Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/05/2001, 3 - CONSIDERATION OF A NINE LOT SUBDIVISION, ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW AND PLANNED DEVELOPMENT (PD) REZONING council j acEnaa mepoin Rrm N�hc� CITY O F SAN LUIS 0 B I S P 0 FROM: John Mandeville,Community Development Directo'� Prepared By: Michael Codron,Associate Planner SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF A NINE LOT SUBDIVISION, ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW AND PLANNED DEVELOPMENT (PD) REZONING, FOR A PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT TO INCLUDE SEVEN NEW SINGLE FAMILY HOMES (TR, ER, PD 189-00; 1795 McCollum). CAO RECOMMENDATION Adopt Resolution "A" approving the proposed tentative tract map and mitigated negative declaration, and introduce Ordinance "A" rezoning the project site from R-1 to R-1-PD, based on findings and subject to conditions of approval. REPORT-IN-BRIEF City Staff and the Planning Commission are recommending approval of the proposed project to the City Council. The Planning Commission believes that the project meets the intent of the Planned Development zone because the project represents an effective use of the site and will achieve the intent of the City's conventional standards as well as or better than the standards themselves. Staff and the Planning Commission believe that the proposed density of development is consistent with the General Plan and appropriate for the site. The ARC has granted schematic approval to the proposed house designs and site improvements and has provided direction to the applicant regarding changes that must accompany plans submitted for final approval. Staff has received extensive input on the project from the neighborhood and organized neighborhood groups. The primary issues with the development include density, compatibility with the existing neighborhood character, parking and drainage. DISCUSSION Situation The applicant and property owner has proposed a project to build seven new homes on approximately one acre of undeveloped property, located just south of Pacheco School on McCollum Street (see Vicinity Map, Attachment 1). The property also has frontage on .Fredericks Street where one of the seven homes is proposed to be built. Entitlements requested include approval of a tentative map involving nine lots, environmental review, Planned Development(PD)rezoning, and architectural review of building plans and site improvements. Council Agenda Report TR, ER, PD 189-00 (1795 McCollum) Page 2 Previous Review On April 25, 2001, the Planning Commission voted 5-2 (Caruso and Loh voting no) to recommend approval of the proposed project to the City Council. Planning Commission Resolution #5310-01 and the draft minutes from the meeting are attached to this report (Attachments 7 and 8). On May 7, 2001, the Architectural Review Commission granted schematic approval to project plans, providing direction to the project architect on changes that should accompany plans submitted for final approval after Council action on the project. The follow-up letter to the applicant describing the ARC action is also attached to the end of this report (Attachment 9). Data Summary Address: 1795 McCollum Applicant/Property Owner: Patrick and Allison Aurignac Representative: Hamish Marshall Zoning/General Plan: R-1, Low Density Residential Environmental status: A Mitigated Neg. Dec. was approved by the Director on April 16, 2001. Site Description The project site includes approximately 54,000 square feet. Existing trees include two 10" Coast Live Oak trees and clusters of almond trees and fruit trees, such as avocado, orange and apple. The site is undeveloped except for Lot #9, which has a single-family residence and detached garage. A City utility building, the McCollum Pump Station, which provides water pressure to the Monterey Heights neighborhood, is adjacent to the property on McCollum. Presently only half of McCollum Street is paved and there is no sidewalk adjacent to the property. The project site is bordered by an established single-family residential neighborhood and Pacheco School. Project Description The developer has proposed a tentative tract map to divide the property into nine lots. Development plans indicate that seven new residences are proposed on individual lots. An existing residence on Lot #9 would be retained, but the rear lot line of the property would be adjusted, reducing the size of the lot by 1,496 square feet. A 22' wide private road easement (18 feet of paving curb to curb), and a cul-de-sac are proposed for access and turn-around. Lot seven will be owned by the Homeowner's Association and is proposed to be developed with two guest parking spaces and common open space, including a picnic and barbeque area with a trellis. Grading of the property to create level building pads is proposed. Small retaining walls (2' tall max.) would be required at the back and between each lot. Average lot size would be 4,300 square feet, exclusive of the private street. A public easement will be established with the recordation of the map to accommodate a public storm drain, which will be built in the private street. Private easements will be necessary to accommodate cross-lot drainage and to access a sewer main adjacent to the property. The applicant is requesting an exception to property development standards as part of the PD to allow for reduced street yards from 20 feet to 15 feet for lots I and 4. 3-2 Council Agenda Report TR, ER, PD 189-00 (1795 McCollum) Page 3 Evaluation In order to grant approval of the proposed PD Zoning, the Zoning Regulations require the City Council to make at least one of the following six findings. 1. It provides facilities or amenities suited to a particular occupancy group (such as the elderly or families with children) which would not be feasible under conventional zoning; 2. It transfers allowable development, within a site, from areas of greater environmental sensitivity or hazard to areas of less sensitivity or hazard; 3. It provides more affordable housing than would be possible with conventional development; 4. Features of the particular design achieve the intent of conventional standards (privacy, usable open space, adequate parking, compatibility with neighborhood character, and so on) as well as or better than the standards themselves; 5. It incorporates features which result in consumption of less materials, energy or water than conventional development; 6. The proposed project provides exceptional public benefits such as parking, open space, landscaping, public art, and other special amenities which would not be feasible under conventional development standards. The purpose, of Planned Development zoning, as evidenced by the above findings, is to encourage imaginative development and effective use of sites that cannot be achieved by conventional development standards. The Planning Commission believes that the applicant's development accomplishes this purpose and has recommended that the City Council approve the PD rezoning because: As conditioned, the features of the proposed project, including the pocket park, private rear yards, adequate on-site parking, private street(lined with canopy trees and designed at a human scale), and orientation of porches to the existing neighborhood achieve the intent of the City's conventional standards as well as or better than the standards themselves (PC Resolution No. 5310-01, Planned Development Finding#1, Attachment 8). The Planning Commission also recommended specific findings, as required by the California Subdivision Map Act, in support of the proposed subdivision and site improvements. The attached Planning Commission Staff Report (Attachment 6) provides a detailed description and evaluation of the proposed subdivision and associated public improvements. This Council Agenda Report will focus on those areas that remain core issues with area residents and others who have provided comments to staff, and the Planning Commission and Architectural Review Commission during public hearings on the project. 3-3 Council Agenda Report TR, ER, PD 189-00 (1795 McCollum) Page.4 A. Density/Neighborhood Character Neighbors of the project and neighborhood group representatives have provided significant input to staff regarding density and neighborhood character issues. Staff has held three separate neighborhood group meetings and has received a wide range of input on this issue. Public testimony before the Planning Commission and Architectural Review Commission was split on this issue. Some neighbors and neighborhood group representatives feel that the project is too dense and others feel that the project is just right. The project proposal involves development near the maximum allowed for the R-1 zone. This represents an intensification of land use when compared to bordering residential properties, but is consistent with density and infill policies of the General Plan. The Planning Commission Staff Report (Attachment 6) includes a comparison of the project's density with that of the surrounding neighborhood. Staff and the Planning Commission support the proposed density of development for two primary reasons. First, the project site is relatively flat in comparison to the neighborhood to the west and can more easily accommodate the denser development. Staff believes that the lower density (approximately four units per acre) is appropriate for adjacent properties given the hillside setting and development constraints faced on the neighboring uphill lots. Second, the Planning Commission was supportive of the infill potential of the site and felt that the proposed lot configuration was a more effective use of the land when compared to alternatives that would involve a more conventional subdivision design, such as a flag lot subdivision. B. Parking The project site is close to Cal Poly and many neighborhood residents are concerned that availability of on-street parking will be impacted by the project. Neighbors of the project have testified that parking availability is already impacted by students that park on Fredericks or McCollum and walk, or take the bus, to school. Some feel that the additional residences, especially if the homes are occupied by students, will exacerbate the situation. The Planning Commission and Architectural Review Commission both discussed parking issues at length. Both Commissions expressed support for extending the existing parking district on McCollum Street to cover the project site, but this cannot be approved until the future residents of the project move in. In order to further protect on-street parking availability, the Planning Commission is recommending a condition of approval that would require homeowners to use their garages for parking vehicles, as opposed to using them for storage. This requirement would be enforced by the Homeowner's Association with oversight by the City. The Planning Commission also provided input to the ARC, encouraging them to evaluate interior storage space for each dwelling to insure that the residents of the project have adequate alternatives to their garages for storage. The condition will be further enhanced by inclusion in the project CC&Rs (Conditions, Covenants, and Restrictions) to be enforced by the future Homeowner's Association. In addition to evaluating interior storage space proposed for each dwelling, the ARC identified areas where additional guest parking could be provided on-site. The ARC asked the applicant to 3-4 Council Agenda Report TR, ER, PD 189-00 (1795 McCollum) Page 5 explore the possibility of adding two additional parking spaces on lot seven, at the end of the cul- de-sac. The ARC also asked the applicant to explore incorporating bulb-outs into the private street in order to provide for on-street parking of two or three vehicles. This direction was provided to the applicant with the caveat that additional parking is subject"to the approval of the City Council." The total number of parking spaces required for a project is usually outside of the jurisdiction of the ARC. However, if the Council supports evaluating the potential for additional on-site parking, then these conditions could be approved and forwarded back to the ARC. The applicant will then be required to prepare a plan to show how the parking would work in those two locations, and the ARC would evaluate.the aesthetic impact of the proposed additional parking spaces to determine which additional spaces would be required. Staff recommends approval of the ARC's suggested conditions because additional on-site parking will benefit the project residents and neighbors, provided the spaces can be incorporated into the streetscape without detracting significantly from the aesthetics of the project(Attachment 4, Condition#10) C. Drainage Drainage has also been a major concern of neighbors of the project. McCollum Street has never had frontage improvements installed to help convey surface water to storm drain inlets. In addition, the natural topography of the area has resulted in significant overland water flows during heavy rain. The full improvement of McCollum Street with paving, sidewalks, curbs, gutters and storm drain inlets, in addition to the proposed on-site drainage facilities, will not cause a change in the amount of storm water entering the storm water system. However, it will change the type of flow (from overland to channelized) and shorten the time of travel before the storm water enters the system. The City's drainage policies require the development to meet three primary performance objectives. First, all drainage from the project site and improvements must be disposed of in an approved point of disposal. Second, cross-lot drainage onto adjacent properties or between new lots within the project must be eliminated or easements must be established to accommodate the proposed drainage. Third, the project must continue to accept water from off-site where a historic drainage pattern has been established. Staff has worked with the applicant to develop a grading, drainage and utility plan that meets these three objectives. The grading plan shows that all drainage from the project site will be directed through drain inlets to a new storm drain located in the private street. The new storm drain will replace an existing CMP (Corrugated Metal Pipe) with a 36" HDPE pipe (High Density Poly-Ethylene) that is much more efficient. Public improvements planned for McCollum Street will further increase the efficiency of the system by conveying surface water from uphill and adjacent properties into the new storm drain system. Retaining walls that are proposed along the perimeter of the project site will be offset by one foot to provide space for a v-gutter to accept surface run-off from adjacent properties and convey the water to a drain inlet and into the storm drain system. Fences will be located on property lines outside of the v-gutter to insure that the new property owners have easy access to monitor and maintain their drains. Staff will ask the ARC to review the proposed fence design to insure compatibility with this requirement. Overall, Staff believes that the proposed proBQ15,vill Council Agenda Report TR, ER, PD 189-00 (1795 McCollum) Page 6. . provide benefits to the neighborhood in terms of drainage because the capacity and design of the new storm drain system is expected to significantly reduce over land water flows. D. Architectural Review Planning Commission Resolution No. 5310-01 provided specific input to the ARC process. The Planning Commission felt that many of the issues that were outstanding in their minds could be dealt with at the design level. In granting schematic approval to the project, the ARC provided fifteen points of direction for the applicant to incorporate into plans for final approval. The most significant change is a requirement to reduce the size of the homes on lots three and six to less than 2,000 square feet. This change was consistent with two points of input provided by the Planning Commission: One, to enhance the affordability of the units in the project, and two, to reduce the intrusive aspects of the dwelling on lot six. Revised plans will go back to the ARC for final approval if the PD Zoning and subdivision are approved by the City Council. CONCURRENCES Project plans have been evaluated by Public Works, Utilities, Fire and Building Division Staff. Initial project plans were revised by the applicant based on input from these departments and in order to meet City standards and improve the project design. Subsequent comments are incorporated into this report as conditions of approval or code requirements. ALTERNATIVES 1. The Council may deny project. This action should be taken if any of the findings required by the Subdivision Map Act cannot be made. Denial is required by the Zoning Regulations if the Council cannot make at least one of the six findings required for approval of the requested PD zoning. Denial of the PD zoning will require a revised project to be prepared that uses conventional lot standards. Due to the shape of the existing undeveloped property, staff believes that a deep lot subdivision is a less efficient way to develop the property. 2. The Council may continue discussion if additional information is needed. Direction should be given to staff and the applicant. Attachments: Attachment 1: Vicinity map Attachment 2: Project Plans Attachment 3: Draft Resolution "A" adopting the Mitigated Negative Declaration and approving the tentative map. Attachment 4: Ordinance "A"rezoning the project site from R-1 to R-1-PD Attachment 5: Draft Resolution`B" denying the project. Attachment 6: Planning Commission Staff Report for April 25, 2001 with attachments. Attachment 7: Draft Planning Commission Minutes from April 25, 2001 Attachment 8: Planning Commission Resolution No. 5310-01 /^ Council Agenda Report TR, ER, PD 189-00 (1795 McCollum) Page 7 Attachment 9: ARC follow-up letter from the May 7, 2001 ARC action granting schematic approval to the project with direction and draft meeting minutes. Attachment 10: Initial Study of Environmental Impact and Mitigated Negative Declaration. 3-7 ATTACHMENT -- _ SLACK 1 _ Pacheco School _ HAYS v _ W McCOLLUM McCOLLUM - - m - j HOPE FREDERICKS I LOOMIS I I - Highway 101 - VICINITY MAP TR, PD, ER 189-00 1795 McCollum 50 0 50 _0 Feet ATTACHMENT] ii.!• Li z lurm<lcusnlo sln in<s i�l:�� S�'roOd�SI90W X10"W �1!lyf F m IP_ 1J311HJNV WlJl 31N213 S31ViS3 V,LSIA V.L"IV $ y h — l— g ? V=�YsXY 3n N3AV UNVaD ui»Ii4 Ell a LL �S WO j: JS iu 1 G rl e LL r - LQ . .I• �< J > 1 - U 11 z Hz� E2 , 3-9 Mon Hill 1=21 • I Lip,I I A"ryy f' too" 11.1 .P I ar pf a�� �; �; - I���� - ` I 111 M 16,11— 111 A-1 III EE LEE .41 mall ATTACHMENT twwno�vmem vol O�HDZd[TIl1V5 mu�va®revtxwmt Sxmsaau/wfrr mw < i Ig I T t ° ON ® • d�5 - Lit h �y IL 4 m- c=1 W T R � bbb b U Z a 0 J N LL ' a a € n� ;e S Z Z E Q s E° �a � J cl 0 n J I 1 O 3-11 ' 1 r•� m» p ATTACHMENT mm vo oaoemmv Y'J'OdSIHO sl m" swz=�.R = ssrrwm u/purrmmrr m tmai �tv r� Suvzss vssre v.L lvCD ! 0 rn T � � p p 0 14e W fit i g CD o1KCM < W � LL M!Ha 3-12 ATTACHMENT 2 i1.p91LAi0�,� vo aa4sa smim i.DRTiA"WV roux arra SUVISa VLSIA VI IV HER" ! a Q 4 CD I 4 4 Opp p O N �I w a� o 'a 15C W IL no � 5 Z Z F 0 d� I� q O y 1. I O LL �0 v ® z IL 9 a t9 0 IL 3-13 r cm C-3 HME R e 71711717171711711171 $ g a ea D E �- ^g \ f; .� \ _ � ,s, �/ i �/gyp' �� 'r/ �✓ `�' t W \ ATTACHMM, 3 Draft Resolution"A" RESOLUTION NO. (2001 Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO APPROVING A TENTATIVE MAP FOR NINE LOTS AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AT 1795 MCCOLLUM STREET (TR,ER 189-00). WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on, April 25, 2001, and has considered testimony of the applicant, interested parties, and the evaluation and recommendation of staff and recommended approval of the project to the City Council; and WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing on, June 5, 2001, and has considered testimony of the applicant, interested parties, the evaluation and recommendation of staff and the records of the Planning Commission hearing and action; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the project is consistent with the State Subdivision Map Act, City Zoning Ordinance, Building Code and other applicable City ordinances; and WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the draft Negative Declaration of environmental impact as prepared by staff and reviewed by the Planning Commission; BE IT RESOLVED,by the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. Environmental Determination. The City Council finds and determines that the project's Negative Declaration with Mitigation Measures and Monitoring Program adequately addresses the potential significant environmental impacts of the proposed rezoning, subdivision and development of seven new single-family dwellings, and reflects the independent judgment of the City Council. The Council hereby adopts said Negative Declaration and incorporates the following mitigation measures and monitoring program into the project. 3-15 ATTACHMENT Resolution No. (2001 Series) Page 2 Mitigation Measure and Monitoring Program Air Quality 1. The following dust control measures shall be implemented during the construction phase of the project. These mitigation measures are to be monitored by Community Development Department and Public Works Department staff responsible for routinely visiting the project site during grading and construction to insure compliance with these and other City requirements. These mitigation measures shall be re-printed on the title page of all approved project plan sets. a) Reduce the amount of disturbed area where possible. b) Water trucks or sprinkler systems shall be used in sufficient quantities to prevent airborne dust from leaving the site. Increased watering efficiency is required whenever wind speeds exceed 15 mph. Reclaimed(nonpotable ) water should be used whenever possible. c) All dirt stockpiles areas should be sprayed daily as needed. d) Landscape plans should be implemented as soon as possible following completion of building construction. e) Exposed ground areas that are planned to be reworked at dates greater than one month after initial grading should be sown with a fast-germinating native grass seed and watered until vegetation is established. f) All roadways, driveways, sidewalks, etc. to be paved should be completed as soon as possible. In addition, foundations should be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used. g) Vehicle speed for all construction vehicles shall not exceed 15 mph on any unpaved surface at the construction site. h) Install wheel washers where vehicles enter.and exit unpaved roads onto streets, or wash off trucks and equipment leaving the site. i) Sweep the street at the end of each day if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent paved roads. Water sweepers with reclaimed water should be used where feasible. SECTION 2. Findings. That this Council, after consideration of the proposed project (TR, ER 189-00), the applicant's statement, the recommendations of staff and advisory bodies, 3-16 ATTACHMENT 0 Resolution No. (2001 Series) Page 3 and reports thereof, makes the following findings: 1. As conditioned, the proposed map is consistent with the General Plan because the subdivision will provide for detached dwellings with useable backyard space. 2. As conditioned, the design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is consistent with the General Plan because dwellings will provide a sense of individual identity and neighborhood cohesion for the households occupying them. 3. The site is physically suited for the proposed type of development because it is a relatively flat, undeveloped site that has few trees and the site is adjacent to an existing street right-of-way that will be improved in conjunction with this project. 4. As conditioned, the site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development because the site is within an existing City block, services are available to serve the development, and a storm drain system is proposed to insure that additional runoff from the project will be collected and disposed of per City standards. 5. The design of the subdivision, or the type of improvements, is not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and unavoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat because the site does not have any creeks or other potential habitat areas for fish or wildlife. 6. The design of the subdivision, or type of improvements, is not likely to cause serious public health problems because the type of improvements are residential and development will be designed to meet existing building and safety codes. 7. The design of the subdivision, or the type of improvements, will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, property within the proposed subdivision because no such easements exist. SECTION 3. Approval. That the proposed tentative map (TR, ER 189-00, 1795 McCollum Street) is hereby approved subject to the following conditions and code requirements: 1. The proposed connection to the storm drain manhole adjacent to lot six shall be realigned southwesterly into lot 7 to the approval of the Public Works Director. 2. A registered soils engineer shall prepare a report addressing the existing storm drain crossing this property under and adjacent to proposed building sites. The report shall specify mitigation options for abandonment in place as well as removal of the pipe, to the approval of the Director of Public Works and Chief Building Official. 3. The subdivider shall construct a City Standard street type entrance, including curb returns and handicap ramps, at the intersection of the private drive and McCollum Street. 3-17 ATTACHMENT Resolution No. (2001 Series) Page 4 4. The subdivider shall install street lighting and all associated facilities (conduits, sidewalk vaults, fusing, wiring, luminaries, etc.)per City standards, as determined by the Director of Public Works. 5. Final grades and alignments of all water, sewer and storm drains(including service laterals and meters) shall be subject to change to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works and Utilities Engineer. 6. All lots shall be graded to preclude cross-lot drainage, or appropriate easements and drainage facilities shall be provided, to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works and the Chief Building Official. 7. The subdivider shall submit a hydrology study, prepared by a registered civil engineer, indicating the effects of the proposed development on adjacent and downstream properties,prior to recordation of the final map. The scope of the study must include analysis of all existing public and private drainage facilities and creek capacities between this property and an adequate point of disposal, to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works. 8. The storm drain easement along the easterly side of lots 7 and 8 shall not be less than 2.5m wide, to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works. 9. Storm drain easements along the southerly side of proposed lots 3 and 6 do not connect and therefore do not form a continuous easement. Said easement shall extend to the common lot line of lots 3 and 6,to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works. 10. The private sewer main serving lots 2, 3,5 and 6 shall connect to the City sewer main via a new manhole to be constructed by the subdivider, to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works and Utilities Director. 11. Easements shall be provided to accommodate the extension of private water services from the water meters located in the public sidewalk on McCollum St, to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works. 12. A 3m wide street tree easement shall be dedicated along all public and private street frontages,to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works. 13. Street trees shall be planted along McCollum Street and the private drive frontage, to the satisfaction of the City Arborist and the Architectural Review Commission. Street tree planting shall be deferred to the development of each lot. 3-18 - ATTACHMENT 3 Resolution No. (2001 Series) Page 5 14. The foundation system for any structure placed on lot 8 shall be designed so as not to impact, place loads on, or hinder the repair or replacement of the storm drain along the easterly property line, to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works. 15. All boundary monuments, lot corners and centerline intersections,BC's, EC's,etc., shall be tied to the City's Horizontal Control Network. At least two control points shall be used and a tabulation of the coordinates shall be submitted with the final map or parcel map. All coordinates submitted shall be based on the City coordinate system. A 3.5" diameter computer floppy disk, containing the appropriate data compatible with AutoCAD(Digital Interchange Format, DXF) for Geographic Information System (GIS)purposes, shall be submitted to the Director of Public Works. 16. The final map, public improvement plans and specifications shall use the International System of Units (metric system). The English System of Units may be used on the final map where necessary (e.g. - all record data shall be entered on the map in the record units, metric translations should be in parenthesis), to the approval of the Director of Public Works. 17. The project shall require the installation of a fire hydrant on McCollum Street. Prior to combustible construction the fire hydrant shall be installed, tested and placed in-service in a location to be approved by the Fire Marshall and Public Works Director. 18. A laundry facility for each residence is required and has not been shown. If the laundry is located within garages, then a minimum area of 18'-6" deep by 19' wide is required for vehicle parking. 19. The applicant shall pay Park In-Lieu Fees consistent with SLO Municipal Code Section 16.40.080. 20. Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions (C.C.&R.$) are required, to the approval of the Community Development Director and the Public Works Director. Code Requirements (the following list is intended to alert the applicant to significant ordinance requirements related to the project, but is not an exhaustive list of all project requirements): 1. A water allocation is required, due to the additional demand on the City's water supplies. 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. The cost of retrofitting is directly credited against the project's Water Impact Fees, at a rate of$150 per bathroom retrofitted. Water and Wastewater Impact Fees are 3-19 ATTACHMENT Resolution No. (2001 Series) Page 6 charged on a"per residential unit" basis and shall be paid at the time building permits are issued. 2. The owner's engineer shall submit water demand and wastewater generation calculations so that the City can make a determination as to the adequacy of the supporting infrastructure. If it is discovered that an offsite deficiency exists, the owner will be required to mitigate the deficiency as a part of the overall project. 3. Each parcel is to have its own separate water and wastewater service laterals. Water meters shall be located along McCollum, in accordance with City standards. All water and sewer in the private drive shall be privately owned and maintained. The joint ownership and maintenance of these facilities shall be addressed in the homeowners' association CC&R's. 4. By ordinance, the applicant is required to prepare a recycling plan for approval by the City to address the recycling of construction waste for projects valued at over $50,000 or demolition of structures over 1000 square feet. The recycling plan shall be submitted to the Building Department with the building plans. The City's Solid Waste Coordinator can provide some guidance in the preparation of an appropriate recycling plan. 5. Traffic impact fees shall be paid prior to issuance of building permits. On motion of , seconded by and on the following roll call vote:. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this_day of , 2001. 3-20 - ATTACHMENT 3 Resolution No. (2001 Series) Page 7 Mayor Allen Settle ATTEST: Lee Price, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: '//,4jf4jjffA��f 1AIJety G orgensen 3-21 ATT C HME Draft Ordinance "A" ORDINANCE NO. (2001 Series) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO AMENDING THE ZONING MAP FROM LOW-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (R-1) TO LOW-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL WITH A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY ZONE (R-1-PD) FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1795 MCCOLLUM STREET (PD 189-00). WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on April 25, 2001, and recommended approval of the rezoning (PD 189-00) to change the designation on the City's zoning map from Low-Density Residential to Low-Density Residential with the Planned Development overlay zone, for property located at 1795 McCollum Street; and WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing on June 5, 2001, and has considered testimony of the applicant, interested parties, the records of the Planning Commission hearings and actions, and the evaluation and recommendation of staff; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the proposed rezoning is consistent with the General Plan and other applicable City ordinances; and WHEREAS, the City Council has considered and adopted the Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact with Mitigation Measures as prepared by staff and reviewed by the Planning Commission. BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. Findings. That this Council, after consideration of the proposed rezoning from Low-Density Residential to Low-Density Residential with the Planned Development overlay zone, for property located at 1795 McCollum Street, makes the following findings: 1. As conditioned, the features of the proposed project, including the pocket park, private rear yards, adequate on-site parking, private street (lined with canopy trees and designed at a human scale), and orientation of porches to the existing neighborhood achieve the 3-22 ATTACHMENT Ordinance No. (2001 Series) 1795 McCollum Page 2 intent of the City's conventional standards as well as or better than the standards themselves. 2. A reduced street yard along McCollum Street for porches, and no enclosed living space, is appropriate because porches will have a positive impact on neighborhood character and driveways will be located on the private street. 3. A minimum rear yard area of 448 square feet is an appropriate standard for useable outdoor space in the project because the standard will insure privacy and solar access by increasing setbacks from existing yard areas in the neighborhood. 4. A requirement that garage space be available for parking is reasonably necessary to insure that on-street parking impacts are minimized by the project. SECTION 2. Action. The request to change the City's zoning map designation from Low-Density Residential to Low-Density Residential with the Planned Development overlay zone as shown in Exhibit A (PD 189-00) is hereby approved subject to the following conditions: 1. Front yard setbacks on McCollum Street shall be a minimum of 15 feet. No enclosed living space may be located within 20 feet of McCollum Street. 2. Rear yards shall have a minimum area of 448 feet of useable outdoor space. 3. The Oak tree located adjacent to the property line of proposed lot #6 shall be retained by methods to be approved by the Architectural Review Commission and City Arborist. 4. The development plan shall include a variety of housing types, to the approval of the Architectural Review Commission, and based on the direction of the Planning Commission. 5. Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions (C.0&R.$) for the project shall include a requirement that garage space be available for vehicle parking, to the approval of the Community Development Director. 6. Architectural Review Commission review shall include an evaluation of interior storage space within each unit to insure that a reasonable amount of storage is provided to each unit so that vehicle parking space is not needed for storage. 7. Proposed Lot #9 shall not be included within the Planned Development zone and shall not be governed by the rules and regulations of the Homeowner's Association. 3-23 -� ATTACHMENT Z". Ordinance No. (2001 Series) 1795 McCollum Page 3 8. The maximum height of any retaining wall within the project site shall be two feet. The maximum combined height of any retaining wall and fence within the project shall be 6 feet, to the approval of the Architectural Review Commission. Section D on the grading, drainage and utility plan shall be amended to reflect this requirement. 9. The following recommendations of the Air Pollution Control District are conditions of approval of the development plan, to the approval of the Architectural Review Commission. A) Increase attic and wall insulation beyond Title 24 requirements. B) Use built-in energy efficient appliances. C) Use double pane windows. D) Use energy efficient interior and exterior lighting. E) Use skylights to maximize natural day lighting. 10. The applicant shall prepare plans for the ARC to consider the potential for providing vehicle parking for four vehicles at the end of the cul-de-sac. The plans shall also explore the potential for parking on the private street through the use of bulb-outs. Additional parking spaces should be approved by the ARC if the spaces can be provided without detracting significantly from the streetscape views and overall appearance of the project. SECTION 3. A summary of this ordinance, together with the names of Council members voting for and against, shall be published at least five (5) days prior to its final passage, in the Telegram-Tribune, a newspaper published and circulated in this City. This ordinance shall go into effect at the expiration of thirty(30) days after its final passage. INTRODUCED on the day of 2001, AND FINALLY ADOPTED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo on the day of , 2001, on the following roll call vote: 3-24 ATTACHMENT_ e � Ordinance No. (2001 Series) 1795 McCollum Page 4 AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Mayor Allen Settle ATTEST: Lee Price, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: orn ify . Jorgensen 3-25 Pacheco School Existing R-1; Proposed R1-PD �7 MCCOLLUM LLUM Mc C) W Z LLLJ CO IL FREDERICKS L Rezoning Exhibit A PD 189-00 1795 McCollum 50 0 50 100 150 Feet --- ATTACHMENT 5 Draft Resolution`B" RESOLUTION NO. (2001 Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO DENYING A TENTATIVE MAP FOR NINE LOTS, MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION,AND PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REZONING AT 1795 MCCOLLUM STREET (TR,ER, PD 189-00). WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing on, June 5, 2001, and has considered testimony of the applicant, interested parties, and the evaluation and recommendation of staff; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the project is not consistent with the State Subdivision Map Act, City Zoning Ordinance, Building Code and other applicable City ordinances. BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. Findings. That this Council, after consideration of the proposed project (TR, ER 189-00), the applicant's statement, staff recommendations and reports thereof, makes the following findings: [Council to choose one or more of the following findings from the California Subdivision Map Act or list other findings as appropriate.] i. The proposed map is not consistent with the General Plan 2. The design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is not consistent with the General Plan. 3. The site is not physically suited for the proposed type of development. 4. The site is not physically suitable for the proposed density of development. 5. The design of the subdivision, or the type of improvements, are likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and unavoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. 6. The design of the subdivision, or type of improvements, is likely to cause serious public health problems. 3-27 — ATTACHMENT Resolution No. (2001 Series) Page 2 7. The design of the subdivision, or the type of improvements, will conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, property within the proposed subdivision. SECTION 2. Denial. That the project, TR, ER, PD 189-00, 1795 McCollum Street, is hereby denied. On motion of , seconded by and on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this_day of 2001. Mayor Allen Settle ATTEST: Lee Price, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Attorney Jeffrey G. Jorgensen 3-28 i I _ ATTACHMENT G CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COM USSSION STAFF REPORT ITEM#1 BY: Michael Codron;Qciate Planner(781-7170) MEETING DATE: April 25,2001 FROM: Ron Whisenand, Development Review ManagelC/ FILE NUMBER: TR, PD, ER 189-00 PROJECT ADDRESS: 1795 McCollum SUBJECT: Review of a proposed 9-lot subdivision, environmental review, and planned development(PD)rezoning,with development to include 7 new single-family homes. SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION Recommend approval of the proposed tentative map and Planned Development overlay zone to the City Council and provide direction to the Architectural Review Commission on recommended changes.to the proposed development plan. BACKGROUND Situation The Community Development Department has received an application for a new residential subdivision. The application includes a tentative tract map and architectural plans for seven new residences. Planned Development (PD) rezoning is required by the.Zoning Regulations because the proposal includes a density transfer within the area covered by the PD (SLOMC 17.16.010.B.1). The Community Development Department has prepared a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact for the project. The Planning Commission is being asked to make a recommendation on the subdivision, PD rezoning and Negative Declaration to the City Council. Architectural Review Commission approval of house plans and site improvements is also required. Data Summary Address: 1016 Walnut Street Applicant/Property Owner. Patrick and Allison Aurignac Representative: Hamish Marshall Zoning: R-1 (Low Density Residential) General Plan: Low Density Residential Environmental Status: A Negative Declaration was recommended by the Community Development Director on March 21, 2001. Project Action Deadline: The project is not subject to permit streamlining requirements because it involves a zone change,which is a legislative action. 3-29 ATTACHMENT e TR, PD, ER 189-00 (1795 McCollum) ` Page 2 Site Description The project site includes approximately 54,000 square feet and has an average cross-slope of 4.5%. Existing trees include two 10" Coast Live Oak trees and clusters of almond trees and fruit trees, such as avocado, orange and apple. The site is undeveloped except for Lot #9, which has a single-family residence and detached garage. A City utility building, the McCollum Pump Station, which provides water pressure to the Monterey Heights neighborhood, is adjacent to the property on McCollum. Presently only half of McCollum Street is paved and there is no sidewalk adjacent to the property. The project site is bordered by an established single-family residential neighborhood. Project Description The developer has proposed a tentative tract map to divide three parcels into nine lots. Development plans indicate that seven new residences are proposed on individual lots. An existing residence on Lot #9 would be retained, but the rear lot line of the property would be adjusted, reducing the size of the.lot by 1,496 square feet. A 22' wide private road easement(18 feet of paving curb to curb), and a cul-de-sac are proposed for access and tum-around. Lot seven is proposed to be developed with two guest parking spaces and common open space, including a picnic and barbeque area with a trellis. Grading of the property to create level building pads is proposed. Small retaining walls (2' tall max.) would be required at the back and between each lot. Average lot size would be 4,300 square feet, exclusive of the private street. A public easement is necessary to re-route an existing public storm drain through the project site. Private easements will be necessary to accommodate cross-lot drainage and to access a sewer main adjacent to the property. The applicant is requesting an exception to property development standards as part of the PD to allow for reduced street yards from 20 feet to 15 feet for lots l and 4. The applicant has proposed to meet the City's Inclusionary Housing Requirement by paying an in-lieu fee. EVALUATION The following evaluation is intended to provide a framework for the Planning Commission to discuss the project. Staff has evaluated the project with respect to consistency with the City's General Plan and with all of the development related codes, including the Zoning Regulations and Subdivision Regulations. The Planning Commission should discuss each of the following issue areas prior to making a recommendation on the project and Mitigated Negative Declaration. Why a PD? The PD overlay is required in order to approve the small lots associated with the proposed subdivision. Section 17.16.010.B.1 of the Zoning Regulations says that development potential may be transferred within the area covered by a planned development zone. Adopting the PD allows the total number of units allowed to be calculated based on the total area covered by the 3-30 ATTACHMENT, - o _ TR, PD, ER 189-00 (1795 McCollum) Page 3 PD zone, regardless of the size of individual lots. Since the individual lots proposed average less than 6,000 square feet in area, density has to be transferred within the area covered by the PD in order for each lot to be developed. Density calculations are provided in this report under the heading"Density." The PD zone is not required in order to approve the proposed street yard reductions along McCollum Street, or for the proposed lot dimensions (SLOMC 17.16.020D.2.b. Variable Street Yards in Subdivisions; and, SLOMC 16.16.130, Exceptions for Condominium Projects). However, the PD does provide a mechanism to evaluate these exceptions, which are key components of the development plan. Proposed Property Development Standards The following evaluation includes an overall evaluation of the project with respect to the City's conventional property development standards. Subdivision Desisn The subdivision is a Planned Unit Development (PUD) type of condominium project. PUD's are different than standard condominium subdivisions because they include individual ownership of land within established property lines. A Homeowner's Association will have to be established to govern common ownership of lot #7, as well as easements for access, drainage and utilities. The project fully complies with the City's Property Improvement Standards for New Condominium Projects (SLOMC 17.82.040,attached). The proposed private street would be 18 feet wide, curb to curb, allowing for two vehicle travel lanes and no on-street parking. Decorative paving is proposed in the street, adjacent to curbs. City standards require street trees within the project. In a standard subdivision design, with a 60- foot wide right-of-way, houses across the street from one another are typically 100 feet apart. Houses across the proposed private street would be 63 feet apart, on average. Staff believes that the proposed design has the potential to create a unique and livable environment. Through Architectural Review, staff will recommend that the street tree selection include appropriately sized canopy trees to enhance the streetscape within the project. Staff believes that the relatively narrow street will also enhance the streetscape by bringing porches across the street closer together. This may have the effect of enhancing the relationships of project occupants. At the end of the private street is a lot that would be developed with a pocket park to include a picnic area, barbecue and trellis. This park is seen as a further amenity of the project, which enhances the useable outdoor space, but does not replace the need for private outdoor space for each unit. 3-31 - ATTACHMENT TR, PD, ER 189-00 (1795 McCollum) Page 4 Densi The proposed project meets the density requirements contained in the Zoning Regulations. Although, the project achieves a significantly greater density in comparison to the adjoining neighborhood. The following table provides various density calculations for the project. Existing Neighborhood (10 average lots in the block) 103,710 4.2 units/acre 7 units per acre Proposed Project (Net Site Area as defined by the Zoning Regulations, 54,258 6.4 units/acre 7 units per acre 17.16.010.A.1.b, which includes private street area) Proposed Project(net of private street) 45,208 7.26 units/acre NA Proposed Project (if lot #9 is not 44,291 6.86 units/acre NA included in the PD In general, staff supports the proposed density of development in relation to the existing neighborhood because the majority of the homes on the block are developed on the hill, where higher densities are more difficult to achieve because of site constraints. The project site may be more appropriate for a higher density of development than currently exists within the block because the site is flat and significant cutting and filling to create building pads is not necessary. • The Planning Commission should consider the intensification of development proposed, as compared to the existing neighborhood, and determine whether or not this intensification is consistent with the General Plan goals and policies outlined later in this report. • The Planning Commission should decide whether or not lot #9 should be included in the PD. Staff is recommending that the zoning of lot #9 not be changed. A minor adjustment of the rear lot line is proposed on lot #9 reducing the lot area by 1,496 square feet, but this property is otherwise unrelated to the larger development. Setbacks The applicant is requesting setback exceptions along McCollum Street. A 15' street yard is proposed for lots #1 and#4. The exception is for a wrap-around porch that will provide an entry feature to the homes from McCollum Street. Staff believes that reduced setbacks for porches are appropriate because they encourage neighborhood interaction. Side yard setbacks shown on the project plans comply with the City's existing standards. Setbacks to the private street vary from 15'-6" to 22'. The City's street yard requirement is 20 feet, but this usually applies to setbacks 3-32 � - fTaACHMENT. • � TR, PD, ER 189-00 (1795 McCollum) Page 5 from public streets. All proposed garages are set back a minimum of 20 feet to meet the requirements of the City's Parking and Driveway Standards and.to provide for additional vehicle parking in driveways. The City's setback standards for other yards do not differentiate between side yards and rear yards. The proposed project meets City standards for rear yards, and provides additional setback area for useable outdoor space. The Zoning Regulations (SLOMC 17.82.040, attached) require a minimum area of only 250 square feet of private open space for each unit. The smallest rear yards appear on lots #3 and #6, where the setback ranges from 8' to 16'. These lots provide a useable rear yard area of 448 square feet. These yard areas are smaller than the other rear yard areas in the subdivision, primarily because of the location of the cul-de-sac. The Planning Commission can establish minimum rear yard setbacks as part of the PD approval, or can make a recommendation to the Architectural Review Commission to insure that specific goals are met with respect to yard areas. • The Planning Commission should consider the appropriateness of the reduced setback proposed for porches on lots #1 and #4 and the proposed building setbacks from the private street. • The Planning Commission should consider the rear yard areas proposed for each lot to determine if the setback is adequate. Particular attention should be paid to lots #3 and #6, which have the smallest rear yard areas. Parkin Available parking for residents and guests is an issue with this project because four of the proposed lots do not have street frontage. Standard lots typically provide additional on-street parking for residents and neighborhood visitors. Two guest spaces are provided on-site to meet the Zoning Regulations requirement, however, the project is deficient in parking from what would normally be expected, if each lot had street frontage. Staff is recommending conditions of approval to reduce potential parking impacts generated by the project. Staff is recommending a condition of approval to require garages to be available for parking two vehicles at all times. Another way to offset the potential reduction of available on-street parking is by extending the existing parking district in the neighborhood to cover all of McCollum Street. Staff is continuing to research the policies and procedures for establishing parking districts and will report to the Planning Commission on an appropriate course of action during the April 25 hearing on this item. • The Planning Commission should provide direction to the ARC to evaluate alternative storage space available within each unit to reduce the potential for the garage to be used as storage. 3-33 - ATTACHMENT TR, PD, ER 189-00 (1795 McCollum) Page 6 • The Commission should determine if more than two on-site guest parking spaces should be provided, however, there is limited additional space on the project site for guest parking. Trees The City Arborist has identified two Oak trees on the project site that must be retained. One of the trees is shown on the plans to be retained. The other tree straddles a property line and is adjacent to a proposed retaining wall. A condition is recommended to insure the preservation of the tree. All other trees on the property will be removed as indicated on the tentative map. Planned Development Findines Specific findings are required in order to approve the requested Planned Development overlay zone. Section 17.50 of the Zoning Regulations describes the purpose and application of the PD zone. This section states that the PD zone is intended to encourage imaginative development and effective use of sites. The section goes on to state that the project should provide benefits to the project occupants, or to the community as a whole, which could not be provided under conventional regulations. Staff believes that a PD is an appropriate way to make effective use of this site because a standard subdivision of the undeveloped property would result in narrow, deep lots. For instance, if the large parcel on McCollum Street were divided into three lots, each lot would have an area of 8,640 square feet, but would exceed the City's standard ratio of 1:3 for lot width to depth. Staff believes incorporating a private street that can provide access to the mid-block area is imaginative. This design feature gives the project the potential for providing a unique streetscape and view corridor from McCollum Street. Staff believes that the occupants of the project will benefit significantly from the design concept, which brings front yards, and people, closer together than is possible in standard subdivisions with public streets. Section 17.62.040 lists specific findings that the Planning Commission and City Council must consider in order to approve the requested PD overlay zone. In order to approve the PD the Commission and Council must make at least one of the following findings: 1. It provides facilities or amenities suited to a particular occupancy group (such as the elderly or families with children) which would not be feasible under conventional zoning; 2. It transfers allowable development, within a site, from areas of greater environmental sensitivity or hazard to areas of less sensitivity or hazard; 3. It provides more affordable housing than would be possible with conventional development; 3-34 ATTACHMENT 6 TR, PD, ER 189-00 (1795 McCollum) Page 7 4. Features of the particular design achieve the intent of conventional standards (privacy, usable open space, adequate parking, compatibility with neighborhood character, and so on) as well as or better than the standards themselves; 5. It incorporates features which result in consumption of less materials, energy or water than conventional development; 6. The proposed project provides exceptional public benefits such as parking, open space, landscaping, public art, and other special amenities which would not be feasible under conventional development standards. In this evaluation, staff has focused on finding #4 above. Planning staff has worked closely with local neighborhood organizations and with the developer to improve many aspects of the project from the original proposal. The applicant has revised project plans two times in response to staff and neighborhood concerns. In the fust revision, one unit was eliminated from the project and the pocket park was designed in its place. Approval of the project with the additional unit would have required approval of a density bonus and would have required the Planning Commission and City Council to make at least three of the findings listed above. Staff believes that the project design is substantially improved with the inclusion of the park and the elimination of the extra unit. The City's Property.Development Standards for New Condominium Projects do not require common open space areas to be provided as part of R-I condominium projects. By providing the common open space area, the project goes beyond the requirements of the Zoning Regulations by providing additional useable open space. In the second plan revision,the applicant modified the house plans to provide additional rear yard area and a wrap-around porch on lots #1 and #4. The Zoning Regulations require a minimum of 250 square feet of private open space for condominium projects in the R-1 zone. However, staff felt that an area of 400 square feet was necessary for this project in order to provide private open space areas that are useable and consistent with the Low Density Residential designation. The additional rear yard areas provided in the second plan revision also serve the purpose of increasing rear yard setbacks and increasing the buffer between the new homes and existing yard areas on adjacent properties. Staff's concerns with the neighborhood compatibility of the project design resulted in the applicant reducing the requested setback exception request from 11 feet (9-foot exception) to 15 feet (5 foot exception). In the revised plan, the applicant's have provided a wrap-around porch and a French-door entry into the dwellings on lots 1 and 4. The requested exception applies only to the porch, and not to interior living space as previously proposed. The applicant has also eliminated a request to use a low wall with signage at the entry to the private street to identify the subdivision. Staff believes that these changes will result in a project that is more unified with the existing neighborhood and more consistent with the development pattern of the block. 3-35 AST I ACHMENT o TR, PD, ER 189-00 (1795 McCollum) Page 8 Is the Project Consistent with the General Plan? In order to approve the proposed PD and subdivision,the City Council must find that the project is consistent with the General Plan. The following is an analysis of General Plan policies that pertain to the proposed type of development. Staff's analysis is provided in italics. Land Use Element Goals,City Form - San Luis Obispo should: 29) Maintain existing neighborhoods and assure that new development occurs as part of a neighborhood pattern. Staff has recommended changes to insure that the new development occurs as part of the existing neighborhood pattern. In response, the applicant has revised house plans on lots #1 and #4 to include an entry feature on McCollum Street. Lot #8 is designed to face Fredericks Street and will integrate well with homes on this street as proposed. Staff is concerned with the proposed intensity of the development in the center of the block but feels that the proposed design is a more effective use of the land than alternative subdivision designs. In addition, the applicant has revised the plans to provide a greater rear yard setback on those lots in order to provide greater buffering from adjacent residential properties. The Planning Commission must weigh the proposed design against potential alternatives in making a recommendation to the City Council. 31) Grow gradually outward from its historic center until its ultimate boundaries are reached, maintaining a compact urban form. The project helps the City achieve this goal by developing the project site near the maximum allowable density. This provides more housing opportunities within the City's urban area and this type ofproject can help relieve demand for outward residential growth. Land Use Element Policies, Conservation and Development of Residential Neighborhoods LU 2.2.6: Neighborhood Pattern All residential development should be integrated with existing neighborhoods. Where physical features make this impossible, the new development should create new neighborhoods. Staff believes that the proposed project design as modified, and conditioned, will result in a unique, livable environment for residents of the project. Staff believes that the dimensions of the existing undeveloped property make it difficult to match the existing development pattern of the neighborhood with an efficient subdivision design. The applicant has incorporated design changes into the project proposal to better integrate the new homes with the existing neighborhood. The homes on the perimeter of the project will be integrated with the other homes on the block that face the public street. Through conditions of approval, the Planning Commission, City Council, and Architectural Review Commission can require additional 3-36 ATTACHMENT, 6 TR, PD, ER 189-00 (1795 McCollum) Page 9 changes necessary to insure consistency with this policy. LU 2.2.10: Compatible Development Housing built within an existing neighborhood should be in scale and in character with that neighborhood. All multifamily development and large group-living facilities should be compatible with any nearby, lower density development. A) Architectural Character: New buildings should respect existing buildings which contribute to neighborhood historical or architectural character, in terms of size, spacing, and variety. B) Privacy and Solar Access: Privacy and Solar Access: New buildings will respect the privacy and solar access of neighboring buildings and outdoor areas, particularly where multistory buildings or additions may overlook backyards of adjacent dwellings. Consistency with this policy will primarily be insured through Architectural Review Commission review of the project. Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission provide direction to the applicant, staff and the Architectural Review Commission regarding the proposed variety of housing types to further insure consistency with this policy. LU 2.2.12: Residential Project Objectives -Residential projects should provide: A) Privacy, for occupants and neighbors of the project; The revised project design before the Planning Commission includes larger rear yards to help insure privacy of occupants and neighbors. Rear yard areas range from 448 square feet to 1500 square feet. In addition, a larger rear yard will provide an important area for families in the development to enjoy their homes. The ARC will review house plans and require changes where potential overlook impacts are identified. B) Adequate usable outdoor area, sheltered from noise and prevailing winds, and oriented to receive light and sunshine; C) Use of natural ventilation, sunlight, and shade to make indoor and outdoor spaces comfortable with minimum mechanical support; Air Pollution Control District (APCD) staff has recommended specific conditions that go beyond the normal energy conservation requirements of the City and that promote the use of natural light. Staff will incorporate these conditions into any PD approval and will recommend changes to building design, consistent with these conditions, to the Architectural Review Commission. D) Pleasant views from and toward the project; Staff believes that the proposed private street terminating at the pocket park will offer an interesting view of the project from McCollum Street. The choice of street trees along the private street can help enhance this view and will be reviewed by the Architectural Review Commission. It is sten hope that trees will eventually form a canopy over the private street. 3-37 ATTACHMENT e TR, PD, ER 189-00(1795 McCollum) Page 10 E) Security and safety; F) Separate paths for vehicles and for people, and bike paths along collector streets; The project has been reviewed by the City's Principal Transportation Planner who feels that the circulation design of the project is safe for both vehicles and pedestrians The size of the project does not warrant a separate path for pedestrians beyond the decorative paving that is proposed along the perimeter of the private street. G) Adequate parking and storage space; Staff is recommending conditions of approval to insure that garage use is maximized on the project site. Staff is also recommending that the units be designed with additional storage space to be used in-lieu ofgarage storage. H) Noise and visual separation from adjacent roads and commercial uses. A noise level analysis has been provided that indicates that noise levels on the project site comply with Noise Element standards. The analysis is attached to the Initial Study. I) Design elements that facilitate neighborhood interaction, such as front porches, front yards along streets, and entryways facing public walkways. All homes are designed with porches. Homes on lots 1, 4 and 8 have porches that face existing public streets to facilitate interaction with the existing neighborhood. .n Buffers from hazardous materials transport routes, as recommended by the City Fire Department. The City Fire Marshall has reviewed the proposed project for compliance with this standard. Housing Element Policies (Digest Numbering) - Neighborhood Quality H 7.2.1: Character, Size, Density and Quality Within established neighborhoods, new residential development must be of a character, size, density, and quality that preserves the City's neighborhoods and maintains the quality of life for existing and future residents.(p21,1.27.1) Staff believes that the proposed house designs and subdivision improvements are of high quality and will maintain the quality of life for existing and future residents. The proposed density is greater than the existing neighborhood but within the limits prescribed by the Zoning Regulations. In order to approve the proposed density the Planning Commission and City Council must make findings as described under the heading "Planned Development Findings" above. The Planning Commission may recommend specific changes or provide direction to the 3-38 AMCHMENT TR, PD, ER 189-00 (1795 McCollum) Page 11 Architectural Review Commission as necessary to insure that the project is developed consistent with this policy. H 7.2.2: Location of Infill Housing Within established neighborhoods, infill housing should be located on appropriate sites,but not on sites designated in the General Plan for parks,open space,or similar uses of neighborhood importance. (p21,1.27.2) The proposed site is appropriate for in-fill residential development and is not designated for any other use. H 7.2.4: Walled-Off Residential Enclaves The creation of walled-off residential enclaves, or of separate, unconnected tracts, is discouraged because physical separations prevent formation of functioning neighborhoods. Noise walls may be permissible where it can be demonstrated that no other effective mitigation techniques are available or feasible. (p21,1.27.4) Staff believes that the proposed project will be open to the existing neighborhood and will provide a nice view corridor down the private street. The project originally included a proposal for signage at the entry to the private street, but this request was eliminated because.of staffs concern that signage would have the effect of separating the project from the existing neighborhood. Subdivision Findings In order to approve the proposed tentative map, the City Council must make the following findings: 1. The proposed map is consistent with the General Plan. 2. The design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is consistent with the General Plan. 3. The site is physically suited for the proposed type of development. 4. The site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development. 5. The design of the subdivision, or the type of improvements, is not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and unavoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. 6. The design of the subdivision, or type of improvements, is not likely to cause serious public health problems. 7. That the design of the subdivision, or the type of improvements, will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, property within the proposed subdivision. 3-39 - ATTACHMENT � TR, PD, ER 189-00 (1795 McCollum) Page 12 Staff believes that the site is physically suited for the proposed type and density of development because it is a relatively flat, undeveloped site that has few trees and the site is adjacent to an existing street right-of-way that will be improved in conjunction with this project. An Initial Study of Environmental Impact did not identify any potential impacts to fish or wildlife or their habitat areas, and no adverse health impacts to humans were identified. There are no easements on the property for access through the project site. As discussed in the previous section, staff believes that project proposal, with recommended changes, is consistent with the General Plan. Environmental Review The Community Development Director has recommended a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project. The recommendation and initial study are attached to this staff report. Staff identified one potentially significant effect of the project, which is the potential for a construction related dust nuisance. Many of the project's impacts identified as "Less than Significant" are further reduced by existing ordinances, such as the City's new Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Program. Alternative Development Options Staff has identified three primary alternatives to the proposed project. The alternatives are provided as background information to show different ways a property of this size, type and zoning might be developed. These alternatives are not necessarily feasible from the developer's perspective, but all three alternatives provide for reasonable use of the project site. Design Alternative #1: Two flag lots could be created on either side of a private driveway in the location of the proposed private street. This would require approval of a lot line adjustment of existing underlying lots, and would reduce the number of new residences from seven, as proposed, to five. This alternative would still involve development of the mid-block area, but would allow for greater lot areas and more selective building placement. A PD overlay would not be required. Design Alternative #2: The large parcel on 1795 McCollum could be split into two lots, and each lot could be developed with two residences, as provided for in the Zoning Regulations (see Table 9, note 1). This alternative would require approval of lot line adjustment of existing underlying lots, and would reduce the number of new residences from seven, as proposed, to five. However, this would reduce ownership potential of the individual residences and could result in fewer owner occupied dwellings. Design Alternative#3: This alternative proposes a PD in the proposed configuration, but based on the finding that the project provides more affordable housing than would be possible with conventional development. The residences on lots 3 and 6 could be reduced in size and offered at an affordable price. By providing two affordable dwelling units, the project would exceed the requirements of the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance. 3-40 ATTACHMENT 6 TR,PD, ER 189-00 (1795 McCollum) Page 13 REFERRALS AND PUBLIC COMMENT The project proposal was routed to various City departments and other interested agencies such as the Air Pollution Control District. Comments received have been incorporated as conditions of approval and listed as code requirements. Public comment was received from Residents for Quality Neighborhoods (RQN). RQN has expressed many concerns regarding the project. RQN supports in-fill development, but is concerned about the intensification of development on the project site relative to development within the existing neighborhood. Planning staff participated in three neighborhood meetings in preparation for this report. One meeting was with representatives from RQN, another meeting was with members of the Alta Vista Neighborhood Association (AVMA) and a third meeting was held for all neighbors of the project. Staff received valuable input during these meetings, which was used to develop this report and the recommended findings and conditions of approval. ALTERNATIVES 1. Recommend denial of the project. This action should be based on the findings from the Subdivision Map Act listed in the body of the report under the heading "Required Findings." Denial should also be recommended if the Planning Commission cannot recommend approval of the requested PD zoning. 2. Continue the project with direction to the applicant and staff on changes to the project or additional information necessary to support approval of the project. RECOMMENDATION Recommend approval of the proposed tentative map and Planned Development overlay zone to the City Council and provide direction to the Architectural Review Commission on recommended changes to the proposed development plan based on the following findings and subject to the following conditions of approval. Planned Development Findings: 1. As conditioned, the features of the proposed project, including the pocket park, private rear yards, adequate on-site parking, private street (lined with canopy trees and designed at a human scale), and orientation of porches to the existing neighborhood achieve the intent of the City's conventional standards as well as or better than the standards themselves. 3-41 4 1 ATFACHM-tNTI , 6 TR, PD, ER 189-00 (1795 McCollum) Page 14 2. A reduced street yard along McCollum Street for porches, and no enclosed living space, is appropriate because porches will have a positive impact on neighborhood character and driveways will be located on the private street. 3. A minimum rear yardarea of 448 square feet is an appropriate standard for useable outdoor space in the project because the standard will insure privacy and solar access by increasing setbacks from existing yard areas in the neighborhood. 4. A requirement that garage space be available for parking is reasonably necessary to insure that on-street parking impacts are minimized by the project. Subdivision Findings: 1. As conditioned, the proposed map is consistent with the General Plan because the. subdivision will provide for detached dwellings with useable backyard space. 2. As conditioned, the design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is consistent with the General Plan because dwellings will provide a sense of individual identity and neighborhood cohesion for the households occupying them. 3. The site is physically suited for the proposed type of development because it is a relatively flat, undeveloped site that has few trees and the site is adjacent to an existing street right-of-way that will be improved in conjunction with this project. 4. As conditioned, the site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development because the site is within an existing City block, services are available to serve the development, and a storm drain system is proposed to insure that additional runoff from the project will be collected and disposed of per City standards. 5. The design of the subdivision, or the type of improvements, is not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and unavoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat because the site does not have any creeks or other potential habitat areas for fish or wildlife. 6. The design of the subdivision, or type of improvements, is not likely to cause serious public health problems because the type of improvements are residential and development will be designed to meet existing building and safety codes. 7. The design of the subdivision, or the type of improvements, will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, property within the proposed subdivision because no such easements exist. Planned Development Conditions of Approval: 1. Front yard setbacks on McCollum Street shall be a minimum of 15 feet. No enclosed living space may be located within 20 feet of McCollum Street. 3-42 ATTACHMENT TR, PD, ER 189-00 (1795 McCollum) Page 15 2. Rear yards shall have a minimum area of 448 feet of useable outdoor space. 3. The Oak tree located adjacent to the property line of proposed lot #6 shall be retained by methods to be approved by the Architectural Review Commission and City Arborist. 4. The development plan shall include a variety of housing types, to the approval of the Architectural Review Commission, and based on the direction of the Planning Commission. 5. Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions (C.0&R.$) for the project shall include a requirement that garage space be available for vehicle parking, to the approval of the Community Development Director. 6. Architectural Review Commission review shall include an evaluation of interior storage space within each unit to insure that a reasonable amount of storage is provided to each unit so that vehicle parking space is not needed for storage. 7. Proposed Lot #9 shall not be included within the Planned Development zone and shall not be governed by the rules and regulations of the Homeowner's Association. 8. The maximum height of any retaining wall within the project site shall be two feet. The maximum combined height of any retaining wall and fence within the project shall be 6 feet, to the approval of the Architectural Review Commission. Section D on the grading, drainage and utility plan shall be amended to reflect this requirement. 9. The following recommendations of the Air Pollution Control District are conditions of approval of the development plan, to the approval of the Architectural Review Commission. A) Increase attic and wall insulation beyond Title 24 requirements. B) Use built-in energy efficient appliances. C) Use double pane windows. D) Use energy efficient interior and exterior lighting. E) Use skylights to maximize natural day lighting. Subdivision Conditions of Approval: 1. The proposed connection to the storm drain manhole adjacent to lot six shall be realigned southwesterly into lot 7 to the approval of the Public Works Director. 2. A registered soils engineer shall prepare a report addressing the existing storm drain crossing this property under and adjacent to proposed building sites. The report shall 3-43 -- _ niACNMENT 6 TR, PD, ER 189-00 (1795 McCollum) Page 16 specify mitigation options for abandonment in place as well as removal of the pipe, to the approval of the Director of Public Works and Chief Building Official. 3. The subdivider shall construct a City Standard street type entrance, including curb returns and handicap ramps, at the intersection of the private drive and McCollum Street. 4. The subdivider shall install street lighting and all associated facilities (conduits, sidewalk vaults, fusing, wiring, luminaries, etc.) per City standards, as determined by the Director of Public Works. 5. Final grades and alignments of all water, sewer and storm drains (including service laterals and meters) shall be subject to change to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works and Utilities Engineer. 6. All lots shall be graded to preclude cross-lot drainage, or appropriate easements and drainage facilities shall be provided, to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works and the Chief Building Official. 7. The subdivider shall submit a hydrology study,prepared by a registered civil engineer, indicating the effects of the proposed development on adjacent and downstream properties, prior to recordation of the final map. The scope of the study must include analysis of all existing public and private drainage facilities and creek capacities between this property and an adequate point of disposal, to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works. 8. The storm drain easement along the easterly side of lots 7 and 8 shall not be less than 2.5m wide,to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works. 9. Storm drain easements along the southerly side of proposed lots 3 and 6 do not connect and therefore do not form a continuous easement. Said easement shall extend to the common lot line of lots 3 and 6,to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works. 10. The private sewer main serving lots 2, 3,5 and 6 shall connect to the City sewer main via a new manhole to be constructed by the subdivider, to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works and Utilities Director. 11. Easements shall be provided to accommodate the extension of private water services from the water meters located in the public sidewalk on McCollum St,to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works. 12. A 3m wide street tree easement shall be dedicated along all public and private street frontages, to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works. 3-44 ` !�i►ACHMENT� v � TR, PD, ER 189-00 (1795 McCollum) Page 17 13. Street trees shall be planted along McCollum Street and the private drive frontage, to the satisfaction of the City Arborist and the Architectural Review Commission. Street tree planting shall be deferred to the development of each lot. 14. The foundation system for any structure placed on lot 8 shall be designed so as not to impact, place loads on, or hinder the repair or replacement of the storm drain along the easterly property line,to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works. 15. All boundary monuments, lot corners and centerline intersections, BC's, EC's, etc., shall be tied to the City's Horizontal Control Network. At least two control points shall be used and a tabulation of the coordinates shall be submitted with the final map or parcel map. All coordinates submitted shall be based on the City coordinate system. A 3.5" diameter computer floppy disk, containing the appropriate data compatible with AutoCAD(Digital Interchange Format, DXF) for Geographic Information System (GIS) purposes, shall be submitted to the Director of Public Works. 16. The final map, public improvement plans and specifications shall use the International System of Units (metric system). The English System of Units may be used on the final map where necessary (e.g. - all record data shall be entered on the map in the record units, metric translations should be in parenthesis), to the approval of the Director of Public Works. 17. The project shall require the installation of a fire hydrant on McCollum Street. Prior to combustible construction the fire hydrant shall be installed,tested and placed in-service in a location to be approved by the Fire Marshall and Public Works Director. 18. A laundry facility for each residence is required and has not been shown. If the laundry is located within garages, then a minimum area of 18'-6" deep by 19' wide is required for vehicle parking. 19. The applicant shall pay Park In-Lieu Fees consistent with SLO Municipal Code Section 16.40.080. 20. Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions (C.C.&R.$) are required, to the approval of the Community Development Director and the Public Works Director. Code Renuirements (the following list is intended to alert the applicant to significant ordinance requirements related to the project, but is not an exhaustive list of all project requirements): 1. A water allocation is required, due to the additional demand on the City's water supplies. 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- 3-45 MA ACWMENT, 6 TR, PD, ER 189-00 (1795 McCollum) Page 18 7258. The cost of retrofitting is directly credited against the project's Water Impact Fees, at a rate of $150 per bathroom retrofitted. Water and Wastewater Impact Fees are charged on a"per residential unit" basis and shall be paid at the time building permits are issued. 2. The owner's engineer shall submit water demand and wastewater generation calculations so that the City can make a determination as to the adequacy of the supporting infrastructure. If it is discovered that an offsite deficiency exists, the owner will be required to mitigate the deficiency as a part of the overall project. 3. Each parcel is to have its own separate water and wastewater service laterals. Water meters shall be located along McCollum, in accordance with City standards. All water and sewer in the private drive shall be privately owned and maintained. The joint ownership and maintenance of these facilities shall be addressed in the homeowners' association CC&R's. 4. By ordinance,.the applicant is required to prepare a recycling plan for approval by the City to address the recycling of construction waste for.projects valued.at-over:$50,000 or demolition of structures over 1000 square feet. The recycling plan shall be submitted to the Building Department with the building plans. The City's Solid Waste Coordinator can provide some guidance,in the preparation of an appropriate recycling plan. 5. Traffic impact fees shall be.paid.prior to issuance of building permits. Attachments: -�C A�{achwreH'CS nhc.,% � r A U:achm at'_T. D tel . ed C.. A«ekke,_; —� Attachment 5: Property Improvement Standards for New Condominium Subdivisions (SLOMC 17.82.040) Attachment 6: Assessor's Parcel Map of project area ♦tt t______. 7 i.-' C+ - aQ+.. � T'Prnm a a:.. ' �a 4i��2iII1TT7C f axf�3ft� - l('7 Y Attachment 8: Letter from Alta Vista Neighborhood Association Attachment 9: Letter from Gordon Balla, adjacent property owner Attachment 10: McCollum Neighbors Meeting Sign-In Sheet 3-46 17.82.140 Property impro tent standards for new condominium`i ects. t IpCHMENTI y 6 A. Private Open Space. There shall be provided with each unit a minimum of two hundre fifty square .-. feet of qualifying private open space for projects in the R-1 or R-2 zones, and a minimum of one hundred square feet for projects in the R-3 or R-4 zones. To qualify, open space must be private and directly accessible from the unit it serves, and must have a minimum dimension in every direction of ten feet for open space provided at ground level or six feet for open space provided on a balcony or elevated deck, and must be located outside the street yard required by zoning regulations. B. Common open space. There shall be provided in each project a minimum of one hundred square feet of qualifying open space per unit for projects in the R-3 or R-4 zones. To qualify, open space shall have a minimum dimension in every direction of ten feet for open space provided at ground level or six feet for open space provided on a balcony or elevated deck, and must be located outside the street yard required by zoning regulations. Common open space need not be located with each unit. There is no minimum common open space requirement for projects in the R-1 and R-2 zones. C. Total open space. There shall be provided in each project a minimum of one thousand square feet per unit of qualifying private and common open space for projects in the R-1 zone, seven hundred fifty square feet per unit for projects in the R-2 zone, and four hundred square feet per unit for projects in the R-3 or R4 zones. D. Common recreation facilities. There shall be provided in each project in the R-3 or R4 zones a minimum of twenty square feet per unit of common indoor recreation facilities,or forty square feet per unit of improved outdoor recreation facilities. Common recreation facilities shall be available for, and limited to, the use of the project's tenants and their guests. Common recreation facilities must be located outside the street yard required by zoning regulations. E. Open space and recreation facilities in nonresidential zones. Requirements for open space and recreational facilities for projects in nonresidential zones shall be set by the council at the time the project is reviewed. F. Storage. Each dwelling unit shall have provision for at least two hundred cubic feet of enclosed, weatherproof and lockable private storage space, exclusive of cabinets and closets within the unit. This space shall be for the sole use of the unit owner. The minimum opening shall be two and one half feet by four feet and the minimum height shall be four feet. G. Laundry facilities. A laundry area shall be provided in each unit, or in common laundry space. Common facilities shall consist of at least one washer and dryer for each ten units or fraction thereof. H. Energy conservation. Solar water heating shall be provided for each unit,and appropriate easements shall be provided for collector locations. The community development director may waive the requirement for solar water heating in cases where the chief building official has determined that equivalent energy savings will be obtained by other means. Tenants shall not be prohibited from installing clotheslines in private open areas which are substantially screened from common view. (Ord. 984 § 2 (part), 1983: prior code § 9854.1;Ord. 1315 § 2, 1996) 01998 Code Publishing,Inc. 3_47ge I } ltI TACHMENT N oW N Z _ a rJ � Y F= U) co a U p JI � 0 '3AY Q NV t rrr 0! l e I I I I I I Q i er c I I I I I • I IQI � a I P!' O I I O I l O i' • a l � I a Y C I C a I o f r: I s6 i In + 1 ± 1 V� - - - - - -3na- )iadd o.NV9V " 3 W a ui � eil LL � I OM1 3 4g � J b I � ATTACHMENT 0 alta vista nEiGhsoRhooa association po sox 5412 san Im ostspo ca 93ao6 March 28, 2001 TO: San Luis Obispo Communiity Development Department: Planning Division FROM: Alta Vista Neighborhood Association to To avoid any confusion about our position with regard�the Planned Development proposed by Aurignac Realty,the Board of Directors of the Alta Vista Neighborhood Association wants to make Gear that we support the project in its current configuration. We have reviewed the plans for Alta Vista Estates with the developer several times along the way and are puzzled that the revised scheme-seems not to have been accepted to date. From everything we know,the project essentially meets the requirements, and we welcome it as an enhancement to our neighborhood. Throughout our discussions we have been favorably impressed by the developer's cooperative attitude and willingness to take neighborhood concerns into account. We hope the revised scheme will meet with approval. AVNA Board of Directors 71 C i `'2 3-49 IvIlW10a1 I VUIU11 - 1/.7U C711U VUICI JJ1UNCIly CAI 1CULCU UTI IVILAJUIIUITI JL. _ Nage 1 From: "Gordon L. Balla" <flash@hiflash.com> ATTACHMENTS '6 To: "Michael Codron, MCRP" <mcodron@slocity.org> Date: 4/5/01 4:13PM Subject: 1795 and other property affected on McCollum St. City of San Luis Obispo Community Development Dept. City Planning Michael Codron, MCRP Associate Planner Re: Housing Development In Process on both sides of 1795 McCollum St. Hello Michael, Hope you are working hard on making sure that this project.is going to be what it should be to the overall neighborhood.A good looking and FUN project for all concerned. Not just for those making the profit! How will the design of the new homes affect the atmosphere of the neighborhood around my home (Fredericks, McCollum, Grand Avenue). Tax Payer and Land Owner Observation Notes: A. Neighbors Unaware— I must reiterate to you that this project got started and had ground broke without me or a large percentage of the neighborhood even knowing about what was going to happen, or when. B. Posting Notice— I personally walked around all the relative areas looking for a posting to explain the construction. There were no signs visibly put up on Fredericks, Grand, or on McCollum Street. Recently, I found a sign on a post laying down in a pile of posts mostly covered in grass and dirt next to the City Well house on McCollum Street. Not good! C. Meetings?— I understood that there were early meetings planned at the city and we never got any mailing notices. D. Cancelled Meetings— Nor any notices of cancelled meetings. E. Adequate Advance Notice of Meetings—Hopefully notices will be sent at least 2 weeks in advance to let people make appropriate plans to attend. The Plans and Evolving Issues: The thing that caught my eye about the plans you showed to me on the day we met was: 1. No Individuality—All the homes will look pretty much the same with no individuality. 2. Parking—There is very little street parking for each home, especially if the homes are rented to multiple students. 3. Many Rooms—The homes will have many rooms being called different names other than bedrooms, like child playroom, nursery, and such, that are big enough for one or more students. 4. New Home Yard Space—Very little yard space. High density of floor space and no land space. 5. Two Story Homes&Size Concerns—Two story large homes that as a group will conflict with many of the homes around them and stand out a block away like a sore thumb. See attached image: McCollum St. East. 3-50 rmcnaei t�oaron- i iao ano otner property arrecrea on nnccoqum Zit. page 2 ATTACHMENT 6 6. Privacy Concerns— Being two story, people can look right down into my windows if built next to my yard. 7. Privacy&Wind Break Concerns—By building or working with the property next to my location, I am almost sure that all the bushes next to my driveway which now act as a wind break and privacy fence, will have to be removed making my property look stark naked. See Attached image: Fredericks St. 8.Water Drainage—The drainage from the roofs of all the new houses will make the water flood my property, as happens now just from flat land. You made a comment that water on my property might flow onto these other properties. I'm downhill from property behind therefore water isn't going to run uphill. This comment is made to express my major concern, in writing, even though you said that there was going to be a drainage ditch and retaining wall all around the new homes. 9. Proper Spacing—There is not even enough space from the face of one house to another across the private street as we are required to have at our homes (Sixty feet plus x number of feet from the side walk to the house, etc.) 10. Concessions—From what I understand there have been a lot of concessions being given to the builder to do what he wants to do, especially on the houses next to the school. 11. Trees Cut Down— It also is a shame that he cut down all the fruit and avocado trees that were good bearing trees and could have added value to a yard. Most of the trees were over 40 years mature. Imagine what a tree like that would cost to put in from a nursery? 12. The views—With two story homes going to be built on two sides of my property there will be no more sitting in my back yard and looking at the Poly"P" or up to the school yard at the kids playing or up the hill to the west at the homes and even the sunset, depending on where I may be sitting or standing on my property! See Water Truck and hills behind. 13. DUST! Is DANGEROUS! consistent amount of dust is being generated by the tractors and dump trucks,just about all of it comes right to my house. This will prevent me from having my windows open, (all during the hot months of building), to keep it out, and, I do not have house A/C or air filtration. Even with the windows closed the concentration of dust somehow gets in. See attached image: Dump Truck Dust,Truck Dusting, Tractor Dust. 14. Allergenic Asthmatic—The dust has made my eyes swell with grit in them, and the other breathing problems have lasted for days since the ground work has begun. This is going to cost me additional medical problems and expenses. As a diabetic this raises my blood sugar problems through the stress and not feeling well all the time. This can lead to a hand or foot being removed! NO JOKE. See attached images: Dump truck and tractor. 15. Professional Photographer— The dust can ruin my negatives and prints that I am working on by scratching from the fine dirt that comes into the house and filters into my files and open work. It also affects all my equipment. I have zero tolerance to continual dust and dirt in my life where it can be avoided. 16. Water Truck--This can be avoided, the water truck on site has never been used to my knowledge. See attached image: Water Truck. Thought it might be good to let you know what I and others are thinking about. Any of these©Copyrighted images shown, or which I have in my stock library of this project, may be viewed and purchased for presentation, or other uses at Professional Rates, by contract from the photographer. Please let me know what is going on as soon as possible. 3-51 ATTACHMENT Sincerely, Gordon Balla Imageologist Gordon L. Balla Photography 805-544-9266 cell: 805-235-2095 3-52 • `1 • I ATTACHMENT McCollum Neighbors Meeting April 12, 2001 Print Name Mailing Address Z)FO 1) f� z4 ,areas Ne i rj;5? no c(c. s 1 �L 05' a L A(& k c a Y D6 ofc/s o J Le�tS �-t/I►fie=ha << Il�3 f ��` PyeKS SSG `f3905- A %j 5- Ay 36g C14AP6ry CYDA167Y Hoceoml3 2076 HIi9ys 5c6 g3�aS Cady[ S/, Q y0� 3-53 ATTACHMENT e DRAFT SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 25, 2001 CALL TO ORDER/PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: The San Luis Obispo Planning Commission was called to order at 7:09 p.m. on Wednesday, March 25, 2001, in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California. ROLL CALL: Present: Commrs. James Caruso, Jim Aiken, Alice Loh, Allan Cooper, Michael Boswell, Orval Osborne, and Chairman Stephen Peterson Absent: None Staff: Recording Secretary Leaha Magee, Community Development Director John Mandeville, Associate Planners John Shoals and Michael Codron, Development Review Manager Ron Whisenand, and Assistant City Attorney Gil Trujillo. ACCEPTANCE OF THE AGENDA The agenda was accepted as presented. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTE: The Minutes of March 28, 2001, were accepted as presented. PUBLIC COMMENT ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS There were no public comments made. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1. 1785 McCollum Street: PD, TR, and ER 189-00; Request for planned development zoning of property for residential development, approval of a tentative tract map for a nine-lot residential subdivision with development of seven new single-family homes, and environmental review; R-1 zone; Patrick and Alison Aurignac, applicants. Associate Planner Michael Codron presented the staff report and recommended that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the proposed tentative map and 3-54 i Draft Planning Commission knrjutes ATTACHMENT r� May 25, 2001 Page 2 planned development overlay zone to the City Council and provide direction to the Architectural Review Commission on recommended changes to the proposed development plan. Commr. Osborne asked if parking requirements had been met. Associate Planner Codron replied yes, the development proposes two-car garages for each property and two guest parking spaces. Commr. Osborne asked if R-1 density standards had been met. Associate Planner Codron replied yes. Commr. Cooper asked if the private street had been excluded from density calculations. Associate Planner Codron explained that the private street is included in the calculations because it is not proposed for dedication to the City. Commr. Cooper had staff comment on why Lot 9 was not included in the Planned Development. Commr. Cooper raised an enforcement concern over proposed designated storage areas/spaces and had staff comment on possible room conversions and proposed tree removals. Chairman Peterson asked if concerns could be addressed by conditions of approval rather than through CC&Rs. Commr. Boswell had staff review the proposed and minimum required setbacks and asked if the two guest parking spaces would be screened from the adjacent properties. Commr. Aiken commented on the late distribution of correspondence from RQN, noting the letter was distributed just prior to the meeting. Commr. Loh had staff comment on the parking and setback requirements and expressed concern with room conversions resulting in increased density and parking impacts. She noted that guest parking located near the children's play area might be unsafe. Chairman Peterson voiced concern with the drainage structure between the proposed backyard fences and property lines and its maintenance.. Associate Planner Codron stated the retaining wall is set back along the property lines one foot, and the width of the proposed retaining wall would be eight inches. This one- foot eight-inch reduction would affect the rear yard usable areas of Lots 1, 2, 3, 5, and 6. 3-55 r Draft Planning Commission M.,Lites - ATTACHMENT f' May 25, 2001 Page 3 Commrs. Osborne, Loh, Aiken, and Chairman Peterson disclosed they had conversations with the applicant's representatives about the proposed project prior to this evening's hearing. There were no further comments or questions and the public comment session was opened. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Hamish Marshall, applicants' representative, reviewed the project history and noted that the homes are being designed to resemble the four across the street. He stated the lot lines extend out into the street, and the street is a private court with an entrance into each individual home. This is a PD request and a density bonus is not being requested. All conventional standards have been met, except for the setback exceptions on McCollum Street. He urged approval of the project. Commr. Caruso had staff display Exhibit A and questioned Mr. Marshal on the individual lot lines and sizes and asked if the City has merged any of the lots. Manager Whisenand replied no, the lots exist. Commr. Caruso asked if the full development potential was considered as the lots currently exist. Mr. Marshall replied yes, but they have come forward with what they feel is a better development for the neighborhood. Commr. Cooper had Mr. Marshall comment on the neighborhood meetings that were held and asked if there would be interest in increasing the affordable units in this project to two. Mr. Marshall stated affordable housing in-lieu fees are being paid to City rather than providing units. Commr. Cooper asked if alternative street paving options have been considered. Mr. Marshall displayed an overhead and reviewed the paving design consisting of colored concrete. Karen Adler, 1676 Fredricks Street, asked if special zoning is being requested for the proposed Fredricks Street home. Associate Planner Codron replied yes, the house proposed on Fredricks Street is included with the PD rezoning. He reviewed the proposed parking and noted the Fredricks Street home would have access to the neighborhood park.. 3-56 Draft Planning Commission Nii„dtes r-, May 25, 2001 ATTACHMENT Page 4 Ms. Adler stated her biggest concern is the parking and she encouraged the pursuit of a parking district. Gordon Balla, 1740 Fredricks Street, displayed and described overhead photos of the neighborhood and expressed concerns with the aesthetics and character of the proposed two-story homes, impacted views, the proposed small yards, drainage, student housing, parking impacts, and the increased density. Cydney Holcomb, 2076 Hays Street, expressed concerns over increased density, student-occupied housing, and maintaining the existing character of the neighborhood. Commr. Cooper had staff comment on the four recently approved houses on McCollum Street. The house required a lot-line adjustment with exceptions, and the item was heard by the City Council. Brett Cross, 1217 Mariner's Cove, RQN vice-chair, felt the Commission should review the overall framework of the project. He noted that maintenance of neighborhood character is discussed in the Land Use Element and any new development's character, density, and size should be consistent with existing development. The Land Use Element states that site constraints should be respected; other alternatives are viable. He felt this project was more like a subdivision than a consistent addition to the existing neighborhood. He felt the applicant should be given direction to come back with a project that fits within R-1 standards. Carol Winger, 2041 Hays Street, voiced concerns with drainage and other R-1 neighborhoods being affected by similar projects. She said she does not want this neighborhood to resemble Isla Vista. The neighborhood is currently experiencing parking impacts from the nearby school's ball fields. She asked how trash would be ,picked up with the proposed private narrow drive. Associate Planner Codron referred to Subdivision Condition of Approval 7 and noted a hydrology study indicating the effects of proposed development on adjacent and downstream properties must be submitted prior to recordation of the final subdivision map. He stated that there are no on-site provisions for retaining drainage. Regarding trash removal, direction could be given to the ARC on how individual lots should be served by a garbage truck and the street would have to be designed to accommodate the trucks. Mr. Marshall reported that the garbage company has agreed they will individually serve each house. Brian Christianson, 818 Pismo Street, RQN board member, felt an archaeology study should be required because the minimum acreage requirement is met and noted the environmental document indicates a moderate landslide hazard exists. He also felt the hydrology study should be discussed in the Environmental Document as a potential impact to off-site properties. He expressed concern about the drainage and parking 3-57 Draft Planning Commission h._jtes ATTACHMENT, [' May 25, 2001 Page 5 inadequacies and stated CC&Rs cannot address the concerns. The parking district is discretionary and should be discussed as an impact in the Environmental Document.. The scale and massing of Lots 3 and 6 could have aesthetic impacts. He expressed concerns with usable open space, decreasing the density, which could lessen.the lack of enforceable parking, the massing of structures and drainage problems. Land Use Policy 2.14 states the City will discuss new regulations with regard to in-fill development in existing neighborhoods prior to implementation of any new Planned Developments. Commr. Cooper expressed concern with setting a precedent and asked if this is the first PD rezoning request in an established R-1 neighborhood. Manager Whisenand stated staff feels the project complies with General Plan policies and addresses a creative way of infilling development in this neighborhood. Other R-1 PDs in the city exist on Serrano Circle, Patricia, Bishop, Stoneridge, etc. Cornmr. Aiken asked if archaeological resources have been identified at this site. Associate Planner Codron reviewed the threshold requirements for archaeological resources studies. Toney Ledford, 1706 Fredricks Street, distributed a letter to the Commission and stated increased density would greatly impact the neighborhood. She felt the homes would be used as student housing and parking impacts would result. She expressed concerns with drainage and flooding. Doreen Case, Albert Drive resident, expressed enthusiasm over the project and read and distributed a letter describing the site history and how the owner has tried to work with the neighborhood. She felt the proposed homes would be family oriented and the high cost would deter student housing. A parking district could be established to alleviate parking concerns. She noted parking congestion caused by the ball field would be cured when the new City ball fields are completed. George Duclo (Inaudible), area resident since 1940, described the area history and commented on the historic drainage problems that have resulted in flooding. Sharon Dobson, 1839 Corralitos Avenue, Alta Vista Neighborhood Association President, expressed support for the project and noted the developers have included the neighborhood association throughout the planning process. She felt the proposed homes will be large family homes and would be well suited for college faculty and staff. She felt comfortable that PD CC&Rs would regulate and control any future concerns. Commr. Boswell had Ms. Dobson review the neighborhood association's property boundaries. Ms. Dobson noted the developers thought that Fredricks Street was included in the Alta Vista Neighborhood Association. Fredricks Street elected to not be included in the parking district. 3-58 Draft Planning Commission i.._..tes ATTACHMENT r€' May 25, 2001 " Page 6 Missie Hobson, 1717 Wilson Street, reported that she purchased one of-the first of the four homes on the other side of McCollum Street and noted her backyard would be similar in size to the proposed development. She expressed her support of the project jointly with the Alta Vista Neighborhood Association. She noted a reason for moving to McCollum from Wilson Street is because of Cal Poly/student housing parking impacts. Martin Leushy (Inaudible), 169 Kentucky, Alta Vista Neighborhood Association, reemphasized parking concerns and voiced concern about creating an "Isla Vista" environment. Carol Lick, 325 Albert Drive, comment on the parking impacts associated with student housing. Mr. Marshall summarized the lot comparisons with the smaller lots across McCollum Street. He reiterated that they are not requesting a density bonus because one is not needed since they are within the seven dwelling unit maximum for the acreage. The only exception requested is for a porch setback on McCollum Street. He felt they have presented a creative development and noted the neighborhood association supports the project. He urged support of the project. Commr. Aiken asked if the applicants are agreeable to all the conditions as proposed by staff. Mr. Marshall replied yes. Seeing no further speakers come forward, the public comment session was closed. COMMISSION COMMENTS: Manager Whisenand reviewed the project, the Commission's options, and commented on densification versus sprawl. Commr. Aiken moved to recommend approval_ of the proposed Tentative Map and Planned Development Overlay Zone to the City Council and provide direction to the Architectural Review Commission on recommended changes to the proposed development plan based upon the following findings and subject to the conditions of approval incorporating Planned Development Findings 1-4• Subdivision Findings 1-7- Planned Development Conditions of Approval 1-9 with the inclusion of a Condition 10 to reflect the extension_ of the Alta Vista Neighborhood Association parking district to include the McCollum Street development; Subdivision Conditions of Approval 1-20; and Code Requirements as appropriate Commr. Osborne seconded the motion. Manager Whisenand felt commissioner's concerns over parking and garages could be addressed by amending Planned Development Conditions of Approval 5 to reflect, "Garage space shall be available at all times for vehicle parking to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director. The subdivider shall include this restriction in the 3-59 Draft Planning Commission 1....,utes ATTACHMENTS %' May 25, 2001 Page 7 CC&Rs for the project." Associate Planner Codron recommended striking the last sentence of Planned Development Conditions of Approval 8. Commrs. Aiken and Osborne amended the motion to include staff's recommended amendments. Commr. Caruso stated he could not support the motion. He felt the six Planned Development Findings on page 6 could not be met. Commr. Loh commented on the character and nature of the existing neighborhood and on the benefits of in-fill development. She felt that the quality of the neighborhood would be negatively impacted and she could not support the motion. Commr. Boswell expressed density and neighborhood compatibility concerns. He said he could support a six-unit project that would be consistent with the existing neighborhood. Commr. Osborne expressed his support of the motion. He felt this would be a quality development and the best use for the site. The neighborhood associations are in support of the project. The City needs to provide housing but he felt theCityshould not be in the business of regulating student-occupied housing. This project meets the density standards. He requested that the Architectural Review Committee carefully review the proposed provided storage. Commr. Cooper felt problems with privacy, storage, energy conservation/solar access, and recreational area relocation of the project could successfully be addressed through the design. He expressed support of the project and felt the Architectural Review Commission could review design issues. He was comfortable with a similar density project across McCollum Street that had support from the neighborhood associations. He was glad to hear the developer had gone to the community for their support. Chairman Peterson expressed his belief in the concept of promoting in-fill development, a compact urban form, and densification of the city's existing developed areas in order to prevent sprawl. He commented onthe great need of housing in the community and felt accepting an increase in neighborhood density could help balance issues relating.to sprawl. The density of the project is within standards of the R-1 zone; a density bonus or up zoning is not requested. Commr. Aiken expressed his support of the Architectural Review Committee's evaluation of the project design. Commr. Boswell spoke in support of this development entering into a parking district and requested the motion be amended to include a recommendation that the Architectural Review Committee review the possibility of (1) increasing the varieties of 3-60 Draft Planning Commission i.,_ ,Aes � ATTACHMENT, rC May 25, 2001 Page 8 floor plans or facades, (2) lowering the intrusive setback aspects of Lot 6, (3) enhancing the affordability of units through the use of design considerations, and (4) incorporating design standards to make the project something special. Commr. Aiken and Osborne accepted Commr. Boswell's amendment. Commr. Loh voiced concern with splitting the review of this one project between two advisory bodies; this is an R-1 PD request before the Commission. AYES: Commrs. Aiken, Osborne, Cooper, Boswell, and Peterson NOES: Commrs. Caruso and Loh REFRAIN: None The motion carried 5-2. 2. Ci wide: TA 29-01; Amendment to the City's Zoning Regulations to regulate the size of retail establishments; City of San Luis Obispo, applicant. Due to the lateness of the hour, Commr. Aiken moved to continue this item to May 23, 2001. The motion was seconded by Commr. Cooper and approved 6-1, with Chairman Peterson dissenting. Staff requested that any informational needs be addressed to staff prior to the May 23`d. hearing date. Commr. Boswell requested staff address (1) the relationship of the proposal to the General Plan, particularly relating to the vision and goals of the city, and (2) provide information that would discuss the potential for having the nonresidential growth cap triggered.. Commr. Osborne requested staff to provide examples of big box retailers developing in two stories or in mixed-use developments and related parking issues. Commr. Cooper requested staff expound further on the rationale between the alternatives. Commr. Caruso requested staff address (1) other communities' approaches to the limitation of the square footage a warehouse store could dedicate to nontaxable items and (2) alternatives based upon incremental sizes and designs/scale. Commr. Aiken expressed a concern about incremental size increases of existing warehouse/big box stores. Chairman Peterson requested staff explore options to addressing existing nonconforming uses and the spatial components of warehouse stores in relation to its location. He felt the design standards should be more progressive. 3-61 I �lII��I�I IIII���������I � ������IIIIIIIIIIII111111 I A�ac HMEvr Al 11 city of sAn lues oBisw 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 April 30, 2001 Parick and Allison Aurignac 1410 Marsh Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 SUBJECT: PD, TR and ER 189-00: 1795 McCollum Street Request for planned development zoning of property for residential development, approval of a tentative tract map for a 9-lot residential subdivision with development of 7 new single-family homes, and environmental review Dear Mr. and Mrs. Aurignac: The Planning Commission, at its meeting of April 25, 2001, recommended that the City Council approve your project, based on the information noted in the attached resolution. The action of the Planning Commission is a recommendation to the City Council and, therefore, is not final. This matter has been tentatively scheduled for public hearing before the City Council on June 5, 2001. This date, however, should be verified with the City Clerk's office (805) 781-7102. If you have any questions, please contact Michael Codron at (805) 781-7169. 3nald ely, Whisenand Development Review Manager Attachment: Resolution No. 5310-01 cc: County of SLO Assessor's Office cc: Helen McManus, Tre 1126 San Ricardo Court Hamish Marshall Solana Beach, CA 92075 1880 Santa Barbara Avenue, Suite F San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 OThe City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services, programs and activXe.62 �� Telecommunications Device for the Deaf(805) 781-7410. �- ATIACHMENT e v SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 5310-01 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 April 25, 2001, pursuant to a proceeding instituted under application PD, TR and ER 189-00; Patrick and Allison Aurignac, applicants. ITEM REVIEWED: Request for planned development zoning of property for residential development, approval of a tentative tract map for a 9-lot residential subdivision with development of 7 new single-family homes, and environmental review DESCRIPTION: On file in the office of Community Development Department, City Hall. GENERAL LOCATION: 1795 McCollum Street 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: Planned Development Findings: 1. As conditioned, the features of the proposed project, including the pocket park, private rear yards, adequate on-site parking, private street (lined with canopy trees and designed at a human scale), and orientation of porches to the existing neighborhood achieve the intent of the City's conventional standards as well as or better than the standards themselves. 2. A reduced street yard along McCollum Street for porches, and no enclosed living space, is appropriate because porches will have a positive impact on neighborhood character and driveways will be located on the private street. 3. A minimum rear yard area of 448 square feet is an appropriate standard for useable outdoor space in the project because the standard will insure privacy and solar access by increasing setbacks from existing yard areas in the neighborhood. Resolution No. 5310-01 Page 2 ATTACHMENT] v 4. A requirement that garage space be available for parking is reasonably necessary to insure that on-street parking impacts are minimized by the project. Subdivision Findings 1. As conditioned, the proposed map is consistent with the General Plan because the subdivision will provide for detached dwellings with useable backyard space. 2. As conditioned, the design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is consistent with the General Plan because dwellings will provide a sense of individual identity and neighborhood cohesion for the households occupying them. 3. The site is physically suited for the proposed type of development because it is a relatively flat, undeveloped site that has few trees and the site is adjacent to an existing street right-of-way that will be improved in conjunction with this project. 4. As conditioned, the site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development because the site is within an existing City block, services are available to serve the development, and a storm drain system is proposed to insure that additional runoff from the project will be collected and disposed of per City standards. 5. The design of the subdivision, or the type of improvements, is not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and unavoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat because the site does not have any creeks or other potential habitat areas for fish or wildlife. 6. The design of the subdivision, or type of improvements, is not likely to cause serious public health problems because the type of improvements are residential and development will be designed to meet existing building and safety codes. 7. The design of the subdivision, or the type of improvements, will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, property within the proposed subdivision because no such easements exist. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that TR, PD and ER 189-00 be approved, subject to the following conditions, code requirements and ARC direction: Planned Development Conditions 1. Front yard setbacks on McCollum Street shall be a minimum of 15 feet. No enclosed living space may be located within 20 feet of McCollum Street. 2. Rear yards shall have a minimum area of 448 feet of useable outdoor space.. 3-64 Resolution No. 5310-01 1 ATTACHMENT- Page 3 _..__.. 3. The Oak tree located adjacent to the property line of proposed lot #6 shall be retained by methods to be approved by the Architectural Review Commission and City Arborist. 4. The development plan shall include a variety of housing types, to the approval of the Architectural Review Commission, and based on the direction of the Planning Commission. 5. Garages shall be available for parking two vehicles at all times. The Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions (CC&R's) for the project shall incorporate this requirement, to the approval of the Community Development Director. 6. Architectural Review Commission review shall include an evaluation of interior storage space within each unit to insure that a reasonable amount of storage is provided to each unit so that vehicle parking space is not needed for storage. 7. Proposed Lot #9 shall not be included within the Planned Development zone and shall not be governed by the rules and regulations of the Homeowner's Association. 8. The maximum height of any retaining wall or fence within the project site shall be subject to the approval of the Architectural Review Commission. 9. The following recommendations of the Air Pollution Control District are conditions of approval of the development plan, to the approval of the Architectural Review Commission. a. Increase attic and wall insulation beyond Title 24 requirements. b. Use built-in energy efficient appliances. C. Use double pane windows. d. Use energy efficient interior and exterior lighting. e. Use skylights to maximize natural day lighting. 10. The developer and the residents of the project are strongly encouraged to facilitate the extension of the existing parking district on McCollum Street to the new project frontage. Subdivision Conditions 1. The proposed connection to the storm drain manhole adjacent to lot 6 shall be realigned southwesterly into lot 7 to the approval of the Public Works Director. 2. A registered soils engineer shall prepare a report addressing the existing storm drain crossing this property under and adjacent to proposed building sites. The report shall specify mitigation options for abandonment in place as well as removal of the pipe, to the approval of the Director of Public Works and Chief Building Official. 3-65 Resolution No. 5310-01 .! 1,iACHM9NT Page 4 3. The subdivider shall construct a City Standard street type entrance, including curb returns and handicap ramps, at the intersection of the private drive and McCollum Street. 4. The subdivider shall install street lighting and all associated facilities (conduits, sidewalk vaults, fusing, wiring, luminaries, etc.) per City standards, as determined by the Director of Public Works. 5. Final grades and alignments of all water, sewer and storm drains (including service laterals and meters) shall be subject to change to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works and Utilities Engineer. 6. All lots shall be graded to preclude cross-lot drainage, or appropriate easements and drainage facilities shall be provided, to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works and the Chief Building,Official. 7. The subdivider shall submit a hydrology study, prepared by a registered civil engineer, indicating the effects of the proposed development on adjacent and downstream properties, prior to recordation of the final map. The scope of the study must include analysis of all existing public and private drainage facilities and creek capacities between this property and an adequate point of disposal, to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works. 8. The storm drain easement along the easterly side of lots 7 and 8 shall not be less than 2.5m wide, to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works. 9. Storm drain easements along the southerly side of proposed lots 3 and 6 do not connect and therefore do not form a continuous easement. Said easement shall extend to the common lot line of lots 3 and 6, to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works. 10. The private sewer main serving lots 2, 3, 5 and 6 shall connect to the City sewer main via a new manhole to be constructed by the subdivider, to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works and Utilities Director. 11. Easements shall be provided to accommodate the extension of private water services from the water meters located in the public sidewalk on McCollum St, to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works. 12. A 3m wide street tree easement shall be dedicated along all public and private street frontages, to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works. 13. Street trees shall be planted along McCollum Street and the private drive frontage, to the satisfaction of the City Arborist and the Architectural Review Commission. Street tree planting shall be deferred to the development of each lot. 3-66 Resolution No. 5310-01 % ATTACHMENTi " Page 5 - 14. The foundation system for any structure placed on lot 8 shall be designed so as not to impact, place loads on, or hinder the repair or replacement of the storm drain along the easterly property line, to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works. 15. All boundary monuments, lot corners and centerline intersections, BC's, EC's, etc., shall be tied to the City's Horizontal Control Network. At least two control points shall be used and a tabulation of the coordinates shall be submitted with the final map or parcel map. All coordinates submitted shall be based on the City coordinate system. A 3.5" diameter computer floppy disk, containing the appropriate data compatible with AutoCAD (Digital Interchange Format, DXF) for Geographic Information System (GIS) purposes, shall be submitted to the Director of Public Works. 16. The final map, public improvement plans and specifications shall use the International System of Units (metric system). The English System of Units may be used on the final map where necessary (e.g. - all record data shall be entered on the map in the record units, metric translations should be in parenthesis), to the approval of the Director of Public Works. 17. The project shall require the installation of a fire hydrant on McCollum Street. Prior to combustible construction the fire hydrant shall be installed, tested and placed in- service in a location to be approved by the Fire Marshall and Public Works Director. 18. A laundry facility for each residence is required and has not been shown. If the laundry is located within garages, then a minimum area of 18'-6" deep by 19' wide is required for vehicle parking. 19. The applicant shall pay Park In-Lieu Fees consistent with SLO Municipal Code Section 16.40.080. 20. Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions (CC&R's) are required, to the approval of the Community Development Director and the Public Works Director. Code Requirements 1. A water allocation is required, due to the additional demand on the City's water supplies. 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. The cost of retrofitting is directly credited against the project's Water Impact Fees, at a rate of $150 per bathroom retrofitted. Water and Wastewater Impact Fees are charged on a "per residential unit" basis and shall be paid at the time building permits are issued. 2. The owner's engineer shall submit water demand and wastewater generation calculations so that the City can make a determination as to the adequacy of the 3-67 Resolution No. 5310-01 ATIACHMENT. Page 6 supporting infrastructure. If it is discovered that an offsite deficiency exists, the owner will be required to mitigate the deficiency as a part of the overall project. 3. Each parcel is to have its own separate water and wastewater service laterals. Water meters shall be located along McCollum, in accordance with City standards. All water and sewer in the private drive shall be privately owned and maintained. The joint ownership and maintenance of these facilities shall be addressed in the homeowners' association CC&R's. 4. By ordinance, the applicant is required to prepare a recycling plan for approval by the City to address the recycling of construction waste for projects valued at over $50,000 or demolition of structures over 1000 square feet. The recycling plan shall be submitted to the Building Department with the building plans. The City's Solid Waste Coordinator can provide some guidance in the preparation of an appropriate recycling plan. 5. Traffic impact fees shall be paid prior to issuance of building permits. Items for ARC Consideration 1. The ARC should consider increasing the variety of housing types through modifications to the floor plans and/or building facades. 2. The ARC should consider lowering the intrusive aspects of the building on lot 6. 3. The ARC should consider design changes to enhance the affordability of units in the project. 4. In general, the ARC should consider modifications to the house designs to enhance privacy, solar access, view corridors, and should consider quality design standards that make the project special. 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. Aiken, seconded by Commr. Osborne, and on a separate roll call vote: AYES: Commrs. Osborne, Cooper, Peterson, Aiken and Boswell NOES: Commrs. Caruso and Loh ABSENT: None John Mandeville, Secretary Planning Commission Dated: August 25, 2001 3-68 ATTACHMENT ������ �UIIIIIIII 111111 1oBispoc� o sAn 990Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 May 10, 2001 Patrick &Allison Aurignac 1410 Marsh Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 SUBJECT: ARC 189-00: 1795 McCollum Street Review of house designs and site development plans for a 9-lot residential subdivision with 7 new single-family homes Dear Mr. and Mrs. Aurignac: The Architectural Review Commission, at its meeting of May 7, 2001, granted schematic approval to the above project (which means the item will come back to the ARC for final review), with the following direction: 1. The retaining wall along the southern property line of lot #6 shall span, or otherwise avoid, the area under the canopy of the existing Coast Live oak tree, to the approval of the City Arborist. 2. Fences on the project site shall be a maximum of 6 feet tall, including the 18" trellis.. 3. Retaining walls shall be constructed of split-face block and shall have a maximum height of two feet. 4. Guest parking spaces on lot #7 shall be surfaced with interlocking pavers, or a similar alternative paving material as directed by the ARC. 5. Architectural skylights shall be used on all building roofs over the play area at the top of the stairs to increase natural lighting. 6. The following items shall be incorporated into building plans and checked by staff during the building permit plan check process: A) Increase attic and wall insulation beyond Title 24 requirements. B) Use built-in energy efficient appliances. C) Use double pane windows. D) Use energy efficient interior and exterior lighting. / The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services, programs and actiAes e v� Telecommunications Device for the Deaf(805)781-7410. .3-09 ATTACHMENT, ARC 189-00 Page 2 7. The project architect shall explore placing bedroom windows for egress along side-yards where the ARC has identified potential privacy impacts on adjacent properties. Rear-yard windows on these homes should be horizontally oriented and placed high enough on the wall to prevent overlook. 8. Plan C (lots #3 and #6) shall be reduced in size to 2,000 square feet or less. 9. The applicant shall explore a plan to incorporate bulb-outs on the private street, which would provide for additional parking opportunities, to the approval of the City Council. 10. The size of the park should be reduced in size in order to augment the rear yard of lot#8, to the approval of the.City Council. 11. Plans must clearly show that 2 vehicles can be parked in the driveway of lots #3 and #6 without overhanging the street. 12. Details shall be provided to show how storage requirements are being met for each plan type, with additional storage to be provided within the living space of each unit. 13. The applicant shall explore providing parking for four vehicles at the end of the cul-de-sac, to the approval of the City Council. 14. The applicant shall explore including an evergreen street tree species that has more of an upright growth characteristic and that can be planted closer to the sidewalk along McCollum. The applicant should consider including Pyrus calleyana "Aristocrat" in the tree selection for the project. 15. The landscape plan should be revised to show more variation in plant types and locations from yard to yard. If you have questions, please contact Michael Codron at (805) 781-7274. Sincerely, cc: County of SLO Assessor's Office Hamish Marshall 4RoldWhis nand 1880 Santa Barbara Ave. #F Development Review Manager SLO, CA 93401 3-70 i DRAFT - ATTACHMENT. SAN LUIS OBISPO ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES May 7, 2001 - 5:00 p.m. ROLL CALL:. Present: Commrs. Zeljka Howard, Hana Novak, Rob Schultz, Mark Rawson, Michael Boudreau, Vice-Chair Jim Lopes and Chairperson Charles Stevenson Absent: None Staff: Associate Planners Michael Codron and Pam.Ricci PROJECTS: 1. 1795 McCollum Street. ARC 189-00; Review of house designs and site development plans for a 9-lot residential subdivision with 7 new single-family homes; R-1 zone; Patrick &Allison Aurignac, applicants. Michael Codron Michael Codron, Associate Planner, presented the staff report recommending the Commission grant schematic approval to the proposed house designs and site improvements with specific direction on changes to incorporate into plans for final approval. The public hearing was opened. Ernie Kim, project architect, described his iteraction with Alta Vista neighborhood and RQN. He addressed Planning Commission direction which focused on achieving more variety. He described changes made with Plan C. Interpreted affordability direction to also mean more variety and different building materials. Hip roofs have been added in key locations for improved solar access. Norma Jones, 1646 Fredericks spoke in support of the project. Dudley Parish, 410 Grand, supports project and talked about home on 180 Foothill, "Boarding House." He said the proposed project is reasonable use of property. Doreen Case, Alta Vista Neighborhood Association spoke in support of the project, reading a prepared statement into the record. 3-71 Draft ARC Minutes ATiACHMENT� e n May 7, 2001 Page 2 Sharon Dobson, 1839 Coralitos, supports project and described her relationship with applicant as President of the Alta Vista Neighborhood Association who has had several meetings with the developer and has provided input on the project design. COMMISSION COMMENTS: Commr. Rawson said he thought the project is nicely done and addressed Planning Commission input. He liked the addition of third plan and would like to encourage the architect to continue to provide unique treatment for each home. Commr. Boudreau said he also thought the project was nicely done but was concerned about the Planning Commission direction to enhance affordability. Commr. Howard commented that the Planning Commission direction was addressed mostly to most of satisfaction, doesn't think architectural treatment achieves affordability. Commr. Lopes felt that some planning issues had been skirted. Everything is smaller in the development except the homes. There should be on-street parking. Not sure of need for public, common open space. Lot 8 yard could be expanded. Yards are more typical of 2-bedroom condominium project. Parking will be too visible in driveways and front setbacks. Feels that 5 lots off private drive would be a better alternative. Also feels there should be a mix of 2, 3 and 4 bedroom houses. Commr. Schultz supports the project and feels the variations in styles add to the project. He stated that some people like smaller yards and commented that the lots on McCollum Street have good sized yards so there is a variety in yard size. Commr. Novak supports the project and likes what the architect has done. Would like to see more private outdoor areas. Some lots with larger yards would add to the variety. More storage space should be provided. She noted that garage space will be encumbered by water heaters. Would like more variety in landscape plan, less deciduous trees. Likes the park because it has the potential to serve as a node, a place where residents can gather. Commr. Stevenson spoke in support of infill, likes the architecture, but he expressed concern with some of the basics of the project. Feels livability is sacrificed with the small lot design. Feels width of streets creates a built in conflict between pedestrians and vehicles. Parking is not adequate. Likes architecture but feels design isn't appropriate for site. Should be 4 lots, not 6, with the size houses proposed. Commr. Lopes feels front setbacks should not be populated by cars. A setback of 15 to 20 feet from front fagade to faces of garage would hide cars in driveway. Suggests continued review. Playroom windows between lots 2 and 3 could be at front. 3-72 Draft ARC MinutesATACHMENTi n May 7, 2001 Page 3 On motion by Commr.. Boudreau, seconded by Commr. Schultz, the ARC granted schematic approval to the project and provided direction to the applicant on changes to the house designs and site plan to be reflected in. plans submitted to the ARC for final approval, as follows. ARC Direction- 1. irection:1. The retaining wall along the southern property line of lot #6 shall span, or otherwise avoid, the area under the canopy of the existing Coast Live oak tree, to the approval of the City Arborist. 2. Fences on the project site shall be a maximum of 6 feet tall, including the 18" trellis. 3. Retaining walls shall be constructed of split-face block and shall have a maximum height of two feet. 4. Guest parking spaces on lot #7 shall be surfaced with interlocking pavers, or a similar alternative paving material as directed by the ARC. 5. Architectural skylights shall be used on all building roofs over the play area at the top of the stairs to increase natural lighting. 6. The following items shall be incorporated into building plans and checked by staff during the building permit plan check process: A) Increase attic and wallinsulation beyond Title 24 requirements.. B) Use built-in energy efficient appliances. C) Usedouble pane windows. D) Use energy efficient interior and exterior lighting. 7. The project architect shall explore placing bedroom windows for egress along side- yards where the ARC has identified potential privacy impacts on adjacent properties. Rear-yard windows on these homes should behorizontallyoriented and placed high enough on the wall to prevent overlook. 8. Plan C (lots #3 and #6) shall be reduced in size to 2,000 square feet or less. 9. The applicant shall explore a plan to incorporate bulb-outs on the private street, which would provide for additional parking opportunities, to the approval of the City Council. 10.The size of the park should be reduced in size in order to augment the rear yard of lot#8, to the approval of the City Council. 3-73 Draft ARC Minutes - Al TACHMENTi n May 7, 2001 Page 4 11.Plans must clearly show that 2 vehicles can be parked in the driveway of lots #3 and #6 without overhanging the street. 12.Details shall be provided to show how storage requirements are being met for each plan type, with additional storage to be provided within the living space of each unit. 13.The applicant shall explore providing parking for four vehicles at the end of the cul- de-sac, to the approval of the City Council. 14.The applicant shall explore including an evergreen street tree species that has more of an upright growth characteristic and that can be planted closer to the sidewalk along McCollum. The applicant should consider including Pyrus calleyana "Aristocrat" in the tree selection for the project. 15.The landscape plan should be revised to show more variation in plant types. and locations from yard to yard. AYES: Commrs. Boudreau, Rawson, Novak, Shultz and Howard. NOES: Commrs. Stevenson and Lopes ABSENT: None The motion passed. Chairman Stevenson made a second motion to forward a recommendation to the City Council to consider reducing the size of the units and the overall density of the project. The motion was seconded by Commr. Lopes but failed on a 3-4 vote.(Commrs. Novak, Stevenson and Lopes voting yes). 2. 221 Madonna Road. ARC 25-01; Review of redevelopment of existing shopping center site; C-R zone; Urban Retail Development, applicant. Pam Ricci Pam Ricci, Associate Planner, presented the staff report recommending the Commission continue the project with direction. The public hearing was opened. Dan Braver, representative for property owners, Mervyn's and Sears are separate tax parcels. Parking lot areas are held in common by a reciprocal easement. Stephen Rigor, of RRM, eliminated "speed alley" near Shops Z. Made case for keeping "head-in" parking. Looking at keeping olive trees by moving them to plaza area. Shops F will be a maintenance building and offices; mentioned that 5-foot access was adequate. Two trash enclosures are proposed to be located from between Shops J 3-74 1 ��� �IIIIIIIiII IIIIIIIII► A17ACHMEW1 city of San tuffs oBispo 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 INITIAL STUDY ER 189-00 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM for Alta Vista Estates 1. Project Title: Alta Vista Estates 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of San Luis Obispo 990 Palm St. San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Michael Codron,Associate Planner (805) 781-7169 4. Project Location: 1795 McCollum Street 5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Hamish Marshall 1880 Santa Barbara Street Suite F San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 6. General Plan Designation: Low Density Residential /O The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services, programs and activ&.75 V� Telecommunications Device for the Deaf(805) 781-7410. ATTACHMENT 'J 7. Zoning: R-1; Low Density Residential 8. Project Description: The developer is proposing a condominium subdivision, dividing four parcels of land into nine lots. Development plans indicate that seven new residences are proposed on individual lots. The existing residence on Lot #9 would be retained but the rear lot line will be moved to 5 feet from the existing garage. The new homes would be detached, two-story and average 2,460 square feet of living space, with two car garages. A 22' wide private road and cul-de-sac are proposed for access and turn-around. Lot seven is proposed to be developed with two guest parking spaces and common open space, including a picnic and barbeque area with a trellis. Grading of the property to create level building pads is proposed. Small retaining walls (2' tall max.) would be required at the back and between each lot. A public easement is necessary to route an existing public storm drain through the project site. Private easements will be necessary to accommodate cross-lot drainage and to access a sewer main adjacent to the property. The applicant is requesting an exception to property development standards to allow for reduced street yards from 20 feet to 15 feet for porches on lots 1 and 4. Planned Development (PD) overlay zoning is required to allow density to be transferred throughout the area covered by the PD. 9. Site Description The project site is 54,258 square feet in area and has an average cross-slope of 4.5%. Existing trees include two 10" Coast Live Oak trees and clusters of almond trees and fruit trees, such as avocado, orange and apple. The site is undeveloped except for Lot #9, which is developed with a single-family residence and detached garage. A City utility building, the McCollum Pump Station, which provides water pressure to the Monterey Heights neighborhood, is located at the front of the site. 10. Surrounding Land Uses and Settings: Presently only half of McCollum Street is paved and there is no sidewalk adjacent to the property. Public improvement plans for McCollum Street have recently been approved in conjunction with development of four single-family residences on the north side of the street, and preliminary grading for that project has begun. The project site is bordered by an established single-family residential neighborhood. Typical lot sizes are 60 feet wide by 170 feet deep (10,200 square feet). Pacheco School is located north of the project site, �� CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 2 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONML23TAl�4ECKLIST 2001 - ATTACHMENT � ^ with athletic fields accessible via McCollum Street. Highway 101 is located approximately 500 feet to the south. 10: Project Entitlements Requested: The applicant has applied for approval of a tentative subdivision map, dividing 4 parcels of land into 9 lots. The applicant has also applied for Architectural Review of house designs for seven new homes. Approval of the Planned Development (PD) overlay zone is also required as part of the project entitlements necessary for development because density will be transferred within the area covered by the PD (SLOMC 17.16.010.B.1). 11. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g. permits, financing approval, or participation agreement): None. �� CITY OF SAN Luis Osispo 3 WmAL STUDY EWRONM3T471ECKLIsT 2001 ATTACHMENT h' 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. Aesthetics Geology/Soils Public Services Agricultural Resources Hazards& Hazardous Recreation Materials X Air Quality Hydrology/Water Quality Transportation&Traffic Biological Resources Land Use and Planning Utilities and Service Systems Cultural Resources Noise Mandatory Findings of Significance Energy and Mineral Population and Housing Resources There is no evidence before the Department that the project will have any potential adverse effects on fish X and wildlife resources or the habitat upon which the wildlife depends. As such, the project qualifies for a de minimis waiver with regards to the filing of Fish and Game Fees. F] 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. This initial study has been circulated to the California Department of Fish and Game for review and comment. 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 revisions in the project have been made, or the mitigation measures X described on an attached sheet(s) have been added and agreed to by the project proponent. 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"potentially significant" impact(s)or"potentially significant unless mitigated" impact(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. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze onl the effects that remain to be addressed I find that althou2 the proposed project could have a siiMificant effect on the environment,because all potentially CrtY OF SAN Luis Osispo 4 INITIAL STUDY EWRONMENTA Je 7TT 2001 ATTACHMENT. significant effects(1)have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (2) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR of NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project,nothing further is required April 16,2001 ..,Watur!Z Date Ronald Whisenand,Development Review Manager John Mandeville,Community Development Director Printed Name For EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: 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. The explanation of each issue should identify the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question. 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) of the California Administrators Code. 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. 7. Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached,and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. In this case,a brief discussion should identify the following: a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. 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 earlier analysis. c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project. CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 5 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTALJNT 2001 Issues and Supporting Informatit. wrces Sources Pote Less Than ,HASH W Signi.. _.it Significant Significant Impact ER# 180-00 Issues With Impact Mitigation Incorporated 1.AESTHETICS. Would theproject: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? 1 X b) Substantially damage scenic resources,including,but not limited to,trees,rock outcroppings,open space,and historic buildings 1 X within a local or state scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? X d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely effect day of nighttime views in the area? X Evaluation a, b) The project site is not located adjacent to any road designated by the Circulation Element as having high or moderate scenic value and is at a relatively lower elevation than much of the surrounding neighborhood. c) The project site is located within a residential zoning district and is surrounded by residential development, primarily consisting of homes and accessory structures, such as garages. The proposed project will include similar development and is required by code to receive approval from the City's Architectural Review Commission (ARC). The ARC, in order to approve the project, must find that the proposed structures are architecturally compatible with the site and with structures on surrounding properties. Staff feels that the proposed house designs are largely compatible with the surrounding neighborhood, but is concerned that the proposed layout may create overlook and privacy impacts on neighboring properties. The proposed project bucks the established pattern of development on the block by creating small lots in the interior of the block. As a result, new homes would be located in an area that would have reasonably been expected by neighbors to be back yard space. The ARC will evaluate potential overlook and privacy impacts of the project. The ARC can require design alternatives to insure that potential overlook and privacy impacts are addressed by altering window locations and/or placing windows higher up on walls so that the view out is not focused down on adjacent residential yard areas. In addition, the Planning commission and City Council have the ability to control the design through the PD process. Consideration should be given, in particular, to homes on lots 3 and 6,rear yards and the scale and massing of the homes themselves. d) Any new light that is created with development of the new homes will be minor and will likely be less than existing ambient lighting levels from adjacent street lights. The ARC, which must review this project, typically reviews plans for compliance with the City's lighting standards. Plans for building permits for construction of the homes will be reviewed to insure that any exterior lighting that is proposed will be properly shielded to prevent spill light and glare. Conclusion The layout of the project will introduce dwellings into an area that is interior to a block. The proposed PD zoning gives the City much flexibility in establishing design standards to insure compliance with neighborhood character. The City's ARC will be asked to consider the proposed house designs in terms of the potential for overlook and privacy impacts that could affect the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings. The potential for these impacts is considered to be less than significant because the ARC routinely modifies home designs with respect to these considerations. No further mitigation is necessary. 2.AGRICULTURE RESOURCES. Would theproject: a) Convert Prime Farmland,Unique Farmland,or Farmland of Statewide Importance(Farmland),as shown on the maps pursuan to the Farmland Mapping and Monitor- 2 X ing Program of the California Resources Agency,to non- agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use,or a CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 6 INITIAL STUDY EWRONMENTALJNW 2001 Issues and Supporting InformatiL )urces Sources Potc Less Than Less Than No Signt.. _.it Significant Significant Impact With ER# 180-00 Issues Mitigation `1�I/iCH ENT I Incorporated Williamson Act contract? X c) Involve other changes in the existing environment,which due to their location or nature,could result in conversion of Farmland, X to non-agricultural use? Evaluation a), b), c) The project is a residential subdivision on land that is zoned for residential development. The infill project is proposed on land that was classified by the Soil Conservation Service as urban land in a 1984 soil survey. Conclusion The project has no potential to affect agricultural resources. 3. AIR QUALITY. Would theproject: a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? 3 X b) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? X c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? X d) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? X e) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard X (including releasing emissions which exceed qualitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? Evaluation a),b), c), d),e)The project was routed to the Air Pollution Control District(APCD)for review and for comments relative to potential air quality impacts. APCD staff concluded that the potential construction and operational emissions from the project do not exceed APCD's CEQA significance thresholds. However, project construction does have the potential to generate a dust nuisance. APCD recommends specific dust control measures during the construction phase of the project,which will be incorporated as mitigation measures. Reference 3 is a letter from APCD, dated 2-1-01, which lists APCD's recommendations. APCD also recommends energy efficient design and building practices to reduce emissions at their source (see Section 6,Energy and Mineral Resources). Conclusion The project has no potential for significant long terms impacts on air quality,however,construction related activities have the potential to create a dust nuisance. The APCD has recommended dust control measures to be implemented during the construction phase of the project. Mitigation Measures The following dust control measures shall be implemented during the construction phase of the project: a) Reduce the amount of disturbed area where possible. b) Use of water trucks or sprinkler systems in sufficient quantities to prevent airborne dust from leaving the site. Increased CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 7 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL JHEWWST 2001 Issues and Supporting InformatiL )urces Sources Pote Less Than Less Than No Sigm. -it Significant Significant Impact ER# 180-00 Issues With Impact Mitigation 17ACHMW -L Incorporated --- watering efficiency is required whenever wind speeds exceed 15 mph. Reclaimed (nonpotable ) water should be used whenever possible. c) All dirt stockpiles areas should be sprayed daily as needed. d) Landscape plans should be implemented as soon as possible following completion of building construction. e) Exposed ground areas that are planned to be reworked at dates greater than one month after initial grading should be sown with a fast-germinating native grass seed and watered until vegetation is established. f) All roadways, driveways, sidewalks, etc. to be paved should be completed as soon as possible. In addition, foundations should be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used. g) Vehicle speed for all construction vehicles shall not exceed 15 mph on any unpaved surface at the construction site. h) Install wheel washers where vehicles enter and exit unpaved roads onto streets, or wash off trucks and equipment leaving the site. i) Sweep street at the end of each day if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent paved roads. Water sweepers with reclaimed water should be used where feasible. 4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would theproject: a) Have a substantial adverse effect,either directly or indirectly or through habitat modifications,on any species identified as a candidate,sensitive,or special status species in local or regional X plans,policies,or regulations,or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect,on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans,policies,or regulations,or by the California Department X of Fish and Game or U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources,such as a tree preservation policy or X ordinance(e.g.Heritage Trees)? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native X resident or migratory wildlife corridors,or impede the use of wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted habitat Conservation Plan,Natural Community Conservation Plan,or other approved X local,regional,or state habitat conservation plan? f) Have a substantial adverse effect on Federally protected wetlands as defined in Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including,but not limited to,marshes,vernal pools,etc.) X through direct removal,filling,hydrological interruption,or other means? Evaluation a), b), c), d), e), f) The project site includes approximately one acre of undeveloped land and is surrounded by urban development. The site is bounded by residential development and street rights-of-way, limiting the usefulness of the site as a wildlife corridor. There is no creek or wetland on the property, and the land is sparsely vegetated. Two 10" oak trees are located on the property. One is proposed to be preserved in place. The other oak tree is located on a property line adjacent to a retaining wall. Staff research indicates that there are no habitat conservation plans that identify the site as habitat or CITY OF SAN Luis OwsPO $ INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTALJHI sT 2001 Issues and Supporting InformatiL )urces Sources Pote Less Than Less Thai No - Sign. .,t Significant,i1 gut�l mp�ct; ER# 180-00 Issues with 1a47'�f Mitigation Incorporated potential habitat for any listed species. The City's Natural Resources Manager has reviewed the project and determined that the development of the site will not have substantial impacts on wildlife migration patterns. The City's Biologist, Dr. Michael Clarke, reviewed the project and made a field inspection on March 16, 2001. He determined that the project site does not contain any significant biological resources. Conclusion The site is relatively flat, contains no creeks or wetlands and very few trees. Staff will recommend that the ARC require preservation of both oak trees as a condition of approval of the project. No potential impacts to biological resources have been identified. No further mitigation is necessary. 5.CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would theproject: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a X historic resource?(See CEQA Guidelines 15064.5) 4 b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an X archeological resource?(See CEQA Guidelines 15064.5) 5 c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? X d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? X Evaluation a), b), c), d) The project site is not included in the City's master list or contributing list of historic resources. The City's collection of Sanborn insurance rate maps do not cover this area of the City, which was developed later than the Old Town, Downtown and Railroad Historic Districts. The closest significant historic property is the Motel Inn on Monterey Street, which is located approximately 2000 ft. southeast of the project site. City building records indicate that the property was never previously developed. The undeveloped portion of the project site is less than one acre, which is the City's threshold for requiring a preliminary archeological study. A review of the City's Informational Map Atlas did not indicate the presence of any sensitive archeological resources in the area. The site is far from any of the City's major creeks(3,500 ft from Sterner Creek, 2000 ft. from San Luis Creek), which would indicate that the area was less likely to have been settled. The City's Burial Sensitivity Map does not identify the site as a potential burial ground. Conclusion The project site does not meet any of the thresholds for preliminary archeological studies and no potential impacts to cultural resources have been identified. The City's archeological resource guidelines contains policies and procedures in case archeological resources are discovered during the construction phase of the project (Archeological Resource Preservation Guidelines Section 4.60). As a condition of approval, this section of the regulations will be required to be printed on the cover sheet No further mitigation is necessary. 6. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would theproject: a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? X b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? X c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the X State? Evaluation a) The proposed subdivision will not require any more energy resources than would be expected for a single-family residential development. Still,modern building techniques and attention to design and orientation of structures,and placement of windows,can be very effective for reducing energy consumption. The Energy Element states that, "New CITY OF SAN LUIS OwsP0 9 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTALJNE ST 2001 Issues and Supporting Informatit. wrces Sources Pote Less Than Less Than No Sigm. .,t Significant Significant Impact Issues with it t ACH ENT ER# 180-00 1 Mitigation Inco orated development will be encouraged to minimize the use of conventional energy for space heating and cooling,water heating,and illumination by means of proper design and orientation, including the provision and protection of solar exposure." APCD has provided building suggestions for reducing the demand on electrical supply and to reduce emissions at the power plant source. The following list of building techniques will be evaluated by the City's Architectural Review Commission and will be incorporated as conditions of approval of the project where appropriate: 1) Increase attic and wall insulation beyond Title 24 requirements. 2) Use built-in energy efficient appliances. 3) Use double pane windows. 4) Use energy efficient interior and exterior lighting. 5) Use skylights to maximize natural day lighting. b) A construction debris recycling plan is required by ordinance in order to divert recyclable material from going to the landfill. This ordinance helps to insure that non-renewable resources are not used in a wasteful manner. c) There are no known mineral resources on the site that would be affected by the development of the project. Conclusion The City implements energy conservation goals through enforcement of the California Energy Code which establishes energy conservation standards for residential and nonresidential construction. The City has also established a mandatory construction debris recycling program with standards that insure non-renewable resources are not used in a wasteful manner. Buildings proposed as part of this project must meet those standards. The City also implements energy conservation goals through architectural review. Project designers are asked to show how a project makes maximum use of passive means of reducing conventional energy demand,as opposed to designing a particular image and relying on mechanical systems to maintain comfort. No further mitigation is necessary. 7. GEOLOGY AND SOILS Would theproject: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects,including risk of loss,injury or death involving: I. Rupture of a known earthquake fault,as delineated in the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map X issued by the State Geologist for the area,or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? II. Strong seismic ground shaking? 6 X Ill. Seismic related ground-failure,including liquefaction? 6 X IV. Landslides or mudflows? 6 X b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? X c) Be located on a geologic trait or soil that is unstable,or that would become unstable as a result of the project,and potentially 7 X result in on or off site landslides, lateral spreading,subsidance, liquefaction,or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil,as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code(1994),creating X substantial risks to life or property? Evaluation a) 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 California Building Code for Seismic Zone 4. According to the City's Safety Element, the project site is in an area of moderate landslide potential. CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 10 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL�FIwT 2001 Issues and Supporting InformatiL )urces Sources Pote Less Than Less Than No Sign. .a Significant Significant Impact ER#180-00 Issues with Impact Mitigation Incorporated b) The project will not result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil because drainage from the subdivision will be conveyed into the City's storm drain system,and will not flow over land. c,d) The applicant has submitted a Soils Engineering Report,prepared by GeoSoluitions, Inc. The report states that the project site is underlain by well-consolidated soils,but that there is a moderate potential for expansive soils to damage site flat work and foundations. The study makes several recommendations which have been reviewed by the City's grading and drainage specialist. Adherence to the recommendations in the Soils Engineering Report is a required by the California Building Code and would be evaluated during the building permit plan check process. Conclusion Strong ground shaking should be expected during the life of the proposed structures. Buildings are required by code to meet the design standards in the California Building Code,which help to insure a buildings integrity during an earthquake. The project site has a moderate potential for expansive soils. The Soils Engineering Report makes specific recommendations to insure that foundations and lat work are designed for the specific site conditions. Adherence to the recommendations is required by code and monitored during the building permit plan check process. No further mitigation is required. 8. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the pro'ect: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment though the routine use,transport or disposal of hazardous X materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions X involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials,substances,or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? X d) Expose people or structures to existing sources of hazardous emissions or hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, X substances,or waste? e) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and,as a result,it would create a significant hazard to X the public or the environment? f) For a project located within an airport land use plan,or within two miles of a public airport,would the project result in a safety X hazard for the people residing or working in the project area? g) Impair implementation of,or physically interfere with,the adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation X plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of lose,injury, or death,involving wildland fires,including where wildlands are X adjacent to urbanized areas or where residents are intermixed with wildlands? Evaluation a), b), c) The project is a residential subdivision and does not require transportation, stockpiling or emission of any hazardous materials. CtrY OF SAN Luis Oat,PO 11 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL JH1ggT 2001 Issues and Supporting Informati ources Sources Pot( v Less Than Less Than No Sign ,it Significant Significant Impact Issues With Impact ER# 180-00 Mitigation �{�-ACHM NT Inco - Incorporated d), e) The project will not expose residents to hazardous materials because there are no known hazardous materials sites in the vicinity of the project. f) The project is outside of the planning area identified in the County's Airport Land Use Plan. g) The project site will not interfere with any emergency response or evacuation plan because the project will occur on private property and access to surrounding public streets has been reviewed by the City's Fire Marshall and the Public Works Department. h) Figure 2 of the Safety Element identifies the site as an urban area with low risk of hazards from wildland fires. Conclusion The project does not have the potential for significant impacts due to hazards or hazardous materials. 9. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the ro'ect: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? X b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level(eg.The production rate of X preexisting nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses for which permits have been granted)? c) Create or contribute runoff water that would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm-water drainage systems or provide X substantial additional sources of polluted runoff. d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or X siltation onsite or offsite? e) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area in a manner which would result in substantial flooding X onsite or offsite? f) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a Federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map 8 JX or other flood hazard delineation map? g) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? 8 h Otherwise substantial) degrade water quality? Evaluation a),b),g) The project will not have an impact on water quality or groundwater supplies because the project site does not overlay a groundwater basin. All stormwater flows from the project site are required by code to be retained and used on-site or conveyed to an approved point of disposal. c),d),e) The project site overlays an existing public storm drain that will be re-built and relocated on the project site. Existing runoff from the project site flows toward Fredericks Street. On-site drain inlets will convey water into the new storm drain system and reduce overland flows into the public right-of-way. The City's grading ordinance requires development to accommodate historic drainage patterns. The developer has worked with City staff to revise the grading plan for the project to comply with this standard. Retaining walls along the perimeter of the site have been offset approximately twelve inches from the property lines. A"v"gutter and drain inlet is provided between the property line and the wall to accept existing cross-lot drainage and convey the water to the storm drains stem. CITY OF SAN LUIS Owspo 12 INITIAL STUDY EN%nRONMENTAL JHE&kST 2001 Issues and Supporting Informati� ources Sources Pote Less Than Less Than No Sign,- At Significant Significant Impact ER# 180-00 Issues With Impact Mitigation TrA`+ MEN1T �1 Incorporated MENWT f),g) The project site is outside of the 100-year flood hazard area. Conclusion The project does not have the potential for significant impacts to water quality. The project will include a new storm drain to accept on-site runoff. Historic drainage patterns will be maintained per the requirements of the City's grading ordinance. The project is outside of the 100-year flood hazard area. No further mitigation is required. 10. LAND USE AND PLANNING- Would theproject: a) Conflict with applicable land use plan,policy,or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project adopted for the X purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? b) Physically divide an established community? 9,10 X c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservationplans? X Evaluation a) There are no plans adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect that pertain to the project site. b) The project bucks the existing development pattern of the block by developing the interior portion of the site,which would normally be expected to be residential backyard area and open space. In addition,the applicant has requested reduced street yards along McCollum from 20' to 15'. The purpose of this study is to identify potentially significant effects of the project. The following is a list of General Plan policies that may be in conflict with the proposed development project. In determining whether or not the proposed map is consistent with the General Plan, the Planning Commission and City Council will need to consider all of the goals and policies in the General Plan. Land Use Element Goal 29) Maintain existing neighborhoods and assure that new development occurs as part of a neighborhood pattern. LU 2.2.6: Neighborhood Pattern All residential development should be integrated with existing neighborhoods. Where physical features make this impossible, the new development should create new neighborhoods. LU 2.2.10: Compatible Development Housing built within an existing neighborhood should be in scale and in character with that neighborhood. All multifamily development and large group-living facilities should be compatible with any nearby, lower density development. A) Architectural Character: New buildings should respect existing buildings which contribute to neighborhood historical or architectural character, in terms of size,spacing,and variety. B) Privacy and Solar Access: Privacy and Solar Access: New buildings will respect the privacy and solar access of neighboring buildings and outdoor areas, particularly where multistory buildings or additions may overlook backyards of adjacent dwellings. CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 13 INITIAL STUDY EWRONMENTAL514 2001 Issues and Supporting Informatit :)urces Sources Pote Less Than Less Than No Sign. .,t Significant Significant Impact ER# 180-00 Issues With Impact Mitigation Incorporated A] IAUNMENT Housing Element H 7.2.1: Character, Size, Density and Quality Within established neighborhoods, new residential development must be of a character, size,density,and quality that preserves the City's neighborhoods and maintains the quality of life for existing and future residents. (p21,1.27.1) H 7.2.4: Walled-Off Residential Enclaves The creation of walled-off residential enclaves, or of separate, unconnected tracts, is discouraged because physical separations prevent formation of functioning neighborhoods. Noise walls may be permissible where it can be demonstrated that no other effective mitigation techniques are available or feasible.(p21,1.27.4) Evaluation of General Plan Policies The proposed subdivision is designed to make an effective use of the existing undeveloped property based on the maximum number of dwellings permitted by the City's density limitations. In order to do this,the project will develop the interior of an existing block. The proposed lots are significantly smaller than the existing lots in the block. Whereas sixty feet of street frontage is average on the block, four of the proposed lots will have no street frontage at all. The Planning Commission and City Council have the ability to establish design standards and development conditions with the PD that will allow changes to the design in order to insure compatibility with the neighborhood,consistent with the General Plan. Areas where the Planning Commission and City Council can effect changes in the project design include building orientation, setbacks, building size, scale and massing and density. The Planning Commission and City Council can also consider alternative project scenarios that they find to be more compatible with the General Plan. Conclusion The proposed project does not conflict with any applicable mitigation plans or habitat conservation plans. The project does have the potential to change the development pattern of the existing block, but this is not considered a significant effect because the impact would apply only to one block within an existing neighborhood,as opposed to a community at large. The Planning Commission and City Council are required by State Law to deny the map if they find that the map is not consistent with the General Plan. This decision is made in light of all of the policies and goals of the General Plan. No further mitigation is required. 11.NOISE. Would the project result in: a) Exposure of people to or generation of"unacceptable"noise levels as defined by the San Luis Obispo General Plan Noise 11, 12 Element,or general noise levels in excess of standards X established in the Noise Ordinance? b) A substantial temporary,periodic,or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing X without the project? c) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundbome vibration or groundbome noise levels? X d) For a project located within an airport land use plan,or within two miles of a public airport or public use airport,would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to X excessive noise levels? CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 14 INmAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL JH T 2001 Issues and Supporting Informatic. )urces Sources Pote Less Than Less Than No Signi.. ..,it Significant Significant Impact ER#180-00 Issues With Impact Mitigation Incorporated� 1 ACHME Evaluation a) The General Plan Noise Element identifies the Community Noise Exposure of the project site as within the 65db contour at build-out(Noise Element Digest Figure 5b). Existing and future noise levels are required to be a maximum of 60dBA for outdoor use areas, and 45dBA for indoor use areas (Noise Element Digest, Table l). A noise level analysis has been prepared for this project that concludes that the site specific conditions are within the acceptable noise levels defined in the General Plan. The analysis finds that future noise levels will be about 5dBA below those predicted by the Noise Element. Specifically, maximum exterior noise levels for future conditions are expected to be 59dBA. The analysis cites the barrier effect and noise absorption of structures and vegetation between the site and Highway 101 as the reason for the difference. The free-field analysis used to determine the Noise Element contours does not take into account these site specific conditions. Standard construction techniques will reduce indoor noise levels by at least 15dBA to below the 45dBA standard. b), c), d) The proposed residential subdivision will not raise ambient noise levels beyond that anticipated. The City's Noise Ordinance applies standards for maximum allowable noise levels for everyday activities in the City's neighborhoods. The proposed dwellings would not generate excessive groundbome vibration or noise levels. The project is located outside of the County's Airport Land Use Plan area. Conclusion The Noise Level Analysis required for this project has determined that future noise levels at the project site are within acceptable noise exposure levels as required by the Noise Element of the General Plan. No further mitigation is required. 12. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would theproject: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area,either directly (for example by proposing new homes or businesses)or X indirectly(for example,through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing or people necessitating the construction of replacement housing X elsewhere? Evaluation a) The proposed project is expected to increase population in the neighborhood by approximately 19 people (seven new homes with 2.7 persons in each home). This is not considered substantial growth and overall the project will meet the City's density standards as established in the Zoning Regulations. The Zoning Regulations say that development potential may be transferred within the area covered by a planned development (PD) zone (SLOMC 17.16010.B.1). Approval of the PD, which requires the Planning Commission and City Council to make specific findings,allows each lot to be smaller than would normally be allowed by density standards, provided that overall,the project does not exceed the maximum allowable density of the site. In this case the net developable area of the whole project site, including developed and undeveloped land, is 54,258 square feet, which includes a 11,463 square-foot developed lot. The maximum allowable density in the R-1 zone is seven units per net acre. Thus, the maximum allowable density of the project site is 8.72 units, or eight single-family residences. Development of the project will include seven new residences and one existing home, for a total of eight. b) The project site is largely undeveloped and development of the project will not result in residents being displaced. Conclusion The project is a small residential subdivision and will not result in substantial population growth, or density levels in excess of the maximum allowed by the City's Zoning Regulations. A PD overlay zone must be approved by the Planning Commission and City Council to allow development of small lots based on the total size of the project. The Planning Commission and City Council must make specific findings in approving the new zoning. No further mitigation is necessary. M CITY OF SAN Luis OBISPO is INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTALSHSW 2001 Issues and Supporting InformatiL )urces Sources Potc Less Than Less Than No Sign,. .n Significant Significant Impact ER# 180-00 Issues With Impact Mitigation Inco orated'. 13. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision,or need,of new or physically altered government facilities,the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts,in order to maintain acceptable service ratios,response times,or other performance objectives for any of the public services: a) Fire protection? X b) Police protection? X c) Schools? X d) Parks? X e) Roads and other transportation infrastructure? X Other public facilities? X Evaluation a) The City's Fire Marshall has reviewed the proposed project and determined that in order to meet City's standards for fire flow(in this case water pressure in residential fire sprinkler systems), an existing 6" water line in McCollum Street will have to be upgraded to an 8" line. This work is required by code and will be coordinated with the improvements to the McCollum street right-of-way. Upgrading the fire line is a routine infrastructure improvement that will not have significant environmental effects. b),c), d), e), f) The project is an in-fill project that will not significantly increase demand for any of the public services listed or other public facilities. Conclusion The City has established impact fees to offset the cost of increased demand for certain services such as parks, water, wastewater and transportation, where the City has determined fee amounts through a study to determine that actual costs of the service. School fees have been established by the San Luis Coastal Unified School District. Off-site improvements to insure adequate fire flow for the new project are required by the existing City adopted Fire Code. No further mitigation is required. 14.RECREATION. Would theproject: a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? X b) Include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities,which might X have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Evaluation a),b) The project,which includes a lot dedicated as common open space for the residents of the project,will not significantly increase the use of other recreational facilities in the City. To the extent that the project will cause increased demand for parks and park services,the City has established an impact fee to offset the costs of the additional demand. The proposed on- site recreational facility will likely be a barbecue, trellis, and play equipment, none of which have the potential to create an adverse physical effect on the environment. Conclusion The project does not have the potential for significant impacts due to increased use of existing park facilities or through the development of the proposed pocket park. 690 CRY OF SAN LUIS OBISPo 16 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTALJHWT 2001 Issues and Supporting Informatic )urees Sources Poter Less Than Less Than No Signi. Significant Significant Impact ER# 180-00 Issues With Impact Mitigation Inca orated AC 15. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would theproject: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system? X b) Exceed,either individually or cumulatively,a level of service standard established by the county congestion management X agency for designated roads and highways? c) Substantially increase hazards due to design features(e.g.sharp curves or dangerous intersections)or incompatible uses(e.g. X farm equipment)? d) Result in inadequate emergency access? X e) Result in inadequate parking capacity onsite or offsite? X f) Conflict with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation(e.g.bus turnouts,bicycle racks)? X g) Conflict with the with San Luis Obispo County Airport Land Use Plan resulting in substantial safety risks from hazards,noise, X or a chane in air trafficpatterns? Evaluation a), b), c), d) The proposed project was reviewed by the City's Principal Transportation Planner who determined that the projected number of vehicle trips generated by the project can be adequately accommodated by McCollum Street, a local street, without a drop in the level of service standard for the road. The proposed project was also reviewed to determine the safety of the proposed private street, and it was determined that the proposed configuration meets the City's Parking and Driveway Standards without exceptions. The City's Fire Marshall also reviewed the proposed project and determined that proposed configuration of lots can be adequately served by emergency personnel. e) The project meets City standards contained in the Zoning Regulations for on-site and off-site parking,two car garages are provided and guest parking is provided for two vehicles. In addition,driveways have been designed with a minimum depth of 20 feet to allow for two additional vehicles to park in each driveway. Since the project involves development of residential lots that will not have street frontage, a deficiency of on-street parking on McCollum Street may be created. Staff believes that this potential impact is offset by the Pacheco School frontage which has curbside parking on McCollum Street for the width of at least four standard residential lots. This potential impact is further reduced by the willingness of the developer to have the existing City parking district on Albert Drive extended to include all of McCollum Street. A condition anticipated to be part of the PD approval for the project would establish a requirement to insure that garages are available for vehicle parking at all times. This requirement would also be included in the Conditions, Covenants, and Restrictions (CC&R's) for the project. f), g) The project does not conflict with any alternative transportation policy of the City and the site is outside of the County's Airport Land Use Plan area. Conclusion The project does not have the potential for significant impacts relative to transportation or traffic issues. 16.UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would theproject: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? X b) Require or result in the construction or expansion of new water treatment,wasterwater treatment,or storm drainage facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental X effects? c) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources,or are new and X CRY OF SAN Luis OBispo 17 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL ijiEfftJST 2001 Issues and Supporting InformatiL jurces Sources Pote Less Than Less Than No Sigm. _at Significant Significant Impact ER# 180-00 Issues With Impact Mitigation Inco oral d expanded water resources needed? d) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to X the provider's existing commitment? e) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? X f) Comply with federal,state,and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? F13 X Evaluation a) The project involves a subdivision and subsequent development of seven new dwellings and will not require any additional wastewater treatment requirements other than the disposal of wastewater into the City's sanitary sewer system. b) A public storm drain presently crosses the project site. Development of the project will necessitate relocation of the storm drain within an easement on the property. The applicant proposes to relocate the storm drain under the private street, and alongside lots 7 and 8 to connect with an existing storm drain in Fredericks Street. The City's Public Works Department supports this alignment. Construction of the storm drain will occur prior to development of property with housing and no significant effects are associated with the relocation of the storm drain. c) A water allocation of 4.2 acre feet is required by code for the project to be built. Currently water allocations are available only through the City's Water Retrofit Program. Prior to building permit issuance for any of the new dwellings,the applicant will be required to offset twice the anticipated water demand of the project by retrofitting existing plumbing fixtures within the City limits. As a result,water for the project can be allocated without the need for an expanded water source. d) The City's Utilities Engineer has determined, based on a projection of the anticipated sewer demand of the project, that the City's Water Reclamation Facility has enough capacity to serve the project. e), f) Background research for the Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (AB939) shows that Californians dispose of roughly 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 projects in the City of San Luis Obispo, an ordinance was adopted mandating a construction debris recycling program,consistent with the City's Source Reduction and Recycling Element. The project will also be required, through architectural review, to include facilities on-site for recycling to reduce the ongoing waste stream generated by the project. Conclusion The project does not have the potential for significant effects on utilities or service systems. Existing ordinances requiring recycling of construction debris and standard City practice requiring on-site recycling facilities divert significantly amounts of waste from entering the local landfill. No further mitigation is required. 17. 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 X community,reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? No impacts have been identified in this initial study with respect to any of the above issues areas. CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 18 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTALJHEaqsT 2001 Issues and Supporting Informatic lurces Sources Pote Less Than Less Than No Sign,. .t Significant Significant Impact Issues with Impact ER# 180-00 Mitigatii-HENT Incorporated b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited,but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a 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 are in general specific to this project and would not be categorized as cumulatively significant. c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings,either directly or X indirectly? The project will not result in substantial adverse impacts on humans. 18.EARLIER ANALYSES. Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant 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 (c) (3) (D). In this case a discussion should identify the following items: a Earlier analysis used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. Not applicable. 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 licable. 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. 19. SOURCE REFERENCES L. City of SLO Circulation Element Digest,Figure 6. 2. Soil Conservation Service 1984 soil survey on file in the Community Development Department Iib 3. Letter from Heather Tomle ,Air Quality Specialist, for the Air Pollution Control District,dated February 1,2001. 4. City of San Luis Obispo Inventory of Historic Resources. 5. City of San Luis Obispo Archeological Resource Preservation Guidelines. 6. City of San Luis Obispo Safety Element Digest. 7. Soils Engineering Report prepared by GeoSolutions, Inc. on file in the Community Development Department 8. National Flood Insurance Program, Flood Insurance Rate Map,Community Panel Number 060310 0005 C on file in the Community Development Department. 9. City of San Luis Obispo,General Plan Digest,Land Use Element 10. City of San Luis Obispo,General Plan Digest,Housing Element 11. City of San Luis Obispo,General Plan Digest,Noise Element 12. Noise Level Analysis prepared by Donald O.Asquith,PhD,February 1,2001,on file in the Community Development Department. 13. City of San Luis Obispo Ordinance No. 1381 (2001 Series),requiring a mandatory construction and demolition debris recycling ro ,on file in the Community Development Department �/ CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 19 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTALT 2001 Mitigation Measure ATTACHMENT A 0 Air Quality 1. The following dust control measures shall be implemented during the construction phase of the project: a) Reduce the amount of disturbed area where possible. b) Use of water trucks or sprinkler systems in sufficient quantities to prevent airborne dust from leaving the site. Increased watering efficiency is required whenever wind speeds.exceed 15 mph. Reclaimed (nonpotable ) water should be used whenever possible. c) All dirt stockpiles areas should be sprayed daily as needed. d) Landscape plans should be implemented as soon as possible following completion of building construction. e) Exposed ground areas that are planned to be reworked at dates greater than one month after initial grading should be sown with a fast-germinating native grass seed and watered until vegetation is established. f) All roadways, driveways, sidewalks, etc. to be paved should be completed as soon as possible. In addition, foundations should be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used. g) Vehicle speed for all construction vehicles shall not exceed 15 mph on any unpaved surface at the construction site. h) Install wheel washers where vehicles enter and exit unpaved roads onto streets, or wash off trucks and equipment leaving the site. i) Sweep street at the end of each day if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent paved roads. Water sweepers with reclaimed water should be used where feasible. CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 20 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL TWT 2001 AIR POLLUTIOP CONTROL DISTRI.. i COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO — 5 `EracMiENT I n DATE: February 1, 2001 TO: Michael Codron County of San Luis Obispo Department of Planning and Building FROM: Heather Tomley, Air Quality Specialist'la" Pl San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District SUBJECT: McCollum Street Project; Construction of Single Family Residences Thank you for including the APCD in the environmental review process. We have completed our review of the construction of nine single-family residences on McCollum Street. The district has the following comments on the development proposal. GENERAL COMMENTS We would first like to commend the applicant on a few of the elements of the project design: ♦ The proposed development is located within walking distance of commercial establishments, the university and a school, which has the potential to shorten trip lengths and encourage alternative forms of transportation. ♦ The project represents in-fill property, where growth has been planned for and expected. SPECIFIC COMMENTS Staff calculations of the potential construction and operational emissions from this source indicate the project will not exceed our CEQA significance thresholds. However, project construction does have the potential to generate a dust nuisance. Therefore, the district recommends including the following dust control measures during the construction phase: ♦ Reduce the amount of the disturbed area where possible. ♦ Use of water trucks or sprinkler systems in sufficient quantities to prevent airborne dust from leaving the site. Increased watering frequency would be required whenever wind speeds exceed 15 mph. Reclaimed(nonpotable)water should be used whenever possible. ♦ All dirt stockpile areas should be sprayed daily as needed. ♦ Permanent dust control measures identified in the approved project revegetation and landscape plans should be implemented as soon as possible following completion of any soil disturbing activities. ♦ Exposed ground areas that are planned to be reworked at dates greater than one month after initial grading should be sown with a fast-germinating native grass seed and watered until vegetation is established. ♦ All disturbed soil areas not subject to revegetation should be stabilized using approved chemical soil binders,jute netting, or other methods approved in advance by the APCD. 3433 Roberto Court • San Luis Obispo,CA 93401 • 805-781-5912 • FAX: 805-781-1002 cleanair@sloapcd.dst.ca.us 06 www.sloapcd.dst.ca.us 3-95 _t t•,��. printed on recycled paper ATTACHMENT 1 0 McCollum Street Project February 1, 2001 Page 2 ♦ All roadways, driveways, sidewalks, etc. to be paved should be completed as soon as possible. In addition,building pads should be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used. ♦ Vehicle speed for all construction vehicles shall not exceed 15 mph on any unpaved surface at the construction site. ♦ All trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials are to be covered or should maintain at least two feet of freeboard(minimum vertical distance between top of load and top of trailer) in accordance with CVC Section 23114. ♦ Install wheel washers where vehicles enter and exit unpaved roads onto streets, or wash off trucks and equipment leaving the site. ♦ Sweep streets at the end of each day if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent paved roads. Water sweepers with reclaimed water should be used where feasible. Additionally, the District suggests inclusion of the following energy efficiency mitigation methods in order to reduce the demand on electrical supply and reduce emissions at the power plant source. ♦ Increase attic and wall insulation beyond Title 24 requirements ♦ Use built-in energy efficient appliances ♦ Use double pane windows ♦ Use sodium parking lot and street lights ♦ Use energy efficient interior lighting Again,we appreciate the opportunity to review the project. If you have any questions or comments please contact me at 781-5912. 1BOMPIAMMPONSEMB M 3-96 DONALD 0.ASQUrrH,PhD Concaltant In Environmental Noiw ATTACHMENT 1 0 362 Travis Drive Los t)aos, Ce11fOrMe 93402 803/328-2187 February 1, 2001 Ernie Kim,Architect 1880 Santa B arbara St. San Luis Obispo,CA 93401 AM:Mr.Ernie Kim SUBJECT: Noise investigation,Proposed 8-Unit Development off McCollum St., City of San Luis Obispo Dear Mr.KitYt: At your request, we have conducted an investigation of noise levels expected to be generated at the project site by traffic on Highway 101 in the City of San Luis b(5 ispo. Noise levels were measured at the site on Tuesday, January 30, 2001. Terminology used in this report and the capabilities of the instrumentation are discussed in Attachment A. 1. Mmi urrr_1 NniRg Levels Noise levels at the site of the proposed tract as measured during the late morning of Tuesday, January 30, 2001 are summarized as follows: Nola_ a I eyplS(ARA) Traff it VnhomP 1 r_ratinn k Perini of Mwamm== IAC� MAL Ma Ntimher Vehielp-r/Mr 1 10:53-11:00 am 54.5 72.8 44.0 Not visible ? The point of measurement was located 25 feet north of the existing ed�e of the sidewalk on Fredericks Street, the location of the closest proposed unit to the freeway. he average noise level duringg the 7 minute measurement (Leq) was sufficiently low that additional measurements were considered unnecessary. 'The maxhnum and minimum 1-second noise levels are recorded by the meter, and they are included for informational purposes only. The procedure normally used is to measure the noise levels as noted above, and count the traffic for the period of measurement. The measured noise level can then be adjusted to obtain the "existing" and "future" noise levels as used in the Noise Element. However tin traffic was not clearly visible from the measutrement location, and a reliable count could not be made. However, the consultant has recently been measuring noise levels and counting traffic on Highway 101 at the Motel Inn, and this information has boon used to estimate the traffic volume during the measurement. The estimate is considered accurate±10% or±0.4 dBA. 1 3-97 2. DegigI3 JUffir,Vninenw jj .t R„f„ - ism T=ITiAC1A9CNT IQ Traffic volumes to be used in the detetrnilzation of"existing" and "future"noise levels are Specified iu Appendix A of the Technical Reference Document of the Noise Elemnoint, Segmesas 69 which indicate an "existing" ADT of 441000 and the future ADT of 102,000 for Highway 101 between Highway 1 and Grand Avenue. For the study at the Motel Inn, it was found that traffic on Highway 101 during the 5-minute measurement periods averaged about 10% less than the peak- hour volume defined in 1990,and that the individual volutnes varled over a range of approximE,tely t10%. Based on these relationships; the "existing" (1990) peak-hour noise level would be 54.9 dBA (+0.4), and the "fliture" ppeak-hotu noise love! at the closest proposed residence to the freeway would be 58.6 dBA (+3.7), both i0.4 dBA, 3. The Noise Element Policy 3.3.2 requires that pproppoosed development be designed such that "existing" and "futut„" noise levels not exceed 60 t1BA in outdoor living areas and 45 dBA in interior spaces. The "Mute" noise level at the front of the closest residence to Highway 101 is projected to be approximately 59 dHA (58.6 + 0.4 dBA), and noise levels in any outdoor living area at the rear of the residence would be at least 5 dBA below levels at the front of the residence. Therefore,IImisejoky dr. n a Y-nutter IivIA&amg should b--Ail balow the 6=A rean+,'"C_mens These future noise levels arc about 5 dBA below those predicted by the free-field noise contours includod in the Noise filament. This is due to the barrier effect and noise absorption of structures and vegetation between the site and the freeway. With the maximum exterior noise level for fUture conditions at approximately 59 dBA, the �proposed residences Shmnld meet the 4S dBA g6tjard evim with the w,ndnc!•c^ b, uAii y meets, Thr�deW with the wfnAn 4. hdifi$atinn Idnagilrer No significant noise Impacts have been identified and no mitigation measures are required. Should you have any questions on these mitigation measures,please call me at 805/528.2187. Sincerely, Donald O. Asquith 2 3-98 r ATTACHMENT A INSTRUMENTATION AND TERMINOLOGY FOR ATTACrI'UNT 1 0 NOISE INVESTIGATIONS The subject Boise investigation has been conducted using a Bruel and Kjaer (B & K) Model 2230 precision integrating sound level meter calibrated externally at the beginning and end of each period of measuremont using a B &K Model 4230 acoustic calibrator. In combination, these instruments yield sound level measurements aocurate to within 0.1 decibel (dB) The Model 2230 fulfills standards of relevant sections of IEC (International Electrotechnical Commission) 651 and ANSI (American National Standard) S 1.4.1971 for Type 1 (precision) integrating sound level meters. The microprocessor of the Model 2230 computes and stores/displays the following measurements: The sound�nft"re Iry .l (SPL) is updated once each second on the digital dispplay at a resolution of 0.1 dB,acid 64 times per second on the analog display at a resolution of 2 dB. The mechanism of averag4 levels duringthe display interval may be "fast'` or"slow". The setting is normally "'fast", as this is required or Leq and SEL discussed below. The sb nd 90"iv_ tent�=i(Leq) is the average sound pressure level for tlu period of measurement based on equal energy. The meter internally computes a new Loq from the SPL (RMS) and updates the digital display once each second. The mca mment period is limited only by battery life whish is approximately 8 hours. This parameter is used primarily to describe environmental noise. The m m a)tr,egaim iUAI (SEL) is the constant level which if maintained for one second would have the same-acoustic energy as the total noise for the period of measurement. This parameter is used primarily in determining the noise exposure in unusually noisy working environments or for measuring specific events such as an individual aircraft flyover or a train passage. The maxim= (Max.) and minim im (Mia.) sound pressure levels during the period of measurement am updated once each second from the RMS average sound pressure level. For periods of measurement in the range of 1 to 10 minutes, these values ate reasonable approximations of the sound pressure level exceeded 1% of the time and 99% of the time. respectively. All of the above can be measured using frequency weightings of the "A" or "C" scales in accordance with IBC 631, or a "linear" (20 Hz to 20 kHz) or "all pass" (10 Hz to 50 kHz) filter settings. The "A" scale is weighted to most closely approximate the response of an average human ear, and is the setting most used in conducting measurements ofenvironmental noise. A-1 3-99 Noise, as used herein, is defined as unwanted sound. However, use the detect the small changes in atmospheric pressure that are perceived ascsound cannot distinguish between that which is wanted (e.g., birds sinking, sound pressure. waves on a beach, etc.) and that which is not traffic noise), measurements of "noise' are more accurately described as measurements of soun Changes In sound pressure normally experienced to the human environment extend across a very large range. The sound pressures in an average room are in the range 1,000 tines die sound pressure at the threshold of hearing, and the sound pressure of a Iar�e track is about 100,000 Ames tl>at threshold. Because of thi91ago range, it is convenient to describe sound in terms of its energy 1c=1 with respect to that of the thre8ho1d of heating. This method of description is called the decibel scale (0), In mathematical tarns, the sound pressure lawl SPL w 10 Log (p/po)2 dB, where po is the sound pressure at the threshold of hearing(20 tnlcroPascals). In practical terms, It is adequate to note that the decibel scale is toarlthtnic (like the Richter scale for earthquakes), that it conveniently compresses the numbers Involved from a range of 20-200,000,000 to a range of 0- 130, and that it is oriented to human response in that an increase of about 10 dB is normally perceived as a doubling of the sound level. In t=nt years, various methods and "Scales" have been devised to describe noise in the human environment. These methods have had two basic objectives: 1) to reptrsent a physical condition that is constantly changing over a wide range of values by a single numetit:al descriptor; and 2), to adjust that descriptor in a way that most reasonably reflects the degree er cal descriptor; of the varying noise levels. 1. Ctnritticel Mge-riPtnn Statistical descriptors most often used to describe variations in noise level include: Lgo The level exceeded 90% of the time during a specified period, usually I hour. 24 hours, or during the day or the night. In some instances, this value may be considered the background level. Lso The level exceeded 50% of rho time during a specified period as noted above. This value has sometimes been considered the average or median noise level. Lao The level exceeded 100 of the time during a specified period as noted above. For traffic noise,this value has been considered the peak period level. Ll The level exceeded 1% of the time during a specified period as noted above. This value may be considered the peak noise level. IY►e most significant drawback to the use of these descriptors, particularly L50 as representing an average, is that they do not take into account the logarithmic nature of the decibel scale and the relatively higher energy content of higher decibel levels. That is, the averagge energy content of So dB end 60 dB for equal periods of time is not SS dB, but rather 57.4 dB (i.e., the fog of rise average of the antilogs). A-2 �—/DO ATTACi-lMENT 7 A parameter that more acurately describes average noise is the Equivalent Continuous Sound level (Leq), w," is the continuous sound level havin tha same energy content as the varying level for the period bf measurement, Prior to the avail�llty of microprocessors at reasonable cost, the hand-computation of Loq from a series of lndiviQual measurements was a tedious task, However, meters are now available that internally compute Leq, continuously as with the Model 2230 discussed above, or for a specified period usually one minute. $accuse of this teClutical advance. envjSremehts of Leq for various periods of limo have become the basic Parameter in evaluating environtnerttal noise. 2. Wej&htAHWni-.kf0'eVft_s Because the same level of noise is more annoying to people if it occurs at night, scales have been devised that weight nighttime noise at a higher level than daytime noise. The scales most commonly in use aft: CNEL Community Noise Equivalent Level weights evening noise(7 p.m. to 10 p.m.) by a factor of S, and nighttime levels (10 p.m. to 7 a.m.) by a factor of 10. Mathematically, evening levels are increased by 3 dB, and nighdme levels are. increased by 10 dB in computing a 24-hour geometric average. Ldn Day-Night Equivalent Level is similar to CNEL but it dots not include a weighting factor for evening noise levels. Of the above, CNEL came into use first, and it is the standard in regulating noise levels in the vicinity of airports. Lda is a simplification of CNEL, and is more commonly used in regulating land use where traffic noise is a potential problem. These levels apply for a minimum period of 24 hours, but may be applied for periods as long as one year, The difference may be significant where noise levels ate near regulatory limits, and where there art seasonal or weekly variations in a noise source of concern. From a practical standpoint, the Ldn noise level is essentially egwvalent to the peak-hour noise level for most situations involving noise from vehicular traffic, and the peak-hour Leq can be used as the Ldn level,avoiding the costs of 24 hours of measurement. A-3 ' +•*END+*+ Jun 04 01 04: 23p CYnnEY HOLCOMB BMEEM0365 AGENDA S -5-0/ ITEM# 4. RQn - � . .1. Residents for Quality neighborhoods P.O. Box 12604 • San Luis Obispo, CA 93406 UNCIL DD DIR VW [I[IFIN DIR FIRE CHIEF NEY ❑ PW DIR KIORIG ❑ POLICE CHF ❑ D T ADS D REO DIR June 4, 2001 ❑ UTIL DIR 95i © HR DIR RE: PD/TR/ER 189-00 – 1795 McCollum Street Meeting Date: 6/5/01, Item #3 Honorable Mayor and City Council Members, RQN is supportive of infill development. However, we feel there must be a balance between any increase in density and the compatibility of the existing neighborhood. In this case, the developer's desire to achieve the maximum density allowable has produced a project that is not very imaginative or functional and is definitely not compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. This issue forms the basis of our opinion that this project, as proposed, does not meet the intent of the planned development zone or the "required" finding, necessary for your approval. We have relied on several Municipal Code and General Plan Land Use Element sections, attached hereto as Attachment "A". The chart below compares the density of this project to the density of the existing neighborhood. Project Pro osed Density; m Allowed Existing Neighborhood 4.2 units acre 17 units per acre Project excluding the Road as required by conventional standards 9.5 units/acre 7 units per acre i Project—including the Road 6.86 units/acre 1 7 units per acre— I • The intent of the Planned Development zone (MC §17.50.010 Purpose & Application) is to provide amenities which would not be feasible under conventional development standards, i.e., modification of the standards to achieve a better design. The design of this project is not unique and it does not provide any exceptional benefit to the occupants or to the community at large. It is our opinion that the density of this design has reduced the ability to make it imaginative or innovative and has, in fact, actually created problems which would not occur if normal standards were used. The premise of the required finding (MC §17.62.040 [4] Required Findings) is that features of the particular design should achieve the intent of conventional standards such as: privacy, usable open space, adequate parking, and compatibility with neighborhood character, as well as or better than the standards themselves. RECEIVED JUN 0 2C01 SLO CITY COUNCIL Jun 04 01 04: 23p CYnMEY HOLCOMB 80.5-594-0365 p. 2 June 4 2001 Re: 1795 McCollum Street Page 2 1. Privacy • Privacy will be substantially reduced to both the occupants and the adjacent neighborhood due to large two-story structures, minimal setbacks, and average lot size of 4,300 sq. feet. 2. Usable Open Space/Private Yards. • Because of the small size of the lots and the large size of the structures, the setbacks are minimal and the usable yard space is basically in the form of narrow linear strips. • The proposed V-ditch gutter system placed between a retaining wall inside the property line and a fence at the property line presents an additional encroachment into yard space along the side and rear property lines. • A park has been proposed to provide required public open space. However, the ARC has recommended that additional parking be placed in the park area and a further reduction in the park size to augment the rear yard of Lot #8. ■ It is also unclear as to whether the occupants of Lot#8 would be able to enjoy the benefits of the park at all, due to the V-ditch gutter, retaining wall and fence proposed on the rear property line. ■ (MC §17.24.010 Purpose & Application of R-1 Zone) emphasizes that: "the R-1 zone is intended primarily to provide housing opportunities for people who want private open space associated with individual dwellings". 3. Parking/Access • There is a deficiency in parking due to lack of street frontage. • Parking will be prohibited on the narrow access road which will be difficult to enforce. • The ARC has suggested placing bulb-outs on the access road which could improve parking, but will further decrease the yard area. ■ Requiring the garage to remain available for parking will be difficult to enforce. • Lots #3 & #6 have truncated driveways which further reduces available parking ■ Parking districts are at the discretion of the residents and cannot be pre- approved. 4. Drainage: • This previously undeveloped parcel has a significant drainage problem and is known to have flooded in the past. ■ Large structures occupying small lots increase the .ratio of impervious to non- impervious surfaces causing drainage and drainage impacts to be greater than they would be on a development with larger lots. Jun 04 01 04: 24p CYnnEY HOLCOMB 805-594-0365 p. 3 June 4 2001 95 McCollum Street Page 3 7=17 5. Compatibility/Character: The large two-story homes closely spaced on small lots are incompatible with the scale and character of the existing neighborhood which has primarily one- story homes on larger lots. o New buildings should respect existing buildings in terms of size, spacing, and variety. The density of this project does not allow maneuverability or flexibility to achieve neighborhood and internal compatibility. Conditions of approval are being placed on the project to alleviate the design flaws, when the project should be designed to alleviate the flaws. The project should at best provide the amenities available under conventional standards. Attached are three alternative plans (Attachments "B", �C", and "D") that offer a range of different density options. Attachment "B" is an alternative which was provided to us by the developer. We feel that all of these plans are more acceptable than the proposed project and would provide the existing neighborhood and the project occupants greater privacy, more open space, better drainage, and more parking. In summation, MC §17.24.010 Purpose & Application of R-1 Zone states that the R-1 zone is 'intended to preserve existing single-family neighborhoods, provide for compatible infill development in such areas,..." The City's General Plan LUE §2.14 Neighborhood Compatibility: appears to recognize the potential impacts of infill projects by suggesting new regulations, for low and medium density residential areas that would require special review for (1) incompatibly large houses, (2) replacement or infill homes in existing neighborhoods, and (3) accessory buildings with plumbing facilities allowing easy conversion to illegal second dwellings. We agree, and ask that the council give this matter serious consideration. We do not agree that the project before you has met either the intent of the PD zone or the finding required for you to approve the zoning change from R-1 to R-1-PD and respectfully request that you consider the future of our R-1 neighborhoods by voting NO on this matter. Sincerely, yours, Cy ney Hol omb Chairperson, RQN Attachments: 4 Jun 04 01 04: 24p CY_DMEY HOLCOMB 805-594-0365 p. 4 i ATTACHMENT "A" Chapter 17.50: PLANNED DEVELOPMENT(PD)ZONE 17.50.010 Purpose and application. The planned development zone is intended to encourage imaginative development and effective use of sites. It does this by allowing more variation in project design than normal standards would allow. Such variation from normal standards should provide benefits to the project occupants or to the community as a whole which could not be provided under conventional regulations. PD rezoning must occur simultaneously with approval of a specific project In the C-N, C-C, C-R,C-T,C-S, and M zones, the PD zone may be applied to any parcel. In all other zones, the PD zone may be applied to any parcel or contiguous parcels of at least one acre Chapter 17.62: PLANNED DEVELOPMENT 17.62.040 Required findings. A. To approve a planned development, the Planning Commission and Council must find that it meets one or more of the following criteria: 1. It provides facilities or amenities suited to a particular occupancy group(such as the elderly or families with children)which would not be feasible under conventional zoning; 2. It transfers allowable development, within a site, from areas of greater environmental sensitivity or hazard to areas of less sensitivity or hazard; 3. It provides more affordable housing than would be possible with conventional development; 4. Features of the particular design achieve the intent of conventional standards(privacy,usable open space, adequate parking, compatibility with neighborhood character, and so on) as well as or better than the standards themselves; 5. It incorporates features which result in consumption of less materials, energy or water than conventional development; 6. The proposed project provides exceptional public benefits such as parking, open space, landscaping, public art, and other special amenities which would not be feasible under conventional development standards. Chapter 17.24: LOW-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL(R-1)ZONE 17.24.010 Purpose and application. The R-1 zone is intended primarily to provide housing opportunities for people who want private open space associated with individual dwellings. it is intended to preserve existing single-family neighborhoods, provide for compatible infill development in such areas, and prescribe the overall character of newly subdivided low-density areas. This zone shall be applied to areas designated'low-density residential"on the general plan map. Land Use Element: CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT OF RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS 2.14 Neighborhood Compatibility The City will consider new regulations,for Low-Density and Medium-Density Residential areas, to require special review for (1) incompatibly large houses, (2) replacement or infill homes in existing neighborhoods, and (3) accessory buildings with plumbing facilities allowing easy conversion to illegal second dwellings. Jun 04 01 04: 24p CYTINEY HOLCOMB 805-594-0365 p. 5 { ATTACHMENT "B" 1795 McCollum Street Project/Alternative #1. Flag Lot MC COLLUM STREET n[CEc[S' \ Ss CASCx[x1 Im a L:7] Sr 1x[11 Ly. Sr Ln]T1� R]LI SI t RCss- u LQT { LAr 13 E3O7 Sr Ki, L]5]Sr MM sr (GROSS W 7 2 W Q < ❑ i 6 i / FREDERICXS BI%EEC Jun 04 01 04: 25p CynNEY HOLCONB 8105-594-0365 P. 6 IF ATTACHMENT "C" Pacheco Schoc I'M%RR��V," Existing R-1; Proposed R-1-PD M CCOLLUM Mc OEM 2 I't 0.11, Lg LLIJ 1 3 4 co t < 5 FREDERICKS . ..... .... I Pk4 L( T5 1795 McCollum Street Project/Alternative #2, Five Lots Rezoning Exhibit A PID 189-00 1795 McCollum 5 . 0 60 100 150 FOC Jun 04, 01 04: 25p CY_nNEY HOLCOMB 805-594-0365 p. 7 IT '..J:; 1., ., x, ' ATTACH M ENT „D„ ;;�tir.:3;a,;r• ,,t Pacheco School ,tri Nr I.. <Lq�i ly !{�i?V�. 5�f Ii �'Yi I �•�i . a�j a GZ. I I G n �+ Existing R-1 Proposed R-1-PDa' In, t MCCQLLUM Mc .r ,q r tt11 1'' `YSd—g'.3; I WF ��;1 �,�,J1 r. � ,• iy��' +1 {�J• }. ..-�J � IIIGGG ?gr! �{nf(r1iL�i?i�' �.1�.f 1 2 3 W Z 4 WI U1L. it I ,. Ips ;Iy 4 1'.. 6X :l4Sr Y'1ft f FREDERICKS r.II txl �rtq�d' 11 tl' �rdr� 1.• �� ry � lR1tll��k L .1795 McCollum Street Project/Alternative 13 Four Lots Rezoning Exhibit A PD 189-00 1795 McCollum 100 1 Feet AM, I(cy6�� A ✓TS S I 'N �J _=- ;June 4., 2001 San Dais Obispo City Councll eOUNCIL L3 9co�1� �. . John Ewan, 'ice Mayor , 1ERNEY _ a MN ers Jan Howeil Marx 0 ±'IRE OWIEF Christineflulholland ® PW 9IR�@�I�l t3 POLICE CHF Ken Schwartz �R .p� ® :iE®SIR Allen K. Settle, Mayor ® �i163IR DI Subject: 3795 McCollum Street. PD,TR, and ER 389-00 be, MINE-LOT SUBDIVISIONEVNIRONNNENTAL REVIEWA ND PLANNED DEVELOPMENT(PD)REZONING FOR A DEVELOPMENT TO INCLUDE SEVEN NEW SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES(POITRIER 989-00) I believe if you use the standards developed and established for the City of San Luis Obispo that you will view this proposed project much differently from that which has been presented by the developer. Why the need for all of the variances that have been requested for this project? As members of the City Council you are responsible to see that this proposed project does meet the minimum requirements as established In the code 17.62.040 as well as 3 7.60.040 before this project can be approved. OI still have major concerns, which have been expressed to the employees of the City of San Luis Obispo Planning Department and the Planning Commission about 1. Density 2. Darkling 3. Rooding which have not been adequately addressed. Your decision is not really concerning the building of seven new homes since these same people are building four additional homes directly across the street so It Is a total of eleven homes In a very small area. JMcCollum Biomes (4)Alta Vista Estates (7) l am-sad to say 0 have observed first-hand 001ty Politics`° In action concerning alis• proposed!project. 1 hope you take the time to review this proposal carefully, and!think aboutthe•Future Impact IhIs wRl have an our city. 'Jae Clty of San Luis O blsipo dares not need a-9s9a 1Isita°° bull hwn. I s0l clan mamt wndler larval wky ft 60ior lofts are mot heft developed as atltes b? Foarr R-,-[ I have summarized -the �4* oancdles dhait srprpiy'to'tlnis prolJeo+,t annd tnolpeftly bbis W01 reduce the ame needled t rasear-ts1h bh* p)rojectt. 91[esos rifer W a _C:*)P y OF d e 06� y Of ftol �. uts c)lb)IM00 LsJ1�lU�tG11l:.�1T1t�1,t;Js, Fel�)rurgUc � t b�„ `U101�lro)- &�C� c c g1 jolc_� The following facts relating to this proposal should be considered before a decision is _ made: REFERENCE: ZONING REGULATIONS, February 18, 2000, City of San Luis Obispo. Page Section No. Topic 29 17.16.010 Density [four lots plus an existing home] A. Determination of Allowed Development. 1. Density is the number of dwellings per net acre, measured in density units. e. Dwellings with four or more bedrooms, 2.00 units 30 vi. The maximum Residential Density for Cross-Slope Categories (density units per net acre) R-1 7 units [ proposed project is 14 units]. ...Director may grant exceptions ... The exception shall not authorize density greater than that allowed for the category of less than 15% slope for the appropriate zone. 31 17.16.020 Yards Minimum Street Yards Zone: R-1 Minimum Street Yard 20 feet 32 Minimum Other Yards in R-1 Zones Determined by maximum building height and minimum Required yard. 1-12 feet height requires 5.0 feet of yard etc. [Refer to chart on page 32] 34 Discretionary Exceptions c. Variable Other Yards in Subdivisions. a separation of at least 10 feet between buildings on adjacent lots will be maintained and an acceptable level of solar exposure will be guaranteed by alternative yard requirements or private easements. ...no significantfire protection, emergency access, privacy or security impacts... 35 e. Other Yard Building Height Exceptions. Such exceptions may be granted in any of the following and similar circumstances, but in no case shall exceptions be granted for less than the minimum yard required (Ord. 1365(2000 Series)(part)) 2 O 'i. When the property that will be shaded by the excepted development will not be developed or will not be deprived of reasonable solar exposure, considering its topography and zoning; 38 1.7.16.030 Coverage Coverage means the area of a lot covered by the footprint of all structures, as well as decks, balconies, porches, and similar architectural features, expressed as a percentage of the total lot area. [See conceptual overall site plan] 40 17.16.060 Parking space requirements A. Intent....to ensure provision of adequate off-street parking, considering the demands likely to result from various uses, combination of uses and setting. 43 Boarding/rooming houses; dormitories: One space per 1.5 occupants or 1.5 spaces per bedroom whichever is greater. 44 High occupancy residential use: The parking requirement shall be the greater of: 1.The number of spaces required for dwellings. OR 2. One off-street parking space per adult occupant, less one. 51 17.16.070 Parking and driveway design and exceptions. 2. The exception will not adversely affect the health, safety or general welfare of persons working or residing in the vicinity, [elementary school and residential medical,home adjacent to project] 55 17.17.05.0 Front yard paving. No more than 50% of any residential front yard not to exceed 26 feet in width, may be covered by concrete or any other impervious material, including driveways, patio areas, walkways, and other landscape features. 56 17.18,010 Noise A. No use shall be established nor any activity Conducted which violates the standards of the Noise Ordinance (Chapter9.12 of this code). (Ord. 1102- 1 EX. A(13), 1987: Ord. 941 - 1(part), 1982, prior code.-9202.6(A)) 3 56 17.18.020 Vibration ...no activity shall be conducted which causes ground vibrations perceptible at the property line. 57 17.20.010 Group housing - Permitted upon approval of use permit. ... which is occupied by six or more individuals may be permitted upon approval of whatever type of use permit is required by the zone district provision. 57 17.20.020 Group housing -Occupancy limits Use permits for group housing shall stipulate a maximum occupancy. The occupancy limits shall reflect habitable space within buildings and available parking and shall not exceed the following standards based on the general plan: Zone: R-1 Maximum Population Density: 21 60 17.22.010 Use Regulation: Uses allowed by zones 62 Dwellings R-1 '[Exception for condominiums, the Development of more than one dwelling on a land parcel in the R-1 zone requires approval of an administration use permit. R-1 density standards apply. 63 High occupancy residential use R-1 If the Director approves and administrative use permit as provided in Section 17.58.020 through 17.58.080, the use may be established. 70 17.24.020 LOW-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (R-1) ZONE Property development standards The property development standards for the R-1 Zone are as follows: A. Maximum density: Seven dwelling per net acre (see also Section 17.16.010). B. Yards (see Section 17.16.020) C. Maximum height:.25 feet, up to 35 feet if the Director approves an administrative use permit. (see Sections 17.16.020 and 17.16.040) D. Maximum coverage: 40% (see Section 17.16.030) E. Parking requirements: (see Section 17.16.060 4 j 88 17.60.010 VARIANCES: Intent " O The variance procedure is intended to allow minor Relaxation by the Director of certain standards that Would otherwise prevent a property from being used In the same manner as other, similar property, where The intent of these regulations is not compromised by Such minor relaxation. (Ord.. 941 -1 (pa..rt), 1982 Prior code -.9204.3(A) 88 17.60.020 Scope. No variance to use regulations or density standards May be granted. (Ord. 941-1 (part), 1982: prior code 9204.3(6)) 88 17.60.040 Findings In order to approve a variance, the Director, Planning Commission or Council must make each of the following findings: A. That there are circumstances applying to the site, such as size, shape or topography, which do not apply generally to land in the vicinity with the same zoning; B. That the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege - an entitlement inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity with the same zoning. C. That the variance will not adversely affect the health, safety or general welfare of persons residing or working on the side or in the vicinity.(Ord. 941-1 (part), 1982: prior code -9204.3(D)) 89 17.62.010 PLANNED DEVELOPMENT- Preliminary development plan. E. Identification of portions of the development which Would otherwise require a variance, and reason for the deviation from normal standards; F. A site plan and supporting maps, drawn to a suitable scale and clearly labeled, showing: 1. Existing site conditions, including contours... 5. Existing and proposed circulation system of arterial, collector, and local streets, off-street parking, loading, and emergency access areas, points of access to public rights-of-way, proposed ownership of circulation routes; 9. A general grading plan [huge amount of dirt brought to the site] 90 17.62.040. Required findings. A. To approve a planned development, the Planning Commission and Council must find that it meets one or More of the following criteria: 1. It provides facilities or amenities suited to a particular occupancy group (such as the elderly or families with children)which would not be feasible under conventional zoning; 2. It transfers allowable development, within a site, from areas of greater environmental sensitivity or hazard to areas of less sensitivity or hazard; 3. It provides more affordable housing than would be possible with conventional development; 4. Features of the particular design achieve the intent of conventional standards (privacy, usable open space, adequate parking, compatibility with neighborhood character,and so on) as well as or better than the standards themselves; 5. It incorporates features which result in consumption of less materials, energy or water than conventional development; 6. The proposed project provides exceptional public benefits such as parking, open space, landscaping, public art, and other special amenities, which would not be feasible under conventional development standards. B. In order to grant a "density bonus" (as explained in Section 17.50.030), the Commission and Council must find that the proposed development satisfies at least three of the six subsection A of this section. 95 17.93.010 HIGH OCCUPANCY RESIDENTIAL USE REGULATIONS - Purpose: ...to promote the quality of life in low-density and medium-density residential neighborhoods by ensuring that dwellings provide adequate support facilities. J 6 95 17.93.020 Definitions ' - A. High Occupancy Residential Use is any dwelling, Other than a residential care facility ..., in the R-1 or R-2 zones when the occupancy of the dwelling consists of six or more adults. 95 17.93.040 Performance standards 1. The dwelling must contain a minimum 300 square feet of gross floor area, less garage area, per adult. 2. The parking requirements shall be the greater of (1) The number of spaces required for dwellings as described in Section 17.16.060. OR one off-street parking space per adult occupant, less one.. 7. There shall be a minimum of one bathroom provided for every three adult occupants. Since the Planning Department has stated the huge amount of dirt brought onto the property will be spread out this will change the elevation so I am requesting story poles be installed to the actual height of this project can be determined. Thank you for your time and care carefully checking out this proposed project. � 1 Attached are copies of the site drawings for both the Alta Vista Estates and the McCollum Homes. Sincerely, C �GO ZJ Toney Ledford C• 1706 Fredericks Street San Luis Obispo, California 93405 (805) 547-0811 Pacheco School 2NT'� 1% AU. Existing R-1; Proposed R-1-PD cl/ go M 0-1 RIF CCOLLUIVIMc sm IN 11 OF 5'. ON, Z W < Rd FREDERICKS L Rezoning Exhibit A PID 189-00 1795 McCollum 50 0 50 100 150 Feet } c iacs w ommo sun rtes V:)'Od V/ SNVS - € g Y 6t9i 31aSMirflf9'e rlNrc op, Q3Nd/Wn U S)I�RI (1'1'TQ'7oW < n. L7 I�dV MN MNUa S3LVLS3t+LS1AdLItl "e < I- roiau II< N C U i N $e 3 P y"a "g V e § ss v r F- Y < 63a X x da A `R �. 5 y �•`<I '" Sd �a Q h- 3gig - (L $ r P PP ♦ ��- T T i Q WgYC? 1..6.1 F �^ s3a � y��: r R 3"i== IIa . ; ZII���� . g ' r ... LLI gig ` 34 11 _ : "s3wars CY ® ® 3nN3Atl GNtlL17 TTTT aliti j 1 r W bn C F- OW J O 7 J yr U11 g F< ; U N g S jy�r W V ES' dg I I W d pAt o aitlniad o W N< - z rprp o N .9.9 e f� ' , � n • r 11■Ir 11■It „ t ISI: � 11 II: II ■ III a �` � mil • JPM,`a! ' ��T_ illllllll, I _ i O EE Eli....� � uwllll �"a'•. Ili 4 .�11. ISI■fir ��Ir�ll , • ''_III k s it 1 -, s• N 01 ED A la •rte ,f _ — .' ,/ , • on US QQ Michael Codron-Gordon Balla talk w/images shown at the Commission Meeting ApriL25,01� Page 1 ' .__r. AGENDA DATES ITEM #3 From: "Gordon L. Balla" <flash@hiflash.com> To: "Michael Codron, MCRP" <mcodron@slocity.org> Date: 4/30/01 4:22PM Subject: Gordon Balla talk w/images shown at the Commission Meeting April 25,01 Hello Michael, Per our conversation today, I am sending these notes and images to be included in your report of the Planning Commission Meeting of April 25th. I have attached the notes that I worked from that night describing my observations and interests about the 1795 McCollum St. building project. Along with that are the images, and map with the red houses that I did art work on, to help express to the viewers that this is a very dense project considering the rest of the adjoining neighborhood as the map shows. You have my approval to use all these images and the ones from the previous meeting of April 12th in your report to enhance the previous letter you had included in it, although without the images. The approval to use the images I presented the night of April 25th is also given. Sincerely, Gordon L. Balla, concerned resident next to the project. Imageologist International Action Images Gordon L. Balla Photography 805-5449266 www.HiF[ash.com CC: "Cydney Holcomb, Residents for Quality Neighborhoods" <rcholc@gateway.net> OUNCIL DD DIR ❑ FIN DIR 0 C3 FIRE CHIEF ORNEY 0 PW DIR RK/ORIG ❑ POLICE CHFT H S ❑ REC DIR ❑ UTIL DIR ❑ HR DIR RECEIVED JUN 01. 2001 SLO CIN COUNCIL Michael Codron - Planning Commission h4eeting.doc Page 1 I April 25, 01 Planning Commission Meeting On the 1795 McCollum It, Project 1. Greetings to the commissioners, this is an interesting meeting. 2. I am a resident bordering the McCollum building project on the south Fredericks side, I'd like to express that at no time has the Alta Vista Association, the builder or developer contacted me about the current projected building project. 3. Name: Gordon Balla, at 1740 Fredericks St. 4. My family has been a long time local resident since 1963. 5. Our property is on the Fredericks east side of this project. 6. This is a picture of my property. 7. I am for top quality built homes to go on this vacant property. 8. Picture of the adjoining vacant land, which is also next to Tony's. 9. They should be aesthetically pleasing to the eyes and environment, and especially be appreciated by the adjoining neighbors that have to live next to them. 10. The size and height of the homes should be pleasing also. 11. These houses will tower over the close adjoining homes and cut off views toward Cal Poly and up the hill. 12. Picture—View toward Poly with dirt pile. Behind my home. 13. Yard space should be more than shows on the blue lines, and should be similar to homes that are in the overall neighborhood. 14. Pictures of local single story homes near the site on Fredericks St. One across the street next to the Church and the two just west of the vacant lot on Fredericks. ( 3 ). 15. Students: The houses and rooms are large enough for renting to many students! 16. See student rentals in area: Crowded houses and parking on top of yards. Painting on walls, messy yards. I ;Michael Codron=Planning Commission Meeting doc 17. Pictures of Grand Ave. student rentals ( 2 ) across from the project. 18. Parking is at a premium in this area. 19. The post office delivery persons have a difficult time on the McCollum street due to the steep slope and no place to park their truck many times. They have to carry 45 to 50 lb bags and deliver up to 75 Ib packages. All the mail on that street may have to be delivered to one mass box area. 20. Picture of McCollum St. East and steep hill (1). 21. Drainage conditions: Are questionable depending on the V drains. The location and depth, and who will be maintaining them all the time? 22. Which side of the wall will they be on. If they plug the water will come onto my property and could flood my home. 23. UNDERGROUND MOISTURE OR SPRINGS- The drain water pipes rotten under McCollum and probably is that way along my property. Could have caused the cracking of my foundations. 24. See pictures: (1) Rusty Pipe, and (2) Wet dirt drilling mud j from core testing. j 25. DENSITY OF R-I NEIGHBORHOOD IS BEING COMPROMISED. 26. See over all map I added to with red houses (1) depicting four previously approved and the current seven planned homes to be built. 27. No more will there be a view like this one from Grand Ave of the hill of homes. They will be blocked by the four homes being built on the North side of McCollum St. 28. Picture from Chris Jespersen and Grand Avenue of project.. i Michael Codron -Church house Fredericks#15 72.jpg Page 1 � y 49 17 • r f ♦ l ). M 'y r'- t1. 4 102011 Gordon L. Sa11a Phctograp y 'Michael •• • .•- • • 1740 72 jpn .•- w 1.740 • .,lam �„ i I Fredericks < ■rr. -@2001 Gordon Ballar h t • i .+ pF Michael Codron-Fredericks empty lot North#3 72.j06Page 1 M ..:�� ! � '�i--..,fly". + _ } .` '- - � .` {�'.} ;y,.n�!�► �a,�W ... >PL' ,S�' ^'lr pf'Ft^ .:. f - ` , ✓ _ �a �.v'• p�.� e�= s .. -*Coo*'1nT`y i .. I r .. . .. �- 4 coJJurn Pr 'ec 6� ttr�d 't? ieIFerdok$;�1crfcrrrg �� �Q J�QJ�r P hrJJ�frc��alfhen�i�r�;v��a�l�Jd�n .f)Pr� pJd e.i�aad fr, �mrr h .;Mrc + crJ cJct ichael .. . �,�,�. X e �YM�pr• s Y.a �.. r a �wP.�.wf �'sq , � Yr !} k�_� a._ '1��- �-� r� r r" � • •y , �y�.'�r!i r � A �� ;q a � 4 �'�.� � 5 � iui'I ��� � '. k .1 is i W �*s• .: •i \:ter • - ' ��a�/ } •` .. �k @2001 Gordcp.n L. BallaPhatograp �: J I�. .. ',fab .'� '� >�2 - .. • a •y ,�" `• , G t a CMM Willem,IISM Me f q C �^ •c, s � � 3 � �s• a "5.r ',fin W + iii*f' r ",�9'iK' �•i - I �1I� irr'I". y � ,Al , 1 a� z i:' ' -� - zISM Vis+'+.ir +L a•�,xyP`�?,s� ���� .% 0, W-ot'i" s 3 , Ic ael Codron .. OMI Gordon L-SaAs Photogmphy Michael Codron -Home Densities color_72.jpg _. Page l I i i m) Om Pacheco School gar Hays Rt $, E3aisdrq R-1; r Proposed R-1-PD _ IMMME{ McCOLLUM 9W � j ��: ossa �s �:-, • �� � by 3 I. r '.y 0 Ui Q16 164616 6761692 632 ;. f 706 174 Hope PREDERICKS 31 f f66f L Rezoning Exhibit A PD 189-00 1795 McCollum a 0 "0 180Fed .. . . . • If.. i T ♦ 1 w 1p i r i� • v �~ • ice'_ rC �4f�a '.:-i r�.. -;w • i3R in � -ter:. M y .r • S A �:1.. "� -- 'e�!i'�T°•.' ,..Orli.. r .. . v� �• -•y r K + 11 l .. . . _ .. ,01 Af M � III ^�I •��ra ." ��'�� 'i b� - b'•A '`_, _ �R y.�y1 1 a w � �a r I` 02QD4 Gordon L. 8a�fa Phc��ography x ;y a' . 1-4 46 - ` y 5i• p r i r • M �•}1 • f. �� y ui' { a _ S � _ j s � • ����� .Vii' �'p .#` �, s A 'rr�► ^ e � M14�r'� ;fin� .�II •�S /� •j •� J'� �� � Y F, or ..4 Y — Michael .. . .. .. �L � 1 �q � '.. .•. _� s �1� `j HCl. i' - \ _ •4 -. • - � � fir+ ...fit i. _ �.♦.Ir' _ � i ar.i ain, �in , '4 '_") - WJT. W4Ph&ogaphy Michael .. . . .. f •r � .t— :yy4 ra y � .. � a Michael Codron- Image#24 org#14 Wp'-,trk 72.ipg Page 1 Y7 +r r r ,y. D Michael Codro --#6 Truck Dusting 72.FTV _ Page 1 rg _ ,/+�� ' ':ata �r^_�M U J�IY C� �$a _ rta 1 lC� t5 j Michael Codron-#7 Dump Truck Dust'^ i�g _ T^ Pagel � ►, � � �. 4F � as� IL Y 1 r t_ �J � �. ��. �"1L. a • ry S .yJ. �,•�`n9 y a J yK � aY f • l y � 4 •4 __ _ L t r • ' r 'F. � y � r n u 4 � t A Sent By: ; — 0000000000; MaM,EWG 1 :20AM; AGMge 1 /1 DA► 1706 Fmdencks sager San Luis Ob4o,CA 93x05 {905)547�9t t Toneys • 9?-60UNCIL DD DIR 91 tO ❑ FIN DIR Fmc ICAO ❑ FIRE CHIEF ®'J�ffORNEY ❑ PW DIR 111'155LERK/ORIG ❑ POLICE CHF ❑ D PT DS ❑ REG DIR U-1 71UTIL DIR To: City of San Luis Obispo From: Taney Ledford � Q f'iR ®IR City Council Members All Fac 781-7109 Pages: 1 Phones 781-7100 Date: 05/24/01 Re: Alta Vista Estates CC: ARC, Planning Department McCollum/Fredericks Streets ®Urgent ❑ For Review ❑Please Comment ❑Please Reply ❑Please Recycle •Comments: Design and Construction of 7 new homes and: park on property between Fredericks and Mc Collum Streets. 1. I am requesting that you have the developer`install story poles for each home - a huge amount dirt has been moved onto this property that will greatly effect the height of these buildings. Please have these poles installed as soon as :P ossible. 2. 1706 Fredericks Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 is powered with a solar array. This construction will have a direct impact on my home. Thank you very much. M' 1NG AGENDA C UNCIL` VCDD DIR DAIS 6-5-dl ITEM #. fo C FIN DIR RIA 0 p FIRE CHIEF RNEY ❑ PW DIR LERK/ORIG ❑ POLICE CHF O T HEADS ❑ REC DIR May 28, 2001 kd:x Id ❑ UTIL DIR ❑ HR DIR V Lear I+4ayor Settle and Members of the City Council, I am concerned about the 1795 McCollum project . SLae5th agenda) My main objection to the project is that it sets a precedent for an R-1 neighborhood. It seams to be to dense and should be designed for a better fit into an R-1 neighborhood. Lack of parking also seams to be an issue. Thank you for reading my concerns and I know that your good judgemant about this project will prevail. sincerely, . ._ Naoma Wright 400 Foothill Blvd. San Luis Obispo CA. 93405 'y- RECEIVED MAY 2 : 2001 SLO CITY COUNCIL MWINU AUCMIA , E REM#_.__®_ ''�•��I'' counc,L memoizanbum DATE: May 31,2001 ouNCIL RtDD DIR Gl,�AO p FIN DIR TO: City CouncilO ❑ FIRE CHIEF p.tcC� � ORNEY 13 PW DIR GC<ERK/ORIG O POLICE CHF VIA: Ken Hampian, CAO C D&OT S ❑ REC DIR O UTIL DIR FROM: John Mandeville, Community Development Direc ❑ HR DIR v BY: Michael Codron, Associate PlannLm> SUBJECT: Plans and Attachments for 1795 McCollum (TR/ER/PD 189-00) Plans and attachments are being distributed now for the subject agenda item. The letters attached to this memo should have been included as attachments to the Council Agenda Report for this item. Both the plans and attachments were inadvertently left out of the packet. The first item is a letter in support of the proposed project that was submitted to staff the day before the Planning Commission hearing on the project. The letter was distributed to the Planning Commission at their meeting. The second item is a letter prepared by Residents for Quality Neighborhoods that details their concerns with the project proposal. This letter was submitted and presented to the Planning Commission during the public hearing on the project. The third item was previously distributed to the Council and is a letter from neighbors who are concerned with, drainage problems they have experienced over their years living in the neighborhood. Should the Council have any concerns or questions regarding the project or the staff report that has been distributed please contact Michael Codron, the project planner, at 781-7170. RECEIVED JUN 0 1 2001 SI n CITY COUNCIL Cnneci!Xlenm(189-00 aaachments).doc April 20,2001 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO APR 2 4 2001 San Luis Obispo City Planning Commission City Hall COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Gentlemen, We want to encourage you to vote in favor of the housing project that is being planned for McCullum St. and Fredericks St by Patrick Aurignac. We have resided in our home on Fredericks for 43 years during which time this property has been vacant and has had no care other than to keep the weeds down. We would welcome new families in our neighborhood and feel that Mr.Aurignac's plan will provide homes for those who wish to live in this area. To keep this a quality neighborhood we also urge you to include the restricted parking that is already in force on McCullum and hopefully to be on Fredericks. Sincerely, Norma Jones Kenneth R Jones 1646 Fredericks St. San Luis Obispo,CA 93405 RQN Residents for Quality Neighborhoods P.O. Box 12604• San Luis Obispo, CA 93406 April 25, 2001 Planning Commission City of San Luis Obispo 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, Ca. 93401 Faxed to: 781-7173 Re: 1795 McCollum Street Meeting Date: 4/25/01, Item #1 Dear Chairman Peterson and Planning Commission.Members, RQN is a city wide Neighborhood Association whose primary goal is the preservation, protection and enhancement of our established neighborhoods. We have reviewed this project, for impacts to the existing neighborhood and its consistency with the General Plan Land Use Element, the Housing Element and the City's zoning regulations. We have also assisted and are supporting concerned residents in the immediate area of this project. The Application: A condominium subdivision consisting of 7 single family units located at 1795 McCollum Street. A private access road and a small park are also included in the project. The plans include a density transfer throughout the area which necessitates a Planned Development overlay re-zoning. The 1.01 acre property is currently zoned R-1 and located in an established, single-family neighborhood, two blocks from Cal Poly. Focus of our Comments: Density/Compatibility, Parking, Yards, Drainage and Precedent. DENSITY AND COMPATIBILITY Land Use Element Goals, Policies and Programs 2.2.10, 2.2.11, 2.2.12, 2.14 Housing Element Goals and Policies H7.1.11 H7.2.11 H7.2.3 • The Project_ Seven, 4 bedroom, 3 bath, 2 story units situated on lots averaging 4300 sq. feet. Floor plans are identical in lots 1-6. Lot 7 is a park. Lot 8 faces Fredericks Street and is separated from the park and the other units by a retaining wall/fence. All units have available floor space that could easily be converted to additional bedrooms. In addition, the same applicant recently obtained a lot line 1 April 25, 2001 Re: 1795 McCollum Street Page 2. exception to develop four homes directly across the street from this project. (Although they are not technically part of this project, we feel they definitely contribute to the overall density of the immediate area and should be considered in the discussion). • The Neighborhood: The surrounding, established neighborhood is composed of individual lots of approximately 9,600 sq. feet each. There is one home per lot. They are predominately single story buildings and vary in size and design. The density ratio for the flat portion of thesurrounding neighborhood is 4.2 units per acre • Comments: Housing Policy 7.2.1 Character, Size, Density and Quality states that "within established neighborhoods, new development must be of a character, size, density, and quality that preserves the City's neighborhoods and maintains the quality of life for existing and future residents." • Character/Quality: The size, massing and architectural style of the proposed project is not in concert with existing homes in the area. These homes have significant yard space and setbacks, are constructed of diverse materials and are primarily one-story. • Density/Size: The objective of good planning should be to optimize the project by balancing the increase in density with the compatibility of the exiting neighborhood. However, the proposed project is more than twice the density of the existing neighborhood. In addition, the proposed lots provide very little of the qualities associated with R-1 neighborhoods. This is due to the extremely small size of the lots and the inclusion of the street within the lot area. To provide a balance between density and compatibility, several alternatives may be more appropriate. This includes the flag lot alternative of 6 lots which would provide the desired qualities of the existing neighborhood. A second alternative could combine lots to create a total development of 5 lots while still maintaining the qualities of the existing neighborhood. A third alternative would develop three lots adjacent to McCollum Street and a fourth lot adjacent to Fredericks Street. In summary, the total lot size and the usable lot size, building separation, lot coverage, yard size and paving requirements, and usable private open space are significantly less adequate than the existing neighborhood and therefore do not function as well or better than the existing standards. PD Finding Requirement 4 states: Features of the particular design achieve the intent of conventional standards (privacy, usable open space, adequate parking, compatibility with neighborhood character, and so on) as well as or better than the standards themselves;" [MC§17.62.040(4)]. LU 2.14 - Neighborhood Compatibility: " The City will consider new regulations, for Low-Density and Medium-Density Residential areas, to require special review for (1) incompatibly large houses, (2) replacement or infill homes in existing neighborhoods, and (3) accessory buildings with plumbing facilities allowing easy conversion to illegal second dwellings". April 25, 2001 Re: 1795 McCollum Street Page 3 LU 2.2.10 - Compatible Development Housing built within an existing neighborhood should be in scale and in character with that neighborhood. All multifamily development and large group-living facilities should be compatible with any nearby, lower density development. A. Architectural Character: New buildings should respect existing buildings which contribute to neighborhood historical or architectural character, in terms of size, spacing, and variety'. In addition, with regard to architectural character, larger two story homes which are closely spaced and of similar design do not respect the neighborhood historical or architectural character. The large two-story homes on very small lots are incompatible with the scale and character of the existing neighborhood which has primarily one-story homes on larger lots. PARKING — LU Policies 2.2.9, LU 2.2.12G • The Project: Each of the units will have a two car garage. The driveways will accommodate two cars each. Two additional parking spots are located in the park. Parking will be prohibited on the private road. No other parking is available within the subdivision. • The Neighborhood: Consistent with parking requirements for R-1 zone, i.e. two parking places, one of which must be covered. • Comments: There is clearly a dearth of parking considering the density of this project. LU Policy 2.2.9 states in part: "In general, parking should not be provided between buildings and the street': Yet this project intends to mitigate the parking problem by using the driveways. Of further concern is the potential for the driveways to become storage areas for other vehicles such as boats, trailers or motor homes. Street parking on McCollum will have to be shared among all of the new and existing residents as well as users of the Pacheco School Ball Field. Half of McCollum Street is a very steep hill which would make it difficult and dangerous to navigate back and forth to the subdivision. Staff is reviewing the possibility of continuing the Alta Vista Parking District along the remainder of McCollum Street to Grand Avenue and we support this action. Staff is also recommending a condition of approval to require that the garages be available for parking at all times. We agree this action, but doubt that it could be effectively enforced through a Homeowner's Association. Of concern, is the very real possibility that some or perhaps all of these units become student rentals. It is not unusual for parents to purchase homes in the price range of these units ($450,000) for their son or daughter to reside in while attending college. The remaining rooms in the house are rented to other students to make the mortgage payment. The house is sold when the student graduates and the profit I 7 j April 25, 2001 Re: 1795 McCollum Street Page 4 offsets the cost of his or her education. It is also not uncommon for realtors to recommend this procedure to parents who are looking for available student housing. These units would definitely have the required components: space, ample bedrooms and bathrooms, .no yards, and proximity to the campus. An article in the Tribune (4/15/01) cited the following statistical data recently released by the Census Bureau: The most densely populated part of the County is the area around Cal Poly, with 8,575 people per square mile. YARDS/PRIVATE OPEN SPACE - MC§, 17.24.010 • The Project: Minimal back yards with irregular configurations. The usable, private yard space for lots 2,3,5 and 6 range in size from 336 sq. feet to 560 sq. feet. According to the Grading, Drainage & Utility Plan (Section D), it appears that the rear yards of lots 1,2,3,5 and 6 will be diminished by at least three more feet in order to accommodate a v-gutter drainage ditch and retaining wall around the perimeter of the property. • The Neighborhood: large back yards which provide ample, usable, private open space. The larger yards allow for use away from the property line • Comments A discussion on yards really revolves around the intent of the R-1 zone. MC§ 17.24.010 which states "The R-1 zone is intended primarily to provide housing opportunities for oeoole who want private open space associated with individual dwellings. It is intended to preserve existing single-family neighborhoods, provide for compatible infill development in such areas, and prescribe the overall character of newly subdivided low-density areas. This zone shall be applied to areas designated "low-density residential" on the general plan map". People choose to live in R-1 neighborhoods because they "want" good size yards that provide usable "private open space". This is the stated intent of the R-1 Zone. Even the 6400 sq. ft. lots currently being developed across the street from this project offer significantly more usable private open space. MC§17.82.140 states that open space must have a minimum dimension in every direction of 10 feet for open space provided at ground level. Currently lots 3 and 6 do not meet this requirement and lots 2 and 5 may not meet the requirement if the drainage v-gutter is implemented as shown. April 25, 2001 Re: 17.95 McCollum Street Page 5 DRAINAGE This is a significant issue that should be discussed at some length (including the potential for subsurface flows and the impact of the current drainage corridor). The use of a concrete V- drainage ditch outside the fence line of the project reduces the minimal proposed private open space, minimizes the potential for adequate maintenance, and increases the potential impacts to adjacent properties (a potential environmental impact.) And significantly, as conditioned, these ditches will be. maintained by the homeowner's association and therefore the city has no legal remedy for failure to maintain. PRECEDENT City staff has informed us, that to their knowledge, this will be the first PD rezoning within an established R-1 neighborhood. The project's small size (1.01 acres) and odd shape make it difficult to provide adequate usable open space, meet existing development standards, provide necessary parking and ensure compatibility with the existing neighborhood. In addition, the use of a roadway to increase the usability of the project does not add to, but actually detracts, from the livability of the project (i.e. paving materials account for between 60 and 65% of the front yard on several if not all of the lots). If this type of development is used as a standard it will set a precedent and existing patterns and desirability of R-1 neighborhoods will be significantly diminished. We believe sites should be carefully selected for these projects and should be consistent with LU 2.14 (Neighborhood Compatibility) Further review of this project and its impacts to the existing neighborhood and the impacts of the PD rezoning in the R-1 zone should be studied more thoroughly. Sincerely yours,---�G'�/"`� . Cydney Holcomb Chairperson, RQN 1795 McCollum Street Project/Alternative #1. Flag Lot MC COLLUM STREET ------------------------------- ,EASEMENT ACCESS Lffr I Uff I La,as 6273 Sr kNL7) 6574 SF 627, 8361 Sr tGROSS) S WW Uff 4 L13T a 6307 sr (NET) 6350 sr 705 SF (GROSS) pJ Z < Iva z 6 A A FREDDUCKS v K11 yl fee =6 1�0111 n SO Rezoning Exhibit A PID 189-00 1795 McCollum 50 0 50 100 150 FW d ` i ni r l r pRr.y 1 yt� Iy31 A'I W��J��yI 1, kic i y iWi+S r x/i tJ e (JjK`iu t '��' lt � yy i�uf�J' �r��,1� .� �n, ufqq➢wu, 34 {�ibS 1}t{1�v�Sok v 1hf ;4rya1 'n�J,�ii '"f'�'��4� •it `ti.. „ , Rezoning Exhibit A 189-009 „ 175 McCllum • . 51 0 50 100 150 FOO — n ft document toe Chester A. Brunson t�aue courtdl" 'A Dorothy 3. Brunson 1692 Fredericks Street aW San Luis Obispo CA 93401 May 8, 2001 _ NCIL DD DIR To: San Luis Obispo City Council Members ❑ FIN DIR ❑ FIRE CHIEF (Please distribute bD all members) PITTORNEY ❑ PW DIR O CLERK/ORIQ El POLICE OHF Re: Alta Vista Development ❑ D P HEADS ❑ REC DIR ❑ UTIL DIR Cl ❑ HR DIR Dear Sir or Madam: As residents bordering the proposed Alta Vista Development we want to make you aware of a drainage problem we have experienced many times over our 31 years at this address. During the winter rainy season we will have a considerable amount of water running from the proposed development property down our driveway, this has caused erosion and access problems for us during these times. Our concern is that a project of this size and scope will make an existing problem much worse. We ask that you carefully consider and resolve the water runoff problem before approving this project: We also have concern that the on street parking issue will not be addressed adequately, again we ask that you thoroughly research and resolve these issues before approval of this development. As over 40 year residents of San Luis Obispo we know that growth and development are inevitable, we and our neighbors just hope that you will use the authority given to you by the community to protect the existing residents of our great town from potentially adverse effects of new developments. Thank you for your attention to our concerns and if you have any questions, please feel free to contact us at 544-0986. Bestregards, Q wC Chester A. Brunson Dorothy J. Brunson RECEIVED MAY 10 2001 SLO CITY COUNCIL MF7NG AGENDA DArc ITEM#...__e ,PES/GENTS MR CY411TYNeX11f0R1100PS MEMORAM(Y C:� NCIL D DIR ❑ FIN DIR ❑ FIRE CHIEF �� RNEY ❑ PW DIR TO. COUNCILMAN KEN SCHWARTZ U1 I+LERK/ORIG ❑ POLICE CHF ❑ D H D ❑ REC DIR SATE 6.1.01 ElUTIL DIR ❑ HR DIR F,E'OH CYDNEY HOLCOMB, CHAIRPERSON RQN 4"" JOE 1795 MCCOLLUM - COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM #3 - JUNE 51 2001 Ken, Brian and I distributed the five (5) attached items to the other council members when we met with them regarding the above-referenced item. Our letter and the three alternative plans were initially tett out of the staff report. We believe this situation has been corrected, but wanted to make sure you received the same information that we gave the others. The map showing the proposed development in red is one that we prepared for the planning commission meeting to illustrate the density of this project compared to that of the existing neighborhood. If you have any questions regarding this material please do not hesitate to call me at 544-8595. Cydney RECEIVED JUN 0 T 2001 SLID CITY COUNCIL AAA RQn Residents for Quality Neighborhoods P.O. Box 12604• San Luis Obispo, CA 93406 April 25, 2001 Planning Commission City of San Luis Obispo 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, Ca. 93401 Faxed to: 781-7173 Re: 1795 McCollum Street Meeting Date: 4/25/01, Item #1 Dear Chairman Peterson and Planning Commission Members, RQN is a city wide Neighborhood Association whose primary goal is the preservation, protection and enhancement of our established neighborhoods. We have reviewed this project, for impacts to the existing neighborhood and its consistency with the General Plan Land Use Element, the Housing Element and the City's zoning regulations. We have also assisted and are supporting_ concerned residents in the immediate area of this project. The Application_ A condominium subdivision consisting of 7 single family units located at 1795 McCollum Street. A private access road and a small park are also included in the project. The plans include. a density transfer throughout the area which necessitates a Planned Development overlay re-zoning. The 1.01 acre property is currently zoned R-1 and located in an established, single-family neighborhood, two blocks from Cal Poly. Focus of our Comments: Density/Compatibility, Parking, Yards, Drainage and Precedent. DENSITY AND COMPATIBILITY - Land Use Element Goals, Policies and Programs 2.2.10, 2.2.11, 2.2.12, 2.14 Housing Element Goals and Policies H7.1.1, H7.2.11 H7.2.3 The Project_ Seven, 4 bedroom, 3 bath, 2 story units situated on lots averaging 4300 sq. feet. Floor plans are identical in lots 1-6. Lot 7 is a park. Lot 8 faces Fredericks Street and is separated from the park and the other units by a retaining wall/fence. All units have available floor space that could_easily be converted to additional bedrooms. In addition, the same applicant recently obtained a lot line April 25, 2001 Re: 1795 McCollum Street Page.2 exception to develop four homes directly across the street from this project. (Although they are not technically part of this project, we feel they definitely contribute to the overall density of the immediate area and should be considered in the discussion). • The Neighborhood: The surrounding, established neighborhood is composed of individual lots of approximately 9,600 sq. feet each. There is one home per lot. They are predominately single story buildings and vary in size and design. The density ratio for the flit portion of the surrounding neighborhood is 4.2 units per acre • Comments: Housing Policy 7.2.1 Character, Size, Density and Quality states that "within established neighborhoods, new development must be of a character, size, density, and quality that preserves the City's neighborhoods and maintains the quality of life for existing and future residents." • Character/Quality: The size, massing and architectural style of the proposed project is not in concert with existing homes in the area. These homes have significant yard space_ and setbacks, are constructed of diverse materials and are primarily one-story. • Density/Size: The objective of good planning should be to optimize the project by balancing the increase in density with the compatibility of the exiting neighborhood. However, the proposed project is more than twice the density of the existing neighborhood. In addition, the proposed lots provide very little of the qualities associated with R-1 neighborhoods. This is due to the extremely small size of the lots and the inclusion of the street within the lot area. To provide a balance between density and compatibility, several alternatives may be more appropriate. This includes the flag lot alternative of 6 lots which would provide the desired qualities of the existing neighborhood. A second alternative could combine lots to create a total development of 5 lots while still maintaining the qualities of the existing neighborhood. A third alternative would develop three lots adjacent to McCollum Street and a fourth lot adjacent to Fredericks Street. In summary, the total lot size and the usable lot size, building separation, lot coverage, yard size and paving requirements, and usable private open space are significantly less adequate than the existing neighborhood and therefore do not function as well or better than the existing standards. PD Finding Requirement 4 states: "Features of the particular design achieve the intent of conventional standards (privacy, usable open space, adequate parking, compatibility with neighborhood character, and so on) as well as or better than the standards themselves;" [MC§17.62.040(4)]. LU 2.14 - Neighborhood Compatibility: " The City will consider new regulations, for Low-Density and Medium-Density Residential areas, to require special review for (1) incompatibly large houses, (2) replacement or infill homes in existing neighborhoods, and (3) accessory buildings with plumbing facilities allowing easy conversion to illegal second dwellings". j April 25, 2001 Re: 1795 McCollum Street Page 2 exception to develop four homes directly across the street from this project. (Although they are not technically part of this project, we feel they definitely contribute to the overall density of the immediate area and should be considered in the discussion). The Neighborhood: The surrounding, established neighborhood is composed of individual lots of approximately 9,600 sq. feet each. There is one home per lot. They are predominately single story buildings and vary in size and design. The density ratio for the flat portion of the surrounding neighborhood is 4.2 units per acre • Comments: Housing Policy 7.2.1 Character, Size, Density and Quality states that "within established neighborhoods, new development must be of a character, size, density, and quality that preserves the. City's neighborhoods and maintains the quality of life for existing and future residents." • Character/Quality: The size, massing and architectural style of the proposed project is not in concert with existing homes in the area. These homes have significant yard space and setbacks, are constructed of diverse materials and are primarily one-story. • Density/Size: The objective of good planning should be to optimize the project by balancing the increase in density with the compatibility of the exiting neighborhood. However, the proposed project is more than twice the density of the existing neighborhood. In addition, the proposed lots provide very little of the qualities associated with R-1 neighborhoods. This is due to the extremely small size of the lots and the inclusion of the street within the lot area. To provide a balance between density and compatibility, several alternatives may be more appropriate. This includes the flag lot alternative of 6 lots which would provide the desired qualities of the existing neighborhood. A second alternative could combine lots to create a total development of 5 lots while still maintaining the qualities of the existing neighborhood. A third alternative would develop three lots adjacent to McCollum Street and a fourth lot adjacent to Fredericks Street. In summary, the total lot size and the usable lot size, building separation, lot coverage, yard size and paving requirements, and usable private open space are significantly less adequate than the existing neighborhood and therefore do not function as well or better than the existing standards. PD Finding Requirement 4 states: "Features of. the particular design achieve the intent of conventional standards (privacy, usable open space, adequate parking, compatibility with neighborhood character, and so on) as well as or better than the standards themselves;" [MC§17.62.040(4)]. LU 2.14 - Neighborhood Compatibility: " The City will consider new regulations, for Low-Density and Medium-Density Residential areas, to require special review for (1) incompatibly large houses, (2) replacement or infill homes in existing neighborhoods, and (3) accessory buildings with plumbing facilities allowing easy conversion to illegal second dwellings". April 25, 2001 Re: 1795 McCollum Street Page 3 LU 2.2.10 - Compatible Development Housing built within an existing neighborhood should be in scale and in character with that neighborhood. All multifamily development and large group-living facilities should be compatible with any nearby, lower density development. A. Architectural Character. New buildings should respect existing buildings which contribute to neighborhood historical or architectural character, in terms of size, spacing, and variety" In addition, with regard to architectural character, larger two story homes which are closely spaced and of similar design do not respect the neighborhood historical or architectural character. The large two-story homes on very small lots are incompatible with the scale and character of the existing neighborhood which has primarily one-story homes on larger lots. PARKING — LU Policies 2.2.9, LU 2.2.12G • The Project: Each of the units will have a two car garage. The driveways will accommodate two cars each. Two additional parking spots are located in the park. Parking will be prohibited on the private road. No other parking is available within the subdivision. • The Neighborhood: Consistent with parking requirements for R-1 zone, i.e. two parking places, one of which must be covered. • Comments: There is clearly a dearth of parking considering the density of this project. LU Policy 2.2.9 states in part: "In general, parking should not be provided between buildings and the street". Yet this project intends to mitigate the parking problem by using the driveways. of further concern is the potential for the driveways to become storage areas for other vehicles such as boats, trailers or motor homes. Street parking on McCollum will have to be shared among all of the new and existing residents as well as users of the Pacheco School Ball Field. Half of McCollum Street is a very steep hill which would make it difficult and dangerous to navigate back and forth to the subdivision. Staff is reviewing the possibility of continuing the Alta Vista Parking District along the remainder of McCollum Street to Grand Avenue and we support this action. Staff is also recommending a condition of approval to require that the garages be available for parking at all times. We agree this action, but doubt that it could be effectively enforced through a Homeowner's Association. of concern, is the very real possibility that some or perhaps all of these units become student rentals. It is not unusual for parents to purchase homes in the price range of these units ($450,000) for their son or daughter to reside in while attending college. The remaining rooms in the house are rented to other students to make the mortgage payment. The house is sold when the student graduates and the profit 1' April 25, 200.1 Re: 1795 McCollum Street Page 4 offsets the cost of his or her education. It is also not uncommon for realtors to recommend this procedure to parents who are looking for available student housing. These units would definitely have the required components; space, ample bedrooms and bathrooms, no yards, and proximity to the campus. An article in the 'Tribune (4/15/01) cited the following statistical data recently released by the Census Bureau: " The most densely populated part of the County is the area around Cal Poly, with 8,575 people per square mile. YARDS/PRIVATE OPEN SPACE - IWC& 17.24.010 • The Project: Minimal back yards with irregular configurations. The usable, private yard space for lots 2,3,5 and 6 range in .size from 336 sq. feet to .560 sq. feet. According to the Grading, Drainage & Utility Plan (Section D), it appears that the rear yards of lots 1,2,3,5 and 6 will be diminished by at least three more feet in order to accommodate a V-gutter drainage ditch and retaining wall around the perimeter of the property. • The Neighborhood: Large back yards which provide ample, usable, private open space. The larger yards allow for use away from the property line • Comments A discussion on yards really revolves around the intent of the R-1 zone. MC§ 17.24.010 which states "The R-1 zone is intended primarily to provide housing opportunities for people .who want private open space associated with_.individual dwellings. It is intended to preserve existing single-family neighborhoods, provide for compatible infill development in such areas, and prescribe the overall character of newly subdivided low-density areas. This zone shall be applied to areas designated "low-density residential" on the general plan map". People.choose to live in R-1 neighborhoods because they "want" good size yards that provide usable "private open space". This is the stated intent of the R-1 Zone. Even the 6400 sq. ft. lots currently being developed across the street from this project offer significantly more usable private open space. MC§17.82.140 states that open space must have a minimum dimension in every direction of 10 feet for open space provided at ground level. Currently lots 3 and 6 do not meet this requirement and lots 2 and 5 may not meet the requirement if the drainage V-gutter is implemented as shown. April 25, 2001 Re: 1795 McCollum Street Page 4 offsets the cost of his or her education. It is also not uncommon for realtors to recommend this procedure to parents who are looking for available student housing. These units would definitely have the required components: space, ample bedrooms and bathrooms, no yards, and proximity to the campus. An article in the Tribune (4/15/01) cited the following statistical data recently released by the Census Bureau: " The most densely populated part of the County is the area around Cal Poly, with 8,575 people per square mile. YARDS/PRIVATE OPEN SPACE - MC§, 17.24.010 The Project: Minimal back yards with irregular configurations. The usable, private. yard space for lots 2,3,5 and 6 range in size from 336 sq. feet to 560 sq. feet. According to the Grading, Drainage & Utility Plan (Section D), it appears that the rear yards of lots 1,2,3;5 and 6 will be diminished by at least three more feet in order to accommodate a v-gutter drainage ditch and retaining wall around the perimeter of the property. The Neighborhood: Large back yards which provide ample, usable, private open space. The larger yards allow for use away from the property line • Comments A discussion on yards really revolves around the intent of the R-1 zone. MC§ 17.24.010 which states "The R-1 zone is intended primarily to provide housing opportunities fate open space associated with individual dwellings. It is intended to preserve existing single-family neighborhoods, provide for compatible infill development in such areas, and prescribe the overall character of newly subdivided low-density areas. This zone shall be applied to areas designated Now-density residential" on the general plan map". People choose to live in R-1 neighborhoods because they "want" good size yards that provide usable "private open space": This is the stated intent of the R-1 zone. Even the 6400 sq. ft-. lots currently being developed across the street from this project offer significantly more usable private open space. MC§17.82.140 states that open spacemust have a minimum dimension in every direction of 10 feet for open space provided at ground level. Currently lots 3 and 6 do not meet this requirement and lots 2 and .5 may not meet the requirement if the drainage v-gutter is implemented as shown. I 9 April 25, 2001 Re: 1795 McCollum Street Page 5 DRAINAGE This is a significant issue that should be discussed at some length (including the potential for subsurface flows and the impact of the current drainage corridor). The use of a concrete V- drainage ditch outside the fence line of the project reduces the minimal proposed private open space, minimizes the potential for adequate maintenance, and increases the potential impacts to adjacent properties (a potential environmental impact.) And significantly, as conditioned, these ditches will be maintained by the homeowner's association and therefore the city has no legal remedy for failure to maintain. PRECEDENT City staff has informed us, that to their knowledge, this will be the first PD rezoning within an established R-1 neighborhood. The project's small size (1.01 acres) and odd shape make it difficult to provide adequate usable open space, meet existing development standards, provide necessary parking and ensure compatibility with the existing neighborhood. In addition, the use of a roadway to increase the usability of the project does not add to, but actually detracts, from the livability of the project (i.e. paving materials account for between 60 and 65% of the front yard on several if not all of the lots). If this type of development is used as a standard it will set a precedent and existing patterns and desirability of R-1 neighborhoods will be significantly diminished. We believe sites should be carefully selected for these projects and should be consistent with LU 2.14 (Neighborhood Compatibility) Further review of this project and its impacts to the existing neighborhood and the impacts of the PD rezoning in the R-1 zone should be studied more thoroughly. Sincerely yours, Cydney Holcomb Chairperson, RQN 1795 McCollum Street Proiect/Alternative #1, Flag Lot MC COLLUM STREET 20--Q- ACCESS \` CASENCNT Lm L L¢r it iltr\a 6277 SF wo) 637, SF 6277 S7` 8361 Sr (GROSS) L 6 \\\\ $ g 5 LUr 4 LIR a 6307 Sf (NEL 6953 Sr 7105 SF (GROSS) W 6 -----. ---- FREDERICKS EEC + iaf<< YI' j JL �r (I.•1r:� t'il. F� • • r ��N r, + /J Il1'if'`1 �I b�� 1\�'�. " __ _ t y ``/�n�r•�a. • A •'�" F��`I° v��,res ;yt, �4 iy,•p >. ! b' I iRxq. p�y • UU S --—I � r114 ..fE r •r ���'ij�klr�±tt�c d- qq Mil. L N Rezoning Exhibit A 50 0 50 100 150 r r o �S!<it�t, I��;�:, . • •• • " � , ��iA, �41��.{:��S i�'�h wr1���yp� Ilia 4- c �Lx ret �•K,+���� y.v�r. .f 1°r>Er "h ,[41+�r:r rp�l \'�• I' �a /t�� n. r•, r .Vt F M1 , s , �nf� ,r r t�. re�itiy�•,. \R�I ISI.d�eul r 7.p21i;n r r i rplyValt� '�` r r. n� -14 r Rezoning / ,-1 Pacheco School Hays EjdWM R-1; Pmposed R-1-PD E 7-J McCOLLUM 96Z f M I o9j.. tat 1191 Ice 44 - 1646 166016 761692 632 1706 1740 Hope FREDERICr%o 1 116 1661 C 11- 5 NT5,;611,1-5 14,.4`5� L Rezoning Exhibit A - PD 189-00 1795 McCollum 60 0 SD IW 150 Fed i�� t �illllllll I IIS��������il IIII Ih�IIII I � II city of sW> OBISPO 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 May 25, 2001 Patrick and Allison Aurignac 1410 Marsh Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 SUBJECT: 1795 McCollum Dear Mr. and Mrs. Aurignac: The San Luis Obispo City Council will hold a public hearing to consider a nine-lot subdivision, environmental review and planned development rezoning for a proposed development at 1795 McCollum. The meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, June 5,2001, beginning at 7`.00 p.m. in the Council Chamber at City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo. Other hearings may be held before or after this item. Please know that if you challenge this action in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City Council at, or prior to, the public hearing. For additional information or questions concerning this item, please contact the Community Development Department at 781-7169. The Council agenda report with recommendation by staff will be sent to you on the Wednesday before the meeting.. Please call the City Clerk's Office at 781-7102 if you would prefer to pick up the agenda report.. Since; /Lee Price,Price, CMC City Clerk cc: Helen McManus, 1126 San Ricardo Court, Solana Beach, CA 92075 Hamish.Marshall, 1880 Santa Barbara, Suite F, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Michael Codron 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. ����;��;�►►���i��i�i���i��I►�illl{1�����!► ����� III II city osAn tuis omspo 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 May 25, 2001 CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE AURIGNAC PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REZONING AND TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP(PD/TR/ER 189-00) 1795 MCCOLLUM The San Luis Obispo City Council will hold a public hearing regarding the Aurignac Planned Development Rezoning and Tentative Subdivision Map(PD/TR/ER 189-00) 1795 McCollum. The Public Hearing portion of the meeting will be held on Tuesday,June 5,2001 beginning at 7:00 p.m.in the Council Chamber at City Hall,990 Palm Street. The public is welcome to attend and comment. Written comments are encouraged. Other items may be discussed before or after this item. Please know that if you challenge this action in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised during the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City Council at, or prior to, the public hearing. The agenda report,including recommendation by staff, will be available for review in the City Clerk's Office (Room#1 of City Hall)the Wednesday before the meeting. For more information,please contact Michael Codron in the Community Development Department at 781-7169. L Lee Price, C. C. City Clerk 1795 McCollum TR 189-00 OThe City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services, programs and activities. ON Telecommunications Device for the Deaf (805) 781-7410. COUNCIL AGENDA TRANSMITTAL FORM ORIGINATED BY: Michael Codron, Associate Planner MEETING DATE: June 5, 2001 SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF A NINE LOT SUBDMSION, ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW AND PLANNED DEVELOPMENT (PD) REZONING, FOR A PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT TO INCLUDE SEVEN NEW SINGLE FAMILY HOMES (TR, ER, PD 189-00). PLEASE NOTIFY: hester and Dorothy Brunson _ 1692 Fredericks Street SLO, CA 93405 oney Ledford ' 1706 Fredericks Street SLO, CA 93405 SLO, CA 93401 � Cooper Missie Hobson 0 Grand Avenue 1717 Wilson Street SLO, CA 93405 SLO, CA 93401 /Karen Adler Tom Kay 1676 Fredericks Street 369 Chaplin Drive SLO, CA 93405 SLO, CA 93405 Oscar and Nettie Dodds Cydney Holcomb 1405 Slack Street 2076 Hays Street SLO, CA 93405 SLO, CA 93405 Lois Greenall Carol Winger 1631 Fredericks Street 2041 Hays Street SLO, CA 93405 SLO, CA 93405 Ken and Norma. Jones Gordon Balla 1646 Fredericks Street 1740 Fredericks Street SLO, CA 93405 SLO, CA 93405 Brian Christensen 818 Pismo Street - - - FILE#:189-00 FILE NUMBER:189-00 FILE NUMBER:489-00 Residents for Quality Neighborhoods OCCUPANT OCCUPANT P.0.Box 12604 296 ALBERT 1616 FREDERICKS San Luis Obispo,CA 93406 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-1925 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-2004 FILE NUMBER:189-00 FILE NUMBER:189-00 FILE NUMBER:189-00 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 1632 FREDERICKS 1633 FREDERICKS 1646 FREDERICKS SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405.2004 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-2003 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-2004 FILE NUMBER:189-00 FILE NUMBER: 189-00 FILE NUMBER:189-00 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 1660 FREDERICKS 1676 FREDERICKS 1692 FREDERICKS SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-2004 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-2004 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405=2004 FILE NUMBER:189-00 FILE NUMBER:189-00 FILE NUMBER:189-00 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 1701 FREDERICKS 1706 FREDERICKS 1739 FREDERICKS SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-2005 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-2006 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-2005 FILE NUMBER:189-00 FILE NUMBER:189-00 FILE.NUMBER: 189-00 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 1740 FREDERICKS 1760 FREDERICKS 165 GRAND SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-2006 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-2006 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-2007 FILE NUMBER:189-00 FILE NUMBER:189-00 FILE.NUMBER:189-00 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 250 GRAND 251 GRAND 254 GRAND SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-2010 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-2009 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-2010 FILE NUMBER:189-00 FILE NUMBER:189-00 FILE NUMBER:189-00 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 285 GRAND 292 GRAND 300 GRAND SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-2009 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-2010 SAN.LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-2012 FILE NUMBER: 189-00 FILE NUMBER:189-00 FILE NUMBER:189-00 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 311 GRAND 323 GRAND 346 GRAND SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-2011 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-2011 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-2012 FILE NUMBER:189-00 FILE NUMBER:189-00 FILE NUMBER:189-00 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 353 GRAND 378 GRAND 395 GRAND SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-2011 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-2012 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-2011 t FILE NUMBER:189-00 FILE NUMBER:18940 FILE NUMBER:189-00 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 410 GRAND 411 GRAND 430 GRAND SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-2014 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405=2013 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-2014 FILE NUMBER:189-00 FILE NUMBER:189-00 FILE NUMBER:189-00 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 433 GRAND# 1 433 GRAND# 2 1621 MCCOLLUM SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-2013 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-2013 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-2037 FILE NUMBER:189-00 FILE NUMBER:189-00 FILE NUMBER: 189-00 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 1647 MCCOLLUM 1661 MCCOLLUM 1677 MCCOLLUM SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-2037 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-2037 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-2037 FILE NUMBER:189-00 FILE NUMBER:189.00 052-324-013/FILE#:189-00 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT ADLER KAREN LFAMILY TRUST 1861 MCCOLLUM 1865 MCCOLLUM %KAREN L ADLER SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-2041 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-2041 1676 FREDERICKS ST SLO CA 93405-2004 052-114.003/FILE#:189-00 052-225-002/FILE#:189-00 .052-224-017/FILE#189-00 AURIGNAC PATRICK&ALISON BAILEY MARIAN L BALLA GORDON L TRE ETAL 1410 MARSH ST PO BOX 712794 1740 FREDERICKS ST SLO CA 93401-2950 SANTEE CA 92072- SLO CA 93401- 052-224-007/FILE#:189-00 052-324-004/FILE#:189-00 052-116-020/FILE#189-00 BEAUMONT RICHARD A TRE_S ETUX BILLINGSLEY DAVID B TRE ETAL BLAKE JED B&-KAREN S 61 LOGAN LANE 998 LAS PALMAS WAY 292 GRAND AVE MONTEREY CA 93940-0402 SLO CA 93401-8295 SLO CA 93401-2638 052324-0021FILE#:189-00 052-224-004/FILE#:189.00 052-324-016/FILE#:189-00 BLEVINS KENNETH M&JUDY M BROMLEY J PHILIP TRE ETAL BRUNSON CA&DJ 807 STRATFORD DR PO BOX 945 1692 FREDERICK ENCINITAS CA 92024- SLO CA 93406-0945 SLO CA 93405-2004 052-324-015/FILE#189-00 052-117-009/FILE#189-00 052.116-006/FILE#:189-00 CENTRAL COAST NEUROBEHAVIOUR CENTER COOPER ALBERT C TRE ETAL FRENCH GEORGE 0 TRE ETAL 1693 MCCOLLUM 300 GRAND AVE 125 LONGVIEW LN SLO CA 93405-2037 SLO CA 93405-2012 SLO CA 93405.1433 052-225-013/FILE#:189-00 052324-009/FILE#:189-00 052-116-016/FILE#:189-00 GIBSON KEITH P&KIMBERLY GRAHAM GLENN N&BERNICE M GRAVES BETTY I TRE ETAL 1633 FREDERICKS ST 1616 FREDERICKS ST 2253 DEL CAMPO BLVD SLO CA 93405-2003 SLO CA 93405-2004 SLO CA 93401.4507 052-231-008/FILE#:189-00 052-324-003/FILE#:189-00 052-324-011/FILE#:189-00 GREEN MILDRED H TRE JOHNSTON KENNETH E ETUX JONES KENNETH R TRE 430 GRAND AVE 1661 MCCOLLUM ST 1646 FREDERICKS ST SLO CA 93401- SAN LUIS OBISPO CA 93405-2037 SLO CA 93401- 062-324-012/FILE#:189-00 052-724-014/FILE#:189-00 052-021-025/FILE#189-00 KEEP ROGER L TRE ETAL LEDFORD TONEY A ETAL LEIGHTY RAYMOND V JR 1660 FREDERICKS ST 1706 FREDERICKS ST 296 ALBERT DR SLO CA 93405-2004 SLO CA 93405-2006 SLO CA 93405-1925 052-117-010/FILE#:189-00 052-224-021/FILE#:189-00 052-225-010/FILE#:189-00 LISEKAMELIA M_CMANUS HELEN A TRE MT CARMEL LUTHERN CHURCH A CA NP 346 GRAND AVE 1126 SAN RICARDO CT 1701 FREDERICKS ST SLO CA 93401- SOLANA BEACH CA 92075- SAN LUIS OBISPO CA 93401-2099 052-225-014/FILE#189-00 052-324-005/FILE#:189-00 052-231-011/Fl LE#:189-00 OCONNOR EUGENE L TRE OPSTAD LORRAINE J TRE PARRISH DUDLEY B 1661 FREDERICKS 1631 MCCOLLUM 410 GRAND AVE SLO CA 93401- SLO CA 93405-2037 SLO CA 93401- 052-114-001/FILE 3401-052-114-001/FILE#:189-00 052-324-010/FILE#:189-00 052-224-008/FILE#189-00 SAN LUIS COASTAL UNIFIED SCHOOL DIST SHEAHAN FRANCIS&SANDRA P VAUGHAN JAMES P 1499 SAN LUIS DRIVE PO BOX 1442 395 GRAND AVE SLO CA 93401-3099 SLO CA 93406-1442 SLO CA 93405-2011 052-024-006/FILE4189-00 052-117-011/FILE#189-00 WILEY J BARRON ETAL WILSON GRANT L 55 BROAD ST#235 378 GRAND AVE SLO CA 93405-1701 SLO CA 93401- I I r 05/24/01 • 13:18:36 Sstendah Label List �.. Page 2 Occupants 100 meters File Number: ARC 189-00 Source Address: 1795 MCCOLLUM ST ARC Owners 100 meters BALLA GORDON L TRE ETAL 1740 FREDERICKS ST BEAUMONT RICHARD A TRES ETUX 61 LOGAN LANE(for 1760 FREDERICKS) BILLINGSLEY DAVID B TRE ETAL 998 LAS PALMAS WAY(for 1647 MCCOLLUM) BLAKE JED B&KAREN S 292 GRAND AVE BLEVINS KENNETH M&JUDY M 807 STRATFORD DR(for 1677 MCCOLLUM) BROMLEY J PHILIP TRE ETAL PO BOX 945(for 323 GRAND) BROMLEY J PHILIP TRE ETAL_ PO BOX 945(for 353 GRAND) duplicate BRUNSON CA&DJ 1692 FREDERICK CENTRAL COAST NEUROBEHAVIOUR 1693 MCCOLLUM COOPER ALBERT C TRE ETAL 300 GRAND AVE FRENCH GEORGE O TRE ETAL 125 LONGVIEW LN(for 250 GRAND) GIBSON KEITH P&KIMBERLY 1633 FREDERICKS ST GRAHAM GLENN N&BERNICE M 1616 FREDERICKS ST GRAVES BETTY I TRE ETAL 2253 DEL CAMPO BLVD(for 254 GRAND) GREEN MILDRED H TRE 430 GRAND AVE JOHNSTON KENNETH E ETU_X 1661 MCCOLLUM ST JONES KENNETH R TRE 1646 FREDERICKS ST KEEP ROGER L TRE ETAL 1660 FREDERICKS ST LEDFORD TONEY A ETAL 1.706 FREDERICKS ST LEIGHTY RAYMOND V JR 296 ALBERT DR LISEK AMELIA 346 GRAND AVE MCMANUS HELEN A TRE 1126 SAN RICARDO CT(for 1795 MCCOLLUM) MCMANUS HELEN A TRE 1126 SAN RICARDO CT(for 1797 MCCOLLUM) duplicate MCMANUS HELEN A TRE 1126 SAN RICARDO CT(for 311 GRAND) duplicate MCMANUS HELEN TRE 1126 SAN RICARDO CT(for 1720 FREDERICKS) duplicate MOUNT CARMEL.LUTHERAN CHURCH OF 1701 FREDERICKS ST duplicate MT CARMEL LUTHERAN CHURCH A CA NP 1701 FREDERICKS ST(for 433 GRAND) duplicate MT CARMEL LUTHERN CHURCH A CA NP 1701 FREDERICKS ST OCONNOR EUGENE L TRE 1661 FREDERICKS OPSTAD LORRAINE J TRE 1,631 MCCOLLUM PARRISH DUDLEY B 410 GRAND AVE SAN LUIS COASTAL UNIFIED SCHOOL 1499 SAN LUIS DRIVE(for 165 GRAND) SHEAHAN FRANCIS&SANDRA P PO BOX 1442(for 1632 FREDERICKS) VAUGHAN JAMES P 395 GRAND AVE WILEY J BARRON ETAL 55 BROAD ST#235(for 1621 MCCOLLUM) WILSON GRANT L 378 GRAND AVE 71 labels printed on 05/24/01 at 13:18:36 by Sstendah. l 05/24/01 13:18:36 Sstendah Label List Page 1 Occupants 100 meters File Number:- ARC 189-00 Source Address: 1795 MCCOLLUM ST ARC Owners 100 meters Residents for Quality Neighborhoods P.0.Box 12604(for Occupants OCCUPANT 296 ALBERT OCCUPANT 1616 FREDERICKS OCCUPANT 1632 FREDERICKS OCCUPANT 1633 FREDERICKS OCCUPANT 1646 FREDERICKS OCCUPANT 1660 FREDERICKS OCCUPANT 1661 FREDERICKS duplicate OCCUPANT 1678 FREDERICKS OCCUPANT 1692 FREDERICKS OCCUPANT 1701 FREDERICKS OCCUPANT 1706 FREDERICKS OCCUPANT 1720 FREDERICKS non-mail OCCUPANT 1739 FREDERICKS OCCUPANT 1740 FREDERICKS OCCUPANT 1760 FREDERICKS OCCUPANT 165 GRAND OCCUPANT 250 GRAND OCCUPANT 251 GRAND OCCUPANT 254 GRAND OCCUPANT 285 GRAND OCCUPANT 292 GRAND OCCUPANT 300 GRAND OCCUPANT 311GRAND OCCUPANT 323 GRAND OCCUPANT 346 GRAND OCCUPANT 353 GRAND OCCUPANT 378 GRAND OCCUPANT 395 GRAND OCCUPANT 410 GRAND OCCUPANT 411GRAND OCCUPANT 430 GRAND OCCUPANT 433 GRAND non-mail OCCUPANT 433 GRAND# 1 OCCUPANT 433 GRAND# 2 OCCUPANT 1621 MCCOLLUM OCCUPANT 1631 MCCOLLUM duplicate OCCUPANT 1647 MCCOLLUM OCCUPANT 1661 MCCOLLUM OCCUPANT 1677 MCCOLLUM OCCUPANT 1693 MCCOLLUM duplicate OCCUPANT 1740 MCCOLLUM non-mail OCCUPANT 1760 MCCOLLUM non-mail OCCUPANT 1795 MCCOLLUM non-mail OCCUPANT 1797 MCCOLLUM non-mail OCCUPANT 1861 MCCOLLUM OCCUPANT 1865 MCCOLLUM Owners ADLER KAREN L FAMILY TRUST %KAREN L ADLER 1676 FREDERICKS ST AURIGNAC PATRICK&AL_ISON 1410 MARSH ST(for 285 GRAND) BAILEY MARIAN L PO BOX 712794(for 411 GRAND) o PD 189-00 Request to change zoning on property from R-1 to R-1-PD. ARC 189-00 Review of house designs and site development plans for new subdivision. TR 189-00 Tentative map creating a 9-lot residential subdivision with development of 7 new single-family homes ER 189-00 Initial Study of potential environmental impacts associated with a proposed residential subdivision. .. . 1 O i N t i ;ii?!'°:'i'!;`:;{'i?i2;r:C`j'I[jS;}4;:i<:;i•;::;.. :. ....... . Solid = Owner and Occupant Diagonal Lines= Occupant Only Cross Hatch = Owner Only CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO GEODATA SERVICES 955 MORRO STREET SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401 805 781-7157 05/24/01 13:18 De rtme�nt of Communit ;velo ment City of San Luis Obispo a p . S p 990 Palm Street Planning Application San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 (805) 781-7172 Project Address 1795 MCCOLLUM Parcel# 052-224-021 Legal Description CY SLO PHILLIP SYN ADD PTN BL 20&ABD STS Zoning 1 R.1 Zoning 2 Property Owner MCMANUS HELEN A TRE In Care Of Owner Address 1.126 SAN RICARDO CT SOLANA BEACH CA 92075- Applicant Name PATRICK&ALLISON AURIGNAC Day Phone(805)783-1000 Address 1410 MARSH ST.,SAN LUIS OBISPO.CA 93401 Representative HAMISH MARSHALL Day Phone(805)5443557 Address 1880 SANTA BARBARA ST,STE. F,SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401 Send correspondence to X applicant X representative owner other(see file) Application made pursuant to Chapter/Section of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code. Planning Services Summary Application# Type of Application Received Fee ER 189-00 Initial Study of potential environmental impacts 12/14/00 $1,234 associated with a proposed residential subdivision. TR 189-00 Tentative map creating a 9-lot residential TR2419 10 12/14/00 $6,745 subdivision with development of 7 new single-family homes ARC 189-00 Review of house designs and site development 12/14/00 $1,375 plans for new subdivision. PD 189-00 Request m change zoning on property from R-1 12/14/00 $4,459 to R-1-PD. Total fees $13,813 Received By PAM RICCI Fee Paid by Applicant (9,364) Representative (4,459) Assigned planner MICHAEL CODRON Hearings ER PC Hearing 04125/01 TR PC Hearing 04/25/01 ARC Arch.Review 02/20/01 PD PC Hearing 04/25/01