this area be used for
landscaping to screen the driveway from the adjacent residence.
Staff is also recommending modifications to the existing transition area between the school's
driveway and the Fahm Street right-of-way. The modifications will help insure that the new
driveway will work with the existing circulation pattern at the school site. Presently, the school's
driveway simply merges with the street, providing little indication that the public street has ended.
Two faded"Do Not Enter" directional signs are located on either side of the driveway, and a speed
bump is positioned approximately 70 feet away from the property line. Local residents have
indicated that cars tend to speed down the one-way driveway, and, residents commonly observe
vehicles entering the driveway at the end of Fixhni Street even though it is a one-way driveway
intended to be an exit only. The following recommended conditions of approval are provided to
insure compatibility between the Fixlini Street right-of-way, the existing school driveway, and the
proposed driveway extension to the Judge's Townhouses project:
1) The existing "Do Not Enter" signs at then end of Fixlini Street shall be
removed and positioned to the northwest of the proposed driveway
extension.
2) All existing directional arrows on the driveway surface shall be removed.
3) A table-top/driveway ramp shall be installed northwest of the proposed
driveway extension, to the approval of the Public Works Director and the
Community Development Director.
4) Directional signage shall be installed to the northwest of the new table-
top/driveway ramp indicating that two-way traffic is ahead.
4-29
TR 4-99 (Tract 2340)
1720 Johnson Avenue(Judge's Townhouses)
Page 8
5) Directional signage and striping shall be installed so that vehicles exiting the
school site merge into a single lane prior to reaching the new table-
top/driveway ramp. The new table-top/driveway ramp shall be designed to
accommodate one vehicle at a time.
Overall, staff supports the plan to provide secondary access to the project site via Fixlini Street and
the driveway extension. Staff feels that this secondary access will provide a safe and convenient
alternative to negotiating traffic on Johnson Avenue during the peak trip hours,while not increasing
traffic in excess of the volume of residential traffic it was designed to accomodate. The proposal to
does result in new traffic patterns that are a concern to the existing Fixlini neighborhood. However,
the improvements that staff is recommending for the school driveway/Fixlini Street interface will
insure a safe transition between the public street and the private driveway, and may in fact improve
existing conditions on Fixlini Street.
D. Inclusionary Housing Requirement
The City's Inclusionary Housing Requirement was adopted by Ordinance No. 1348 in February,
1999 and became effective April 1, 1999. This program is designed to increase the supply of
housing affordable to very low, low and moderate income households in the City of San Luis
Obispo. It does this by requiring most new residential and commercial development projects to
include affordable housing, pay an in-lieu housing fee, or dedicate real property for affordable
housing. This project is subject to the inclusionary housing requirement because the application for
the vesting tentative map was received after April 1, 1999, and the project consists of more than
four lots. The project applicant will meet the City's inclusionary housing requirement by building
one dwelling unit affordable to moderate income households. The unit proposed to be affordable is
the two-bedroom apartment above the garage on Lot 10, adjacent to the Judge's House. The
applicant's inclusionary housing proposal is attached to this report. It was accepted by the
Community Development Director on August 2, 1999, with one modification; the minimum term
of affordability of the unit will be thirty years.
OTHER DEPARTMENT COMMENTS
The project plans were circulated to other City departments for comment. Many of the
comments have been addressed in the most recent set of plans. Outstanding issues;detailed
below,have been incorporated as conditions of approval.
Building(Site Grading)
The Building Division has concerns regarding drainage from the slope to the east of the project
site. The plans do not indicate where the water will go once it reaches the proposed retaining
wall along the rear property line of the project. The applicant has indicated that a concrete swale
would be built on the uphill side of the retaining wall, to direct water towards the driveway. A
condition is recommended to insure that building plans address this issue to the satisfaction of
the Chief Building Official.
. 4-30
TR 4-99 (Tract 2340)
1720 Johnson Avenue (Judge's Townhouses)
Page 9
Utilities
The project'is proposed to be served by a private sewer system, and the existing sewer line that
serves the School District, in an easement on the project site, would be relocated to connect with
the active gravity system at the end of Fixlini Street. The most recent set of plans does not show
the new connection for the sewer serving the School District property. Utilities staff is currently
researching the feasibility of the new connection and has provided a condition to insure that the
resulting sewer system complies with City standards.
The proposed location of the double-check detector check assembly (DCDC) and the layout of
the proposed water meter manifold does not conform to the City's standard. Conditions are
provided to insure compliance with the these requirements to the satisfaction of the Fire Marshall
and the Utilities Engineer.
ALTERNATIVES
1. Recommend that the Council deny the tentative tract map and mitigated negative
declaration.
2. Continue discussion if additional information is needed. Direction should be given to staff
and the applicant.
RECOMN[ENDATION
That the Planning Commission take the following actions:
1. Recommend to the City Council adoption of the mitigated negative declaration of
environmental impact report, ER 4-99.
2. Recommend approval of the vesting tentative map to the City Council based on the following
findings, conditions and code requirements.
Findings:
1. The design of the tentative map and the proposed improvements are consistent with the
General Plan and the proposed development plan because the map meets all of the
requirements .of the Zoning Regulations and .Subdivision Regulations and will support
development typical of areas designated on the General Plan Land Use Map as Medium-
Density Residential.
2. The site is physically suited for the type and density of development allowed in the R-2
zoning district.
3. The design of the subdivision and the proposed improvements, when evaluated in
conjunction with the proposed mitigation measures, are not likely to cause serious health
problems, substantial environmental damage or substantially and unavoidably injure fish or
wildlife or their habitat.
4-31
TR 4-99 (Tract 2340)
1720 Johnson Avenue(Judge's Townhouses)
Page 10
4. The design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict with easements
for access through, or use of property within, the proposed subdivision.
5. The initial environmental study and mitigated negative declaration, ER 4-99, concludes that
the project will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment.
Conditions:
1. The project shall comply with all of the requirements of the Residential Condominium
Development Ordinance and the Property Improvement Standards for New Condominium
Projects (SLOMC 17.82.140). Solar collectors for water heating and private storage areas
shall be reviewed and approved by the Architectural Review Commission.
2. The grading and drainage plan shall be modified to include measures to deal with water
draining from the field above the project, to the approval of the Chief Building Official.
3. The following conditions are provided to insure compatibility between the Fixlini Street right-
of-way, the existing school driveway, and the proposed driveway extension to the Judge's
Townhouses project:
a) The existing 'Do Not Enter'.signs at then end of Fixlini Street shall be
removed and positioned to the northwest of the proposed driveway
extension.
b) All existing directional arrows on the driveway surface shall be removed.
c) A table-top/driveway ramp shall be installed northwest of the proposed
driveway extension, to the approval of the Public Works Director and the
Community Development Director.
d) Directional signage shall be installed to the northwest of the new table-
top/driveway ramp indicating that two-way traffic is ahead.
e) Directional signage and striping shall be installed so that vehicles exiting the
school site merge into a single lane prior to reaching the new table-
top/driveway ramp. The new table-top/driveway ramp shall be designed to
accommodate one vehicle at a time.
4. All mitigation measures included in the Mitigation Agreement signed by the Community
Development Director and the applicant, Stephen Sicanoff, are hereby conditions of
approval:
a) A detailed soils engineering report shall to be submitted as part of the grading and
building permit applications. The soils report shall include at a minimum: data regarding
the nature, distribution and strength of the existing soils, conclusions and
recommendations for grading procedures, and design criteria for corrective measures,
when necessary. Grading and building must be designed and performed in compliance
with the soils engineering report.
4-32
TR 4-99 (Tract 2340)
1720 Johnson Avenue(Judge's Townhouses)
Page 11
b) The applicant shall submit a plan for review and approval by the Architectural Review
Commission indicating the method or methods used to reduce the noise levels on lots 7
and 8 to insignificant levels (less than 60dB Ldn). Compliance with the Noise Element
maximum noise levels shall be verified with a noise analysis performed by a licensed
acoustical engineer.
c) To help reduce the waste stream generated by this project:
i. Site development shall include convenient facilities for interior and exterior onsite
recycling.
ii. Demolition and construction shall include a solid waste recycling plan for recycling
discarded materials, such as concrete, sheet-rock, wood, and metals, from the
construction site. The plan must be submitted for approval by the City's Solid Waste
Coordinator or the Community Development Director, prior to building permit
issuance.
iii. Recycled-content materials shall be used in structural and decorative building
components and in surfacing wherever feasible.
d) To reduce the potential for impacts to archeological and historic resources:
i. Prepare an updated set of Historic Resources Record Forms (DPR 523); the Judge's
House should be assigned a Primary Number and Trinomial as quickly as possible.
ii. Removal of the apartment buildings and trees, and all grading activities shall be
monitored by an experienced archaeologist.
iii. Alterations in the garden area shall be inspected by the project archaeologist.
iv. Subterranean features encountered shall be carefully recorded, thoroughly
documented and adequately sampled.
v. Monitoring work, data recording and sampling shall be summarized and presented in
a comprehensive final report.
5. The existing sewer main that serves the School District property and crosses the project site
in an easement shall be abandoned. The School District shall be reconnected to the existing
active gravity sewer system located in the street right-of-way at the end of Fixlini Street.. If
this alignment is not feasible because of the depth of the system serving the School District
property, then the existing sewer serving the school shall be realigned in an easement on
School District property, to the approval of the Utilities Director.
6. The double-check detector check assembly (DCDC) shall be located adjacent to the public
right-of-way in Johnson Avenue to the satisfaction of the Fire Marshall and Utilities
Engineer.
7. Three separate 2" laterals will be required to serve the ten new residences, with meters
manifolded in groups of 4 or 3 meters per manifold. They need to be sized and placed at
appropriate locations along the Johnson Avenue frontage to minimize the distance to the
units from the water meters,to the approval of the Utilities Engineer.
4-33
TR 4-99 (Tract 2340)
1720 Johnson Avenue(Judge's Townhouses)
Page 12
CODE REQUIREMENTS
A. A water allocation is required, due to the additional units. Currently, a water allocation can
only be obtained through the water retrofit program. The City's Water Conservation division
can help in determining the needed allocation and the necessary number of retrofits. Water
Conservation can be reached by calling 781-7258.
B. Water and Wastewater Impact Fees shall be paid at the time building permits are issued.
Both the Water and the Wastewater Impact Fees are based on the number of single family
units being built. The cost of developing an allocation through retrofit could offset a portion
of the required Water Impact Fee according to appropriate City policies.
C. Each lotfunit shall be provided a separate water, gas, electric, telephone and cable TV service
(a common sewer is allowed). Water services shall be manifolded in pairs, whenever
possible,in accordance with City standards.
D. New construction shall meet the setback requirements of the Uniform Plumbing Code (UPC)
table 7-7 for water wells, if a well exists.
E. Lots shall be developed with grades that comply with the Uniform Building Code (UBC)
appendix section 3315.4.
F. The subdivider shall pay Park-In-Lieu fees consistent with SLO Municipal Code Section
16.40.80.
G. The subdivider shall meet the Inclusionary housing requirement consistent with the SLO
Municipal Code Section 17.91.
H. Traffic impact fees are required to be paid prior to the issuance of a building permit, with
credit for existing legal units.
I. Fire flow shall be in accordance with Appendix III-A of the 1999 California Fire Code. The
proposed location of the on-site hydrant is adequate. Hydrant shall be installed per City
Engineering Standards.
J. All new construction shall have automatic fire sprinklers installed per the Building Code.
K. Buildings undergoing demolition and construction shall be in accordance with Article 87 of
the 1999 California Fire Code.
Attachments
Attachment 1 - Vicinity Map
Attachment 2- Initial Environmental Study, ER 4-99
Attachment 3 - Archeological Resources Inventory, dated June 21, 1999
Attachment 4- Developer's Statement for Compliance with Inclusionary Housing Requirement
Attachment 5 - Letter from School District regarding status of easement,dated August 10, 1999
Project Plans
4-34
l
(P-� R-2
�G
�tP
R1
v
��i R=1.
R2
R-3
R
R2
�2
s Am
viu
ni
1720 Johnson
0 40 80 12D Feet TR 4-99
4-35
������n�a►�►���IIIIINIIII p�►►i�����►��
X8111 II
I
city of sAn tuis OBISPO
990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249
Revised
INITIAL STUDY
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
ER 4-99
1. Project Title:
Judge's Townhouses
2. Lead Agency Name and Address:
City of San Luis Obispo
Community Development Department
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
3. Contact Person and Phone Number:
Michael Codron, (805)781-7169
4. Project Location:
1720 Johnson Avenue
5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address:
Paragon Design and Building
Tom Brajkovich,Architect
1009 Morro Street, Suite 202
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
6. General Plan Designation:
Medium-Density Residential
7. Zoning:
R-2; Medium-Density Residential
OThe City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services, programs and activA736
Telecommunications Device for the Deaf(805) 781-7410.
8. Description of the Project:
The applicant is proposing to subdivide an existing .952 acre site into ten lots. Lots 1
through 8 would have an average size of 1543 square feet and would each be developed
with one 2-bedroom townhouse. Lot 9, at 13,433 square feet, includes 1750 square feet
of common open space, with driveways and guest parking occupying the remaining
11,683 square feet. Lot 10, at 15,704 square feet would contain the existing Judge's
House and a proposed detached garage with a two-bedroom apartment above. Individual
lots will be subdivided as a Planned Unit Development (PUD) and will include small,
private backyards. The site will have primary access from Johnson Avenue and
secondary access from Fixlini Street across an easement on San Luis Unified School
District Property. A designated fire lane will be developed between the Fixlini Street
entrance and Johnson Avenue entrance to the project; with one new onsite fire hydrant
provided adjacent to the fire lane. .Significant grading will be required to build along the
perimeter of the site, and a retaining wall is proposed to border the northwestern and
northeastern property lines. In order to accommodate the new development,the plans show
demolition of three World War II era bungalows,containing a total of 5 units. The plans
also show extensive tree removals and the relocation of an existing 26"palm.
9. Surrounding Land Uses and Settings:
The Judge's House site is bordered on the northeast and northwest by San Luis Unified
School District property. The School District property is home to San Luis High School,
at 1350 California Boulevard, and San Luis Junior High School, at 1530 Lizzie Street.
San Luis Junior High School is currently utilized by various tenants including the San
Luis Adult School and Hawthorne Elementary School. To the southeast is a large,
architecturally significant residence that has been divided into separate units. To the
southwest and across Johnson Avenue are apartment buildings. Overall, the area is
characterized by moderately steep slopes, as the terrain begins to climb out of San Luis
Obispo and into the Santa Lucia range.
10. Project Entitlements Requested:
The applicant has submitted a Vesting Tentative Map for subdivision of the existing
parcel into a Planned Unit Development (PUD) and is proposing ten separate lots. In
addition to the subdivision, the applicant has submitted an application for review and
approval of project plans by the Architectural Review Commission.
11. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g. permits, financing approval,
or participation agreement):
None.
2 4-37
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at
least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following
pages.
Land Use and Planning Biological Resources Aesthetics
Population and Housing Energy and Mineral X Cultural Resources
Resources
X Geological Problems Hazards Recreation
Water X Noise X Mandatory Findings
of Significance
Air Quality Public Services
Transportation and X Utilities and Service � : ' : - ,,•<<' �,.,. .aL"
Circulation Systems
There is no evidence before the Department that the project will have any potential adverse effects on fish and
X wildlife resources or the habitat upon which the wildlife depends. As such,the project qualifies for a de minimic
waiver with regards to the filing of Fish and Game Fees.
The project has potential to impact fish and wildlife resources and shall be subject to the payment of Fish and
Game fees pursuant to Section 711.4 of the California Fish and Game Code.
DETERMINATION:
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE
DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a
significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheets have been added to X
the project A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that the proposed project May have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s)on the environment, but at least one effect(1)
has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (2) has been
addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a
3 4-38
"Potentially Significant Impact" or is "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated." An :ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT is required,but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,there WILL NOT be
a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects(1)have been analyzed in an earlier EIR
pursuant to applicable standards and (2) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including
revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project.
✓' ��<!/- August 3, 1999
gnature Date
Ronald Whisenand,Development Review Manager Arnold Jonas,Community Development Dir.
Printed Name For
This signature indicates the addition of a mitigationme sure (#2) which was added by
the Planning Commission on September 8, 1999.
3-16-00
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: ora Whise d, Development Review Manage
1. A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the
information sources a lead agency cites in the analysis in each section. A "No Impact" answer is adequately
supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one
involved(e.g.the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A"No Impact"answer should be explained where it is
based on project-specific factors as well as general standards(e.g.the project will not expose sensitive receptors to
pollutants,based on a project-specific screening analysis).
2. All answers must take account of the whole action involved,including off-site as well as on-site,cumulative as well
as project-level, indirect as well as direct,and construction as well as operational impacts.
3. "Potentially Significant Impact'is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant. -If there are
one or more"Potentially Significant Impact"entries when the determination is made,an EIR is required.
4. "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated"applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has
reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact"to a "Less than Significant Impact" The lead agency must
describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level
(mitigation measures from Section 17,"Earlier Analysis,"may be cross-referenced).
5. Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has
been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration..Section 15063 (c)(3)(D). Earlier analyses are
discussed in Section 17 at the end of the checklist.
6. Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential
impacts(e.g. general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should,
where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. A source list
should be attached,and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion.
4 4-39
Issues and Supporting Information, .ources Sources Poten, Potentially I-Less—Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER 4-99 Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Inco orated
1. LAND USE AND PLANNING- Would the proposal:
a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? 1,2 X
b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted X
by agencies with jurisdiction over the project?
c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? 3 X
d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impact to soils 4 X
or farmlands,or impacts from incompatible land uses?
e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established 3 X
commu ni (including a low-income or minorityunity)?n ?
The General Plan designation for the site is Medium-Density Residential and the zoning designation is R-2(Medium-Denisty
Residential). These designations allow for development of up to 12 density units per net site acre. The project as proposed
complies with the property development standards for the R-2 zone and with the Subdivision Regulations. The site is
adjacent to other City residential developments and has not been used for agricultural purposes during this century.
Residential Condominium Development Ordinance
The plans as submitted do not comply with the City's Residential Condominium[ Development Ordinance for open space
requirements. The Ordinance requires each unit to have a minimum of 250 square feet of private open space, and the total
open space requirement(private open space and common open space combined)for the project must be 750 square feet per
unit. Staff has reviewed the plans for consistency with this requirement and has determined that the requirement can be met
with minor modifications to the building locations and through minor modifications to proposed property lines. Private and
total open space requirements will be reviewed by the Planning Commission and the City Council through the subdivision
review process. No further mitigation is required.
Conclusion: No impact.
2 POPULATION AND HOUSING-Would the proposal:
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population 5 X
projections?
b) Induce substantial growth in an arra either directly or indirectly
(e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area or major X
infrastructure?
c) Displace existing housing,especially affordable housing? X
The project will not induce substantial growth since the new development will be replacing five existing one-bedroom units
on the site. According to 1997 California Department of Finance (CDF)estimates, there was an average of 2.3 persons per
occupied household in the City. If the project were occupied at this rate, about 9 additional persons would live on the
property-
Affordable
ropertAffordable Housine
Five World War II era bungalows are proposed to be demolished in order to accommodate the proposed development. The
units are currently rented at affordable rates,but are not part of an affordable housing agreement.
The proposed project is required to comply with the City's Inclusionary Housing Ordinance. The applicant has submitted an
Inclusionary Housing Proposal indicating that the requirement would be met by building one affordable unit. The proposed
affordable unit would be the two-bedroom apartment, located on Lot 10 above the garage, and would be rented at rates
affordable to moderate income households. The Community Development Director has reviewed and accepted the
Inclusionary Housing Proposal subject to the minimum term of affordability,30 years.
Conclusion: Less than significant impact.
5 4-40
Issues and Supporting Informatic -jources sources Pore. y PotentiallyLess Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER 4-99 Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
3. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or exi iose People to potential impacts involving:
a) Fault rupture? 6 X
b) Seismic ground shaking? X
c) Seismic ground failure,including liquefaction? 7 X
d) Seiche,tsunami,or volcanic hazard? 7 X
e) Landslides or mudflows? X
f) Erosion,changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from 8 X
excavation,grading,or fill?
g) Subsidence of the land? 8 X
h) Expansive soils? 8 X
r Uni ue. eolo is or physical features? 8 1 1 X
There are no known fault lines on site or in the immediate vicinity. However,the City of San Luis Obispo is in Seismic Zone
4, a seismically active region of California and strong ground shaking should be expected during the life of proposed
structures. Structures must be designed in compliance with seismic design criteria established in the Uniform Building Code.
The site lies in an area identified by the Seismic Safety Element of the General Plan as being in the "F', Franciscan
Formation, zone which has a high landslide risk. As defined in the Seismic Safety Element, "the Franciscan Formation is
composed of incompetent material of complex structure". The evaluation included in the element qualifies its applicability by
noting that it is based on natural conditions and does not account for changes in stability that may accompany development.
Soils Stability
Although a soils study has not been prepared for this site, a soils study prepared in 1991 for the General Hospital expansion
project has been evaluated by staff. General Hospital is located less than .5 miles from the project site and has a similar
setting. The primary concerns at the General Hospital site were "the potential for different settlement, the potential for
subsurface water,and the expansive soil condition." The study concluded that the General Hospital site was suitable, from a
geotechnical standpoint, for the proposed project and provided recommendations to insure long-tern soils stability. Staff is
recommending the following mitigation measure to insure that a thorough geotechnical analysis is prepared for this site in
conjunction with any permits for new structures. The study shall also identify and provide recommendations regarding any
unique geologic or physical features on the site that may have an impact on soils stability.
1.Miti¢ation'Measure:
A detailed soils engineering report shall to be submitted as part of the grading and building permit applications. The soils
report shall include at a minimum:data regarding the nature,distribution and strength of the existing soils,conclusions and
recommendations for grading procedures,and design criteria for corrective measures,when necessary. Grading and building
must be designed and performed in compliance with the soils engineering report.
Conclusion: Less than sign#icant impact with mitigation incorporated
4. WATER.Would the proposal result in:
a) Changes in absorption rates,drainage patterns,or the rate and X
amount of surface runoff?
b) Exposure of people.or property to water related hazards such as 9 X
flooding?
c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface water 10 X
quality(e.g.temperature,dissolved oxygen or turbidity?
d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body? 10 X
e) Changes in currents,or the course or direction of water10 X
movements?
4-41-
Issues and Supporting Informabol, .sources Sources Poter.. Potentially itss Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impazt
ER 4-99 Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
:In orated
f) Change in the quantity of ground waters,either through direct
additions or withdrawals,or through interception of an aquifer
by cuts or excavations or through substantial loss of X
groundwater recharge capability?
g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? X
h) Impacts to groundwater quality? X
i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise .
available fore blic waters lies? X
The project will increase the amount of impervious surfaces on the site.Land Use Element Policy 6.4.7 encourages the use of
porous paving,landscaping,or other design elements to reduce surface water runoff and aid in the ability for surface drainage
to percolate effectively into the soil. Through the review of the required architectural review application,changes to drainage
patterns can be adequately evaluated with the grading and landscaping plans. No further mitigation is required.
Conclusion: No impact,
5. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or
projected air quality violation(Compliance with APCD 11 X
Environmental Guidelines)?
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants 11 X
c) Alter air movement,moisture,or temperature,or cause any
change in climate? 11 X
d Create obiecdonable odors? 11 X
During project construction,there will be increased levels of fugitive dust associated with construction and grading activities,
as well as construction emissions associated with heavy duty construction equipment. Compliance with the dust management
practices contained in Municipal Code Section 15.04.040 X. (Sec. 7004(b))will adequately mitigate short-term impacts. No
further mitigation is necessary.
San Luis Obispo County is a non-attainment area for the State ozone and PM 10(fine particulate matter 10 microns or less in
diameter)air quality standards. State law requires that emissions of non-attainment pollutants and their prectnsors be reduced
by at least 5%per year until the standards are attained. The 1995 Clean Air Plan (CAP) for San Luis Obispo County was
developed and adopted by the Air Pollution Control District(APCD)to meet that requirement. The CAP is a comprehensive
planning document designed to reduce emissions from traditional industrial and commercial sources, as well as from motor
vehicle use. Land Use Element Policy 1.18.2 states that the City will help the APCD implement the Clean Air Plan.
The project size is below the threshold contained in the APCD's "CEQA Air Quality Handbook" for generating significant
amounts of emissions and therefore is expected to have less than significant air quality impacts.
Conclusion: Less than significant im acr.
6. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? X
b) Hazards to safety from design features(e.g.sharp curves or
dangerous intersections)or incompatible uses(e.g.farm X
equipment)?
c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? X
d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? X
e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? X
f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative X
transportation(e.g.bus turnouts,bicycle racks)?
g) Rail,waterborne or air traffic impacts(e.g.compatibility with 12 X
San Luis Ob' Co.Airport Land Use Plan)?
7 4-42
Issues and Supporting Informatio.. -pources Sources Potei. .y Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER 4 99 Issues. Unless Impact
Mitigation
In cared
Traffic
According to the Trip Generation manual published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), condominiums
(family)generate about 5.7 average daily trips(ADT),single family residences generate 10 ADT and apartments generate 6.5
ADT. Using this trip generation estimate, the project would generate about 62.1 ADT. The existing uses on the site (5
apartments and one single-family residence) generate about 42.5 ADT. The additional 20 ADT resulting from this project
will be dispersed between northbound and southbound trips on Johnson Avenue and San Luis Drive/California Boulevard for
Cal Poly and Highway 101 destinations.
When this project was originally submitted, the sole access to the site was via the Johnson Avenue driveway. This raised
concerns as to whether sufficient gaps in traffic on Johnson Avenue exist to enable vehicles driving south to turn left into
the project driveway without queuing on Johnson Avenue. The applicant was directed to either have a qualified traffic
engineer analyze the potential for queuing on Johnson Avenue, or pursue alternatives for accessing the site. As a result,
the project has been redesigned to include secondary access to the site via an easement over San Luis Unified School
District property at the end of Fixlini Street. This secondary access will give vehicles the opportunity.to make the left .
turn at the signalized intersection at Lizzie Street, instead of potentially blocking traffic while waiting to turn left into the
Johnson Avenue driveway. If the easement not obtained, further analysis of the traffic impacts of the project will be
necessary.
2.Mitigation Measure:
Applicant must obtain an easement for driveway purposes from the School District. If applicant in unable to acquire an
easement,applicant shall be required to have a traffic study prepared by a qualified traffic professional and shall resubmit the
project with a new design that addresses any significant traffic impacts identified in the study. The following issues are to be
addressed by the traffic study:
• Estimate the total volume of traffic generated from this project and the adjoining developed property(1730 Johnson)
that uses the common access driveway and the traffic increase caused by this project.
• Conduct a "gap analysis" of traffic on Johnson Avenue adjacent to the project driveway during AM and PM peak
periods.
• Determine whether sufficient gaps exist to enable project and adjoining property residents and visitors driving south
on Johnson Avenue to turn left into the project driveway without queuing on Johnson Avenue. And if queues
develop,determine their frequency and duration.
Design Features
The design of the Johnson Avenue driveway accessing the site has raised concerns for pedestrian safety onsite and on the
adjacent sidewalk. The following comments provided by the City's Transportation Planner will be considered during review
of project plans by the Architectural Review Commission.
`The proposed sidewalk that runs along the northern edge of the driveway should be extended directly westward to
tie into the back of the public sidewalk. When the retaining wall is reconstructed to accommodate the private
sidewalk extension, a "corner" cutoff shall be provided of sufficient length to allow exiting motorists to see
approaching pedestrians on the public sidewalk. In a similar manner,the retaining wall at the southern corner of the
driveway entrance"should be" reconstructed to provide a sufficient corner cutoff to enable exiting motorists to view
oncoming traffic from the south (this modification will require the approval of the adjacent property owner). If
feasible, the extent of the cutoff should enable motorists to view oncoming traffic without encroaching onto the
sidewalk or into the adjoining bike lane."
Conclusion: Less than significant impact.
8 4-43
Issues and Supporting Informabr, .ources Sources Pote. y Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER 4-99 Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Inco orated
7. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal affect:
a) Endangered,threatened or rare species or their habitats .
(including but not limited to plants,fish,insects,animals or 13 X
birds)?
b) Locally designated species(e.g.heritage trees)? 14 X
c) Locally designated natural communities(e.g.oak forest,coastal X
habitat,etc.)? X.
d) Wetland habitat(e.g.marsh,riparian and vernal pool?) 10 X
e Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? . X
The City's Informational Map Atlas indicates there are no sensitive plant or animal species on the site. Although much of the
site is undeveloped, construction of the Judge's House began in 1892 and the site has been inhabited since. Gardens and
other facilities have been developed over the years around the Judge's House and the boundary of the Judge's House property
is fenced in,reducing the likelihood that the area serves as a wildlife corridor.
Trees
Project plans show extensive tree removals along the northwest and northeast property lines to accommodate the new
structures. The trees proposed for removal are mainly non-native pepper trees and eucalyptus trees. Two Coast Live Oak
trees along the northeast property line will remain. A 26"palm tree will be relocated. The large,skyline trees along the front
property line of the project and surrounding the historic Judge's House will remain.
Conclusion: No impact.
& ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the prrovosal:
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? 15,16 X
b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient X
manner?
c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource
that would be of future value to the region and the residents of X
the State?
The Energy Conservation Element policies encourage the use of techniques to minimize energy use. The project would
expand an existing neighborhood in accordance with the Land Use Element of the General Plan, which was reviewed for
consistency with the Energy Conservation Element. In addition, the Residential Condominium Development Ordinance
requires each new unit to utilize solar water heating (SLOMC 17.82.140 H.). The Architectural Review Commission will
consider the placement of solar collectors to minimize their visibility from any public rights-0f--way and from common open
space areas onsite.
Conclusion: No impact,
9. HAZARDS. Would the prolpossil involve:
a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous X
substances(including,but not limited to:oil,pesticides,
chemicals or radiation)?
b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or X
emergency evacuation plan?
c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard? X
d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health 3 X
hazards?
e) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable brash,grass or 16 X
trees?
There are no known hazardous substances or other potential health hazards associated with this project. The project will not
interfere with any City emergency response or evacuation plan.
9 4-44
Issues and Supporting Informabo. ,ources sources rote.. i Potentially I ess Than No
Significant Signifleant Significant Impact
ER 4-99 Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
:Incorporated
The site is identified on the Safety Element Map as being susceptible to moderate wildland fres. The City Fire Department
has reviewed the project plans and believes that if the project is conditioned to meet City fire protection standards, then
adequate protection from wildland fires hazards will exist.
The project site meets response requirements if built in accordance with City standards: One on-site fire hydrant will be
required to meet the City's standard for hydrant location.
Conclusion: Less than significant impact.
10.NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increase in existing noise levels? X
b) Exposure of people to"unacceptable"noise levels as defined by 17,18 X
the San Luis Obispo General Plan Noise Element?
The Noise Element of the General Plan and its accompanying Noise Guidebook states that a generally acceptable level of
noise for residences is 60 decibels, day/night average (Ldn) for outdoor areas, and 45 dB Ldn for indoor use areas. The
guidebook estimates that at buildout, noise from Johnson Avenue would be 60 dB Ldn at a distance of 157 feet from the
center of the roadway and 65 dB Ldn at a distance of 73 feet from the center of the roadway. Project plans indicate that a
portion of lot number 8 would be within the 65 dB Ldn contour at buildout. Project plans also indicate that all of lot number
8 and most of lot number 7 would be within the 60 dB Ldn contour at buildout.
Complying noise levels for interior spaces can be achieved through standard building techniques. However,some level of
mitigation is necessary to protect the private yard areas for lots 7 and 8. The Noise Element provides a list of preferred noise
mitigation techniques that can be used to reduce traffic noise to acceptable levels. Those techniques are listed in order of
preference in Policy 12.13(Digest numbering)and include:provide distance between the noise source and recipient;provide
distance plus planted earthen berms;provide distance and planted earthen berms combined with sound walls;provide earthen
berms combined with sound walls;provide sound walls only;integrate buildings and sound walls to create a continuous noise
barrier.
3.Mitigation Measure:
The applicant shall submit a plan for review and approval by the Architectural Review Commission indicating the method or
methods used to reduce the noise levels on lots 7 and 8 to insignificant levels (less than 60dB Ldn). Compliance with the
Noise Element maximum noise levels shall be verified with a noise analysis performed by a licensed acoustical engineer.
Conclusion: Less than sign#kant impact with mitigation incorporated
11.PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon,or result in a need for new or altered government
services in any of the followin •areas:
a) Fire protection? X
b) Police protection? X
c) Schools? X
d) Maintenance of public facilities,including roads? X
e Other governmental services? X
This project has been reviewed by Fire Department staff.Comments received provide standards for compliance with the Fire
Code including a requirement for automatic fire-sprinkler systems to be installed in all new units, one new fire hydrant
adjacent to the fire lane, and fire protection systems to address the requirements of the project and proposed occupancies.
These requirements will be addressed through established City review processes such as architectural review and building
permit application review.
The project description includes secondary access to the site via an easement through San Luis Unified School District
property to Fixlini Street. Secondary access to the site via Fixlini is a critical part of the project description and mitigates
potential significant impacts including potential significant impacts for traffic and emergency access. If the easement is
not obtained,the project description will have to be modified and additional analysis in these areas will be necessary.
10 4-45
Issues and Supporting Informatic - .ources Sources Pote. Y Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant impact
ER 4-99 Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
The school districts in this state are separate goveming bodies with authority to collect fees to finance school construction and
parcel acquisition. Section 65995 of the Government Code prohibits the City from denying a subdivision or collecting any
fees beyond those required by the school district itself,to mitigate effects of inadequate school facilities. Any effect that the
additional children associated with this project will have on school facilities will be mitigated in whole or in part by the
districts per-square-foot fees,charged at the time of building permit issuance for each home.
Conclusion: No impacts.
12.UTELIMS AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies,or
substantial alterations to the following utilities:
a) Power or natural gas? X
b) Communications systems? X
c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? X
d) Sewer or septic tanks? X
e) Storm water drainage? X
f) Solid waste disposal? X
Local or regional water supplies? X
This project has been reviewed by Utilities Department staff who determined that the project will not result in a significant
increase in the demand for services over that which existing development does. The following paragraphs analyze potential
service issues.
Water Sunnlies&Distribution Facilities
Because the project will result in an overall increase in the number of dwelling units, a water allocation will be required.
Currently, a water allocation_can only be obtained through the water retrofit program. To receive an allocation, the applicant
will need to provide water offsets through retrofitting the plumbing of existing structures or otherwise satisfy the requirements
of the water allocation regulations through an approved method. Since the new dwellings will be served by individual water
meters, Water and Wastewater Impact Fees will be required. The cost of developing an allocation through retrofitting could
offset a portion of the required Water Impact Fee according to appropriate City policies. Water and Wastewater Impact Fees
shall be paid at the time building permits are issued. Compliance, with the provisions of the Water Allocation Regulations,
and the water impact fee program,are adequate to mitigate the effects of any potential increased water demand.
Wastewater(Sewer System)
The Utilities Engineer has reviewed the project for consistency with City requirements and has determined that the proposed
sewer alignment is unacceptable. The proposal involves realigning the existing main that crosses the property, which
presently serves the Junior High School property. If the existing main were to be used to serve this project as well, it would
have to be a public main and would have to be designed to current City standards. Generally a minimum 15' easement is
required for all sewer lines. All weather access must be provided to each manhole for service and maintenance of the sewer.
Clean-outs are not allowed on public mains but are shown on project plans.
Recent discussions between staff and the applicant have indicated that a preferred approach will be pursued. Staff feels that
the project should be served by a private sewer system and that the existing main serving the Junior High School should be
abandoned. The applicant will restore sewer service to the Junior High School by tying into the existing sewer main at the
end of Fixlini Street The final alignment of the sewer system serving this project and the Junior High School will be
reviewed by the Planning Commission and the City Council through the subdivision review process. The wastewater system
shall comply with City standards. No further mitigation is required.
Solid Waste
Background research for the Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989(AB939)shows that Califomians dispose of roughly
11 4-46
Issues and Supporting InformatiL ources Sources Pote. Y Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER 4-99 Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Inco rated
2,500 pounds of waste per month. Over 90% of this waste goes to landfills, posing a threat to groundwater, air quality,
landfill capacity and public health. Cold Canyon landfill is projected to reach its capacity by 2018. The Act requires each
city and county in California to reduce the flow of materials to landfills by 50%(from 1990 levels)by 2000. To help reduce
the waste stream generated by this project, consistent with the City's Source Reduction and Recycling Element, recycling
facilities must be accommodated on the project site and a solid waste reduction plan for recycling discarded construction
materials submitted with the building permit application. The project should include facilities for both interior and exterior
recycling to reduce the waste stream generated by the project consistent with the Source Reduction and Recycling Element.
4. Mitigation Measure:
To help reduce the waste stream generated by this.project:
A. Site development shall include convenient facilities for interior and exterior onsite recycling.
B. Demolition and construction shall include a solid waste recycling plan for recycling discarded materials,such as concrete,
sheet-rock,wood,and metals,from the construction site. The plan must be submitted for approval by the City's Solid
Waste Coordinator or the Community Development Director,prior to building permit issuance.
C. Recycled-content materials shall be used in structural and decorative building components and in surfacing wherever
feasible.
Conclusion: Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated
13.AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
a) .Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? 19 X
b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? I X
c Create light or are? I X
On the Scenic Roadways Map in the Circulation Element (GP Digest, Figure 6), the segment of Johnson Avenue, between
Bishop Street and San Luis Drive, on which the project fronts, is designated as one of moderate scenic value. Northbound
traffic on this segment of Johnson Avenue has views of Bishop Peak and the Cuesta Range. Southbound traffic on this
segment has intermittent views of the Santa Lucia Range. In general,the proposed development is out of the way of views of
these scenic features. In addition, the site is heavily wooded adjacent to Johnson Avenue and the project is not likely to
degrade any scenic vista. The aesthetic concerns associated with site development will be addressed with the Architectural
Review Commission's review of plans. No further mitigation is required.
Conclusion:No impacts.
14.CULTURAL,RESOURCES..Would the proposal:
a) Disturb paleontological resources? 14 X
:b) Disturb.archaeological resources? 14 X
c) Affect historical resources? 14,20 X
d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which would 14 X
affect unique ethnic cultural values?
e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential
int area? 14 X
An Archaeological Resources Inventory (Phase I Study) has been prepared for the project site. Conclusions in the study
suggest that there is a strong possibility that buried historic resources (e.g. trash pits and privies)could be unearthed during
construction,particularly during site grading. The study addresses the issue that structures and trees are planned for removal
and that redevelopment of the property will affect the overall character of the property. It also states that"since neither the
apartments nor the trees meet the minimum criteria for classification as historic resources their destruction cannot be deemed
an adverse impact" No modifications to the Judge's House itself are proposed with this project and the ARI concludes that
the Judge's House is unlikely to suffer any damage during the proposed redevelopment project.
The Community Development Director has reviewed the ARI per the policies and procedures established in the City's
Archeological Resource Preservation Guidelines and has determined that incorporation of the following mitigation measures
12 4-47
Issues and Supporting Informatit. .ources sources Pore. y lyLessTimNo
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER 4-99 Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
will be sufficient to mitigate any impacts to less than significant levels. A Phase II archeological study is not required at this
time.
The City's Cultural Heritage Committee (CHC) has reviewed this project and minutes from the meeting are available in the
Community Development Department. The CHC concluded that the bungalow apartments on the site are not historically or
architecturally significant and that they could be demolished subject to the City's standard procedures for demolition of
structures older than 50 years. These procedures include a 90 day waiting period during which time the structures are
advertised and available should anyone wish to relocate the buildings offsite. The CHC also approved a motion finding the
project to be "conditionally compatible with the Historic Judge's House and grounds, provided that the project design
includes variation in rooflines and building colors to better blend in with the historic setting, and to encourage the color
palette variation to include a range of hues compatible with the colors of the historic house." The motions approved by the
CHC serve as recommendations to the Architectural Review Commission,which will review this project at a later date.
5. Mitigation Measures:
To reduce the potential for impacts to archeological and historic resources:
A. Prepare an updated set of Historic Resources Record Forms(DPR 523);the Judge's House should be assigned a Primary
Number and Trinomial as quickly as possible.
B. Removal of the apartment buildings and trees, and all grading activities shall be monitored by an experienced
archaeologist '
C. Alterations in the garden area shall be inspected by the project archaeologist.
D. Subterranean features encountered shall be carefully recorded,thoroughly documented and adequately sampled.
E. Monitoring work,data recording and sampling shall be summarized and presented in a comprehensive final report.
Conclusion: Less than signtqqaw impact with mitigation incorporated.
15.RECREATION. Would the proposal:
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other
recreational facilities? X
b Affect existing recreationalopportunities? X
The project will add incrementally to the demand for parks and other recreational facilities. Park-in-lieu fees will be required
to be paid to the City to help finance additional park space or equipment in the vicinity.These fees are sufficient to offset the
effect of the additional demand for recreational facilities. The site does not contribute to existing recreational opportunities
for the general public.
Conclusion: Less than signocant impacts.
16.MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the
environment,substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife
species,cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-
sustaining levels,threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
community,reduce the.nrmmber or restrict the range of a rare or X
endangered plant or animal or elimin a important examples of
the major periods of California history or, rehisto
Without mitigation, the project would have the potential for adverse impacts for all the issue areas checked in the table on
page 3.
b) Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term,to the X
disadvantage of long-term,environmentalgoals?
In this case,short-and long-term environmental goals are the same.
13 4-48
Issues and Supporting Informatit. .ources Sources Pote. y Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER 4-99 Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
c) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited,but
cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable"
means that the incremental effects ofa project are considerable
when viewed in connection with the effects of the past projects, X
the effects of other current projects,and the effects of probable
futureprojects)
The impacts identified in this initial study arespecific to this project and would not be categorized as cumulatively significant.
d) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause
substantial adverse effects on human beings,either directly or X
indirectly?
With incorporation of mitigation measures,the project will not result in substantial adverse impacts on humans.
17.EARLIER ANALYSES.
Earlier analysis may be used where,pdmuant to the tiering,program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have
been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration. Section 15063 ® (3) (D). In this case a discussion
should identify the foIlowin -items:
a Earlier analysis used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review.
No earlier analysis used.
b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately
analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards,and state whether such effects were addressed by
mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
Not applicable.
c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are"Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the mitigation
measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific
conditions of the project.
Not applicable.
Authority:Public Resources Code Sections 2I083 and 21087.
Reference:Public Resources Code Sections 21080®,21080.1,21080.3,21082.1,21083,21083.3,21093,321094,21151;
Sundstrom v_ County of Mendocino,202 Cal..App.3d 296(1988);Leono;fv.Monterey Board of Supervisors, 222 Cal.App.
3d 1337(1990).
18. SOURCE REFERENCES
1. General Plan Land Use Element,City of San Luis Obispo,August 1994.
2. Residential Condominium Development Ordinance,SLOMC 17.82.
3. InfoSLO,City of San Luis Obispo land use information database,available at the Community Development
Department.
4. State Department of Conservation Agricultural Land Map available at the Community Development Department
5. General Plan Digest,Land Use Element,Table 2 Anticipated City Population Growth,August 1994.
6. San Luis Obispo Quadrangle Map,prepared by the State Geologist in compliance with the Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake F Zoning Act,effective January 1, 1990.
7. Siesmic Safety Element Seismic Zones Map,City of San Luis Obispo,July 1975.
8. Soils Engineering Report,General Hospital Replacement Facility,Pacific Geoscience,July 1991,report available
in the Community Development Department.
9. Flood Insurance Rate Ma (Community Panel Number 060310 005 C),produced by FEMA.
10. General Plan Open Space Element,Creek Ma (Figure 4),January 1994.
11. Air Pollution Control District,CEQA Air Quality Handbook,Table 1-1 Screening Criteria for Project Air Quality.
Impacts.
12. County of San Luis Obispo,Airport Land Use Plan
13. City of San Luis Obispo Informational Map Atlas.
14. Archeological Resources Inventory and Impact Assessment,prepared by CA Singer and Associates,June 21 1999,
14 4-49.
available in the Community Development Department.
15. General Plan Energy Conservation Elemen Aril 1981.
16. General Plan Safety Element Natural Hazards Map,August 1978.
17. General Plan Noise Element,May 1996.
18. Noise Guidebook,Measurement and Mitigation Techniques,May 1996.
19. General Plan Digest,Circulation Element,Figure 6,November 1994.
20. Minutes of the City of San Luis Obispo Cultural Heritage Committee,Regular Meeting of 2-22-99.
19. MITIGATION MEASURES/MONITORING PROGRAM
1. Mitigation Measure: A detailed soils engineering report shall to be submitted as pan of the grading and
Geological Problems building permit applications. The soils report shall include at a minimum: data
regarding the nature,distribution and strength of the existing soils,conclusions and
recommendations for grading procedures,and design criteria for corrective measures,
when necessary. Grading and building must be designed and performed in compliance
with the soils engineering report.
Monitoring Program: The Community Development Department and Engineering staffs will review plans in
conjunction with the soils engineering report through the building permit plan check
process.
2. Mitigation Measure: Applicant must obtain an easement for driveway purposes from the School District. If
Trac applicant in unable to acquire an easement,applicant shall be required to have a traffic
study prepared by a qualified traffic professional and shall resubmit the project with a
new design that addresses any significant traffic impacts identified in the study. The
following issues are to be addressed by the traffic study:
• Estimate the total volume of traffic generated from this project and the
adjoining developed property (1730 Johnson) that uses the common access
driveway and the traffic increase caused by this project.
• Conduct a"gap analysis"of traffic on Johnson Avenue adjacent to the project
driveway during AM and PM peak periods.
• Determine whether sufficient gaps exist to enable project and adjoining
property residents and visitors driving south on Johnson Avenue to turn left
into the project driveway without queuing on Johnson Avenue. And if
queues develop,determine their frequency and duration.
Monitoring Program: Prior to final map approval the Public Works Director and the Community
Development Director will review and approve the easement document for recordation.
3. Mitigation Measure: The applicant shall submit a plan for review and approval by the Architectural Review
Noise Commission indicating the method or methods used to reduce the noise levels on lots 7
and 8 to insignificant levels(less than 60dB Ldn). Compliance with the Noise Element
maximum noise levels shall be verified with a noise analysis performed by a licensed
acoustical engineer.
Monitoring Program: The Architectural Review Commission will review the proposal for consistency with
the General Plan and for aesthetic concerns. The noise analysis shall be provided with
building permit application for the project and shall be reviewed and approved by the
Community Development Director.
4. Mitigation Measure: To help.reduce the waste stream generated by this project:
Utilities and Service
Systems A. Site development shall include convenient facilities for interior and exterior onsite
recycling.
B. Demolition and construction shall include a solid waste recycling plan for
15 4-50
recycling discarded materials,such as concrete,sheet-rock,wood,and metals,
from the construction site. The plan must be submitted for approval by the City's
Solid Waste Coordinator or the Community Development Director,prior to
building permit issuance.
C. Recycled-content materials shall be used in structural and decorative building
components and in surfacing wherever feasible.
Monitoring Program: Compliance with this requirement shall be monitored through the review of detailed
plans submitted for architectural review and building permit primarily by the
Community Development Department staff.
5. Mitigation Measure: To reduce the potential for impacts to archeological and historic resources:
Cultural Resources A. Prepare an updated set of Historic Resources Record Forms (DPR 523); the
Judge's House should be assigned a Primary Number and Trinomial as quickly as
possible.
B. Removal of the apartment buildings and trees, and all grading activities shall be
monitored by an experienced archaeologist.
C. Alterations in the garden area shall be inspected by the project archaeologist.
D. Subterranean features encountered shall be carefully recorded, thoroughly
documented and adequately sampled.
E. Monitoring work,data recording and sampling shall be summarized and presented
in a comprehensive final report.
Monitoring Program: Compliance with this requirement shall be monitored through the review of plans
submitted for a building permit by the Community Development Department staff and
subsequent insions.
16 4-51
Applicant Acceptance of Mitigation Measures
Project: 4-99
1720 Johnson Avenue
This agreement is entered into by and between the City of San Luis Obispo and Steve Sicanoff
on the llm day ofY-Als- - , 1999. The following measures are
included in the project to mitigate potential adverse environmental impacts. Please sign the
original and return it to the Community Development Department.
MITIGATION MEASURES:
1. A detailed soils engineering report shall to be submitted as part of the grading and building
permit applications. The soils report shall include at a minimum: data regarding the nature,
distribution and strength of the existing soils, conclusions and recommendations for grading
procedures, and design criteria for corrective measures, when necessary. Grading and.
building must be designed and performed in compliance with the soils engineering report.
2. The applicant shall submit a plan for review and approval by the Architectural Review
Commission indicating the method or methods used to reduce the noise levels on lots 7 and
8 to insignificant levels (less than 60dB Ldn). Compliance with the Noise Element maximum
noise levels shall be verified with a noise analysis performed by a licensed acoustical
engineer.
3. To help reduce the waste stream generated by this project:
a. Site development shall include convenient facilities for interior and exterior onsite
recycling.
b. Demolition and construction shall include a solid waste recycling plan for recycling
discarded materials, such as concrete, sheet-rock, wood, and metals, from the
construction site. The plan must be submitted for approval by the City's Solid Waste
Coordinator or the Community Development Director, prior to building permit issuance.
c. Recycled-content materials shall be used in structural and decorative building
components and in surfacing wherever feasible.
4. To reduce the potential for impacts to archeological and historic resources:
a. Prepare an updated set of Historic Resources Record Forms (DPR 523); the Judge's
House should be assigned a Primary Number and Trinomial as quickly as possible.
b. Removal of the apartment buildings and trees, and all grading activities shall be
monitored by an experienced archaeologist.
c. Alterations in the garden area shall be inspected by the project archaeologist.
d. Subterranean features encountered shall be carefully recorded, thoroughly documented
and adequately sampled.
e. Monitoring work, data recording and sampling shall be summarized and presented in a
comprehensive final report.
If the Community Development Director or hearing body determines that the above mitigation
measures are ineffective or physically infeasible, he may add, delete or modify the mitigation to
meet the intent of the original measures. 4-52
ER 4-99
Mitigation Agreement
Page 2
Please note that section 15070 (b) (1) of the California Administrative Code requires the
applicant to agree to the above mitigation measures before the proposed Mitigated Negative
Declaration is released for public review. This project will not be scheduled for public
review and hearing until this signed original is returned to the Community Development
Department
r
�•. �/ .�G
Arnold B. Jonas Steve Sicanoff
Community Develop nt Director
4-53
Page 1
t
r C.A. SINGER & ASSOCIATES, Inc.
Archaeology Cultural Resources & Lithic Studies
June 21, 1999
Mr. Thomas Brajkovich
Paragon Designs
1009 Morro Street,Suite 202
San Luis Obispo,CA 93401
Subject: Cultural resources survey and impact assessment for a residential property at 1720
Johnson Avenue in the City of San Luis Obispo, San Luis Obispo County, California.
Dear Mr. Brajkovich:
As requested, a cultural resources survey and impact assessment was carried out for a
residential property at 1720 Johnson Avenue. The subject property,identified as APN 003-
566-026/028/029/030/031, is the location of an historic home known as the"Judge's House",
built around 1906, as well as three small apartment structures(total of 5 rental units)built
around 1940. The present owners are proposing to construct a new garage and game room,
along with six new dwelling structures, viz. four duplex units, and two single units. The
existing apartments would be demolished. In addition, development plans call for
removal of five small pepper trees (6" to 12"),and four eucalyptus trees(18" to 24"). New
parking areas would be created and a new retaining wall and sidewalk added.
The subject property is due east of the downtown area,about 250 meters east of San Luis
Obispo Creek and immediately south of San Luis High School. The location and
dimensions of the surveyed area are shown on two attached maps (Attachments 1 and 2).
Before the property was surveyed a records search and archival study was completed by
Susan Stewart. The finding of this study are summarized below.
Historical Background
In 1983, during an Historic Resources Survey conducted by the City of San Luis Obispo,the
"Judge's House" was identified as, "[Aln exceptional survivor of the Victorian Eastern
Shingle style infused with Colonial Revival and Craftsman modifications" (cf.
Attachment 3). The house was constructed in 1906 by Superior Court Judge E.P. Unangst
and his wife Anita Murray, daughter of Judge Walter Murray. Judge Murray, one of the
city's foremost European pioneers, was a leader of the 1858 Committee of Vigilance, co-
founder of the Tribune, and district judge for San Luis Obispo and Santa Barbara Counties
from 1873 to1875.
Judge Unangst built his house to suit his personal taste in design;he also worked with a
local minister whose church was built with like materials. The house was built of redwood,
with a huge rock frontage and tall chimneys of stone brought from the Santa Lucia Range;
the rock was personally selected by Judge Unangst. According to Mrs. Dorothy Unangst
Bilodeau, the Judge's daughter, the masonry, "was done by an Irishman and a Negro."
The interior woodwork is reportedly Oregon Spruce. The Judge was an amateur geologist,
botanist, and photographer, and the home once had a garden, "with unique flora, so intense
P.O. Box 99 • Cambria • California 93428-0099 454
phone: 805/927-0455 - fait 805/927-0414
Page 2
that only a botanist could have developed it'. His geological collection went-to Stanford
University and his botanical collection to Cal Poly San Luis Obispo.
Judge Unangst was a native of Nebraska. He attended Hastings Law School and married '
the daughter of deceased Judge Walter Murray in the early 1880's. He became a judge and
held the same post that his father-in-law had held;for 18 years he was the only Superior
Court Judge for San Luis Obispo County. Although Judge Unangst died of Parkinson's
Disease in 1912,his widow continued to live in the house,supported by her daughter
Dorothy. Mrs. Anita (Murray) Unangst is listed as a Johnson Avenue resident in the
phone directories and San Luis Obispo Street and Avenue guides for 1904, 1916, 1928 and
1932. The names Murray and Unangst are not listed in the Patrons Directory, a document
that recorded dates of arrival of immigrants to the state and county. Judge Murray was
born in London in 1826 and arrived in San Luis Obispo in either 1852 or 1853.
The Judge's House is near La Loma Adobe, an historic structure noted by John Parker in
his report on the Wolf-Adamski property on Lizzie Street(Anonymous 1996). Built in the
1780's as the home of Don Francisco Extevan Quintana, La Loma Adobe is one of the oldest
buildings in the city. Over time,the adobe has been the property of the Boronda family, the
Munoz family, the Bowden family, and the Deleissegues family. Neither the La Loma
Adobe nor Judge Unangst's House appear on early Sanborn Insurance Maps.
Maps and records describing known prehistoric and early historic archaeological sites in
the City of San Luis Obispo were reviewed. At the present time,the Judge's House is not a
recorded historic resource site and the location has no official site number (trinomial).
Furthermore,neither the City of San Luis Obispo nor the State of California has any
records indicating the presence of an archaeological site of any type within 1 km of the
property.
Surface Examination
On June 19, 1999,in order to determine if cultural resources would be affected by the
proposed redevelopment project, an examination of exposed surfaces was carried out.
Situated on a gently sloping hillside,the one acre property is bounded on the south by
Johnson Avenue, and on the north and west by open fields. Native vegetation is scarce; one
live oak(30"diameter)stands at the northeast corner of the area,just outside the property;
another (8" diameter)is along the northern edge, and a third fronts the house. The.property
itself has a total of 24 trees:8 peppers,5 eucalyptus,5 olives,2 plums,2 oaks 1 cypress,and 1
palm. In addition, the house is surrounded by a garden with numerous flowering plants
and bushes.
Entrance to the property is via Johnson Road. A paved driveway enters the southeast
corner, passes the house, turns westward and becomes an open parking area in front of
three apartment buildings. The apartment buildings, constructed around 1940, are small,
wood-frame, stucco boxes;two are one-story cubes, the third is a two-story rectangle. The
Judge's House is an interesting architectural and historical structure, an eclectic
Craftsman Style home constructed by a recognized "Pioneer Citizen". The gardens
surrounding the house appear to be intact; pathways and vegetation may have changed
substantially, however.
At the present time about 25% of the surface is covered by buildings and standing
structures;another 25%is obscured by garden vegetation, trees and pathways.Much of the
remaining area -- primarily driveway and parking -- is blanketed with a layer of crushed
granite gravel. In those few areas where soil was visible it was not uniform. Garden
areas were characterized by moist, brown loam, somewhat more clayey in less tended
areas. Elsewhere soils are dry and compact, geneXally sandy to clayey, with an
4-55
Page 3
assortment of local rocks. As expected, exotic rocks are distributed throughout the property,
but concentrated in garden areas surrounding the house. Several pieces of old ceramic
dinnerware and bottle glass were noted, however, no evidence of trash pits or privy holes
was found. Such features are very likely to have existed somewhere west of the house. As a
man of status the Judge may have had his servents remove daily refuse to a distant
location,possibly outside the present boundary of the property. On the other hand,in 1906
the house was not fitted with indoor plumbing but certainly had one or more outhouses,
relatively close to the house.
Discussion and Conclusions
Redevelopment as planned will affect the overall character of the property by removing
existing buildings and trees, and replacing them with new structures and different
vegetation. While the principal structure — the Judge's House—will not be affected, the
garden areas flanking the house and surrounding areas will be dramatically modified.
Construction of new buildings along the northern and western edges of the property will
require removal of several non-native trees (pepper and eucalyptus), as well as substantial
earth moving activity. The large palm will be relocated from the rear yard to the front of
the house. The three existing apartments will be removed and replaced by a new garage
and one new residential building. New masonry work and landscaping are also
planned. Whether these changes will have an adverse impact on historic resources is not
yet known.
The Judge's House itself is not being altered and is unlikely to suffer any damage during
the proposed redevelopment project. However, research suggests that a clear possibility
exists that buried historic resources— either trash pits, or privies, or both —could be
unearthed during construction, particularly when surfaces are graded or cut. This
situation applies mostly to garden areas next to the house,and to the back yard,west of the
house. [An archaeological axiom- Look in back yards because people bury all kinds of
good stuff there.] The sloping topography suggests that refuse deposits and privy holes are
not likely to be found along the northern edge of the property. Thus, removal of the non-
native trees and subsequent earth moving associated with construction is not likely to
result in any adverse impacts.
The planned redevelopment project cannot be accomplished unless the existing apartment
buildings and some non-native trees are removed. Since neither the apartments nor the
trees meet the minimum criteria for classification as historic resources their destruction
cannot be deemed an adverse impact. If, on the other hand, removal of the apartment
building or surface grading behind the house exposes a pit filled with bottles or a buried
building foundation, then an impact will have occurred.
In the case of known resources, such as the Judge's House, City of San Luis Obispo
Archaeological Guidelines suggest avoidance as the best way to deal with potential
impacts. With regard to potential resources, such as buried refuse deposits and privies, the
City Guidelines suggest archaeological monitoring and subsequent reporting as an
effective strategy for mitigating anticipated impacts. The following recommendations
should satisfy all requirements set forth in the City Guidelines regarding a Phase III
Archaeological Monitoring and Mitigation Program.
Mitigation Recommendations
1. Prepare an updated set of Historic Resources Record Forms[DPR 5231;the Judge's House
should be assigned a Primary Number and a Trinomial as quickly as possible.
. 4-56
Page 4
2. Removal of the apartment buildings and trees, and mechanical alterations to the ground
surface should be monitored by an experienced archaeologist.
3. Alterations in the garden area should be inspected by the project archaeologist.
4. Subterranean features encountered should be carefully recorded, thoroughly
documented and adequately sampled.
5. Monitoring work, data recording and sampling should be summarized and presented in
a comprehensive final report.
Should you have any questions about the work already done please do not hesitate to call.
Most sincerely,
Clay inger
Ant opologist
References
Angel, Myron
1883 History of San Luis Obispo County California with Illustrations and
Biographical Sketches of it's Prominent Men and Pioneers. Thompson and West.
Reproduction edition (1984) completely Indexed with an Introduction by Lousiana
Clayton Dart, Word Dancer Press, Fresno.
Anonymous (J'. Parker & Associates] .
1996 "Cultural Resource Investigation of the Wolf-Adamski Parcel APN 002-325-015,
Lizzie Street, San Luis Obispo". Report prepared for David Eining.
Anonymous [Bertrando & Bertrando]
1996 "Annotated Index to the Historic Documents: Petitions for Land in the City of
San Luis Obispo". City of San Luis Obispo Historic Resources Inventory files
Krieger, Dan
1990 Looking Backward into the Middle Kingdom Windsor Publications.
Robinson, W.W.
1957 The Story of San Luis Obispo County. Title Insurance and Trust Company.
Directories Reviewed
— San Luis Obispo County Patrons Directory
1904 San Luis Obispo City Directory, compiled by C.W. Griffith 1904
1914 San Luis Obispo City Directory, prepared by Priscilla Graham 1983
1916 Pacific Telephone and Telegraph Directory, San Luis Obispo
1919 Pacific Telephone and Telegraph Directory, San Luis Obispo
1928 San Luis Obispo Co. Directory, Pacific Telephone and Telegraph
1931-32 San Luis Obispo Street and Avenue Guide and Householders Directory
4=57
Page 5
Maps Reviewed
• Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps of 1874, 1886, 1903 and 1926
Series I- 11-L.
• Map of San Luis Obispo Co. -- Surveyed by R.R. Harris
• Burial Sensitivity Map B
• Maps, fieldnotes, and site records at C.A. Singer & Associates, Cambria.
Attachments
• Attachment 1. A portion of the USGS San Luis Obispo, Calif., 7.5' topographic quadrangle
showing the location surveyed for cultural resources,a residential property at 1720
Johnson Avenue.
• Attachment 2. Topographic map and site plan, 1720 Johnson Avenue.
• Attachment 3. Historic Resources Inventory Form [DPR 5231 for the "Judge's House" at
1720 Johnson Avenue;prepared 6/15/83.
4-5S
{1`l
y
11 wlx�
�i. .� ►- \Yui � �',�� �
. ►� pp I
Ail
FA
Ir Lip.
_ .• ... : rpt., ,� .; ��..
Page 7
t �
fiE�t
81' i �li � •� rtyE3
hg u4 3 � t 3
eg2oi
$e 3
I �� SII•
w �
y
LET F'a
8
a :
it - -
� d
d
1 _
OL O
L� W
_ G
F
O
O
to
} '�►, I ? a
is ; o m
_ 6d G
OU i c3
.
0
i ; cc
d
a
m
r - --- --
01 t E
_ Y
1 / N
i 'Fl.
d
4-60
ATTACHMENT 3 Page 8
State of Cajdamia-The Resources agent-, Ser. No. 00!2-03R
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND r-':REATION HAGS_ HAER_ NR - 3 SHL Loc_
UTM: A 10/713730, 3064408
HISTORIC RESOURCES INVENTORY C D
IDENTIFICATION
1. Common name: Judge's Louse
2. Hiroric name: Judce's House
3. Street or rural address: 1720 Jc:^.nscn
City Ear. Luis Cbispo Zip 93-M County Sar. Luis „bisno
4. Parcel number: 03-56E-22
S. Present Owner: Garden. `t.L. . =t al. Address: 767= Del Rio Road
Cry Atascadero Zip 93442 Ownership is: Public Private X
6. Present Use: Residential Original use: Residential
DESCRIPTION
7a. Architectural style: Craftsman
7b. Briefly describe the presentphysica/description of the site or structure and describe any major alterations from its
original condition:
This residence has had major alteration to its frontal approach. Much of the
basement and first floor is made un of local stone set in random patterns.
The upper floors are primarily clad in shingle. The roof line is a mixture
of Gambrel wings extending slightly from the main body of the house in which
there are two arched sashed 1/1 windows s=eparated by a small square panel. Th_
main roof is sloping to the street and is a mixture of cables on the upper
level (third) and hipped on the second level. Along the sloping front and of
the richt of the gambrel is a hipped dormer pair of sashed 1/1 windows and
recessed slightly a less sloped pitched roof with a smaller window. On the
first floor the predominant building matarial is quarried local stone, uncut.
This material flanks the left side of the bay window under gambrel wing. Or.
the right side clapboard is used. Underneath the window shingle dominates. The
left of the win% is an open recessed porch that extends across the balance of
the house. Its base and balustrade of the porch is stone as is the major support-
at
uppo^at the richt side of the house and porch. The entry to the porch is to the side
and is flanked by a paof Classical columns. There is a wide overhang extending
ver -n1 ^� s o. ir a:'-n to the porch.
8. Construction date:
Estimated
Factual 189:-1
- — -- c. 9. Architect Unknowr.
10. Builder Unknown
11. Approx.property size (in feet)
Frontage 1251• Deptr.
orapprox. acreage
12. Dates)of enclosed photogracnls!
February 1983
CPR 523!Rev.4M)
4-61
1ARAGON
r---
Arnold Jonas
DESIGNS
1009City of San Luis Obispo Planning Dept.
S iEo, ca 93401 202
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
$0.5.541.8466
6-16-99
RE: Judge's Townhouse- Inclusionary Housing
Dear Mr. Jonas,
Regarding the nine units called Judge's Townhouse and%the inclusionary housing
requirements, we plan to dedicate Unit#9, the two bedroom apartment above the
garage as being sub,jest to affordable housing requirements:
We will be renting this unit as appose to.selling it and there.will be an affordable rent
guarantee as a condition of the project approval.to enable low and moderate income
households to rent the unit for a specified period prior tooccupancy but not less than
three years:..
If there are any further questions please do not hesitate to contact my office or
Michael Codron, the planner for the project. Thank you very much.
You Sin IYs
Thom o ' , Architect.
RECEIVED
`JUN 17 1999
CRY OF SAN LUIS OB
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
4-62
Attachment 5
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
PLANNING COMMISSION SUPPLEMENTAL STAFF REPOR
BY: Michael Codron, Planning Technician%Lem MEETING DATE: September 8, 1999
FROM: Pam Ricci, Acting Development Review Managerf7R
FILE NUMBER: ER, TR 4-99
PROJECT ADDRESS: 1720 Johnson Avenue
SUBJECT: Subdivision and environmental review of a proposed residential condominium
project for 8 new two-bedroom townhouses and one new two-bedroom apartment on the site of
the historic Judge's House.
SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION:
Please refer to the staff report provided in the agenda packet for the August 25, 1999 Planning
Commission meeting for a full report on this project.
The following information is provided to supplement the full staff report and to provide modified
language for certain recommended conditions of approval, and one additional mitigation
measure.
Zoning Regulations Compliance
Property Development Standards
The maximum proposed building height is 27 feet
Property Development Standards Required Proposed
Setbacks Street Yard=20' 20'
Rear Yard= 7.5'-10' 10'
Lot Coverage 50%Max 23%
Building Height 35' Max 27'
Density 11.41 DUV Max 11 DUV
Parking 23 25
Conditions of Approval
Condition of approval number 3 should be modified so that all proposed modifications to the
School District driveway are subject to the approval of the Community Development Director,
the Public Works Director,and the School District. The modified recommendation would read
as follows:
3. The following conditions are provided to insure compatibility between the Fixlini Street right-
of-way, the existing school driveway, and the proposed driveway extension to the Judge's
4-63
TR 4-99 (Tract 2340)
1720 Johnson Avenue (Judge's Townhouses)
Page 2
Townhouses project, to the approval of the Public Works Director, the Community
Development Director,and the School District.
a) The existing "Do Not Enter" signs .at then end of Fixlini Street shall be
removed and positioned to the northwest of the proposed driveway
extension.
b) All existing directional arrows on the driveway surface shall be removed.
c) A table-top/driveway ramp shall be installed northwest of the proposed
driveway extension.
d) Directional signage shall be installed to the northwest of the new table-
top/driveway ramp indicating that two-way traffic is ahead.
e) Directional signage and striping shall be installed so that vehicles exiting the
school site merge into a single lane prior to reaching the new table-
top/driveway ramp. The new table-top/driveway ramp shall be designed to
accommodate one vehicle at a time.
Condition of approval number 5 should be modified as follows, per the request of the City
Utilities Engineer. This rewording is suggested primarily for improved clarity.
5. A portion of the existing sewer main that serves the School District property and crosses the
project site in an easement is proposed to be abandoned. If this proves feasible, the. School
District property shall be reconnected to the existing active gravity sewer system located in
the public right-of-way at the end of Fixlini Street. If this alignment is not feasible because
of the depth of the system serving the School District property, then the existing sewer
serving the school shall be realigned in an easement on School District property, to the
approval of the Utilities Director. As the need for this work is driven by the redevelopment
of 1720 Johnson, all costs associated with this work shall be the responsibility of the
developer.
In addition to the above modifications recommended, staff is recommending one additional
mitigation measure to address potentially significant impacts identified in the
Transportation/Circulation section of the initial study. The new mitigation measure would read
as follows:
Applicant must obtain an easement for driveway purposes from the School
District. If applicant in unable to acquire an easement, applicant shall be required
to have a traffic study prepared by a qualified traffic professional and shall
resubmit the project with a new design that addresses any significant traffic
impacts identified in the study. The following issues are to be addressed by the
traffic study:
4-64
TR 4-99 (Tract 2340)
1720 Johnson Avenue (Judge's Townhouses)
Page 3
• Estimate the total volume of traffic generated from this project and the
adjoining developed property (1730 Johnson) that uses the common access
driveway and the traffic increase caused by this project.
• Conduct a"gap analysis" of traffic on Johnson Avenue adjacent to the project
driveway during AM and PM peak periods.
• Determine whether sufficient gaps exist to enable project and. adjoining
property residents and visitors driving south on Johnson Avenue to turn left
into the project driveway without queuing on Johnson Avenue. And if
queues develop, determine their frequency and duration.
This mitigation measure was not initially part of the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration
because the easement is part of the project description. However, this mitigation measure is
recommended to specifically address the potential scenario of the applicant not being able to
obtain the easement.
4-65
Attachment 6
city of sAn h.0"
%iVIO
PW
990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249
October 21, 1999
Steve Sicanoff
1720 Johnson Avenue
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
SUBJECT: ARC 4-99: 1720 Johnson Avenue
Review of a demolition of existing bungalows and construction of
eight new residences and one apartment on a historic site
Dear Mr. Sicanoff:
The Architectural Review Commission, at its meeting of October 18, 1999, granted
schematic approval to the above project (which means the item will come back to the
ARC for final'review, following City Council action on your tentative map), with the
following direction:
1. Modify the entry-level floor plan of the units on lots #1 and #8 to include only one
bedroom. The front door should open into a foyer similar to the plan proposed for
the duplex units or the space shall otherwise meet the definition of a den, provided
in the Zoning Regulations.
2. One short-term bicycle parking space shall be provided adjacent to the common
open-space lawn. A detail plan shall be submitted showing how two bicycles can
be accommodated in each of the attached parking garages. Four bicycles must
be able to be stored in the proposed three-car garage on lot 10.
3. The ridgeline of the duplex units, particularly units #6 and #7, shall be modified to
appear less massive. Site grading should be designed so that the finished floor
elevation of unit #6 is higher than the elevation of unit #7 so that the ridgeline of
units can also differ. Consider popping out the gable element on the rear
elevation, over the kitchen windows.
4. The applicant shall submit a more detailed colors and materials board. The new
board should include a range of hues compatible with the Judge's House and
should include information on the proposed siding products. The colors and
materials board shall specify the proposed scheme for each building. The garage
should match the Judge's House while compatible variations are encouraged in
the other structures.
4766
O 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 4-99
Page 2
5. The noise impacts to units #7 and #8 may be mitigated by -a noise barrier wall
adjacent to and behind unit #8. The wall should have some relief and should
provide pockets for trees.
6. Pittosporum Nigricans shall be eliminated from the landscape plans, especially in
areas adjacent to patios and retaining walls. Alternatives such as Escollonia or
Camellia japonica for the patio areas and Mahonia aquifolium (Oregon Grape)
adjacent to retaining walls may be appropriate alternatives.
7. Submit a more detailed plan of the common open space area. The plan should
show a bench and possibly other amenities for adults and children.
8. Submit a detailed plan showing how the approximate 10-foot wide strip will be
treated between the secondary access driveway easement and the residence on
1719 Fixlini Street.
9. If the 20" eucalyptus is to be removed, the applicant should propose at least two
replacement trees.
10. Additional information on paving to be used around the site should be provided.
The applicant shall address how potential impacts to the 14" White Oak tree
adjacent to the secondary access driveway will be mitigated.
11. The applicant shall consider additional tree planting on the western property line,
behind units 67 and 8.
If you have questions, please contact Michael Codron at (805) 781-7169.
Sincerely,
Ro Id Whis and
Developme t Review Manager
cc: County of SLO Assessor's Office
Thomas.Brajkovich
1009 Morro Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
4-67
Attachment 7
J
. t
rx
•u
�j. I c ~
r
�;•I J
IWOJ tir
. pp Ffc.
M N m
Cr N
0
Ca
Judges Townhouses
17W Johrw=Avg. ••l I
5w lids Oblpo.CA.93401
r r
I
of
Ife
at
t � I =gpr�F�Xe
ID
- 1 �{,u:a:v=rte•- I :�:� .. ��:��::,.^-t. � � .dl
114r� Tt. rl.' 'tom i
0
.0
"�}♦` if yy
tt o I r S
AN0 _ti
All
F
— Qop
! 001
j ; I
&NTF.T.
a4IL
d .
-Judges Townhouses GOND
' 1720 JOtusson Ave.
i son Luis Obispo.CA 93401 Z=Mk* .
. .. � urLOL9Bt2 04TDA00
i
• p i :rt,_
d
AI
v
Lk 11
—
j t
a. J ai 3
! ,.
LE!
_ L
YN��
7 , `
Judges Townhouses
1�lidslVls ppCAAv
Obb .93401 ,,,e„ .. 0 E
rl
• .. .. ...aA ...
ue.GQ15812 aa�wae - 7
440 -
,
I -
D -r '
I
D � 1•� ''�i . of �
' •{yeo
ISSFFpi
.:L�:I N
f
��
yP]iI y`
t
wr
Judges Townhouses O
( 1720 Johnwn Ave.
i 8 F Sm wfs OUVO.ca scam
3 ..co082ItIl III u c.ee
s
li..D ;;;;
i
1
IIS`'"l�ll I I 4�i f �l
a iti
it
ai
ii_ :I 4'
11� AU
R
Y ' a otl
I ;1i
I,yyl!.:fiE
. L
• � A
I
5555�'?p •33 II � r�
x• II,I:111 :r'FrC
e j f:: �
1 I
�
l�
f Judges townhouses 0
e �E .:a.
� -1720 Johnson Ave.Son we Obispo.cn.93A01
--. 4-72
co
10 m
i SIA ! � 9 I I I •I, I
N
'0 I:
m £s
iO ® !
z
I � �
V li
i
Fi
E z Y
ATT TFTI'Col
Is
tl:
. r m
Judges Townhouses
m 1720 Johnson Am
1 . 'San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
.ccroselto�an ween mm
• __. . ar+.'t+r•arr.fr 't,tos�•ctror
ell
amccom
I p 'k J`•- �- - 1 we
1coc P �1
bF -
II
'
! .rte
iz
Z $ ...
j \m �JJ If .
•3 I —
.:f
r �
k"11
i
5 -4 ww _� •
��-
4 ` r
m. ,.
9 - - --�:c
5
F+
Z 5 a
Y— i.[
1 � 1
gg
__— •_-_•x�'� `. -'gym--
_.. —��-
I I
rr-
I;is iz l zd
p m
6 C.
y �
G
1 Judges TownhousesO ■
1720 Johnson Ave- � � �
San leis�sP0. CA. 93401 -��
� Ic GOIl014®6n�ays W mm�
4-74
Attachment 8
WAM
SEP 2 0 1999
C4IY OF SO LUIS OBISPO
C�6MMUMTY DEVELOPMENT
DESIGNS Michael Codron
1009 MORRO ST.
Store 202 City of San Luis Obispo Planning Dept.
S L O, CA 93401
805-S41-9486 990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
9-19-99
RE: Judge's Townhouse Easement / City.Council
Dear Mr. Codron,
Regarding the proposed nine units called Judge's Townhouses.on the
Sicanof property, we are in the process of negotiating the easement
from Fbdini Street to the property. Because the hearing for the school
board (SLCUSD) has not been scheduled and the easement not legally
granted, we are requesting the City Council hearing be rescheduled
after the approval by the SLCUSD. Thanking you for your continued
cooperation.
Yours S' cerely,
Tho jk , Architect
4-75
Attachment 9
David Lord,Ph.D. 299 Albert Drive
Acoustics and Noise Consulting San Luis Obispo.CA 93405
(805)549-8046
February 7, 2000
Noise Mitigation Detail: Noise Barrier Wall
Proposed Judges Townhouses
1620 Johnson Ave.
San Luis Obispo, California
for:
Paragon Design and Building
1009 Morro Street, suite 202
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
For planning reference:
The continuous, grouted masonry noise barrier wall, four feet high, topped with a sealed, two
foot high, continuous laminated glass wall is adequate to reduce sound levels below the allowed
60 dBA LDN value in the outdoor activity areas of units 7 and 8.
The wall as shown is placed in plan extending along the west side of units 7 and 8, with a short
portion on the south side of the activity area of unit R.
?"Iq—
David Lord,Ph.D.
4-76
Iroise analysis,page 1
I. flip'-
ISE
��d�.i� r• I{I ;Ilii
David Lord,Ph.D. 299 Albert Drive
Acoustics and Noise Consulting San Luis Obispo,CA 93405
805)549 8046
August 20, 1999
Noise Analysis and Mitigation Recommendations
Proposed Judges Townhouses
1620 Johnson Ave.
San Luis Obispo, California
for:
Paragon Design and Building
1009 Morro Street, suite 202
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Description and Noise.Criteria:
The dimensions and layout used in this noise analysis are taken from drawings dated 8/2/99,
supplied by Paragon Design and Building. The noise issue is the traffic on Johnson Avenue lying
adjacent and to the south of the site.
With regard to land use,potential noise conflict and noise mitigation measures, the noise level
standards contained in the Noise Element of the General Plan of the City of San Luis Obispo,
1996, are used to evaluate the site. The maximum acceptable noise exposure is judged from the
property line of the receiving land use. Maximum acceptable transportation noise source is listed
(page 2, Figure 1) as:
Residential Outdoor Activity Area: CNEL or LDN =60 dBA
Existing Noise Levels on Site
Existing noise levels near the west property line in the proposed outdoor activity area of unit 8
were measured on August 12 and August 13, 1999. Individual on-site noise measurements were
made continuously for a 24-hour period to include daytime,morning and evening commute hours
and also during the 10 pm- 7 am evening hours. The continuous measurements were made with
4-78
noise analysis,page I
a Type lI sound level meter, and spot checks were made using a Type I, Integrating, Recording,
Precision Sound Level Meter, accurate to 1 dBA. The sound level meters were calibrated before
and after all measurements.
A single point was selected as indicated in the southwest comer of the property near the property
line. The average noise level, Leq, was measured and recorded. The day-night noise level, LDN
was then calculated for the location(see Table 1; see also appendix for definition of L,y and
LDN). It is important to keep in mind that Leq is'based on time-averaged instantaneous
measurements of sound, and that LDN is a calculated value based on multiple measurements
through the day and night. LDN is the single value that determines acceptability in the Noise
Element of the General Plan for the City of San Luis Obispo.
Instantaneous noise peaks and valleys represent single noise events over a short time period and
have little influence on the overall daily LDN value. The results of noise measurements and
calculations are shown in subsequent figures.
Johnson Avenue is a significant noise source on the south side of the proposed structures. A
contributing factor is the elevation of the site above the noise source. Johnson Avenue is a five-
lane thoroughfare—four traffic lanes and a center turning lane—with a 35 m.p.h.posted speed
limit, and with a mixture of light and heavy vehicular traffic. Traffic slows for the signal at the
intersection of Johnson Avenue and San Luis Drive, however there is additional noise generated
by braking and acceleration along Johnson Aveue. Current average daily traffic (ADT) flow is
18,000.vehicles daily.
4-79
noise analysis,page 2
4
_ 3 2 r
r
0
� 1
1 %/` •4�`� v • J a
I .
r
r „r
uez o
.^_-'_•
a f C
I F
oise measurements ^`
Johnson Ave. �1
noise barrier wall
Figure 1. Plan showing the location of noise measurement, and location of recommended noise
barrier wall. See text[not to scale].
4-80
noise mm)ws.Page 3
>r
� W
;�#L�-Z:
0
0
CD
- — — - o
:
CD
66
•� Olh _.__—� .. O
O, _........_— _
i
Q _._.... ..... ., .. .... N
O
N
_.... N
CD
N
r I O
Go
L.. I17
O
i I Op
m n n CO m t o dBA '� o
to e c
Figure 3_ Twenty-four hour measurement of sound levels at site near Unit 8. Day and night Leq
values indicated.
4-"82
noise analysis,Pose S
CNEL / L DN Calculation
David Lord,Acoustles Consulting 299 Albert Dr. San Luis Ob#o,CA 93405
Proposed Residential Units no 8, Judges House,Johnson Avenue 8/14/99
City of San Luis Obispo, CA
measurements on NW sid 9/121&msl,8/13,1999
[see plan] [facing northeast, wind <5 m.p.h.]
Measurements:
Measured DA EL: 64.3 dBA
Measured DAY SEL: 64.3 dBA
Measured DAY SEL: 64.3 dBA
Measured DAY SEL: 64.0 dBA
Measured DAY/EVE. SEL: 64.1 dBA
Measured NIGHT SEL: 57.3 dBA
Measured NIGHT SEL: 57.3 dBA
Measured NIGHT SEL: 57.3 dBA
LDN Day/Night Level Calculation:
Average 24hr 1. dBA LEQ 24 his: 62.7 dBA
Average Day SEL: 64.2 dBA LEQ Day: 64.2 dBA
Average Night SEL: 57.3 dBA LEQ Night: 57,3 dBA
DNL: 65.6 dBA at west side of outdoor activity are
CNEL Community Noise Equivalent Level Calculation:
Average 24hr SEL: 1. dBA 24 hrs. 62.7 dBA
Average Day SEL: 64.2 dBA LEQ Day: 64.2 dBA
Average Eve SEL: 64.1 dBA LEQ Eve: 64.1 dBA
Average Night SEL: 57.3 dBA LEQ Night 57.3 dBA
C.N.E.L.: 66.4 dBA
Table 1. Calculation of overall LDN Value-
4-83
noise analysis.Page 6 .
The.current average daily traffic flow on Johnson Avenue at the intersection with San Luis Drive
is 18,000 vehicles. The future "buildout" traffic flow figure is 20,823 vehicles per day. This
increase in traffic flow will have the effect of raising the LDN at the south side of the site by
nearly one decibel.
Noise from Average Daily Trac Figures
David Lard,Acoustics Consulting 299 Albert Dr. San Luis Obispo,CA 93405
Proposed Judges Townhomes
Johnson Avenue,San Luis Obispo, CA
Calculation of added noise sources
Pnoise ((10"-167'10"(Pnoisemo))
Present noise level (LoN)420,K3
dBA intensity= 3.63E-10 W/cm2
Present traffic flow, 1998ADT (Average Daily Traffic)
Future traffic flow,2005ADT 0.6 Anoise=dBA additional n
Future noise level(LoN) 66.2 dBA
10'LOG10(D12/D11)
Pnoise+Anise
4=84
noise analysis,page 7 ,
IT
David Lord,Acoustics and Hoge Consulting
299 Albert Dr. San Luis Obispo,CA 93405
arms➢ uw
(805)5498046
dimension 1.8 m above grade
h226 cffwt a hdght A eet
dl= B
.m hr
d 2=: �..m s�ce
d 1 d 2 recauc
B= 8.1 m if source 56.2 d1k received
ht=. �. m
n=barrier must have surface mass density>20 kg/mr
dl + d2 = 16 m
Total Barrier ht= 1.8 in(h1+h2}
[A+B.d= 0.125 m] total distance = 16.0 m
[A+B= 16.1 m) eeI
frequency : ; HZ . source) 1 1 0
Noise Redaction 9.5 dBA 100.7 dBA 65.6 dBA received
{cote]'or 7 blow}
Noise Sourer. -cpamt source
Tempenime: °C
SSoundI Level order free-geld conditions,absorptive ground,without barrier
�
Figure 4. Noise Barrier Calculation
4-85
noise mw&zss,page 8
Recommended Noise Mitigation Measures
A continuous, grouted masonry noise barrier wall, six feet high with reference to finished pad
elevation of the dwelling units is required to reduce sound levels below the allowed 60 dBA LDN
value mi the outdoor activity areas. The wall should be placed in plan as indicated in this report
in Figure 1, extending along the south side of unit 8 and west side of units 7 and 8.
The following noise mitigation recommendations apply only to the construction of the side of
Unit 8 facing the noise source to the south. Only the south-facing wall, windows, soffit, eave and
roof of habitable spaces directly facing the noise source are affected. All other facades can be of
ordinary construction insofar as noise transmission is concerned.
Walls and Roofs: The south elevation of habitable spaces 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, stucco exterior 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.
If possible, soffit or eave or dormer vents or doors or windows or skylights or
other roof or wall penetrations should face north, east or west. If soffit or eave or
dormer vents or doors or windows or skylights or other roof or wall penetrations
face south toward the noise source,they shall be acoustically rated and designed.
Common acoustic leaks, such as electrical outlets,pipes,vents, ducts,flues and
other breaks in the integrity of the wall, ceiling or roof construction on the south
side should receive special attention during construction. All construction
openings and joints on the walls on the south side of Unit 8 shall be insulated,
sealed and caulked with a resilient,non-hardening caulking material. All such
openings and joints should be airtight to maintain sound isolation.
Windows: To exceed the interior LDN 45 DBA requirements, south facing
windows in Unit 8 should be of double-glazed acoustically rated construction with
laminated glass 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. 37. Other manufacturers may have similar
products with equal or better performance.
4-86
noise arab ais,page 9
Ventilation: Operable windows may be necessary to meet the fire safety egress
requirement on the south side of Unit 8. On the "noisy side" of the building, the
interior noise levels with the window open may exceed the recommended LDN 45
dBA level for occupancy. Therefore, in order to achieve quiet interior conditions
during noisy periods,operable windows and doors on the south side of the
residences may be voluntarily shut.
If windows and doors are shut, ventilation may be provided by a mechanical
ventilation or air conditioning system to provide a habitable interior environment.
Mechanical ventilation or operable windows on walls perpendicular to the noise
source, or facing away from the noise source are options that may satisfy this
requirement.
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.
C.N.E.L. Community noise equivalent level is a scale that takes account of all the A-weighted
sound level at a point. Weighting factors place greater importance upon noise events occurring
during the evening hours(7 p.m.to 10 p.m.) and even greater importance upon noise events at
night(10 p.m. to 7 am.).
LDN Day-night sound level. Equivalent sound level computed from A-weighted sound levels
measured over a 24-hour period, with a 10 dBA penalty for sound contributions between 10 p.m.
and 7 am.
L.q The energy average sound level. Averaging time, commonly 1 hour, is indicated.
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 level meter is about 2 dB. The sound level meter used for
measurements shown in this report is a Larson-Davis Laboratories Model 820. This meter meets
all requirements of ANSI s 1.4,IEC 651 for Type 1 accuracy and includes the following features:
4-87
noise analysis,page 10
110 dB dynamic range for error free measurements.
Measures FAST, SLOW, Unweighted PEAK, Weighted PEAK,Impulse, Lq,
LDOD, LOSHA, Dose, Time Weighted Average, SEL, Lmax, Lmin,LDx.
Time history sampling periods from 32 samples per second up to one sample
every 255 seconds.
Calibration of the meter is made before and after all field measurements with both an internal and
external calibrator. Laboratory calibration of the meter is performed biannually and can be traced
to the U.S. NIST standard.
Subjective Loudness Changes. In addition to precision measurement of sound level changes,
there is a subjective characteristic which describes how most people respond to sound:
A change in sound level of 3 dBA is barely perceptible by most listeners.
A change in level of 6 dBA is perceptible.
A change of 10 dBA is perceived by most people as being twice (or halo as loud.
4-88
noise analysis,page 11 ,
Attachment 10
Petition
Because the proposed condominium project (TR 4-99) would have an imm..l... ceuis oBISPa
ADVERSE affect on the already dangerous traffic situation on Fixlini St., we the
undersigned residents of Fixlini St. OPPOSE the approval of an easement through San Luis
Coastal School District property for purposes of a driveway. Therefore, we OPPOSE any
form of the project that includes a driveway through school property emptying on Fixlini St-
Name
tName Address Signature
ICU a, 1�a �; 9t r U
rr a 6 a 1� r�e,� 1 7 SS F.:if 'n i IS
o
�aru� PYy, jlv /moo hxl- P1,
ne, Cr-c— II&D liZlln' t Ji .
1146 Liz.,e S *;a
4-89
RECEIVED
Petition AUG 2 Q 1999
Because the proposed condominium project 4-99 would have an imm . sar LUIS 0BISP6
ADVERSE affect on the already dangerous traffic situation on Fixlini St., we the
undersigned residents of Fixlini St. OPPOSE the approval of an easement through San Luis
Coastal School District property for purposes of a driveway. Therefore, we OPPOSE any
form of the project that includes a driveway through school property emptying on Fixlini St.
Name Address Signature
yV Bard e7xlOF`x11*x' Qf-. SLOCA Q5WJ
4-90
Dennis & Brenda Steers
1719 Fixlini St.
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Michael Codron
Community Development Dept.
990 Palm St. RECEIVED
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 AUG 2 0 1999
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
1 �RI ITV r-'
-r
Dear Mr. Codron:
In October of 1987, we purchased our home adjacent to the old San Luis Obispo
High School knowing the campus had multiple uses. We knew the campus was used for
numerous sports activities, including adult and youth soccer, YMCA basketball and vol-
leyball, girls' softball, Babe Ruth League baseball and many others. We knew the campus
would facilitate the Adult School at night and traffic school on weekends. We knew the
campus was utilized during the day by pre-school programs and senior classes. We
accept and welcome the diverse use of the school. In fact, it's an integral part of our daily
lives.
The proposed private driveway through school property as part of project TR 4-99 is
inappropriate, unsafe and unwelcome. The quality of life on Fixlini St. will be negatively
impacted by a project with a Johnson Avenue address. Here are the reasons the project
should be denied:
1. Traffic.
A congested, confusing and dangerous traffic situation will be exacerbated.As cur-
rently designed, cars exiting the campus on a one-way street head straight into two-way
traffic. The proposed driveway runs into this "one-way-two-way" transition area.
Indeed, the proposal moves the two-way portion of the street 30 feet toward the parking
lot, making it easier for drivers to "shoot the gap" into the lot against oncoming traffic.
This happens quite often and from morning to night (especially during night school
hours when drivers unfamiliar with the traffic flow are trying to find the school). The
typical driver who mistakenly attempts to enter the school by way of Fixlini St. slows to
read the warning signs, sheepishly shrugs when they see the parking lot and guns it. This
proposal shortens the "gap," thereby making this maneuver even easier. Ironically, dri-
vers who obey the "Do Not Enter"signs put themselves in another perilous predicament
because they are forced to make a six-point turnaround on a narrowing road with cars
parked along each side.
The proposed driveway also provides an easy shortcut to Johnson. When drivers dis-
cover they can quickly bypass the Fixlini St./Lizzie St. stop sign and the Lizzie
St./Johnson Ave. traffic light, they will. High School students, the most inexperienced
4-91
drivers on the road,who race down hill out of the parking lot—trying.to get air off the
speed bumps is a daily ritual—will be the first to discover this shortcut.
The traffic activity on Fixlini St. will increase as the Taylor Field improvement and
proposed swimming pool projects are developed.Again, we accept and welcome these
appropriate uses of school property.
2. Alternatives to the Fixlini St. driveway have not been adequately explored.
With the precedent of 10-12 cars entering and exiting 1720 Johnson every day for
decades, the addition of a few more cars shouldn't be a problem. The Johnson Avenue
driveway can be enlarged on the applicant's probe to accommodate re-grading for fire
safety. We encourage a traffic study be made of Johnson Ave. to determine the feasibili-
ty of enlarging and re-grading the current driveway.
3. Fairness.
San Luis Coastal School District property should be used for the benefit of all families
in the community, not for the financial benefit of one. It's apparent the applicants are
seeking the Fixlini St. driveway for two reasons: 1) It's the least disruptive way (for their
property) to meet the fire safety requirement; and 2) It partially diverts traffic around
their house, in effect improving the current traffic flow on their property. The later
point was actually raised by the applicant.
On a personal note, the proposed project adversely affects our property value by sur-
rounding us with driveways,worsening an already problematic traffic situation out
front, limiting our precious view of San Luis Mountain out back and eroding the spirit
of the San Luis Obispo lifestyle we have enjoyed for more than 20 years. We strongly
urge aTSO vote on the project.
Thank you for your consideration of these matters.
RECEIVED
Sincerely,
AUG 2 0 1999
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
Dennis Steers -'^^".071T
Brenda Steers
4-92