The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About10/16/2001, PH5 - CONSIDERATION OF (1) A PROJECT TO DEVELOP AN EIGHTEEN UNIT CONDOMINIUM SUBDIVISION AND (2) THE MIT council MeetinaDctelpl/b D! j acEnc)a 12Epo12t Ilcm Nem�� CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO FROM: John Mandeville,Community Development Director Prepared By: Michael Codron,Associate Plannh�g SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF (1) A PROJECT TO DEVELOP AN EIGHTEEN UNIT CONDOMINIUM SUBDIVISION AND (2) THE MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE PROJECT (3051 AUGUSTA STREET; TR, ER 115-00). CAO RECOMMENDATION Adopt attached Resolution "A" approving the proposed tentative tract map and mitigated negative declaration as recommended by the Planning Commission. DISCUSSION Situation/Previous Review The applicant has submitted a proposal to develop an eighteen unit residential condominium project in the High Density Residential (R-4) zone. The project was originally reviewed by the Planning Commission on October 25, 2000. At that time the applicant had proposed to develop nine single-family homes on the project site. The Planning Commission did not support the original subdivision design and continued the project, providing direction to the applicant to redesign the project to take better advantage of the density possible with the zoning of the site. The Planning Commission reviewed the current proposal on August 8, 2001, and, on a 7-0 vote, forwarded a recommendation to the City Council to approve the proposed subdivision and mitigated negative declaration, based on findings and subject to conditions of approval as outlined in Planning Commission Resolution No. 5316-01 (Attachment 3). On September 17, 2001, the Architectural Review Commission reviewed the proposed building designs. On a 6-0 vote (Commissioner Howard absent), the ARC approved the project based on findings and subject to conditions as outlined in the ARC action letter dated September 21, 2001 (Attachment 5). Data Summary Address: 3051 Augusta Street Applicant/Property Owner: Augusta Partners, LLC Representatives: Hamish Marshall, Oasis Associates, Inc., Ernie Kim Architect Zoning/General Plan: R-4, High Density Residential Environmental status: A Mitigated Neg. Dec. was approved by the Director on July 25, 2001. s'� Council Agenda Report TR, ER, 115-00 (3051 Augusta) Page 2 Site Description The 35,521 square foot site is generally rectangular in shape and slopes down approximately five meters from Augusta Street to the rear of the property. The site is vacant and devoid of any significant vegetation. The most recent use of the property was for employee parking for the adjacent residential care facility on Augusta Street. Adjacent land uses include residential care facilities, a City fire station, an insurance office and a community garden. The surrounding neighborhood includes single family residences, apartments, condominiums, a neighborhood commercial center, and an industrial development occupied by light manufacturing uses. Project Description The project is a map to subdivide an existing 35,519 square foot lot and develop fifteen 2- bedroom and three 3-bedroom condominium dwelling units. The homes are proposed to be developed in a town home configuration and would be accessed by a private driveway with a street-type entrance off of Augusta Street. Each home will have separate connections for water, sewer, gas, electricity and cable TV. The homes are two-story with parking in attached two-car garages. The project includes open space areas including a small garden plot with raised planter beds and a barbecue area covered with a trellis. The applicant is requesting a setback exception (per Section 17.16.020.E.2.c of the Zoning Regulations, attached) along the rear property line of the project, which would allow the proposed first level decks to extend from the rear of the units to the property line (0' setback where 5' is required). Normally decks on grade are exempt from setback requirements. In this case, the grade falls off at the rear of the site and the decks will be approximately 6 feet above the ground to be even with the finish floor elevation of the living space in the units. Evaluation The following is a discussion of the key components of the project proposal. The Planning Commission Agenda Report (Attachment 4) provides a more detailed analysis of most issue areas. The following also includes an overview of the Architectural Review Commission's action and the proposed mitigated negative declaration for the project. A. Required Findings The Subdivision Map Act lists the following seven findings for consideration by the approving body of any proposed subdivision. If any of these findings cannot be made,the Map Act requires the agency with discretion over the proposed map to deny the project. I. 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. �'Z Council Agenda Report TR, ER, 115-00 (3051 Augusta) Page 3 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. These findings were reviewed in detail by the Planning Commission. In each case, staff and the Planning Commission recommend additional qualifying statements to tailor the required findings to this particular project. For instance, the first finding recommended by staff and the Planning Commission reads, "The proposed map is consistent with the General Plan because the subdivision will allow for high-density residential development" (see Attachment 7). B. Density/Neighborhood Character The proposed project comes close to the maximum allowed density for the project site. With their original review of the project, the Planning Commission directed the applicant to redesign the project to take better advantage of the density possible with the zoning of the site.. The original proposal was for half as many dwellings in a detached, single-family home configuration. The Planning Commission ultimately supported a project that provides twice as many dwellings and more home ownership opportunities for residents of the City. The townhomes are consistent with the character of the surrounding development, which includes apartments, condominium units, and residential care facilities. The Planning Commission considered and recommended approval of a setback exception to allow decks on the first level of units 8, 9, 10 and 11 to extend to the property line. In recommending approval of the exception, the Planning Commission recommended that the ARC consider the treatment of the area between the existing retaining wall and the proposed deck. The ARC approved a landscaping treatment for this area, consisting of a native rosemary species that would grow over the wall and provide a soft transition to the decks (see Site Sections on sheet PC-2 of the project plans, included with this agenda report). C. Parking The Planning Commission discussed parking in detail. During their discussion on the motion to recommend approval of the subdivision, the Planning Commission calculated the number of parking spaces required for the project. They determined that the total number of spaces required is 42. The following table describes how the parking requirement was calculated by the Planning Commission. r-3 Council Agenda Report TR, ER, 115-00 (3051 Augusta) Page 4 Unit Type Required S aces Provided Spaces 15 2-bedroom units 2 spaces/unit= 30 spaces 30 3 3-bedroom units 2.5 spaces/unit= 8 spaces 8 Guest Parking 1 space per 5 units=4 spaces 4 Total Required Parkin =42 spaces 42 spaces are provided The Planning Commission determined the number of parking spaces required for the project and made a recommendation to the ARC to consider the placement of the parking spaces. The Commission was concerned that the parking proposed in front of the barbecue area would limit the usefulness of this area. As a result, the applicant revised the project plans to relocate one of the guest parking spaces to the area between units 14 and 15 prior to ARC review of the development plans. The ARC approved the revised parking concept, as shown on the plans included with this agenda report. D. Architectural Review The Architectural Review Commission approved the project after significant discussion of the proposed building design, landscaping and pedestrian paths. At one point the ARC voted on a motion to require additional noise analysis as part of the environmental review. The concern of the motion-maker was that the project would impact adjacent residential care facilities by generating excessive noise. Staff was concerned with the motion because the General Plan does not contain environmental standards for noise generated by residential uses, as this type of noise would tend to fluctuate depending on the particular occupants of any dwelling. The City's Noise Ordinance contains standards for maximum noise levels generated by people, and is enforced by the Police Department on a complaint basis. The motion failed on a 3-3 vote (Commrs. Lopes, Novak, and Chairman Stevenson voting yes; Commrs. Rawson, Schultz and Boudreau voting no; Commr. Howard absent). The ARC ultimately approved the project on a 6-0 vote. The ARC believes that the building design is compatible with the site and with structures on adjacent properties, given the dimensions of the lot. The ARC was somewhat concerned with the tunnel effect that might be created by having two-story structures on either side of the driveway, but ultimately decided that the dimensions of the project site provide little alternative and that the design of the buildings responds well to this constraint. E. Fire Truck Turnaround The architectural site plan and the landscape concept plan show a fire truck turnaround at the northeast property corner. The applicant has agreed to dedicate land or provide easements to the City Fire Department to accommodate this turn around. The turn around is necessary for emergency response vehicles to be able to enter and exit the fire station site as efficiently as possible. The Architectural Review Commission discussed the proposed treatment of the wall adjacent to the tum around as part of their review of the project. The Noise section of the Initial Study (Attachment 6) provides a discussion of the potential nuisance noise levels generated by the normal operations of the fire station. A mitigation measure is recommended to insure substantial noise protection for interior spaces and notification of future property owners of the fire department's presence. s-y Council Agenda Report TR, ER, 115-00 (3 051 Augusta) Page 5 F. Inclusionary Housing The applicant will be meeting the City's Inclusionary Housing Requirement by providing one affordable dwelling unit on site and by paying an in-lieu fee for one unit. The type of affordable unit that would be provided on-site was not specified to the Planning Commission. Staff had assumed that the applicant proposed to offer the unit for sale. However, the applicant has recently requested that the on-site affordable unit be a rental. The developers of the project would retain ownership of the unit and would rent it based on the City's standard rental agreement for affordable housing, which has a 30 year term. G. Environmental Review The Community Development Director has recommended a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project. The recommendation and initial study are attached to this agenda report. Staff identified potentially significant effects of the project in the areas of noise and service systems (recycling). Many of the project's potential impacts are addressed by existing ordinances, such as the City's new Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Program. 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 have been incorporated into this report as conditions of approval or code requirements. ALTERNATIVES 1. The Council may deny the project. This action should be taken if any of the findings required by the Subdivision Map Act cannot be made. 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: Reduced Scale Subdivision Map Attachment 3: Planning Commission Resolution No. 5316-01 and minutes of Augusta 8, 2001 Attachment 4: Planning Commission Agenda Report for the meeting of August 8, 2001 Attachment 5: ARC Action Letter dated September 21, 2001 (ARC meeting minutes to be provided to Council at a later date) Attachment 6: Initial Study of Environmental Impact and Mitigated Negative Declaration Attachment 7: Draft Resolution "A"with the Planning Commission recommendation Attachment 8: Draft Resolution`B" denying the proposed tentative subdivision map Provided for Council: Full Size Subdivision Map, Grading and Drainage Plan, Architectural Plans YT R-1 r PF R-4 GNB, �R-1 WPD / �r 0 7R 2-PD _ 71 GN C-N 1 R-2 R-3 V'Ifvl-"*Itn[tY, 1 3051 Au usta g N 115=00 0 80 160 240 Feet S=G Attachment 2 p wuGV�� D a gi ie� iit1.2 ` Ilk YSgF SSSS;SS A2 • kS ? [: OSRLG€d JE �6CCa1z'�aa.4 Im: a E13 -X 5F D 4� m Cti- � r j O § la! El Eg CD I _ q 4 e 5 e al Q o ' �c 9 _ V��c m G f W P µO P W T Sj `'�Qp`(" W W Lu— Zz— ¢ s $z p¢ �p$a i a ■@E O �6' RL. •$ e84 § !48�{� µ al�R ° ' YS Z Q �Ya° q g dV t YAC - p + IF a 4X SP.R.RJ AP €§[ a e F R V RROA s*. (� 227) 7:$d i } 5 � fl3 ia. -.e f€a Y g Y Ye@ S-7 J—Attachment 2 h IHIE 1! Sp �t W a tv IN p Lb ................ alai a oil CL- pip B 1313B E3 03 Lo ---------- iL yy Lo Z_w uj OX 0 fit If JUST1,311 fill! 15r CC Attachment 3 ►�II�1fl�lllllll�IIIIIIII��@ulll►►IIII II�� omspoMjjNc,ty o san is 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 August 14, 2001 Augusta Partners, LLC. Hamish Marshall 1880 Santa Barbara Ave. Suite F San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 SUBJECT: TR and ER 115-00: 3051 Augusta Street Review of a tentative map for an 18-unit condominium subdivision; and environmental review Dear Mr. Marshall: The Planning Commission, at its meeting of August 8, 2001, recommended that the City Council approve the mitigated negative declaration and the tentative map with findings, mitigation measures, and conditions, as noted in the attached resolution. The Planning Commission also recommended that the Architectural Review Commission examine in particular the treatment of the elevation difference (retaining wall and deck-supporting wall) at the rear of the site, and the usability of the common open space areas, which are separated from the main pedestrian axis by parking spaces on current plans. 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 September 18, 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) 781-7274. Sincerely, cc: County of SLO Assessor's Office ohn Mandev'il�le, Director Community Development Resolution No. 5316-01 OThe City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in ail of its services, programs and activities. �� Telecommunications Device for the Deaf(805) 781-7410. �� Attachment 3 RESOLUTION NO. 5316-01 A RESOLUTION OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON 3051 AUGUSTA STREET TRIER 115-00 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on August 8, 2001, for the purpose of considering Application ER/TR 115-00, a condominium subdivision with 18 units; and WHEREAS, said public hearing was for the purpose of formulating and forwarding recommendations to the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo regarding the project; and. WHEREAS, notices of said public hearing were made at the time and in the manner required by law; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed and considered the Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impact and the mitigation monitoring program prepared for the project; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has duly considered all evidence, including the testimony of the applicant, interested parties, and the evaluation and recommendations by staff, presented at said hearing. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: Section 1. Findings. Based upon all the evidence, the Commission makes the following findings: 1. The proposed map is consistent with the General Plan because the subdivision will allow for high-density residential development. 2. As conditioned, the design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is consistent with the General Plan because each dwellings has access to a compact, private open space area and the development will occur as part of the neighborhood pattern. 3. The site is physically suited for the proposed type of development because it is an undeveloped, un-vegetated site that is adjacent to an existing street right-of-way. 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. Attachment 3 Resolution No. 5315-01 Page 2 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. 8. The proposed decks will not impact solar access for adjacent properties because the decks are located on the northern side of the adjacent senior care facility. 9. There is adequate separation of structures on adjacent lots because the closest structures on the adjacent senior care facility property are set back 20 feet from the property line and additional development is this area is not likely. 10. The Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project adequately identifies and evaluates the potential impacts associated with this project and where impacts are potentially significant, mitigation measures are provided to reduce these impacts to less than significant levels. Section 2. Environmental Review. The. Planning Commission does hereby recommend that the City Council adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project, with the following mitigation measures and monitoring program. 1. The Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions (CC&Rs) for the project shall include a provision to notify property owners within the project that nuisance noise levels may be experienced due to the normal operations of the Fire Department, to the approval of the Community Development Director and the Fire Marshall. Monitoring Program: The mitigation measure will be monitored through the Final Map plan check process. CC&R's are required to be approved for the project by the City Attorney, Public Works Director and Community Development Director. This review will provide an adequate opportunity for City staff to insure compliance with the requirement. 2. Plans submitted for a building permit application shall include construction measures for attenuation of interior noise levels based on the recommendations of a qualified noise consultant. Since there is no noise standard in the General Plan for sound generated by the operation of emergency vehicle equipment, and since the Fire Department is exempt from the standards contained in the Noise Ordinance, the noise consultant should base his or her recommendations on a reasonable level of sound attenuation given the characteristics of the noise. The recommendations of the noise consultant shall be reviewed and approved by the Attachment 3 Resolution No. 5315-01 Page 3 Community Development Director as part of the building permit plan check process for the project. Monitoring Program: The mitigation measure will be monitored through the building permit plan check process. The City's Noise Guidebook can be used to evaluate the effectiveness of the recommendations of the noise consultant for reducing interior noise. It is anticipated that the recommendations would include such items as sound rated windows on the rear elevations of these units, extra insulation, and baffled attic vents. 3. The final project shall be designed to include locations for the collection of recyclable materials and sufficient space shall be provided for each unit to store a waste wheeler for recycling service from the local garbage company. Monitoring Program: The mitigation measure will be monitored through the City's Architectural Review process. The applicant will be required to provide a detail drawing showing how the floor plans or site plans for each unit have been designed to accommodate waste wheelers for recycling and that the design complies with the requirements of the local garbage company. Section 3. Recommendation. The Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council approval of application ER/TR 115-00, subject to the following conditions. 1. The final map shall include a note that setback is not required for the first-level decks on units 8, 9, 10 and 11. 2. The proposed storm drain, both on-site and off-site, shall be privately owned and maintained by the Homeowners Association. The system shall be capable of conveying a 10-yr. (min.) design storm to Laurel Lane, with an improved 100-yr. storm "safe overflow route", to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works and Building Official. Offsite easements are required, to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director and Building Official. If the offsite drainage easements have not been acquired by the time of final map approval, the City shall lend its power of eminent domain, in accordance with the California Subdivision Map Act. All costs associated with this matter shall be at the cost of the subdivider. 3. The subdivider shall dedicate a public utility easement, 6 feet wide, across the portion of the property that is contiguous to the Augusta St. right-of-way. Easements for onsite public utilities and City water main and appurtenance purposes shall be provided to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director and the utility companies. 4. The subdivider shall dedicate a public street tree easement, 10 feet wide, across the Augusta Street frontage of the property. 5. The curb return radii at the Augusta Street driveway entrance may be modified at the discretion and to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works. S-/Z � Attachment 3 Resolution No. 5315-01 Page 4 6. The project 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. 7. All boundary monuments, lot corners and centerline intersections, BC's, EC's, etc., shall be tied to the City's Horizontal Control Network. At least two control points shall be used and a tabulation of the coordinates shall be submitted with the final map or parcel map. All coordinates submitted shall be based on the City coordinate system. A 3.5" diameter computer floppy disk, containing the appropriate data compatible with Autocad (Digital Interchange Format, DXF) for Geographic Information System (GIS) purposes, shall be submitted to the City Engineer. 8. 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 City Engineer. 9. Prior to approval of the public improvement plans, the developer's engineer shall submit a digital copy of the public improvement plans, signed and stamped by the engineer of record, to the Director of Public Works. All digital plans submitted to the City shall be compatible with the City's system (the current City format is Autocad, Digital Interchange Format, DXF, for Geographic Information System purposes). 10. Upon completion of the public improvements, an "as-built" version of the digital copy shall be submitted, which include any approved change of plan revisions, in addition to as-built tracings, prior to the City's acceptance of said improvements. 11. Applicant shall install a "street type" entrance to the driveway at Augusta Street, with sidewalk curb ramps on either side. Five (5) meters of red curb shall be installed on either side of driveway, extending from the back of each curb return. 12. Applicant shall provide short and long-term bicycle parking consistent with provisions of Section 17.16.060 of the Municipal Code and with standards contained within the 1993 Bicycle Transportation Plan. Project plans reviewed by the ARC shall show how these code requirements have been met. 13. A safe overflow will be required to convey runoff from this site to a safe point of disposal to the approval of the Chief Building Official. 14. Runoff from the adjacent property (East side) must be provided with a new disposal point due to the placement of retaining walls and fill in existing drainage courses. 15.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. S 13 Attachment 3 Resolution No. 5315-01 Page 5 16. The applicant shall pay Park In-Lieu Fees prior to recordation of the Final Map, consistent with SLO Municipal Code Section 16.40.080. 17. Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions (C.C.&R.$) are required, to the approval of the Community Development Director and the Public Works Director. 18. CC&R's for the project shall include a requirement that garages be available for parking vehicles and general storage in garages shall not prevent parking of two vehicles. 19. The applicant shall provide at least 10 enclosed bicycle spaces. 20. The CC&R's shall include a provision that, in the two-bedroom units, the space labeled "family play area" shall not be converted to a third bedroom. 21. Applicant shall designate common open space areas as gathering spaces (with the actual facilities to be flexible; residents' participation in deciding the specific use is encouraged). 22. Applicant shall explore how to provide adequate space for trash and recycling storage 23. Applicant shall provide porches or other entry features facing the street, for the units closest to Augusta Street. On motion by Commr. Cooper, seconded by Commr. Loh, and on the following roll call vote to wit: AYES: Commrs.Caruso, Osborne, Cooper, Peterson, Loh, Aiken and Boswell NOES: None REFRAIN: None ABSENT: None The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 8th day of August 2001. / onald Whisenand, Secretary tanning Commission by: John Mandeville, Director Community Development S�7 Attachment 3 DRAFT SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 8, 2001 CALL TO ORDER/PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The San Luis Obispo Planning Commission was called to order at 7:10 ednesday, August 8, 2001, in the City Hall Council Chamber, 990 Palm Street, Luis Obispo, California. ROLL CALL: Present: Commissioners Allan Cooper, James Ca Jim Aiken, Michael Boswell, Orval Osborne, Vice Chairwoman AI' Loh, and Chairman Stephen Peterson. Absent: None. Staff: Recording Secretary Iren Pierce, Associate Planner Glen Matteson, Deputy Community Dev pment Director Ron Whisenand, Assistant City Att/_eas and Community Development Director John Ma ACCEPTANCE The agenda wasd. APPROVAL OF The Minute July 25, 2001, were accepted as corrected: that Commissioner Orville Osborne s present.; Page 2, Commissioner Caruso refrained from participation due to a po tial conflict of interest. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1. 3051 Augusta Street TR and ER 115-00; Review of a tentative map for an 18-unit condominium subdivision; and environmental review; R-4 zone; LLC applicant. Augusta Partners. Associate Planner Glen Matteson presented the staff report and recommended that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the subdivision and Mitigated Negative Declaration to the City Council based on findings and subject to conditions. Commr. Cooper expressed concerns about the handicap accessible units, and asked if there were two units in this development to come under that requirement. .S'/S Draft Planning Commissions rtes Attachment 3 August 8, 2001 Page 2 Commr. Aiken noted that the handicap accessibility issue only comes into play when there are three or more units within the same building. Single-family residences would be exempt, even if attached. Commr. Cooper stated that there is an innovative proposal requiring the garages be kept free of storage to allow vehicle parking. He asked if staff has explored an alternative requirement of augmenting the bicycle parking requirements above and beyond what City standards require. Associate Planner Matteson was not aware of any staff work along those lines. Commr. Cooper asked if there was a precedent for requiring more parking. Associate Planner Matteson did not recall any precedent to address this specific concern, but noted limited opportunity for on street parking. Commr. Caruso expressed concern about the lack of provision for trash and recycling. Commr. Caruso asked about the treatment of the decks at the rear property line. He questioned if anyone would be affected by the view. Deputy Director Whisenand stated that the retaining wall will go slightly above the existing grade, with some lattice treatment as part of the deck design to provide screening. He noted this issue will be addressed by the ARC. Vice-Chairwoman Loh noted there are no trash collectors and no children's playground. Associate Planner Matteson noted a recommendation that there be some provision for trash and recycling. He stated there is no requirement for a project of this type to have facilities specifically for children to play. Vice-Chairwoman Loh asked if they were paying in-lieu fee or if they are designating which unit is low-cost. Deputy Director Whisenand replied that he would like to confirm this with Mr. Marshall when he is doing his presentation. Vice-Chairwoman Loh asked if two of the parking spaces could be eliminated to provide for a combination green space and children's playground area. Associate Planner Glen Matteson stated that could be a possibility. Commr. Aiken commented on the overflow of parking on the streets. Commr. Boswell commented on the number of required parking spaces. His calculation was 43 spaces are required. Draft Planning CommissionC rtes Attachment 3 August 8, 2001 Page 3 Associate Planner Glen Matteson stated the requirement is 1-1/2 spaces for the first bedroom and '/ a space for each additional bedroom in a dwelling, plus one space for each five dwellings for guests. After much discussion the conclusion was 42 parking spaces are required. Chairman Peterson stated he was pleased with the project and the responsiveness of the applicant. He asked about the adequate usable outdoor areas for the project and he felt that the project didn't comply with design elements that facilitate neighborhood interactions, such as front porches, front yards along streets and entryways facing public walkways. Deputy Director Whisenand stated that the usable outdoor space is in question as to whether or not it is adequate because some of the spaces provided have fairly steep topography. Associate Planner Matteson stated that according to the site plan, Unit 1 shows a different type of entry, which has more of a residential street presentation, and it may be possible to alter the design of Unit 18, to give it more of a front yard character. Chairman Peterson stated that the condominium project that was approved on Foothill Boulevard has a similar design, with the central alleyway having units on both sides. Deputy Director Whisenand replied that there was another recent application that Mr. Kim was involved in on McCollum Street where there was a desire to have the end units have a front entrance off of McCollum Street, not just the private street that was being created. There were no other comments or questions at this time and the public comment session was opened. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Hamish Marshall, 1880 Santa Barbara Avenue, applicant, felt this is a great design for a somewhat difficult site. The surrounding neighborhood is nursing homes, apartments, and condominiums. He felt the commission wants to see a high-density project, mainly apartments and condominiums. Mr. Marshall commented that the street is narrow. He noted that they changed the rooflines, window treatments, and siding, to create a different appearance for each unit. He further noted the front doors are recessed and that each unit is designed with a single-story element so that the structures aren't so massive. Mr. Marshall displayed some photographs of the project directly across Augusta, which is the same concept as this project. It is a T-junction attached condominium project that has two-car ga_ rages at the front. They have also used one-story elements and planters at the front of garages. This particular project does not have a closed-in feeling like the one on Foothill Boulevard. `/7 S Attachment 3 Draft Planning Commission ', rtes August 8, 2001 ` Page 4 Mr. Marshall stated that they would be using a stamped concrete to make a courtyard appearance as you drive into it, making it more pedestrian friendly. He commented on the parking issue, noting that in controlled environments with CC&R's that are enforced, people use their parking area for parking, not for storage. He felt.this project provides on-site recreational areas. Mr. Marshall commented that housing is not very affordable in San Luis Obispo. He commented that they are providing affordable housing at a rate of 5% low- and 5% moderate-income. The total requirement is 1.8; they will provide one affordable unit on site and the remainder will be paid as an in-lieu fee. He felt this project would be a good addition to the neighborhood. Commr. Cooper calculated that if all 15 two-bedroom units had put in a four-hundred- dollar expenditure for a demising wall to create third bedrooms, the project would be 7- 1/2 parking spaces short. He commented on the possibility of increasing bike storage to 10 spaces or more, with the possibility of some enclosed storage areas. Mr. Marshall replied that they could provide more bicycle parking spaces. Commr. Cooper asked if there was a possibility that people would pay that four- hundred-dollars and put up a couple of studs and some dry wall and end up with a three-bedroom unit. Mr. Marshall answered that they could prohibit that type of work with requirements in their CC&R's. Vice-Chairwoman Loh asked who is checking or reading the CC&R's in reference to the design issues. Deputy Director Ronald Whisenand responded that the City Attorney's office and Community Development Department staff review the CC&R's. Vice-Chairwoman Loh asked how they can ensure that the garage is going to be maintained as a garage and not converted to an extra bedroom. Deputy Director Ronald Whisenand replied that language in the CC&R's would address this issue. Vice-Chairwoman Loh asked Mr. Marshall about the solid waste compartment and the children's playground. Mr. Marshall addressed the waste component, noting they have designed the garages to provide for recycling and trash. Trash collectors will drive down the private street. Mr. Marshall did not believe this would be a problem. In response to the children's playground, he felt it is not appropriate in this particular project. 9-14F Draft Planning Commission , ,tes J Attachment 3 August 8, 2001 Page 5 Ernie Kim, project architect, commented that there are some issues pertaining to the construction of the deck. He stated that the deck is not going to be right on the property line and it will not feel as tall as it actually is. Chairman Peterson asked about having the front units face Augusta Street. Mr. Kim stated that units 1 and 18 will have entrances facing Augusta Street. Chairman Peterson asked how much the condominiums would sell for. Mr. Marshall replied within the middle two-hundred-thousand dollar range. Seeing no further speakers some forward, the public comment session was closed. COMMISSION COMMENT: Commissioner Cooper moved to recommend the City Council approve of the proposed tentative map and mitigated negative declaration, based on recommended findings, and subiect to conditions of approval with the addition of two conditions; that a minimum of 10 enclosed bike storage spaces be provided; that the CC&R's for the project shall include a requirement that the family play area in the two bedroom unit shall not be converted into a third bedroom. Vice- Chairwoman Loh seconded the motion. Commr. Caruso asked if they want to consider adding a provision in the CC&R's regarding the use of garages for keeping two automobiles. Vice-Chairwoman Loh asked if the 6-foot raised backyard deck should be included in the same motion, or should this be an issue for ARC to consider? Deputy Director Ronald Whisenand replied that it was up to the Commission. He was unsure of the direction the Commission was looking for, and suggested they discuss this among themselves to see if they want to add a condition or whether they would prefer seeing this recommended to the ARC as a separate motion. On a vote of 7 to 0, the Commission recommended that the Council approve the mitigated negative declaration and the tentative map with findings, mitigation measures, and conditions as recommended by staff, and with the following additional conditions: provide at least 10 enclosed bicycle spaces; include in the CC&R's a provision that, in the two-bedroom units, the space labeled 'family play area" shall not be converted to a third bedroom; designate common open space areas as gathering spaces (with the actual facilities to be flexible; residents' participation in deciding speck use encouraged); explore how to provide adequate space for trash and recycling storage; for the units closest to Augusta Street, provide porches or other entry features facing the street. Staff noted that in forwarding this item to the Council, staff will also recommend that all the mitigation measures listed in the initial study be made conditions of approval. S ' Draft Planning Commissions ates Attachment 3 August 8, 2001 Page 6 On a separate motion and a vote of 7 to 0, the Planning Commission recommended that the Architectural Review Commission examine in particular the treatment of the elevation difference (retaining wall and deck-supporting wall) at the rear of the site, and the usability of the common open space areas which on current plans are separated from the main pedestrian axis by parking spaces. 2. Citywide. TA and ER 38-01; Zoning Regulations Text Amendment clarificaticy of creek setbacks and environmental review; City of San Luis Obispo. len Matteson. Associate Planner Glen Matteson presented the staff report, recommen g the City Council amend the creek setback standard to improve consistency wi the General Plan and clarify existing provisions concerning bridges and minor exce ons. Terry Sanville Principal Transportation Planner (Public Works D, artment) stated he was the bicycle person for the City. He stated that t y support the staff recommendations. He noted that all the planning for the bic a paths in the city goes through the environmental review and the City Council appr al process. He stated it is not the standard practice to encroach anywhere into the anopy area and to minimize encroachments into the setback area. He said they ant to ensure that the creek setback area doesn't preclude that from occurring. Vice-Chair Loh asked at present how many bike the would be in the setback. Mr. Sanville replied that they don't have man icycle paths along creek corridors. Community Development Director Joh andevi lie commented on the creek corridor, explaining that the creek setback is sured from the outside edge of the canopy. He noted that allowing for a path withi he outer perimeter of the setback does not mean that it puts a path within the corri r or under the canopy. Mr. Matteson pointed out t t the canopy is where the setback begins and that the ordinance does not enco ge paths under the canopy. Commr. Osborne as tl what the dimension of the creek setback is. Mr. Matteson re- ed that within the city it is 20 feet. He stated some creeks in San Luis Obispo are al 35 or 50 feet. Commr. borne asked if the creek setbacks are different in the expansion areas. Mr. " atteson stated that there is a section in the zoning regulations that identifies the ension that applies to each situation. Commr. Osborne asked if the recommendation goes through, how many miles of creek could have these paved bike paths in the creek setback. S LO Attachment 4 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT ITEM# 1 BY: Michael Codron, Associate Planner(781-7 � MEETING DATE: August 8, 2001 FROM: Ron Whisenand, Deputy Director FILE NUMBER: TR, ER 115-00 PROJECT ADDRESS: 3051 Augusta SUBJECT: Review of a proposed 18-unit condominium subdivision and Mitigated Negative Declaration. SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION Recommend approval of the proposed tentative map and Mitigated Negative Declaration to the City Council based on recommended findings and subject to conditions of approval. BACKGROUND Situation/Previous Review On October 25, 2000, the Planning Commission reviewed a proposal for Planned Development (PD) re-zoning and subdivision of the project site. The project was an 8-lot subdivision with development to include eight four-bedroom single-family residences on small lots. The Planning Commission provided specific direction to the applicant to either eliminate the request for PD zoning or re-design the project to meet the intent of the PD zone. In general, the Commission was concerned with the applicant's initial proposal because the project did not meet the intent of the R-4 (High-Density) residential zone, and because the Commission did not feel it could make any of the findings required for approval of PD zoning. Minutes from the 10-25-00 meeting are attached to this staff report. The applicant has redesigned the project based on the Planning Commission's direction. Single- family homes on individual lots have been eliminated and replaced with townhouse condominium units. The project now includes fifteen 2-bedroom units and three 3-bedroom units. As a standard condominium subdivision, PD zoning is not required or requested. The Planning Commission is being asked to review the revised project and Mitigated Negative Declaration, and to forward a recommendation on the project to the City Council. Data Summary Address: 3051 Augusta Applicant/Property Owner: Augusta Partners, LLC Representative: Hamish Marshall S "2/ Attachment 4 TR, ER 115-00 (3051 Augusta) Page 2 Zoning: R-4 (High-Density Residential) General Plan: High-Density Residential Environmental Status: A Mitigated Negative Declaration was recommended by the Community Development Director on July 25, 2001. Site Description The 35,521 square foot site is generally rectangular in shape and slopes down approximately five meters from Augusta Street to the rear of the property. The site is vacant and devoid of any significant vegetation. The most recent use of the property was for employee parking for the adjacent residential care facility on Augusta Street. Adjacent land uses include residential care facilities, a City fire station, an insurance office and a community garden. The surrounding neighborhood includes single family residences, apartments, condominiums, a neighborhood commercial center, and an industrial development occupied by light manufacturing uses. Proiect Description The project is a map to subdivide an existing 35,519 square foot lot and develop fifteen 2- bedroom and three 3-bedroom condominium dwelling units. The homes are proposed to be developed in a town home configuration and would be accessed by a private driveway with a street-type entrance off of Augusta Street. Each home will have separate connections for water, sewer, gas, electricity and cable TV. The homes are two-story with parking in attached two-car garages. The project includes open space areas including a small garden plot with raised planter beds and a barbecue area covered with a trellis. The applicant is requesting a setback exception (per Section 17.16.020.E.2.c of the Zoning Regulations, attached) along the rear property line of the project, which would allow the proposed first level decks to extend from the rear of the units to the property line (0' setback where 5' is required). Normally decks on grade are exempt from setback requirements. In this case, the grade falls off at the rear of the site and the decks will be approximately 6 feet above the ground to be even with the finish floor elevation of the living space in the units. 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 consider each of the following issue areas prior to making a recommendation on the subdivision and Mitigated Negative Declaration. S"Z�- Attachment 4 TR, ER 115-00 (3051 Augusta) Page 3 1. Property Development Standards The following is an overall evaluation of the project with respect to the City's conventional property development standards, including subdivision design, density, setbacks and parking. In addition to Chapter 17.16 of the Zoning Regulations (Property Development Standards), this project is subject to the requirements contained in Chapter 17.82.140 of the Zoning Regulations (Property Improvement Standards for New Condominium Projects, attached to this staff report). Subdivision Design The subdivision is an air-space condominium development. Ownership boundaries are defined by the living space in each unit and do not include the land, which would be owned in common by the Homeowner's Association. The architectural plans submitted with the project incorrectly show lot lines between each unit. The tentative map and architectural plans should refer to each proposed dwelling as a "unit," as opposed to a "lot The proposed town homes are technically detached units, since there are no common walls, but the units abut one another and appear attached. The proposed private street would allow for two-way traffic, but no on-street parking. Garages across the street from each other are set 26' apart, allowing adequate room to maneuver out of the garage and insuring that vehicles can exit the site in a forward direction. The driveway entrance to the project will be a street type entrance. The project site slopes down from Augusta Street to the rear of the property. The adjacent property to the rear is the old Laurel Lane bowling alley, now a senior care facility. This property has a significantly lower finished grade and there is a tall retaining wall along the common property line at the rear of the project site. The buildings at the rear of the project site have been designed so that additional retaining walls will not be necessary. Units 8 through 11 will have a stepped foundation system. The garage would be built on a slab on grade, and the living space would be built on a raised foundation. The developer is dedicating an access easement to the City Fire Department at the Augusta Street entrance to the project site. The dedication is necessary in order to accommodate the larger turning radius of new Fite Department emergency response vehicles. The City would be responsible for developing the driveway approach. The landscape plan for the project shows how a new wall and fence will be built in this area to provide privacy for the rear yard of unit 1. The Architectural Review Commission will review the design of the wall, but the Planning Commission should consider the proximity of the Unit 1 to the proposed Fire Department driveway. The proposed subdivision design is a significant departure from the applicant's original proposal. The revised design includes twice as many dwellings as initially proposed, providing greater homeownership opportunities and more affordable housing. Staff believes that the applicant has S' L3 J Attachment 4 TR, ER 115-00 (3051 Augusta) Page 4 responded well to the initial direction provided by the Planning Commission and has designed a project that is more compatible with surrounding development and more consistent with the intent of the R-4 zoning designation. Planned development (PD) zoning is no longer requested or required. Density The proposed project meets the density standards provided in the Zoning Regulations. The revised design has a slightly higher density to the previous proposal, providing three more bedrooms in twice as many dwellings. In the R-4 (High-Density) residential zone, the maximum number of dwelling units per acre is 24. The following table summarizes the density unit value of the project, and compares the revised design to the original proposal. Project Maximum Density Proposed Number of Number of Allowed Density Dweftgs Bedrooms Lot Size/1 acre X 24 19.50 units 18 Town Current = Homes 39 Proposal 35,519/43,560 X 24 = 19.56 units Original 19.56 units 18 units 9 Single Family 36 Propos Residences • The Planning Commission should consider the proposed density and mixture of two and three bedroom units and determine if the density of development is appropriate for the site. Setbacks In the R-4 zone, the required street yard is 15 feet and other yards have a minimum dimension of 5 feet. The project meets all City setback standards except for at the rear of units 8 through 11. In this area decks are proposed that would extend to the rear property line. The Zoning Regulations provide for this type setback exception approval, provided that a note is recorded on the final map (see Section 17.16.020.E.2.c of the Zoning Regulations, attached). The proposed exception is technical in nature because the decks will be level with the finished floor elevation of the townhouses. Normally a deck on grade would be exempt from any required setback, but in this case the foundations of the town homes are raised approximately 6 feet. If a deck is raised over thirty inches above grade it is considered a structure and is subject to setback requirements. The Zoning Regulations permits this type of setback exception provided that solar exposure is maintained and that there is at least 10 feet of separation between structures on adjacent lots. C. Attachment 4 TR, ER 115-00 (3051 Augusta) Page 5 Decks proposed on the first level of units 8-11 would extend to the property line, represented r by the fence in this picture, and would be elevated approximately 6-feet to be - ' even with the finish floor elevation of the units. The structures on the adjacent senior care facility are set back approximately twenty feet from the property line. One of the developers of this project also owns the adjacent senior care facility and has indicated that there are no plans to build additional structures within 10 feet of the property line. Staff supports the proposed exception because the decks are north of the adjacent property and will not cast any shadows or otherwise have an impact on solar access. o The Planning Commission should consider if the proposed setback exception is acceptable. Staff supports the proposal since the decks will provide usable private open space and will not impact solar access on adjacent properties. Parking Parking is provided consistent with Zoning Regulations requirements. Each unit would have an integral two-car garage. Additional uncovered parking spaces are provided adjacent to each of the three bedroom units, and guest spaces are provided adjacent to units 11, 18, and 4. The project provides a total of 43 parking spaces, and 41 spaces are required. In the past, the City has been concerned with the parking impact created by projects that do not have significant street frontage because project occupants have limited street parking available for extra vehicles. Garages are often used for storage instead of vehicle parking, which makes the situation worse. Staff is recommending a requirement to be contained in the CC&R's for the project that would require garages to be available for vehicle parking at all times. s The Planning Commission should discuss the parking provided by the project proposal. Although the parking provided meets the City's requirement, there is little street frontage on Augusta available for overflow parking in front of the project site. Staff is recommending a condition to require garages to be available for vehicle parking at all times. �'ZS Attachment 4 TR, ER 115-00 (3051 Augusta) Page 6 Common and Private Open Space Common open space, private open space and recreation space are required to be provided by the City's Development Standards for New Condominium Projects (Chapter 17.82.140 of the Zoning Regulations, attached). This project meets the square footage requirements of the Zoning Regulations by providing private open space in rear yard areas and on second-level balconies. There is a common open space area for barbecuing and an open space area with southern exposure that could be used for gardening. Two other small open space areas are provided adjacent to units 8 and 11. These two areas would be landscaped with ground cover and shrubs. The open space proposal meets City requirements, but staff is concerned because the usefulness of the open space areas at the rear of the project site may be compromised by the slope of the property in that area. The following table provides a break down of the common and private open space areas required and provided. Type of Open Space Amount Amount Location Required Provided Private Open Space 100 sq. ft./unit 4268 sq. ft. Rear yards and = 1800 sq. ft. balconies/decks Common Open Space 100 sq. ft./unit 2974 sq. ft. Barbecue and garden area, = 1800 sq. ft. landscape areas adjacent to unit 8 and unit 1 I Total Open Space 400 sq. ft./unit 7242 sq. ft. Throughout project =7200 sq. ft. Recreation Space 40 sq. ft./unit 1195 sq. ft. Barbecue and garden area =720 sq. ft. • The Planning Commission should consider the applicants proposal for open space within the project and determine if it is acceptable. If the Planning Commission does not support the proposal, then direction should be given to the applicant to revise the plans to show more usable open space areas. 2. Grading, Drainage and Utilities The proposed development requires grading to achieve acceptable slopes for the private street. The site section provided on the cover page of the architectural plans provides a good illustration of the overall slope to the property. The driveway will be graded so that the steeper sections occur between driveways. This is necessary so that garage pads can be level and easily accessed. The proposed storm drain system and sewer system would be privately owned. On-site drainage will be directed to drain inlets and conveyed to the City storm drain system in Laurel Lane. Easements will be required on adjacent properties in order to accomplish this. The private sewer system would also connect to a public sewer line in Laurel Lane. Each unit will have separate services for water, sewer, phone, gas and cable television. All utilities will be underground. S%26s Attachment 4 TR, ER 115-00 (3051 Augusta) Page 7 The project site slopes down approximately 5 meters (16:5 ! feet)from Augusta Street to the rear property line. The roof tops of structures on the adjacent property are visible a � r in this photo. Fill will not be ,. 1�4 added to the rear of the project site, but the homes will have a raised foundation system. 3. General Plan Consistency In order to approve the proposed subdivision, the Planning Commission and 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 development. Staffs analysis is provided in italics. Land Use Element Goal 29) Maintain existing neighborhoods and assure that new development occurs as part of a neighborhood pattern. The project site includes one large lot. Surrounding development includes group housing and apartment projects. This project will fit in well with this existing pattern. Land Use Element Goal 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. The project includes two-bedroom units and will provide housing opportunities for single professionals and small families. LU Policy 2.2.12: Residential Project Objectives- Residential projects should provide: A) Privacy,for occupants and neighbors of the project; The proposed units will not have common walls, even though they will appear attached from the exterior. This type of construction is easier to finance for the developer and will have the added benefit of reducing noise impacts between adjacent units. Each unit of the project has a rear facing deck that looks out over adjacent properties. Staff does not believe that these decks will contribute to privacy impacts because of the nature of the adjacent development and because of L7 Attachment 4 TR, ER 115-00 (3051 Augusta) Page 8 the grade changes between the project site and adjacent property. In general, the decks will be looking out above the rooftops of the neighboring properties on not into private outdoor areas. B) Adequate usable outdoor area, sheltered from noise and prevailing winds, and oriented to receive tight and sunshine; C) Use of natural ventilation, sunlight, and shade to make indoor and outdoor spaces comfortable with minimum mechanical support; D) Pleasant views from and toward the project; It is difficult to provide solar access to every unit within this type of development, where units are essentially attached. One of the common outdoor areas that is proposed to be used as a garden has a southern exposure and could be a nice amenity to the project. The outdoor spaces on Units 12-18.will not have a lot of sunlight because of their orientation, but the balconies on these units will have the best views, toward Cerro San Luis. The other outdoor areas will get a good amount of solar exposure and also have nice views. 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. G) Adequate parking and storage space; Staff is recommending conditions of approval to insure that garage use is maximized on the project site. The project plans show storage space in a recessed area accessible in the garage. Additional storage opportunities are available with shelving along the sides of the garages and within the living space of each unit.. H)Noise and visual separation from adjacent roads and commercial uses. The project site is within the acceptable noise level contour defined by the General Plan for residential development. Section 4 of this report discusses potential noise impacts from noise generated by the Fire Department adjacent to the project site. I) Design elements that facilitate neighborhood interaction, such as front porches, front yards along streets, and entryways facing public walkways. The project includes a common area with a barbecue that may facilitate neighbor interaction. The project site is also walkable to many neighborhood amenities include a neighborhood grocery store on Laurel Lane and Sinsheimer Park. J) Buffers from hazardous materials transport routes, as recommended by the City Fire --2? Attachment 4 TR, ER 115-00 (3051 Augusta) Page 9 Department. The City Fire Marshall has reviewed the proposed project for compliance with this standard and raised no concerns. Land Use Element Policy 2.4.8: High-Density Residential—Development should be primarily attached dwellings in two or three-story buildings, with common outdoor areas and very compact private outdoor spaces. Other uses which are supportive of and compatible with these dwellings, such as group housing, parks, schools, and churches may be permitted. Such development is appropriate near the college campus, the downtown core, and major concentrations of employment. The project includes two story town house style dwellings with compact private outdoor spaces. Common areas are also relatively compact, but meet the minimum standards of the Zoning Regulations. The project site is bordered by other uses such as group housing and there are parks and a school in the immediate vicinity. The project site is also close to the Airport Area, which is planned to be a major concentration of employment. 4. Noise The project site is not subject to significant noise levels from transportation noise sources. The General Plan Noise Element and the Noise Guidebook show that residential development is acceptable on the project site and that the noise level at build-out will be within the 60 dB LDN contour. Staff is concerned about noise because a City Fire Station is adjacent to this property and many of the activities associated with emergency response and maintenance of fire truck equipment occurs at the rear of the station, adjacent to units 1 through 4 of the proposed project. Although noise levels in this area do not exceed General Plan standards, the noise could be considered a nuisance by future residents of the project. According to the Fire Marshall, the noisiest times at the station occur when emergency response vehicles enter and exit the station and on Saturday mornings, which are truck equipment maintenance days. On Saturdays between nine o'clock and noon, all of the fire suppression equipment, including chainsaws and compressors, are run for short periods to insure that they are in working order. In order to insure that the noise impacts from Fire Department operations are minimized staff has incorporated mitigation measures into the environmental document, that provide for notification of the project occupants and sound-proofing of units 1 through 4. • The Planning Commission should consider the proposed mitigation measures for noise and determine if they will be adequate to reduce the potential noise exposure for residents of the proposed project. S_'-29 Attachment 4 TR, ER 115-00(3051 Augusta) Page 10 P Y The retaining wall at the right of this photo will be replaced _ with a new wall by the proposed development. Sound proofing of units 1-4 V ' r will help to insure that residents of the project are - --, not significantly impacted by Fire Department activities. The metal structure in this _ picture is a hose-drying rack. 5. Subdivision Findings In order to approve the proposed tentative map, the Planning Commission and the City Council must make the following findings: I. 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. Staff believes that the site is physically suited for the proposed type and density of development because it is surrounded by other, similar development and the site is presently undeveloped and unvegetated. 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 this report, staff believes that project proposal is consistent with the General Plan. Attachment 4 TR, ER 115-00 (3051 Augusta) Page 11 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 potentially significant effects of the project in the areas of noise and service systems (recycling). Many of the project's potential impacts are addressed by existing ordinances, such as the City's new Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Program. REFERRALS AND PUBLIC CONIlAENT 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. No public comment has been submitted to Staff regarding the project, although neighbors of the vacant site have contacted the Community Development Department for specific information regarding the project proposal. 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." 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. RECONEVIENDATION Recommend approval of the proposed tentative map and Mitigated Negative Declaration to the City Council based on findings and subject to conditions of approval as follows. Findings: 1. The proposed map is consistent with the General Plan because the subdivision will allow for high-density residential development. 2. As conditioned, the design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is consistent with the General Plan because each dwellings has access to a compact, private open space area and the development will occur as part of the neighborhood pattern. 3. The site is physically suited for the proposed type of development because it is an undeveloped, unvegetated site that is adjacent to an existing street right-of-way. 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 3--3/ Attachment 4 TR, ER 115-00 (3051 Augusta) Pie 12 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. 8. The proposed decks will not impact solar access for adjacent properties because the decks are located on the northern side of the adjacent senior care facility. 9. There is adequate separation of structures on adjacent lots because the closest structures on the adjacent senior care facility property are set back 20 feet from the property line and additional development is this area is not likely. 10. The Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project adequately identifies and evaluates the potential impacts associated with this project and where impacts are potentially significant, mitigation measures are provided to reduce these impacts to less than significant levels. Conditions of Approval: 1. The final map shall include a note that setback is not required for the first-level decks on units 8, 9, 10 and 11. 2. The proposed storm drain, both on-site and off-site, shall be privately owned and maintained by the Homeowners Association. The system shall be capable of conveying a 10-yr. (min.) design storm to Laurel Lane, with an improved 100-yr. storm "safe overflow route", to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works and Building Official. Offsite easements are required, to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director and Building Official. If the offsite drainage easements have not been acquired by the time of final map approval, the City shall lend its power of eminent domain, in accordance with the California Subdivision Map Act. All costs associated with this matter shall be at the cost of the subdivider. �-3 Z— Attachment 4 TR, ER 115-00 (3051 Augusta) Page 13 3. The subdivider shall dedicate a public utility easement, 6 feet wide, across the portion of the property that is contiguous to the Augusta St. right-of-way. Easements for onsite public utilities and City water main and appurtenance purposes shall be provided to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director and the utility companies. 4. The subdivider shall dedicate a public street tree easement, 10 feet wide, across the Augusta Street frontage of the property. 5. The curb return radii at the Augusta Street driveway entrance may be modified at the discretion and to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works. 6. The project 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. 7. All boundary monuments, lot corners and centerline intersections, BC's, EC's, etc., shall be tied to the City's Horizontal Control Network. At least two control points shall be used and a tabulation of the coordinates shall be submitted with the final map or parcel map. All coordinates submitted shall be based on the City coordinate system. A 3.5" diameter computer floppy disk, containing the appropriate data compatible with Autocad (Digital Interchange Format, DXF) for Geographic Information System (GIS) purposes, shall be submitted to the City Engineer. 8. 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 City Engineer. 9. Prior to approval of the public improvement plans, the developer's engineer shall submit a digital copy of the public improvement plans, signed and stamped by the engineer of record, to the Director of Public Works. All digital plans submitted to the City shall be compatible with the City's system (the current City format is Autocad, Digital Interchange Format, DXF, for Geographic Information System purposes). 10. Upon completion of the public improvements, an "as-built" version of the digital copy shall be submitted, which include any approved change of plan revisions, in addition to as-built tracings, prior to the City's acceptance of said improvements. Applicant shall install a"street type" entrance to the driveway at Augusta Street, with sidewalk curb ramps on either side. Five (5) meters of red curb shall be installed on either side of driveway, extending from the back of each curb return. 11. Applicant shall provide short and long-term bicycle parking consistent with provisions of Section 17.16.060 of the Municipal Code and with standards contained within the 1993 r.V Attachment 4 TR, ER 115-00 (3051 Augusta) Page 14 Bicycle Transportation Plan. Project plans reviewed by the ARC shall show how these code requirements have been met. 12. A safe overflow will be required to convey runoff from this site to a safe point of disposal to the approval of the Chief Building Official. 13. Runoff from the adjacent property(East side) must be provided with a new disposal point due to the placement of retaining walls and fill in existing drainage courses. 14. 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. 15. The applicant shall pay Park In-Lieu Fees prior to recordation of the Final Map, consistent with SLO Municipal Code Section 16.40.080. 16. Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions (C.C.&R.$) are required, to the approval of the Community Development Director and the Public Works Director. 17. CC&R's for the project shall include a'requirement that garages be available for parking vehicles and general storage in garages shall not prevent parking of two vehicles. 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. It is necessary to be certain that all public facilities fall within proposed easements or property deeded to the City. The tentative map shall clearly indicate which facilities are proposed to be private and which will be public. As presented, the proposed sewer main shall be private, and shall be constructed in accordance with the requirements of the Uniform Plumbing Code. The proposed water main shall be public, and terminate with a blow-off assembly. Water meters shall be manifolded in pairs, wherever possible. 2. If the water main is to serve a fire hydrant, the minimum size shall be 8". A fire hydrant at the end of the water main can take the place of the blow-off. 3. 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. s'3 y 1 Attachment 4 TR, ER 115-00 (3051 Augusta) Page 15 4. Water and Wastewater Impact Fees shall be paid at the time building permits are issued. The Water Impact Fee is $6,827 per residential unit, and the Wastewater Impact Fee is $2,703 per residential unit. 5. 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. 6. Each lot shall be served with individual water, sewer, electrical, gas, telephone and cable TV services, to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works. 7. Traffic impact fees will be required prior to issuance of building permits. 8. Street trees shall be planted along the Augusta St. frontage for Lot 1 and Lot 9. Trees shall be located between 7.5 feet and 10 feet behind the public sidewalk. Species shall be Melaleuca Linarifolia, or other species, to the approval of the City Arborist. Attachments: Attachment 1: Vicinity Map Attachment 2: Reduced Size Tentative Map and Grading/Utility Plan Attachment 3: Reduced Size Architectural Plans Attachment 4: Letter from Hamish Marshall, dated July 30, 2001 Attachment 5: Planning Commission Minutes from the 10-25-2000 public hearing Attachment 6: Property Improvement Standards for New Condominium Subdivisions (SLOMC 17.82.040) Attachment 7: Zoning Regulations Section 17.16.020.D.2.c, Variable Other Yards in Subdivisions Attachment 8: Initial Study of Environmental Impact and recommendation to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration r-39, Attachment 5 city of sAn hAis oBispo 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 September 21, 2001 Hamish Marshall Augusta Partners, LLC 1880 Santa Barbara Ave., Suite F San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 SUBJECT: ARC 115-00: 3051 Augusta Street Review of an 18-unit condominium townhouse development and site improvements, including a private street Dear Mr. Marshall: The Architectural Review Commission, at its meeting of September 17, 2001, granted final approval to your project, based on the following findings and subject to the following conditions: Findings 1. The project is architecturally compatible with the site, due to its relatively narrow street frontage, and with structures on adjacent properties because the project incorporates a variety of architectural styles that are typical of San Luis Obispo which have been adapted to the town home context. Roof lines are varied to match the topography of the site. 2. The proposed site improvements, including landscaping, are compatible with the proposed house designs and will enhance the streetscape views of the project. 3. The mitigated negative declaration for the project adequately evaluates the aesthetic impacts of the project because no scenic vistas or scenic resources will be impacted by the project and the project will not introduce a new source of substantial light or glare and will not degrade the visual character of the site or its surroundings. Conditions 1. The project CC&R's shall clearly delineate the common open space areas, or gathering places, available to all residents of the project. 2. Landscaping adjacent to unit 9 shall be eliminated so that there is sufficient room for a pedestrian path to provide access to the common open space area beyond. The (✓� The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services,programs and activities. Telecommunications Device for the Deaf(805)781-7410. ARC 115-00 Attachment 5 Page 2 design of the path shall be reviewed with the subdivision improvement plans, to the approval of the Community Development Director. 3. The responsibilities of the homeowner's association for the subdivision shall include maintenance of the landscaping area below the decks along the rear property line of the project site and within all common open space areas. 4. The new retaining wall and screen wall adjacent to the Fire Station shall be a minimum of six-feet tall and shall be constructed of split-face block or finished with stucco on both sides of the property, to the approval of the Community Development Director. 5. The applicant shall explore bulb-outs along the private driveway to provide for additional landscaping areas to the approval of the Community Development Director and Public Works Director. 6. The sidewalk leading to unit 1 and unit 18 shall be extended to the driveway to provide a path for pedestrians that is separated from the driveway approach, to the approval of the Community Development Director. 7. The applicant shall explore a method to incorporate a "lay down" parapet into the building design, to the approval of the Community Development Director. 8. The applicant shall consider replacing the sweetshade tree between unit 14 and unit 15 with one or two smaller trees. The decision of the Commission is final unless appealed to the City Council within 10 days of the action. While the City's water allocation regulations are in effect, the Architectural Review Commission's approval expires after three years if construction has not started, unless the Commission designated a different time period. On request, the Community Development Director may grant a single one-year extension. If you have questions, please contact Michael Codron at 781-7175. Sincerely, Ronald Whisen d Deputy Comm nity Development Director Development Review cc: County of SLO Assessor's Office Attachment 6 ��IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII�III��;�� IIII�IIIIIIIII►II III city of sAn luis oBispo 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM For Mitigated Negative Declaration ER 115-00 1. Project Title: Augusta Townhomes 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of San Luis Obispo 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Michael Codron, 781-7170 4. Project Location: 3051 Augusta Street, San Luis Obispo 5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Augusta Partners 1880 Santa Barbara St., Suite F San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 6. General Plan/Zoning: High Density Residential/High Density Residential (R-4) 7. Description of the Project: The project is a map to subdivide an existing 35,519 square foot lot and develop fifteen 2-bedroom and three 3-bedroom condominium dwelling units. The homes are proposed to be developed in a town home configuration and would be accessed by a private driveway with a street-type entrance off of Augusta Street. Each home will have separate connections for water, sewer, gas, electricity and cable TV. The homes are two-story with parking in attached two-car garages. The project includes open space areas including a small garden plot with raised planter beds and a barbecue area covered with a trellis. The applicant is requesting a setback exception along the rear property line of the project, which would allow the proposed first level decks to extend from the rear of the units to the property line (0' setback where 5' is required). 8. Surrounding Land Uses and Settings: The surrounding neighborhood includes single and multi-family residential, residential care facilities, senior housing, a fire station, a park, and a neighborhood commercial center. 9: Project Entitlements Requested: 18-unit condominium subdivision Architectural review Environmental review 10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g. permits, financing approval, or participation agreement): None /O The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services, programs and activities. �� V� Telecommunications Device for the Deaf(805) 781-7410. Attachment 6 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 Air Quality Hydrology/Water Quality Transportation&Traffic Biological Resources Land Use and Planning X Utilities and Service S stems Cultural Resources X 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 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 described on an attached sheet(s) have been added and agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED X 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 only the effects that remain to be addressed I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,because all potentially 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. CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 2 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2000 s-3� Attachment 6 July 25,2001 Si Lure Date Ronald Whisenand, Deputy Director 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 3 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2000 S__Vo Issues and Supporting Informatit. ources Sources Pott ^ , Less Than Less an t o 6 Significant Significant Significant Impact ER #115-00, 3051 Augusta St. Issues with Impact Mitigation Augusta Townhomes 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 1 X to,trees,rock outcroppings,open space,and historic buildings within a local or state scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of X the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would X adversely effect day of nighttime views in the area? Evaluation a,b,c,d) The property is not within a vista or along a scenic route as identified by the Circulation Element of the General Plan. No scenic resources have identified on the project site. The Zoning Regulations allow structures to be built to 35 feet tall in the R-4 zone. The proposed structures would be about 25 feet tall. Architectural Review is required by code in order to insure that projects do not degrade the existing visual character or quality of project sites or their surroundings. Project lighting is low-level lighting typical of residential development that will not light the night sky. Conclusion Architectural Review is required by the City's Municipal Code as a necessary entitlement for project approval. Architectural Review is a process to insure that the aesthetics of a development are consistent with the City's goals and standards found in the General Plan and Municipal Code. No further mitigation is necessary. 2.AGRICULTURE RESOURCES. Would theproject: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland,or Farmland of 7 X Statewide Importance(Farmland),as shown on the maps pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency,to non-agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use,or a X Williamson Act contract? c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which,due to X their location or nature,could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? Evaluation a, b, c) The project site does not include prime farmland, unique farmland, or farmland of statewide importance, it is zoned for residential uses and is surrounded by other urban, non-agricultural uses. Conclusion The project does not have the potential to harm agricultural resources. 3. AIR QUALITY. Would theproject: a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an 8 X existing or projected air quality violation? b) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air 8 X quality plan? c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant 8 X concentrations? d) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of X people? CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 4 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2000 s_W . Attachment 6 Issues and Supporting InformatiL _ )urces Sources Pott Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact ER #115-00, 3051 Augusta St. Issues with Impact g Mitigation Augusta Townhomes Incorporated e) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria 8 X pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed qualitative thresholds for ozoneprecursors)? Evaluation a,b,c,e) San Luis Obispo County is a non-attainment area for the State ozone and PM 10(fine particulate matter 10 microns or less in diameter)air quality standards. State law requires that emissions of non-attainment pollutants and their precursors be reduced by at least 5%per year until the standards are attained. The 1995 Clean Air Plan(CAP) for San Luis Obispo County was developed and adopted by the Air Pollution Control District(APCD)to meet that requirement. The CAP is a comprehensive planning document designed to reduce emissions from traditional industrial and commercial sources, as well as from motor vehicle use. Land Use Element Policy 1.18.2 states that the City will help the APCD implement the Clean Air Plan. During project construction,there will be increased levels of fugitive dust associated with construction and grading activities, as well as construction emissions associated with heavy-duty construction equipment. According to the Air Pollution Control District's(APCD)"CEQA Air Quality Handbook,"land uses that cause the generation of 10 or more pounds per day (PPD) of reactive organic gases, oxides or nitrogen, sulfur dioxide, or fine particulate matter have the potential to affect air quality significantly. A 50-unit apartment complex generates over 10 pounds of these pollutants. Since the site is proposed to be developed with 18 condominium dwellings, the project is of a size that is below APCD's air quality significance thresholds. Therefore, the project and resulting development will not generate a significant impact on long-term air quality impacts. d) The project is a residential subdivision and will not create objectionable odors. Conclusion Compliance with the dust management practices contained in Municipal Code Section 15.04.020 V. (Sec. 3307.2) will adequately mitigate short-term impacts. The project will not exceed the APCD thresholds for longi term air quality impacts. No further mitigation is required. 4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would theproject: a) Have a substantial adverse effect,either directly or indirectly or 1,7 X through habitat modifications,on any species identified as a candidate,sensitive,or special status species in local or regional 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 1,7 X other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans,policies,or regulations,or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting X biological resources,such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance(e.g. Heritage Trees)? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident 1 X or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors,or impede the use of wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted habitat Conservation k 1 X CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 5 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2000 S �� Attachment 6 Issues and Supporting Informati, Jurces Sources Poti Less Than Less Than No Sigmltcant Significant Significant Impact ER #115-00, 3051 Augusta St. Issues with Impact g Mitigation Augusta Townhomes Incorporated Plan.Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved 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, e, f) The project site is devoid of any significant vegetation and has most recently been used as a parking lot for a former bowling alley and as a site for staging construction projects. The site is not within a riparian corridor and there are no creeks on the property. No endangered, threatened or other protected species have been found on the project site. There are no local ordinances or habitat conservation plans that affect the property or that identify the site as potential habitat for any protected species of plant or animal. Conclusion The project does not have the potential to impact biological resources. 5.CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would theproject: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a 1,4 X historic resource?(See CEQA Guidelines 15064.5) b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an 4 X archeological resource?(See CEQA Guidelines 15064.5) c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource 4 X or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of 1,4 X formal cemeteries? Evaluation a,b,c,d)The project site does not meet the criteria for classification as a"sensitive site"under the City's Archeological Resource Preservation Guidelines,and according to the City's map of archeological sensitive areas, which is based on information from the Central Coast Historical Resource Information Center at the University of California at Santa Barbara and previous archaeological studies,the site is not in an area of a previous archeological study. The property is not listed in the City's Inventory of Historic Resources. There are no structures on the property that are over 50 years old that are potentially historic resources. The site does not contain any known paleontological resources or unique geologic features. The site is not shown on the City's Burial Sensitivity Map, which identifies sensitive burial sites throughout the City. Conclusion The project does not have the potential to impact cultural resources. 6. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the ro'ect: a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? 1 X b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient 1 X manner? c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource 1 X that would be of value to the region and the residents of the State? `� CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 6 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2000 Issues and Supporting Informatik )urces Sources Pote L.essThanLess Than No Signii ant Significant Significant Impact ER#115-00, 3051 Augusta St. Issues with Impact g Mitigation Augusta Townhomes Incorporated Evaluation a) The development will not conflict with adopted energy conservation plans or promote the use of non-renewable resources in an inefficient manner. b)Any development on the site must comply with the policies contained in the General Plan Energy Conservation Element. The Energy Conservation Element states that, "New 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." The City implements energy conservation goals through enforcement of the California Energy Code, which establishes energy conservation standards for residential and nonresidential construction. Future development of this site must meet those standards. c)There are no known mineral resources on the project site that would be of value to the region or to the residents of the State. Conclusion No further mitigation is required beyond compliance with City established energy conservation standards and all applicable State requirements. The City's Development Standards for New Condominium Projects (SLOMC 17.82.110) requires solar water heating to be provided to each unit unless equivalent energy savings can be made through other means. 7. GEOLOGY AND SOILS Would theproject: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects,including risk of loss, injury or death involving: 1. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated in the 1,9 X most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area,or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? H. Strong seismic ground shaki p? 1,9 X III. Seismic related ground-failure,including liquefaction? 1,9 X IV. Landslides or mudflows? 1,9 X b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? 1,10 X c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable,or that 1,10 X would become unstable as a result of the project,and potentially 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 1,10 X Uniform Building Code(1994),creating substantial risks to life or property? Evaluation a) San Luis Obispo County, including the City of San Luis Obispo, is located within the Coast Range Geomorphic Province, which extends along the coastline from central California into Oregon. This region is characterized by extensive folding, faulting, and fracturing of variable intensity. In general, the folds and faults of this province comprise the pronounced northwest trending ridge-valley system of the central and northern coast of California. Under the Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zones Act, the State Geologist is required to delineate appropriately wide special studies zones to encompass all potentially and recently-active fault traces deemed sufficiently active and well-defined as to constitute a potential hazard to structures from surface faulting or fault creep. CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 7 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 1000 s-W Attachment 6 Issues and Supporting Informati, .ources Sources Pot Less Than Less Than No - Signincant Significant Significant Impact ER #115-00, 3051 Augusta St. Issues with Impact g Mitigation Augusta Townhomes Incorporated In San Luis Obispo County, the special Studies Zone includes the San Andreas and the Los Osos faults.The edge of this study area extends to the westerly city limits line,near Los Osos Valley Road. According to a recently conducted geology study (source 16), the closest mapped active fault is the Los Osos Fault,which runs in a northwest direction and is about one mile from the City's westerly boundary. Because portions of this fault have displaced sediments within a geologically recent time (the last 10,000 years),portions of the Los Osos fault are considered "active". Other active faults in the region include:the San Andreas, located about 30 miles to the northeast,the Nacimiento, located approximately 12 miles to the northeast, and the San Simeon-Hosgri fault zone, located approximately 12 miles to the west. Although there are no fault lines on the project site or within close proximity, the site is located in an area of"High Seismic Hazards",which means that future buildings constructed on the site will most likely be subjected to excessive ground shaking in the event of an earthquake. 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. To minimize this potential impact, the Uniform Building Codes and City Codes require new structures to be built to resist such shaking or to remain standing in an earthquake. b),c),d) The project will not result in the loss of topsoil as most of the site will be covered by impervious surfaces or planted with vegetation. The Safety Element of the General Plan indicates that the project site has a high potential for liquefaction, which is true for most of the City. The soils engineering report that is required to be submitted for each proposed structure will include recommendations for foundations that are intended to withstand settlement. The site does not include expansive soils,as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code(1994) Conclusion Development of the site will not alter the site's seismic hazards. Future development will be required to comply with the Uniform Building Codes and City Codes which require new structures to be built to resist such shaking or to remain standing in an earthquake,and proper documentation of soil characteristics for designing structurally sound buildings. No further mitigation is required. 8. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the r('ect: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment 1 X though the routine use,transport or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment X through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely 1 X hazardous materials,substances,or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Expose people or structures to existing sources of hazardous X emissions or hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances,or waste? e) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous 10 X materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and,as a result,it would create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? f) For a project located within an airport land use plan,or within 5 X two miles of a public airport,would the project result in a safety hazard for the people residing or working in the project area? CITY OF SAN Luis OeisPO 8 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2000 s-ys' Attachment 6 Issues and Supporting Informatic jurees Sources Pote Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact ER #115-00, 3051 Augusta St. Issues with Impact g Mitigation Augusta Townhomes Incorporated g) Impair implementation of, or physically interfere with,the 1, 10 X adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of lose, injury, 1, 10 X or death, involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residents are intermixed with wildlands? Evaluation a), b), c), d), e) The site does not contain any know hazardous substances and is not located in an area of high risk. As a residential subdivision the project will not emit any hazardous emissions or require handling of hazardous wastes. The site is not on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. f) The project site is within Airport Land Use Plan Area 6 and is listed as a compatible use. The Airport Land Use Commission reviewed the development proposal for this site and recommended approval with the condition of soundproofing and subject to the recording of avigation easements. g) The project has been reviewed by the Fire Marshall and will not conflict with any emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. h) The Safety Element of the General Plan identifies the site as having a low potential for impacts from wildland fires. Conclusion The project will not involve any impacts with respect to hazards or hazardous materials. The Airport Land Use Commission has approved the project,subject to standard conditions of approval for compatible projects in Airport Land Use Plan Area 6. 9. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would theproject: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge I X requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere 1 X 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 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 which would exceed the I X capacity of existing or planned storm-water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff. d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or I X area in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation onsite or offsite? e) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or 1 X area in a manner which would result in substantial flooding onsite or offsite? f) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on 6 X a Federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? g) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which 6 X would impede or redirect flood flows? h) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? 1 X CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 9 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2000 S—`�� Attachment 6 Issues and Supporting Informati. jurees Sources Poti Less Than Less Than No Signii ant Significant Significant Impact ER #115-00, 3051 Augusta St. Issues with Impact g Mitigation Augusta Townhomes Incorporated Evaluation a), b), h) The project will not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. All of the residences will be served by the City's sewer system and run-off is required to be directed to an approved point of disposal, in this case a storm drain. The project will be served with water by the City's Utilities Department and will not use or otherwise deplete groundwater resources or negatively effect water quality. c), d) Future development of the site will increase the amount of impervious surfaces on the site and affect the absorption rate,drainage patterns and the amount and rate of surface runoff. To assure that potential drainage impacts are minimized to a level of insignificance, any future development of the site will be required to be designed to meet all applicable City codes, including City grading and drainage standards. Site drainage will be adequately evaluated with the grading plans as part of the required Architectural Review process. A safe overflow route in the event of a 100 year storm is required to be incorporated into site development plans. e), f) The project site is not within the boundaries of an area subject to inundation from flood waters in a 100-year storm. Conclusion No impacts have been identified with respect to water quality or hydrology. Drainage plans will be evaluated for consistency with existing City codes as part of the subdivision approval process and through architectural review. No further mitigation is required. 10. LAND USE AND PLANNING- Would theproject: a) Conflict with applicable land use plani.policy, or-regulation of 1,10 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? X c) Conflict with,any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural I X communif _conservation. lansv _..._:.__ Evaluation a) The General Plan land use map designates the site High Density Residential. The land use designation is described as "primarily attached dwellings in two or three story buildings,with common outdoor areas and very compact private outdoor spaces-". The project site is zoned R-4(High Density Residential)with a maximum allowable density of 24 units per net acre. The applicant is proposing a project with a density equivalent of 19.5 density units per net acre. This is less than the maximum density allowed on the site,which is 19.56 density units. b) The project site includes one land parcel on a 35,519 square foot site. The project will be served by existing streets and will be bordered by similar residential development, and public and commercial uses. The project will not physically divide an established community. c) The project will no conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plans or natural community conservation plans. Conclusion The project will be developed with the type of improvements anticipated by the General Plan and Zoning Regulations and will not create any impacts to land use and planning. No further mitigation is required. CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 10 INITIAL STUDy ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2000 S-4-7 Attachment 6 Issues and Supporting InformatlL__ .purees sources Pote Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact ER #115-00, 3051 Augusta St. Issues with Impact g Mitigation Augusta Townhomes incorporated 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 X Element, or general noise levels in excess of standards 1 established in the Noise Ordinance? b) A substantial temporary,periodic,or permanent increase in X ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing 1 without the project? c) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne 1 X vibration or groundborne noise levels? d) For a project located within an airport land use plan,or within 5 X two miles of a public airport or public use airport,would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? Evaluation a), b), c) According to the Noise Contour Map in the City's Noise Element and the Noise Guidebook, the limit of the 60dB contour is within the Augusta Street corridor and does not extend onto the project site. The site is not located near a stationary or groundborne noise source. Future development of the site is required to comply with the General Plan Noise Element and the City Noise Ordinance that establishes acceptable levels for interior noise (45 dB) and exterior noise (600). These noise levels are projected for City build-out and take into account the proposed development. The project will not result in a substantial increase in ambient noise levels because the project will not raise noise levels above the 60dB standard. Interior noise levels of 45dB can be achieved through normal construction practices, which typically reduce noise level exposure by a minimum of 15dB. Although the projected noise levels will not exceed General Plan standards, it is likely that lots 1 though 4 will be subject to noise from the adjacent Fire Department operations that could be considered a nuisance. Although the Noise Ordinance does not apply to the Fire Department, the standards contained in the Noise Ordinance may be exceeded when engines enter and exit the site and on Saturdays, which are vehicle equipment check days. The normal operation of the Fire Department could be considered a nuisance to a future property owner that was not aware of the typical activities associated with Fire Department response and vehicle maintenance. Mitigation will be required to insure that future property owners are notified that noise is to be expected from Fire Department operations. Mitigation will also be required to provide additional soundproofing at the back of these units, so that interior living space is better insulated from thee reoccurring noise associated with Fire Department operations. d) The site is also within an area which may be affected by airport noise. The noise levels are not considered significant, but the Airport Land Use Commission requires the recordation of an avigation easement as a condition of approval of this development project. The avigation easement is for the protection of the City, County, and the Airport and provides for notification that the project is in the proximity of the airport and that aircraft, including helicopters, Fly overhead. Conclusion Although residents of the completed project will be subject to the noise from aircraft flying overhead, notification of this condition will be insured through the recordation of avigation easements. The sound level of the noise will not exceed the City's standards for exposure to transportation noise sources. Standard construction practices will reduce indoor noise exposure to acceptable levels for most of the project. Additional noise attenuation measures will be required for units 1-4, as well as notification of property owners of the potential for nuisance noise levels caused by normal Fire Department operations. i� CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2000 S-X40 Attachment 6 Issues and Supporting InformatL _ jurees Sources Poa Less Than Less Than No Signiucant Significant Significant Impact ER #115-00, 3051 Augusta St. Issues with Impact act Mitigation Augusta Townhomes incorporated Mitigation Measures 1. The Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions (CC&Rs) for the project shall include a provision to notify property owners within the project that nuisance noise levels may be experienced due to the normal operations of the Fire Department, to the approval of the Community Development Director and the Fire Marshall. 2. Plans submitted for a building permit application shall include construction measures for attenuation of interior noise levels based on the recommendations of a qualified noise consultant. Since there is no noise standard in the General Plan for sound generated by the operation of emergency vehicle equipment,and since the Fire Department is exempt from the standards contained in the Noise Ordinance, the noise consultant should base his or her recommendations on a reasonable level of sound attenuation given the characteristics of the noise. The recommendations of the noise consultant shall be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Director as part of the building permit plan check process for the project. 12. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would theproject: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly 1 X (for example by proposing new homes or businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing or people X necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Evaluation a), b)The population added by this project is within the General Plan's projection and will not induce substantial growth into the area or result in population exceeding local and regional growth projections. The project site is substantially surrounded by urban development and the development of the site represents an in-fill development opportunity. This type of development is encouraged because it can take advantage of existing facilities for water,sewer, storm drainage,transportation and parks. The project site is undeveloped and will not displace existing housing or people. Conclusion The population growth created by the project is considered to be less than significant since the development is on an existing, residentially zoned, parcel of land and development of the project site has been accounted for in the population estimates contained in the City's General Plan. 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? 1,10 X b) Police protection? X c) Schools? X d) Parks? X e) Roads and other transportation infrastructure? X f) Other public facilities? X Evaluation a), b), t) As an infill site, adequate public services (fire, police, other public facilities) are available to service the property. CrrY OF SAN Luis Oeispo 12 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2000 s--#q Attachment 6 Issues and Supporting Informatic, _)urees Sources Pote Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact ER #115-00, 3051 Augusta St. Issues with Impact g Mitigation Augusta Townhomes Incorporated Project plans have been routed to all effected City Departments for comments and input on needed plan revisions. Future development must comply with applicable City codes and State regulations and building permits will be issued to insure consistency with these requirements. The Fire Department operates a station on the property immediately to the east of the project site. The Fire Marshall has determined that land from the project site is needed to accommodate the turning radius of certain emergency response vehicles. This is a current resource deficiency and is not considered an impact caused by the project. The applicant has responded to the Fire Marshall by offering an easement to the Fire Department and designing the project to accommodate the turning radius of the emergency response vehicle. The location of the easement area is at the front of the project site,adjacent to lot 1. c) The school districts in the state are separate governing bodies with authority to collect fees to finance school construction and parcel acquisition. Section 65955 of the Government Code prohibits the City from denying a subdivision or collecting any fees beyond those required by the school district itself, to mitigate effects of inadequate school facilities. Any effect that the additional children will have on school facilities will be mitigated in whole or in part by the districts per square foot fees, charged at the time of building permit issuance for each residence. d) Park in-lieu fees are required to be paid as part of the subdivision to insure that City residents have adequate access to park facilities as required by the Parks and Recreation Element of the General Plan. The project site is served by a local collector street. e) Development of the property as a residential subdivision has been anticipated and factored into the pavement management program for Augusta Street. Existing transit facilities in the area are adequate to serve project occupants. Conclusion No other resource deficiencies have been identified with respect to public services. The Fire Department has identified a need to secure land from the project site in order to quickly and efficiently enter and exit the adjacent fire station with emergency response vehicles. This is an existing condition and is not an impact created by the project proposal. 14.RECREATION. Would theproject: a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood or regional parks or I X other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Include recreational facilities or require the construction or I X expansion of recreational facilities,which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Evaluation a) Residents of the project will likely use Johnson Park and Sinsheimer Park recreation facilities for their park and recreation needs. The project will add incrementally to the demand for parks and other recreational facilities. However, given the size of the project and the expected number of residents, no significant recreational impacts are expected to occur with development of this site. Additionally, park in lieu fees will be required to be paid to the City to help finance additional park space,maintenance or equipment in the vicinity. These fees are set at a level to offset the effect of the additional demand. b) The project does not include the construction of recreational facilities beyond small open space areas, a small garden space and a picnic area with a barbecue. The construction of these facilities will not have an adverse physical effect on the environment because of their small scale. CITY OF SAN LUIS OsisPO 13 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2000 `✓✓ S% C o Issues and Supporting Informatic _ _)urees Sources Pote Less Than Less Than o Signin ant Significant Significant Impact ER #115-00, 3051 Augusta St. Issues with Impact g Mitigation Augusta Townhomes incorporated Conclusion Park and recreation facility demand will increase incrementally with the development of the project and the increased population in the neighborhood of Johnson Park and Sinsheimer Park. Park-in-lieu fees are set at a level considered to be sufficient to offset the effects of the additional demand for park facilities. No further mitigation is required. 15. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would theproject: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the 1,10 X existing traffic load and capacity of the street system? b) Exceed,either individually or cumulatively,a level of service 1 X standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads and highways? c) Substantially increase hazards due to design features(e.g.sharp X curves or dangerous intersections)or incompatible uses(e.g. farm equipment)? d) Result in inadequate emergency access? X e) Result in inadequate parking capacity onsite or offsite? 2 X f) Conflict with adopted policies supporting alternative 1,2 X transportation(e.g.bus turnouts,bicycle racks)? g) Conflict with the with San Luis Obispo County Airport Land 5 X Use Plan resulting in substantial safety risks from hazards,noise, or a change in air traffic patterns? Evaluation a), b), c), d) The project will incrementally contribute to an increase in traffic on Augusta Street and Laurel Lane. Both streets are presently improved to their full right of way width. This project has been evaluated by the City's Transportation Division of the Public Works Department. The City's Transportation Planner has indicated that surrounding streets are operating at acceptable levels of service and that they can adequately accommodate the project's anticipated vehicle trips without changing the current level of service. The Transportation Planner has also determined that the driveway configuration proposed for the project is acceptable and will provide sufficient visibility from and toward vehicles entering and exiting the project site. The Fire Marshall has reviewed the private drive configuration proposed for the project and determined that the site can be adequately accessed by emergency vehicles. e) Dwelling units in the R-4 zone have an on-site parking requirement of 1.5 spaces for the first bedroom in each unit, and .5 spaces for each additional bedroom after the first. The two-bedroom units in the project require two parking spaces each. The three-bedroom units require three parking spaces. Guest parking is required at the rate of one space for every five dwelling units. The total parking requirement for the project is,thus,43 spaces. 43 spaces are provided. f) Each unit within the project will include garages that will be able to accommodate bicycle storage in addition to parked vehicles. Residents of the project will have access to transit stops on Augusta and Laurel Lane. e) As previously discussed, the Airport Land Use Commission has determined that the project will not create any conflict with the operations of the airport. Avigation easements are required to insure that residents of the project are notified of the potential for noise impacts from aircraft to occur. Conclusion The project will add incrementally to existing traffic conditions in the City, but the City's Transportation Planner has determined that development of the project as proposed will not have an effect on the level of service on adjacent streets. CRY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 14 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2000 S%-4-P - Issues and Supporting Informatit. jurces Sources PoteLess Than Less an Signitn,ant Significant Significant Impact ER #115-00, 3051 Augusta St. Issues with Impact g Mitigation Augusta Townhomes Incorporated Parking proposed by the project meets City Zoning Regulations requirements. No further mitigation is required. 16.UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the ro'ect: 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 1,10 X treatment, wastetwater treatment,or storm drainage facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project I X from existing entitlements and resources,or are new and expanded water resources needed? d) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider I X which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand and addition to the provider's existing commitment? e) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to 1 X accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? f) Comply with federal,state,and local statutes and regulations I X related to solid waste? Evaluation a), b) This project has been reviewed by the Utilities Department staff. Comments note that the project is subject to water impact fees which were adopted to ensure that new development pays its fair share of the cost of constructing the water supply,treatment and distribution facilities that will be necessary to serve it. c) The City has adopted Water Allocation Regulations to insure that increased water use by new development and land use changes do not jeopardize adequate water service to current and new customers. To receive an allocation, the developer will need to retrofit the plumbing of existing structures to save twice as much water as the projected annual demand. Compliance with the provisions of the Water Allocation Regulations and the water impact fee program is adequate to mitigate the effects of increased water demand. The City Water&Wastewater Management Element projects the City water needs at its ultimate build-out of 56,000 people. The project site is included in the anticipated build-out, because it was in the Urban Reserve at the time the element was adopted. Each unit in the subdivision will have an annual water usage estimated at .21 acre feet. For the total project, the annual water usage is estimated at 3.78 acre feet (.21*18 units). The 2001 Water Resources Report indicates that there is currently 142 acre feet of water available to allocate to in-fill development(development within the 1991 City Limits). d) The City wastewater treatment plant has adequate capacity to serve this development. The existing sewers in the vicinity have sufficient capacity to serve the development. The developer will be required to construct private sewer facilities to convey wastewater to the nearest public sewer. The on-site sewer facilities will be required to be constructed according to the standards in the Uniform Plumbing Code. Subdivision improvement plans and building plans will be checked for compliance with UPC standards. Impact fees are collected at the time building permits are issued to pay for capacity at the City's Water Reclamation Facility. The fees are set at a level intended to offset the potential impacts of each new residential unit in 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, 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 1989 levels)by 2000. To help reduce the waste stream generated by this project,consistent with the City's Source Reduction and Recycling Element,recycling facilities must CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 15 INITUIL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CNECKLIST 2000 r-.521 Aftachmentg Issues and Supporting Informatic _ ,ources Sources Pote Less Than Less Than No Signinuant Significant Significant Impact With ER #115-00, 3051 Augusta St. [slues Mitigation Impact Augusta Townhomes incorporated be accommodated on the project site and a solid waste reduction plan for recycling discarded construction materials should be submitted with the building permit application.The project should include facilities for both interior and exterior recycling to reduce the waste stream generated by the project consistent with the Source Reduction and Recycling Element. Conclusion No impacts have been identified relative to water service or supply, wastewater service or capacity at the Water Reclamation Facility,or storm drainage. Potentially significant impacts have been identified relative to solid waste disposal. The City has recently adopted a solid waste recycling ordinance to insure recycling of construction debris. In addition to the ordinance requirements, mitigation measures are recommended to insure the provision of on-site recycling facilities to reduce the waste stream generated by the project. Mitigation Measures 3. The final project shall be designed to include locations for the collection of recyclable materials and sufficient space shall be provided for each unit to store a waste wheeler for recycling service from the local garbage company. 17.MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the X environment,substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species,cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community,reduce the 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? Without mitigation, the project could have the potential to have adverse impacts on all of the issue areas checked in the Table on Pae 3. b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited,but X 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, the effects of other current projects,and the effects of probable futureprojects) The impacts identified in this initial study arespecific to this project and would not be categorized as cumulative] si nificant. c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause X substantial adverse effects on human beings,either directly or indirectly? With the incorporation of mitigation measures,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. The San Luis Obispo Land Use Plan Element update and Final EIR can be found at the City of San Luis Obispo Community Development Department at 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo,California. b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. Not applicable. �� CITY OF SAN LUIS OaISPO 16 INmAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2000 Attachment 6 e) 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 1. City of San Luis Obispo General Plan: Land Use, Housing,Open Space,Circulation,Noise, Energy,Safety, Water and Wastewater Elements 2. City of San Luis Obispo Zoning Regulations(February 18,2000) 3. Trip Generation,Institute of Transportation Engineers,6` Edition,Volume 2. 4. City of San Luis Obispo Archaeological Resource Prevention Guidelines,October 1995 5. San Luis Obispo County Airport Land Use Plan 6. Flood Insurance Rate Ma (Community Panel 0603100005 C)dated July 7, 1981 7. City of San Luis Obispo Informational Map Atlas on file in the Community Development Department 8. APCD's"CEQA Air Quality Handbook",August 1995 9. San Luis Obispo Quadrangle Map,prepared by the State Geologist in compliance with the Alquist-Priola Earthquake Fault Zoning Act,effective January 1, 1990 10. City Department and other agency comments,on file in the Community Development Department 20. MITIGATION MEASURESIMONITORING PROGRAM I. The Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions (CC&Rs) for the project shall include a provision to notify property owners within the project that nuisance noise levels may be experienced due to the normal operations of the Fire Department,to the approval of the Community Development Director and the Fire Marshall. Monitoring Program: The mitigation measure will be monitored through the Final Map plan check process. CC&R's are required to be approved for the project by the City Attorney, Public Works Director and Community Development Director. This review will provide an adequate opportunity for City staff to insure compliance with the requirement. 2. Plans submitted for a building permit application shall include construction measures for attenuation of interior noise levels based on the recommendations of a qualified noise consultant. Since there is no noise standard in the General Plan for sound generated by the operation of emergency vehicle equipment,and since the Fire Department is exempt from the standards contained in the Noise Ordinance,the noise consultant should base his or her recommendations on a reasonable level of sound attenuation given the characteristics of the noise. The recommendations of the noise consultant shall be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Director as part of the building permit plan check process for the project. Monitoring Program: The mitigation measure will be monitored through the building permit plan check process. The City's Noise Guidebook can be used to evaluate the effectiveness of the recommendations of the noise consultant for reducing interior noise. It is anticipated that the recommendations would include such items as sound rated windows on the rear elevations of these units,extra insulation,and baffled attic vents. 3. The final project shall be designed to include locations for the collection of recyclable materials and sufficient space shall be provided for each unit to store a waste wheeler for recycling service from the local garbage company. Monitoring Program: The mitigation measure will be monitored through the City's Architectural Review process. The applicant will be required to provide a detail drawing showing how the floor plans or site plans for each unit have been designed to accommodate waste wheelers for recycling and that the design complies with the requirements of the local garbage company. CRY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 17 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2000 ssy- Attachment 7 Draft Resolution"A" RESOLUTION NO. (2001 Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO APPROVING A VESTING TENTATIVE MAP FOR AN 18- UNIT RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM SUBDIVISION AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR A PROJECT LOCATED AT 3051 AUGUSTA STREET, (TR,ER 115-00). WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing on October 16, 2001, and has considered testimony of the applicant, interested parties, and the evaluation and recommendation of staff, and WHEREAS,the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on August 8, 2001, for the purpose of formulating a recommendation to the City Council and has considered the testimony of the applicant, interested parties, and the evaluation and recommendation of staff, and has recommended approval of the proposed vesting tentative map; 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 determined that the Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact for the project includes mitigation measures and monitoring to reduce all potentially significant environmental effects of the project to less than significant levels. 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 JR, ER 115-00), and the recommendation of the Planning Commission, staff recommendations and reports thereof, makes the following findings: 1. The proposed map is consistent with the General Plan because the subdivision will allow for high-density residential development. - Attachment 7 Resolution No. (2001 Series) Page 2 2. As conditioned, the design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is consistent with the General Plan because each dwellings has access to a compact, private open space area and the development will occur as part of the neighborhood pattern. 3. The site is physically suited for the proposed type of development because it is an undeveloped, un-vegetated site that is adjacent to an existing street right-of-way. 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. 8. The proposed decks will not impact solar access for adjacent properties because the decks are located on the northern side of the adjacent senior care facility. 9. There is adequate separation of structures on adjacent lots because the closest structures on the adjacent senior care facility property are set back 20 feet from the property line and additional development is this area is not likely. 10. The Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project adequately identifies and evaluates the potential impacts associated with this project and where impacts are potentially significant, mitigation measures and monitoring programs are provided to reduce these impacts to less than significant levels. Section 2. Environmental Review. The City does hereby adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project, with the following mitigation measures and monitoring programs. 1. The Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions (CC&Rs) for the project shall include a provision to notify property owners within the project that nuisance noise levels may be experienced due to the normal operations of the Fire Department, to the approval of the Community Development Director and the Fire Marshall. .-.Sl Attachment 7 Resolution No. (2001 Series) Page 3 Monitoring Program: The mitigation measure will be monitored through the Final Map plan check process. CC&R's are required to be approved for the project by the City Attorney, Public Works Director and Community Development Director. This review will provide an adequate opportunity for City staff to insure compliance with the requirement. 2. Plans submitted for a building permit application shall include construction measures for attenuation of interior noise levels based on the recommendations of a qualified noise consultant. Since there is no noise standard in the General Plan for sound generated by the operation of emergency vehicle equipment, and since the Fire Department is exempt from the standards contained in the Noise Ordinance, the noise consultant should base his or her recommendations on a reasonable level of sound attenuation given the characteristics of the noise. The recommendations of the noise consultant shall be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Director as part of the building permit plan check process for the project. Monitoring Program: The mitigation measure will be monitored through the building permit plan check process. The City's Noise Guidebook can be used to evaluate the effectiveness of the recommendations of the noise consultant for reducing interior noise. It is anticipated that the recommendations would include such items as sound rated windows on the rear elevations of these units, extra insulation, and baffled attic vents. 3. The final project shall be designed to include locations for the collection of recyclable materials and sufficient space shall be provided for each unit to store a waste wheeler for recycling service from the local garbage company. Monitoring Program: The mitigation measure will be monitored through the City's Architectural Review process. The applicant will be required to provide a detail drawing showing how the floor plans or site plans for each unit have been designed to accommodate waste wheelers for recycling and that the design complies with the requirements of the local garbage company. SECTION 3. Action. That the approval of vesting tentative map 115-00, 3051 Augusta Street, be subject to the following conditions: 1. The final map shall include a note that setback is not required for the first-level decks on units 8, 9, 10 and 11. 2. The proposed storm drain, both on-site and off-site, shall be privately owned and maintained by the Homeowners Association. The system shall be capable of conveying a 10-yr. (min.) design storm to Laurel Lane, with an improved I00-yr. storm"safe overflow route", to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works and Building Official. Offsite easements are required, to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director and Building Attachment 7 Resolution No. (2001 Series) Page 4 Official. If the offsite drainage easements have not been acquired by the time of final map approval, the City shall lend its power of eminent domain, in accordance with the California Subdivision Map Act. All costs associated with this matter shall be at the cost of the subdivider. 3. The subdivider shall dedicate a public utility easement, 6 feet wide, across the portion of the property that is contiguous to the Augusta St. right-of-way. Easements for onsite public utilities and City water main and appurtenance purposes shall be provided to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director and the utility companies. 4. The subdivider shall dedicate a public street tree easement, 10 feet wide, across the Augusta Street frontage of the property. 5. The curb return radii at the Augusta Street driveway entrance may be modified at the discretion and to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works. 6. The project 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. 7. All boundary monuments, lot comers and centerline intersections, BC's, EC's, etc., shall be tied to the City's Horizontal Control Network At least two control points shall be used and a tabulation of the coordinates shall be submitted with the final map or parcel map. All coordinates submitted shall be based on the City coordinate system. A 3.5" diameter computer floppy disk, containing the appropriate data compatible with Autocad (Digital Interchange Format, DXF) for Geographic Information System (GIS) purposes, shall be submitted to the City Engineer. 8. 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 City Engineer. 9. Prior to approval of the public improvement plans, the developer's engineer shall submit a digital copy of the public improvement plans, signed and stamped by the engineer of record, to the Director of Public Works. All digital plans submitted to the City shall be compatible with the City's system (the current City format is Autocad, Digital Interchange Format, DXF, for Geographic Information System purposes). 10. Upon completion of the public improvements, an "as-built" version of the digital copy shall be submitted, which include any approved change of plan revisions, in addition to as-built tracings,prior to the City's acceptance of said improvements. 11. Applicant shall install a "street type" entrance to the driveway at Augusta Street, with sidewalk curb ramps on either side. Five (5) meters of red curb shall be installed on either side of driveway, extending from the back of each curb return. Attachment 7 Resolution No. (2001 Series) Page 5 12. Applicant shall provide short and long-term bicycle parking consistent with provisions of Section 17.16.060 of the Municipal Code and with standards contained within the 1993 Bicycle Transportation Plan. Project plans reviewed by the ARC shall show how these code requirements have been met. 13. A safe overflow will be required to convey runoff from this site to a safe point of disposal to the approval of the Chief Building Official. 14. Runoff from the adjacent property (Eastside) must be provided with a new disposal point due to the placement of retaining walls and fill in existing drainage courses. 15. 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. 16. The applicant shall pay Park In-Lieu Fees prior to recordation of the Final Map, consistent with SLO Municipal Code Section 16.40.080. 17. Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions (CC&R's) are required, to the approval of the Community Development Director and the Public Works Director. 18. CC&R's for the project shall include a requirement that garages be available for parking vehicles and general storage in garages shall not prevent parking of two vehicles. 19. The applicant shall provide at least 10 enclosed bicycle spaces. 20. The CC&R's shall include a provision that, in the two-bedroom units, the space labeled "family play area" shall not be converted to a third bedroom. 21. Applicant shall designate common open space areas as gathering spaces (with the actual facilities to be flexible; residents' participation in deciding the specific use is encouraged). 22. Applicant shall explore how to provide adequate space for trash and recycling storage 23. Applicant shall provide porches or other entry features facing the street, for the units closest to Augusta Street. 24. All mitigation measures approved as part of the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project are hereby made conditions of approval of the project. 25. The applicant shall dedicate land or reserve easements as indicated on the project site plan for the exclusive use of the City's Fire Department, to the approval of the Fire Marshall and the Community Development Director. 5--Y9 Attachment 7 Resolution No. (2001 Series) Page 6 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: tto e?, IfTeVl- Jorgensen � Attachmerd 8 Draft Resolution`B" RESOLUTION NO. (2001 Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO DENYING A VESTING TENTATIVE MAP FOR AN 18-UNIT RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM SUBDIVISION FOR A PROJECT LOCATED AT 3051 AUGUSTA STREET, (TR, ER 115-00). WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing on October 16, 2001, and has considered testimony of the applicant, interested parties, and the evaluation and recommendation of staff, and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on August 8, 2001, for the purpose of formulating a recommendation to the City Council and has considered the 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 or 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 115-00), and the recommendation of the Planning Commission, staff recommendations and reports thereof, makes the following findings: 1. 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. Attachment 8 Resolution No. (2001 Series) Page 2 SECTION 2. Action. That vesting tentative map 115-00, 3051 Augusta 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 ,s67i "RING t"�I/^/'/' 6is council MCMORAnbum O DATE: October 11, 2001 TO: City Council VIA: Ken Hampian, CAO nn FROM: John Mandeville, Community Development Directok! �,i sw�. BY: Michael Codron,Associate Planner SUBJECT: ARC Minutes for 3051 Augusta(TR, ER 115-00), Agenda Item#5 As indicated in the Council Agenda Report, the ARC minutes for September 17, 2001 are now being forwarded to Council. The minutes were not available at the time the Council Agenda Report was distributed. Should the Council have concerns or questions regarding the project or the minutes that have • been distributed, please contact Michael Codron at 781-7175. /3QA(S OLfNCIL D DIR FAQ ❑ FIN DIR 111 ACCO ❑ FIRE CHIEF m-ATTORNEY ❑ PW DIR RECEIVED Gl-MIRK/ORIGL+ - ❑ POLICE CHF • ❑ DE HEADS HEADS ❑ REC DIR 1 'OCT7 (�(i� ❑ / ❑ UTIL DIR ❑ HR DIR SLO CITY COUNCIL SAN LUIS OBISPO ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES OSeptember 17, 2001 ROLL CALL: Present: Commrs. Hana Novak , Michael Boudreau, Rob Schultz, Mark Rawson, Vice-Chair Jim Lopes and Chairperson Charles Stevenson Absent: Commr. Zeljka Howard Staff: Associate Planners Michael Codron, John Shoals, and Deputy Director. Ronald Whisenand PUBLIC COMMENTS: Mary Beth Schroeder, 2085 Wilding Lane, spoke about the Senior Center. She felt the Senior Center should be moved to 1341 Nipomo Street instead of the old USO building (now the Recreation Center) on the corner of Santa Rosa and Mill Streets. She expressed her opinion of the need for student housing and why the money for the senior center should be better spent for housing issues. Josephine Malone, San Luis Obispo County, noted there is a need for direction Oconcerning signage, and she is waiting for this issue to come before the ARC. Deputy Director Whisenand addressed Ms. Malone and explained that the City does not have a signage program at this time. He noted that large retail design guidelines will come forward in October and other signage direction will be addressed at a later date. Staff will notify her when more information is available. Ms. Malone also addressed a question concerning a field investigation. Mr. Whisenand recommended working through the zoning enforcement officer, Don Wright. There were no further comments from the public. PROJECTS: 1. 3051 Augusta Street ARC 115-00; Review of an 18-unit condominium townhouse development and site improvements, including a private street; R-4 zone; Augusta Partners, LLC, applicant. Michael Codron, Associate Planner, presented the staff report, recommending approval of the proposed development plan. He noted that the Planning Commission has forwarded a recommendation to the City Council to approve the proposed tentative map O and recommended approval of the requested setback exception along the rear property line. Commr. Lopes expressed concerns about noise level impacts for the Cabrillo Care Center next door, and questioned why it was not mentioned in the staff report. Draft ARC Minutes September 17, 2001 Page 2 O Planner Codron replied that the City's Noise Ordinance addresses residential noise, and speck issues like loud music are enforced by the Police Department. Commr. Lopes questioned the Fire Department minimum drive aisle for the project. Mr. Codron replied that the Fire Department minimum drive aisle is 20 feet, but the Fire Department would not need access since every unit is designed with a sprinkler system. The farthest structure on the lot is less than 300 feet from the right-of-way. Commr. Novak asked if there was a distinction between guest parking spaces and resident parking. Mr. Codron replied that the plan was designed for one guest parking space required for every five units. There was discussion about the amount and location of required parking. Public Comment Mr. Hamish Marshall, applicant, 1880 Santa Barbara Avenue, spoke about the project and the difficulties of the site itself. He indicated the direction from the Planning Commission was to develop a plan with more dwellings and more affordable housing. O He also noted that accommodations have been made for an easement for the Fire Department. Mr. Ernie Kim, project architect, spoke in support of the project and the challenges of developing a project that he feels addresses the direction given by the Planning Commission. He felt he has designed a project which maximizes the space available, and has incorporated variety and individuality. Carol Florence, Oasis Associates, explained that the units facing Augusta Street were designed to face the street to create a more residential feel. The landscaping includes various and numerous trees and planter boxes. She discussed a short wall, or "good neighbor fence" along units one through seven, which joins up to the Fire Department easement. The landscape plan calls for vines to grow over the fence. Commr. Schultz asked about trash pick-up. Mr. Marshall replied that the trash company would back down the street to the pick-up bins. Large trash receptacles have been included in the garage floor plans. Commr. Schultz questioned the width of the parking spaces and the turning radius available. OMr. Marshall replied that the parking spaces were to City standards. Draft ARC Minutes September 17, 2001 Page 3 O Commr. Stevenson questioned the distance between units, noting the staff report indicated a distance of 23 feet. Mr. Codron replied that 23 feet is the distance between the upstairs where there is a projection. Commr. Stevenson discussed the decks in the back and their relationship with the property line. He felt the drawings in the plan were okay, but couldn't get a clear picture. There was discussion concerning double decks in the back, privacy issues, and the usability of the common open space areas. Commr. Lopes asked whether any consideration had been given to bringing the planters out into the drive aisle further. Discussion concerning planters and traffic flow followed. Mr. Marshall replied that the planters could be extended 6 inches on either side. Commr. Lopes asked if the overhangs would allow for additional trees, like a vertical tree such as a Brisbane. OMs. Florence replied that she would have to work with the engineers to determine turning area, and would be happy to put a tree in there. Commr. Lopes asked about the wall leading to the fire truck turn-around, i.e., the height and whether or not it will block the view for people driving out of the complex. Mr. Codron suggested that staff be given an opportunity, unless it's a specific design issue, to evaluate the wall to ensure there will not be any obstructions prior to review by the City Council. Commr. Boudreau asked about the parapet walls and the relationship to the properties. Mr. Marshall replied that they would be taking the air space to the outside wall, not the inside wall and there is a need to have the fire wall parapet going all the way up. Commr. Lopes asked if a lay-down parapet would work, with a double layer inside so that an exterior parapet would not need to go above the rear wall. Commr. Novak asked if anything would be done to the retaining wall on the west side of the property. O Mr. Marshall replied that it would be repaired and stuccoed as needed, to create a finished look to the project. Commr. Lopes asked if there was a grading plan. Draft ARC Minutes September 17, 2001 Page 4 OThere was discussion about grading lines and contour plans. Steve Del Martini, 962 Meadow Street asked for support for the project. He felt the plan has design elements such as the Cerro Vista project on Florence and Bushnell and that some of the location aspects that Villa Rosa had in a mixed use area. He also felt that if a developer is willing to take on such a project, the City should try to work with them as much as possible. The public hearing was closed. COMMISSION COMMENTS: Commr. Stevenson commented that the project has many interesting features and the architect did a good job trying to solve many of the problems. He felt it was unfortunate that the project is so close together with such a tunnel effect. He also noted he was hoping to see an attempt to look at more than two stories, possibly three or four flats where there is more open space and less tunnel effect. He did like the architecture and supported Commr. Lopes' suggestion of possibly laying the parapet down. Commr. Lopes commented that he agreed philosophically with Mr. Del Martini, and appreciated the effort made to bring in more units to the project. He commented on the • size aspects of each individual unit contributing to the "squeeze" problem. He suggested that if the project was designed as a two-bedroom unit with a family room, or third bedroom was eliminated, then the outdoor deck area might be pulled back from the edge so that it does not create an overlook problem on the adjoining properties. He was very concerned about the residential care facility being directly below the units on that side and was disappointed that the applicant did not respond positively to what is an apparent noise conflict that will develop. Mr. Lopes discussed the normal daily noise levels, which can impact the residents of the care facility. He felt this point should be made if the project is approved without some kind of noise mitigation. His preference would be to continue the project and have environmental review for noise impacts that will be generated on the project on the basis of a noise study. He felt this is the way impacts are usually addressed. Commr. Lopes also recommended the following: bring out the landscape areas more into the drive aisles so that it has a traffic calming effect; create room for more greenery, perhaps small trees, between units 14 and 15; 12 and 13, and 6 and 7. On the landscape plan, the trees shown for the edges between units 7 and 12, and in front of 9 and 10, are sweet shade trees. Because they are only a foot or two away from the building, he did not see how they could be planted there. He suggested another option be chosen, such as vertical shrubs. Also, the landscaping is shown out to the street sidewalk, so that if someone is driving in while another is walking out, there could be a problem. One option would be to extend the sidewalk around the radius curve so that at O least a five-foot sidewalk extends into the project on each side for more safety. Commr. Lopes liked the architecture and felt that it responded well to a lot of issues while trying to bring interest to the project. He agreed with staff that the wall on the fire station side needed to be a solid block wall, not a wall with a fence on top. If the project r Draft ARC Minutes September 17, 2001 Page 5 • is not to be continued, he felt the commission should consider requiring a solid block wall, 6 feet high on the care facility side. Commr. Boudreau agreed with most. of Commr. Lopes' suggestions, but did not see design solutions to practically control residential sound. He felt this was more of a civil issue than an architectural issue. Commr. Novak concurred with Commr. Stevenson and Commr. Lopes. She expressed reservations about the lot pattern and the tunnel effect of the design, and felt the usability of the common space was placed in as an after-thought. She discussed her visits to the site at different times of the day and the noise levels generated by the Fire Station. She said there are design solutions, such as landscaping to mitigate or lessen the impacts of noise. She expressed mixed feelings about the garden boxes, recommending elimination of the garden boxes and finding different ways to create more useable common space, such as staffs recommendations to eliminate landscaping along one side and creation of stepping stones or some type of pathway. She asked if the Negative Declaration of environmental impact mentioned something about providing shortand long-term bicycle parking spaces, and asked if there was a planned area for bicycle parking. Commr. Novak expressed concern about space in the garages for two cars and bicycles, along with normal storage usually found in a garage. QMr. Marshall discussed the complex across the street from the project, and that a photograph was taken of an open garage, which showed that storage, cars and bicycles all fit together. Commr. Stevenson expressed concern about the design including a family play area, which has the potential to become a bedroom. Mr. Marshall replied that it was required by the Planning Commission to have it recorded in the CC&R's, that it couldn't become a bedroom. Mr. Codron added that the Planning Commission Resolution specifically stated that the space shall be labeled family play area, and that will be recorded as part of the CC&R's. Commr. Lopes presented a.motion to continue this item to a date uncertain. He asked that a noise study be done to determine the anticipated noise impacts from the project site to the adiacent care facilities, as well as from the fire station on to the site. He asked that.proiect revisions be done to respond to anv recommendations from the noise study to mitigate impacts to area residents. Commr. Stevenson seconded. O Mr. Codron asked that the Commission consider what standard will be looked for from a potential noise study. The current ordinance and general plan do not provide particular standards for noise generated by residential uses. Draft ARC Minutes September 17, 2001 Page 6 O Commr. Lopes replied that CEQA doesn't have specific standards to pick out from an ordinance. He felt there is a need to have an expert determine the impacts on this project to the neighbors of the project. Mr. Codron stated that a noise study will only provide what the noise levels are and that it will need to be evaluated. Staff will need some direction as to a particular standard for evaluation. Commr. Lopes mentioned that the City's noise ordinance levels are set at 60 decibels exterior and 45 decibels interior. John Shoals, Associate Planner noted that this standard was for transportation generated noise levels and did not apply to noise generated from a residential project. If defined as a stationary noise source, the standards in the noise ordinance can be used for comparison. Commr. Novak asked if the motion should address the "tunnel effect" and any concerns on how the complex could be "tweaked" to create more of a village space. Commr. Lopes stated that there would be more opportunity for the village effect if the master bedroom and upstairs decks were facing the drive aisle. Mr. Marshall discussed the difficulty of placing a deck over a living space. OChairman Stevenson called for a vote on the motion. AYES: Commr. Novak, Lopes, Stevenson NOES: Commr. Boudreau, Schultz, Rawson ABSENT: Commr. Howard The motion failed 3-3. Commr. Schultz noted that the project is zoned R-4, so the high-density issue will not be changed. He felt the commission must try to keep an eye on the architectural issues. He indicated his support of the project, and presented a motion to approve the project based on the recommendations noted in the staff report. The motion was seconded by Commr. Lopes for discussion. Commr. Lopes asked for an amendment to consider adding something about extending a narrow sidewalk from the public sidewalk to the front units. Commr. Boudreau suggested changing the material at the driveway entrance to give it a scored, textured colored band about 12-feet wide to connect the two walks next to unit #1 and unit#18. OCommr. Lopes supported the idea, but felt it only needs to be four feet wide. Commr. Schultz agreed. Draft ARC Minutes �. September 17, 2001 Page 7 OCommr. Boudreau suggested incorporating the parapet.walls into the architecture if the code allows, and to push the landscape out between units#14 and #15. Commr. Novak requested that Condition #3 be expanded to include the CC&R's shall include maintenance of landscape areas below the decks and within all common open space areas. She also asked to consider replacing the sweet shade tree with two small shade trees from between units #14 and #15. Commr. Schultz agreed. Commr. Stevenson said he would like to see language added to the first finding that says the project is architecturally compatible with the site because of the unusual or relatively narrow site dimension. There was some further discussion on the motion. Commissioner Stevenson called for a vote on the motion. AYES: Commrs. Schultz, Lopes, Novak, Boudreau, Stevenson, and Rawson NOES: None ABSENT: Commr. Howard QOn a 6-0 vote the ARC approved the project based on findings and subject to conditions of approval as noted in the ARC action letter. 2. 4041 Broad Street. ARC 148-00; Study session to review a 105,000 sq. ft. commercial development consisting of a 102,000 sq. ft. office park and 3,000 sq. ft. for a gas station/car wash and parking. Michael Cannon, applicant. John Shoals, Associate Planner, presented the staff report asking the ARC to provide direction to staff and the applicant to assist with developing the final design. Commr. Stevenson referred to the site design of the Rancho Cucamonga site, and asked what the height of the berm was, and asked if there was some concern with the height. Mr. Shoals indicated that since the project was a study session, that issue had not been addressed.. Commr. Lopes addressed the future use of the right-of-way. He felt the design seems to assume that the area of the right-of-way may remain on Tank Farm Road, but that it omay end up as future roadway. 'MNG AGENDA vATE /0-/bD/ ITEM# r NB16 -D DIA � � b FIN DA �'A6. b PAE C�IIEF Ita-�T�CIRNEY b ow Din 10/15/01 PPdd"QQ�E�I��pi�Q I b POUtt CHF o ® b AEA rill CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 6 UTILbIA Pn 990 PALM STREET .��'� •�// HFiBip SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA. 93401-3249 DEAR MR. OR M/S: RE-PUBLIC HEARING TO BE HELD ON 10/16/01 OF THE P'ROP'OSED CONDOMINIUM TO BE BUILT AT 3031 AUGUSTA STREET PLEASE CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING: FOR EACH OF THE RESIDENTS, THERE MUST BE A PARKING SPACE LOCATED ON THAT PROPERTY, AS THERE ARE TOO MANY CARS PARKING ALL-ALONG THE NEARBY STREETS, ALREADY-----REQUIRING SOME PEOPLE TO PARK, AND WALK A BLOCK (DEPENDING UPON THE TIME OF DAY) . THANK OU, HOMER E. ANDERSON 3000 AUGUSTA ST. #121 SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA: 93401 RECEIVED OCT 16 2001 SLO CITY COUNCIL v MEETING AGENDA `�. DA..--% 16116,101 ITEMS P/; council m e m o m n b u m DATE: October 10, 2001 TO: City Council VIA: Ken Hampian, CAO FROM: John.Mandeville, Community Development Direc BY: Michael Codron, Associate Planner SUBJECT: Plans for 3051 Augusta, TR/ER 115-00, Agenda Item#5 Plans are being distributed now for the subject agenda item. The purpose of this memo is to call out a minor discrepancy between the Tentative Tract Map and the architectural plans. The Tract Map was not updated to show the new location for the parking space adjacent to Unit 18. This space was relocated to an area between Unit 14 and Unit 15. The architectural plans show the revised layout that was approved by the Architectural Review Commission, based on direction from the Planning Commission, as discussed in the agenda report for this item. A revised Tentative Map is not necessary at this time, since minor changes between the Tentative Map and Final Map are typical, and the Final Map will have to reflect the development plan approved by the Architectural Review Commission. Should the Council have concerns or questions regarding the project or the plans that have been distributed, please contact Michael Codron at 781-7175. COUNCIL @-eC6DIR 131'eAO ❑ FIN DIR [PA'CAO ❑ FIRE CHIEF 01-ATTORNEY ❑ PW DIR RECEIVED m-CLERK/ORICL ❑ POLICE CHF O❑ DEP EADS 0 REC DIR OCT ?0011 ❑ 12HR D RIR SLO CITY COUNCIL Council Mento(115-00 revised plmix).doc