Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/19/2002, PH 4 - A VESTING TENTATIVE MAP FOR A 17-UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT AND ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW; 1144 WALNUT STR council W.tin Dat j�4�of z acnEnVa Repo Rt It®N=6v Pel l CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO FROM: John Mandeville,Community Development Direct Prepared By: Michael Codron,Associate Planner SUBJECT: A VESTING TENTATIVE MAP FOR A 17-UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT AND ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW; 1144 WALNUT STREET (TR/ER 130-01). CAO RECOMMENDATION As recommended by the Planning Commission, adopt Draft Resolution "A" approving the proposed vesting tentative map and Mitigated Negative Declaration. DISCUSSION Situation/Previous Review The applicant is proposing to redevelop a site in the High Density Residential Zone (R-4) with 17 new townhouse style dwellings. The proposal includes subdivision of the property for condominium ownership. City Council approval is required for all new major subdivisions. On December 19, 2001, the Planning Commission reviewed the project and continued consideration of the proposal, asking for additional information on traffic and site drainage (See Attachments 3 and 4 for discussion). On January 9, 2002, the Planning Commission voted 6-1 (Caruso) to recommend approval of the subdivision and Mitigated Negative Declaration to the City Council (Attachment 5). On February 4, 2002, the Architectural Review Commission granted unanimous approval to the proposed building designs (Attachment 6). Data Summary Address: 1144 Walnut Street Applicant/Property Owner: JM Wilson Development Corporation Representative: Oasis Associates, Inc. Zoning/General Plan: High Density Residential (R-4)/High Density Residential Environmental status: A Mitigated Negative Declaration was approved by the Community Development Director on December 11, 2001. Site Description The 41,382 square foot site has an irregular shape and includes two land parcels with five existing dwelling units (addresses 1144, 1150 and 1162 on Walnut Street, and 642 A, B on Toro Street). The project is bordered by both residential and commercial development including a bank to the west and a hotel to the east. Residential land to the south of the project site is zoned for Medium Density (R-2) development. Residential land to the east of the project site is zoned � l Council Agenda Report TR/ER 130-01 (1144 Walnut) Page 2 for Medium-High (R-3) development (Attachment 1). The project site is on the northern edge of the Downtown Planning Area. The site is one-half block north of the Mill Street Historic District. Highway 101 is located north of the project site. The highway travel lanes are located approximately 68 feet from the rear property line of the project site. Dense shrubs and trees occupy the space between the property line and the highway. Trees on the site include pepper, palm, avocado, cypress, redwood and pine. The site slopes down from Walnut Street approximately 20 feet to the rear property line. Proiect Description The project is a condominium subdivision of an existing .95 acre site. The project includes 10 two-bedroom units and 7 three-bedroom units for a total of 17 dwellings. The homes would have a townhouse configuration with attached two-car garages. Including the garages,the homes have three levels and a maximum height of 35 feet. Private open space is provided primarily on decks and balconies, with some units having ground level yards. Recreation space is provided in the form of a barbecue area, turf area and garden area. The project site is presently developed with five dwellings. Project plans indicate that these and all accessory structures would be demolished. Six palm trees on the site will be retained or relocated on site. An existing stand of yuccas, as well as a 46" cypress and a 14" avocado tree will also be retained. All tree removals are noted on the demolition plan. A noise study has been prepared for the project and the project includes a proposal to develop sound barriers in two locations in order to reduce noise levels from Highway 101 at the interior of the project site. Evaluation This evaluation includes an analysis of the project components and an overview of the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact. A. Proiect Design The project design was well received by both the Planning Commission and Architectural Review Commission. The Walnut Street elevation has a neo-traditional design with 15-foot building setbacks (in compliance with the R-4 standard), 3-foot tall picket fences and vehicle access at the rear of the units, which significantly reduces the amount of paving visible along Walnut Street. Staff believes that the project designers have responded well to the unique property dimensions and the project interior should provide a pleasant courtyard environment for residents. Common open spaces include a lawn area, a barbecue, landscaped seating areas, an area for raised garden beds, and the potential for multiple uses of driveway areas. The attached Planning Commission Agenda Reports include additional evaluations of the project including an evaluation of General Plan policies that apply to the project (Attachments 3 and 4). B. Property Development Standards The project meets all of the City's property development standards and standards for new condominium projects. These standards include setbacks, parking requirements, building heights, provision of private and common open space, density and lot coverage. No exceptions �-a Council Agenda Report TR/ER 130-01 (1144 Walnut) Page 3 are necessary to permit development of the project as proposed. C. Planning Commission Review The Planning Commission reviewed the project twice. On December 19, 2001, the Planning Commission continued consideration of the project so that additional information could be provided on traffic and project drainage (Attachment 3). Additional information on these issues was provided to the Commission in the agenda report for the January 9a'hearing (Attachment 4). The City's Associate Transportation Engineer, Jim Hanson, attended the January 9`h hearing to respond to Commissioners' questions. The Commission ultimately voted 6-1 (Caruso) to recommend to the City Council approval of the subdivision and Mitigated Negative Declaration (Attachment 5). Changes to the project required by the Planning Commission are reflected in the Conditions of Approval in Draft Resolution "A" (Attachment 11). These changes include conversion of unit 8 into a two-bedroom plan and the provision of one additional parking space adjacent to unit 8. The plan modification is necessary for the project to meet the City's parking requirements and the applicant has agreed to the change. The Planning Commission also required the project entry to be expanded from 16-feet wide to 20-feet wide to reduce the potential for conflicts between pedestrians and vehicles at the driveway. D. Architectural Review The Architectural Review Commission voted unanimously to support the proposed building designs (Attachment 6). The ARC required conditions to prohibit waste wheelers from being brought up to Walnut Street, to replace the proposed half-basketball court with an activity that will generate less of a nuisance for adjacent units and to plant the sound walls at the rear corners of the project with Ficus pumila (creeping fig) to cover the walls. The ARC also required the color palette to be toned down so the colors are not too intense. E. Inclusionary Housing Requirement One affordable dwelling is required to be built as part of this project. The applicant is proposing to build the unit on site and retain ownership of the affordable dwelling, offering the unit for rent under a contract of affordability with the City. F. Environmental Review A Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact was approved by the Community Development Director on December 11, 2001 (Attachment 7). The following is a discussion of the impact areas identified in the Initial Study. A monitoring program for Mitigation Measure No. 3 was inadvertently left out of the Mitigated Negative Declaration. Draft Resolution "A" includes a monitoring program for this mitigation measure, as required by CEQA. 4_3 Council Agenda Report TR/ER 130-01 (1144 Walnut) Page 4 Traffic Although the project will not reduce Level of Service (LOS) on adjacent streets, vehicles turning left into the project site may back up traffic to the Santa Rosa Street intersection. Public Works Traffic Division staff has developed mitigation measures to address this potentially significant impact. The first mitigation measure requires the applicant to coordinate with Cal Trans to improve the signal timing at the Santa Rosa Street intersection. If additional green time can be provided on Walnut Street, additional gaps in the traffic on Walnut Street would occur allowing turning vehicles to complete their maneuvers into the project site. This mitigation measure would be monitored by the applicant's traffic engineer and depending on the results, additional mitigation measures may or may not be necessary. Additional mitigation measures include re- striping of Walnut Street and elimination of on-street parking on the project side of the street in order to provide a center tum lane. City Council review of the project has been delayed at the request of Cal Trans to provide additional time to review the project. No comments were received from Cal Trans initially, even though the project proposal was routed to them by City staff and the Mitigated Negative Declaration was routed to them via the State Clearinghouse. Cal Trans has recently provided comments to the City and they have stated that the project will not have a significant impact on the State Highway System (Attachment 10). Cal Trans has also indicated that the signals at the Walnut/Santa Rosa Intersection are fully actuated (demand driven) and that optimization as required by the Mitigated Negative Declaration may prove problematic. City staff has been working separately with Cal Trans on coordination of the signals along Santa Rosa Street to optimize the system and improve traffic flow, which could improve the feasibility of the proposed mitigation measure. As a result, feasibility will depend on the timing of the development project and the willingness of Cal Trans to cooperate. If the first mitigation measure for traffic does not prove feasible because of problems coordinating with Cal Trans, then the additional mitigation measures will be required with the initial project development. This requirement is clarified in the monitoring program for Mitigation Measure No. 3 (Attachment 7). Noise The project-site is in an area that is subject to noise from Highway 101 in excess of the standards listed in the Noise Element. An acoustical analysis has been prepared for the project and the project has been designed to comply with the recommendations of the analysis (Acoustical Analysis in Council Reading File). Two sound walls are proposed at the rear comers of the site. The walls are 10 feet tall at the western corner and 11 feet tall at the eastern comers and will act together with units 9 through 12 to act as a noise barrier for the rest of the site. The wall does not extend behind the rear units. Although yards are provided in this area, they would be optional use areas for the residents of the units. Private open space in compliance with Noise Element standards is provided with decks at the front of these units, facing into the courtyard. A photograph of the site from the Santa Rosa bridge has been provided to Council to show that the wall would be obscured by vegetation and would not be visible from the highway. Council Agenda Report TR/ER 130-01 (1144 Walnut) Page 5 Solid Waste and Recycling A standard mitigation measure is recommended to insure that the development is designed to accommodate recycling facilities. The Architectural Review Commission has reviewed and approved the proposed locations for waste wheelers. Each unit has screened exterior spaces designated for waste wheelers for solid waste and recyclables. The Homeowner's Association for the development will be required to contract directly with the local garbage company. CONCURRENCES The project was routed to Public Works, Fire, Building, and Utilities. Comments from these departments have been incorporated into the discussion and, where appropriate, included as conditions of approval or mitigation measures. The Mitigated Negative Declaration was routed to the State Clearinghouse for distribution to various state agencies. Cal Trans has provided comments as discussed in this report. ALTERNATIVES 1. Council may deny the proposed subdivision if the findings for approval cannot be made, or may deny the Mitigated Negative Declaration if a reasonable argument can be made that potentially significant environmental effects of the project have not been fully reduced to less than significant levels. 2. Council may continue consideration if additional information is necessary. Direction should be given to staff and the applicant. Attachments: Attachment 1: Vicinity map Attachment 2: Reduced scale project plans Attachment 3: Planning Commission Agenda Report for 12-19-01 and meeting minutes Attachment 4: Planning Commission Agenda Report for 01-09-02 and meeting minutes Attachment 5: Planning Commission Resolution#5328-02 Attachment 6: ARC Action Letter for 02-04-02 and meeting minutes Attachment 7: Initial Study of Environmental Impact (ER 130-01) Attachment 8: Project Description prepared by Oasis Associates, Inc. Attachment 9: Letter from Thomas Courtney regarding traffic concerns and City response Attachment 10:Project comments from Cal Trans Attachment 11:Draft Resolution"A" (Planning Commission/CAO recommended action) Attachment 12:Draft Resolution``B" (Denying the project) Provided for Council: Full Size Architectural Plans and Vesting Tentative Map Council Reading File: Acoustical Analysis, Brown—Buntin and Associates Traffic Analysis, Penfield and Smith PIN m Mantt p YZ Mal TR/ER 130-61 N 1144 Walnut Street 0 70 140 210 Feet A . Attachment 2 122AS=nUT-Y =aagS.nry t = s it At 31 0 0 I O O j r O I rd ..7 ice. I III < r1 I. m awl\\ d v r s h y _. ..._..�r-...-.�.-.�r..r--�..r..m..- �........... 41—e7 Attachment 2 ._._ ._ 3_ laaal5 7naryr saa.p2s A nogeeap a�emagag . T K. i 2 Y ,1 if o .46 I 3 c p jis r a4 r • � II II I Ix I I to I I II 'ppn�i�h�rf S T 1C III III I o I ''J_ J a p� m m �11 'Ilf"I _ c 1 I x I ep •, > v - _ r y — U - E E a a+ s _ r V v U � h l .!r I -•�.rr•�..yr.r-ter ru`r.��....-•.-�.. .�_ w_ s..- / V Attachment 2 lmmdola.ap II!1nI Id p ue v B .� .=3 1vv+1S lnula c 1!S opama9vS o - I I l '1 � FF}ti B r �,��i�• � � 7 77 eetgagygCee[qif[[! v ) i 3i( a �� w� i t t' q � f l y$�'.�I l I - � � i t ` i J A•8 8 8-8 B B-.g g.... � ` 7 1 eiFtl;s : E3il }1 ' 9 `i}:�F 1�) ll lJ ff� i ;- -........ rix ag. �ii - mslJf o 5 r t it m �ti F aaf.FS � — s :J i E Z;Ea ii — qJ iii — 1 UIp i E E I. if O \ m � a � r it - if 9F 7! I Sl eo p Q> F o e . . g is all ) s a- if it i s J U I I I Attachment 2 '__: ::•� = )oamdola-a ll!NI furl iaddp A P^al olall a woad too;d arlamagog 3 i I E !W 0 I 3! it — it 3! O - C it it si — it — v I � D 3! 3! I o w O � m C U D U A 3i ti it 3! 3! ;� it — — 1 i it a w it d - 32 •!� ' ,�I i j I o I i III a i I � � it fi a a uJ C _ Attachment 3 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT ITEM # Z BY: Michael Codron, Associate Planner(781-717*—)VIEETING DATE: December 19, 2001 FROM: Ron Whisenand, Deputy Director- Development Review FILE NUMBER: TR, ER 130-01 PROJECT ADDRESS: 1144 Walnut Street SUBJECT: Review of a proposed 17-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 findings and subject to conditions of approval. BACKGROUND Situation The City has received an application to subdivide a .95 acre site for a 17-unit condominium project. The project site is in the High Density Residential Zone (R-4) and is presently developed with 5 older single-family homes. The proposed development consists of 2 and 3- bedroom townhouse units, each with an attached two-car garage. The project is subject to environmental review, and an Initial Study of Environmental Impact and Mitigated Negative Declaration have been prepared. The Planning Commission is being asked to make a recommendation on the proposed subdivision and environmental document to the City Council. Data Summary Address: 1144 Walnut (including 1150 and 1162 Walnut and 642 A, B Toro Street) Applicant/Property Owner: JM Wilson Development Corporation Representative: Oasis Associates, Inc. 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 December 11, 2001. J Attachment 3 TR, ER 130-01 (1144 Walnut) Page 2 Site Description The 41,382 square foot site has an irregular shape and includes two land parcels with the addresses 1144, 1150 and 1162 on Walnut, and 642 A, B on Toro Street. The project is bordered by both residential and commercial development including a bank to the west and a hotel to the east. Residential land to the south of the project site is zoned for Medium Density (R-2) development. Residential land to the east of the project site is zoned for Medium-High (R-3) development. The project site is on the northern edge of the Downtown Planning Area. The site is one-half block north of the Mill Street Historic District. Highway 101 is located north of the project site. The highway travel lanes are located approximately 68 feet from the rear property line of the project site. Dense shrubs and trees occupy the space between the property line and the highway. Trees on the site include pepper, palm, avocado, cypress, redwood and pine. The site slopes down from Walnut Street approximately 20 feet to the rear property line. Proiect Description The project is a condominium subdivision of an existing .95 acre site. The project includes 10 two-bedroom units and 7 three-bedroom units for a total of 17 dwellings. The homes would have a townhouse configuration with attached two-car garages. Including the garages, the homes have three levels and a maximum height of 35 feet. Private open space is provided primarily on decks and balconies, with some units having ground level yards. Recreation space is provided in the form of a barbecue area, turf area and a i/2 court basketball area. The project site is presently developed with five dwellings. Project plans indicate that these and all accessory structures would be demolished. Six palm trees on the site will be retained or relocated on site. An existing stand of yuccas, as well as a 46" cypress and a 14" avocado tree will also be retained. All tree removals are noted on the demolition plan. A noise study has been prepared for the project and the project includes a proposal to develop sound barriers in two locations in order to reduce noise levels from Highway 101 at the interior of the project site. 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. ��a Attachment 3 TR, ER 130-01 (1144 Walnut) Page 3 1. Subdivision Design and Propertv 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, Attachment 3). Subdivision Design The subdivision is designed with the buildings at the perimeter oriented to the interior courtyards. The irregular shape of the lot allows for a departure from some of the more recent condominium projects reviewed by the Planning Commission that have a narrow driveway corridor for access and private open spaces behind each unit. Private open space in this project is located primarily on balconies and decks that are open to the courtyard areas below. The project maximizes land area by building up to the height limit of 35 feet. Each unit includes three levels, with the three bedroom units including a bedroom on the ground level. The proposed private drive allows for two-way traffic, but no on-street parking except for in designated guest parking spaces. Garages are bordered by peninsula planters that are of sufficient size to provide for tree planting, including species of Jacaranda and Melaleuca. The driveway entrance to the project will be a street type entrance. The project site slopes down from Walnut Street to the rear property line, as shown on sheet 2 of the architectural plans. The elevations on this sheet have a schematic quality and staff had the applicant prepare a driveway access map to demonstrate adequate access into each garage space. Building and Planning staff have reviewed the plan and found it to be consistent with the City's Parking and Driveway Standards. The concrete driveway includes two turnaround areas delineated by changes in texture and pattern. The driveway could include areas of colored concrete, stamped concrete, brick, inter-locking pavers or other materials, to the approval of the Architectural Review Commission. A half-court basketball area is shown on the plans and staff is recommending that this area have a smooth surface. The Walnut Street elevation includes walks and private entrances to each unit. There are no individual driveways to the units that front on Walnut Street. This quality is strongly emphasized through the building design and landscaping plan, creating a classic streetscape view that is not dominated by driveways and parked cars. The front yards include low, open fencing that is set back to allow for planting of perennials and a nice transition between the sidewalk and the fence. The yards include shrubs, a small turf area, and street trees. Sheet ARC-I and sheet L-I of the architectural plans include Walnut Street elevations. Unit 4 is not shown on these elevations but will have a similar treatment, as indicated by the landscape plan. 4 -13 Attachment 3 TR. ER 130-01 (1144 Walnut) Page 4 Density The proposed project meets the density standards provided in the Zoning Regulations. 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. PROJECT DENSITY Lot Size Allowable Proposed Development Development .95 acres or 41,382 ft.' .95 x 24 = 10 2bdr * 1.00 units = 10 units 22.8 density units 7 3bdr * 1.5 units = 10.5 units Total=20.5 units Setbacks In the R-4 zone, the required street yard is 15 feet and other yards have a dimension of 5 to 10 feet depending on building height. A detailed review of the architectural plans indicates that the project meets all City setback standards. Parking, The total parking requirement for the project is 40.9, or 41 vehicle parking spaces, based on the following breakdown. Each two-bedroom unit in the project requires 2 parking spaces, which are provided in garages. The three-bedroom units require 2.5 parking spaces each, or 17.5 spaces. 3.4 guest parking spaces are required at the rate of 1 per every 5 dwellings. The current site plan includes only 39 vehicle parking spaces, two short of the total required. The applicant is proposing to provide additional bicycle parking in-lieu of two required vehicle parking spaces, per section 17.16.060.E.2 of the Zoning Regulations (Attachment 4). This section of the code allows reductions in the required number of vehicle parking spaces at the rate of l vehicle space for every 5 additional bicycle parking spaces, up to a 10% total reduction. The City ARC and Planning Commission have never applied this reduction to residential projects, where parking availability is particularly important. In response to staff s concern, the applicant has submitted an exhibit showing 5 potential tandem parking spaces in driveways (Attachment 5). Staff does not support tandem parking for the project either, because it would detract significantly from the courtyard character at the interior of the site and the tandem spaces would be difficult to delineate. Staff believes that the common Attachment 3 TR, ER 130-01 (1144 Walnut) Page 5 open spaces will be more enjoyable and useful if parking in the driveways is minimized to the greatest extent possible. In order to meet the City's parking requirement staff is recommending that one of the three- bedroom units be converted to a two-bedroom unit, which would reduce the overall parking requirement to 40 spaces. If unit 8 were reduced in size to two-bedrooms, the 40`h parking space could be provided in the area adjacent to the basketball court, where Unit 8's third bedroom is presently shown. 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, Attachment 3). This project meets these standards through a combination of decks, balconies, private yard areas, common open space areas at the rear corners of the site and the barbecue area, and recreation spaces at the turf area, the raised garden beds and the basketball court. The open space areas are summarized in a chart of sheet ARC 3 of the architectural plans. The table refers to an "open space diagram," which is attached to this report (Attachment 6). 2. General Plan Consistency In order to approve the proposed subdivision, the City Council must find that the project is consistent with the General Plan. The following is an analysis of General Plan policies that pertain to the proposed development. Staff's 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 two large lots and the existing pattern of development, with homes oriented to Walnut Street will be retained. Surrounding development includes a range of development types and this project will fit in well with the 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 site is within the Downtown Planning Area and represent an infill development opportunity. Attachment 3 TR, ER 130-01 (1144 Walnut) Page 6 LU Policy 2.2.12: Residential Project Objectives - Residential projects should provide: A) Privacy, for occupants and neighbors of the project; Each unit of the project has decks that open up to the courtyard area, but that are deep enough to insure privacy. Private open space areas at the rear of the units are primarily limited to yards at the ground level. Decks looking out over adjacent properties are minimi=ed. B) Adequate usable outdoor area, sheltered from noise and prevailing winds, and oriented to receive light and sunshine; C) Use of natural ventilation, sunlight, and shade to make indoor and outdoor spaces comfortable with minimum mechanical support; D) Pleasant views from and toward the project; The open courtyard design will allow for good solar exposure of the turf area, basketball court and barbecue area. The common open space areas at the rear corners of the site including seating and landscape amenities and will have more limited solar exposure. These areas will be shielded from wind and highway noise by the proposed sound barriers. The project will provide pleasant views out and in, particularly at the Walnut Street elevation. E) Security and safety; F) Separate paths for vehicles and for people, and bike paths along collector streets; The driveway is 16 feet wide, which is the minimum width for as many parking spaces as are proposed. A separate path for pedestrians is provided between Unit 3 and Unit 4. Pedestrians going Downtown may be more likely to use the driveway. A separate path at the driveway, might be accomplished by flipping the entries to Unit 1 or Unit 17 to the other side of the building to make room for a separate path adjacent to the driveway. 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 subject to excessive noise levels from the adjacent highway. The project has been designed to shield the highway noise through a combination of building orientation and noise barriers. Unit 13 does back up to a parking lot for the bank on the corner of Santa Rosa and Walnut. The ARC will be asked to look at the treatment of this area to insure noise and visual separation. 4-16 Attachment 3 TR, ER 130-01 (1144 Walnut) Page 7 I) Design elements that facilitate neighborhood interaction, such as front porches, front yards along streets, and entryways facing public walkways. The courtyard design, with balconies oriented in, a central turf and barbecue area and a basketball court offer the potential for unique and lively atmosphere within the project site. The orientation of the buildings on Walnut Street, with entries and front yards will provide a pleasant environment for pedestrians. ,n Buffers from hazardous materials transport routes, as recommended by the City Fire Department. The City Fire Marshall has reviewed the proposed project for compliance with this standard 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 three story townhouse style dwellings, with compact private outdoor spaces. Common areas are also relatively compact, but meet the standards contained in the Zoning Regulations. The project site is within the Downtown Planning Area, making alternative transportation a viable option for the residents of the project. Housing Element Policy 7.2.1: Character, Size, Density and Quality — Within established neighborhoods, new residential development must be of a character, size, density, and quality that preserves the City's neighborhoods and maintains the quality of life for existing and future residents. The project is developed at an appropriate size and density for the R-4 zone. The project site is separated from the adjacent R-2 and R-3 neighborhoods by Walnut Street and Toro Street, which are impacted by the Highway 101/1 interchange. The quality and character of the project are defined by the elimination of excessive driveways on Walnut Street and the building design and landscaping treatment in the front yards areas. The project is a high quality project that staff believes will enhance and add life to the existing neighborhood character. 4-17 Attachment 3 TR, ER 130-01 (1144 Walnut) Page 8 Housing Element Policy 7.2.2: Location of Infill Housing — Within established neighborhoods, infill housing.should be located on appropriate sites, but not on sites designated in the General plan for parks, open space, or similar uses of neighborhood importance. The project site is designated for high density residential development and is currently developed with small cottages and bungalows well under the site's potential. The project site presents an excellent infill opportunity and there are few remaining sites in the City with similar infill potential. 3. Grading, Drainage and Utilities The proposed development requires grading to achieve acceptable slopes for the driveways, but generally follows the existing, natural grades of the site. 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. Drainage is proposed to be conveyed to the rear of the site, where an existing storm drain inlet is located. The existing storm drain goes under the highway and ultimately releases into Stenner Creek. There is an existing sewer main in the same general location, behind the property, and the sewer and storm drain systems are both designed to function with gravity flow, avoiding any requirement to pump water or sewage back up to Walnut Street. All utility services such as electricity, phone and cable will provided to the new units underground. 4. Subdivision Findings In order to approve the proposed tentative map, the Subdivision Map Act requires the City Council must make the following findings: 1. The proposed map is consistent with the General Plan. 2. The design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is consistent with the General Plan. 3. The site is physically suited for the proposed type of development. 4. The site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development. 5. The design of the subdivision, or the type of improvements, is not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and unavoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. Attachment 3 TR, ER 130-01 (1144 Walnut) Page 9 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. Each of these findings are included in the recommended Planning Commission Resolution (Attachment 9), and are expanded to fit this particular project. 5. 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 (Attachment 8). Staff identified potentially significant effects of the project in the areas of noise, traffic 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. Noise The Initial Study identifies potentially significant impacts from highway noise. An acoustical analysis was prepared for the project and the recommendations of the analysis have been incorporated into the project design. Units 9-12, combined with sound walls at the rear corners of the project site, act as a noise barrier for the proposed outdoor use areas. In addition, specific building practices are recommended for noise reduction, which are required to be implemented as part of the development. Implementation of the recommendations contained in the analysis are sufficient to mitigate potential impacts to less than significant levels. Traffic Potentially significant traffic impacts were identified relative to hazards from vehicles queuing on Walnut Street as vehicles make the left turn into the project site. The present traffic volume on Walnut Street from vehicles exiting Highway 101 en route to Santa Rosa Street is substantial. At times the traffic is backed up to the off-ramp. City staff has identified a mitigation measure and monitoring program, which would address the potential impact by providing more green time at the Walnut/Santa Rosa Street intersection. Additional green time at the intersection will help to clear Walnut Street and provide more left turn opportunities into the site. The applicant will be required to contact Cal Trans to modify the signal timing at the intersection, and will monitor the effect of the changes. If the signal timing adjustments are not substantial enough to help the situation, then an alternative mitigation measure is identified that would require the developer to create a left-tum pocket on Walnut Street to accommodate vehicles turning into the project site. This alternative mitigation measure would result in the loss of some on-street parking. Attachment 3 TR, ER 130-01 (1144 Walnut) Page 10 Mitigation is also recommended relative to parking, which would require garages to be free from storage so that two vehicles can be parked in each garage at all times. The requirement would be monitored and enforced by the Homeowners' Association and the City. REFERRALS AND PUBLIC COMMENT The project proposal was routed to various City departments and other interested agencies such as the Air Pollution Control District and Cal Trans. Comments received have been incorporated as conditions of approval where necessary. Staff has received input on the project from Tom Courtney, Courtney Architects, who owns the office building on the corner of Walnut and Santa Rosa. Mr. Courtney provided staff with information regarding the character of the traffic in the area of the project site and expressed concerns with the existing condition and the potential impact of the project. Overall, Mr. Courtney indicated that he supports the development, but wanted to insure that the traffic issues were addressed. 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. PG ai{1 &JA*tCA6 1,%J-JJed H. ments: Attachment . .cinity Map Attachment 2: Re Size Development Plan Attachment 3: Property ovement Standards for New Condorm 'i tvisions (SLOMC 17.8 Attachment 4: Section 17.16.060.E.2 e Zoni ions, Bicycle Parking Attachment 5: Tandem Parking Exhibi , y the project architect Attachment 6: Open Space 1 ' , prepared by t� .ect architect Attachment 7: Init' of Environmental Impact an . ated Negative Declaration Attachment • oJect Description prepared by applicant's repr tive Att 9: Draft Planning Commission Resolution with fin s and conditions as recommended by staff Z/- ,r)D Attachment 3 Planning Commission Minu,es December 19, 2001 Page 5 e motion maker and the seconder accepted this amendment. Co . Cooper noted there was inconsistency on f-7 equipment u rades reciarA 30 daMand which deals with abandonment that theV be brou ht into consisIficy, and wo like to have this as an amendment to the.moti/nnaso Vice-Chair as the motion maker agreed. Chairperson rson suggested they prohibit havole structure equipment or of parts of the telecommunication fad above the ridgeline. Commr. Cooper felt tha the photograph the rock crode above the ridgeline, but felt it does co al the Popsicle Antenna. Chair erson Peterson su este n_amendment be addund-mounted antennasPoles, structures' eauiftent, or other part f a telecommunications_ facili that extend above a ridgeline shal ' discoura a Where facilities of this type are allowed they shall be designed to be i3i"'st'riguishaFe from the natural surroundings." The motion maker and seconder agreed to endment. AYES: Commrs. Loh, Cooper, Caru Os ne, Aiken, Boswell, and Peterson NOES: None ABSENT: None The motion carried 7-0. Vice-Chair Loh asked if this w come back as an amortizat item.. Chairperson Peterson f it would be a good idea to brin it back before the Commission to discus ays to encourage the improvement of exis facilities. A motion was e bv Commr. Peterson to have the amortization it come back to the Commi n. Seconded by Commr. Loh. AY/ES- Loh, Cooper, Caruso, Osborne, Aiken, Boswell, and P rson NO . None ENT: None 2. 1144 Walnut Street. TR and ER 130-01; Request for a 17-unit condominium project with attached 2- and 3-bedroom units and site improvements, and environmental review; R-4 zone; JM Wilson Development Corp., applicant. Associate Planner Whitney Mcllvaine presented the staff report, recommending acceptance of the mitigated negative declaration and approval of the tentative map, based on findings and subject to conditions as noted in the staff report. Attachment 3 Planning Commission Minus -- December 19, 2001 Page 6 Commr. Cooper asked for clarification on staff's proposal of flipping units 1 & 17. Planner Mcllvaine noted there had been a question as to whether or not there should be a separate pedestrian path alongside the driveway. Commr. Cooper asked if there would be a garage and driveway off unit 17 directly onto Walnut Street. Planner Mcllvaine replied yes. Commr. Osborne asked what the parking requirements would be if parking was reduced and bicycle parking was allowed. Planner Mcllvaine noted there was an amendment to the zoning ordinance to encourage bicycles over vehicles. Deputy Community Development Director Ronald Whisenand stated the ARC has not been supportive of granting parking reductions for residential projects. Commr. Aiken stated he is not supportive of sound walls along highways. Planner Mcllvaine stated the issue is addressed in the City's Noise Element and the Noise Mitigation Workbook, which identifies ways to reduce decibels through construction walls. Chairperson Peterson asked where the sound walls would be located and what the height of the sound walls would be. Planner Mcllvaine replied the walls would be located along the back property line. Commr. Aiken voiced his concern with living adjacent to these walls.. Commr. Cooper asked how much landscape is between the sound wall and the freeway. Planner Mcllvaine replied that there is approximately 68-feet between the rear property line and the highway. Commr. Cooper felt the quality of life is more important that the aesthetics of a sound wall. Deputy Director Whisenand stated he would ensure the ARC process looks at aesthetics and landscaping to make it as pleasant for people driving by as the people living there. Vice-Chair Loh suggested that the designer should be able to design the visual screen from the freeway, and expressed her concern with the traffic in this area. Ll -�a Attachment 3 Planning Commission Minu.es December 19, 2001 Page 7 Deputy Director Whisenand stated that staff would work with Cal Trans and the applicant to come up with a solution for this problem. Chairperson Peterson questioned the proposed study of mitigation for traffic, which requires them to retain a traffic specialist and felt it should be done immediately. Deputy Director Whisenand stated that CEQA does not allow deferral of studies to a later date, but suggested a monitoring program be prepared with the applicant responsible for additional traffic mitigation measures, should they be necessary in the future. Chairperson Peterson asked if there would be double-paned windows.. Planner Mcllvaine stated double-paned windows are standard. Deputy Director Whisenand noted a mitigation measure could be added to clarify that all interior noise levels shall comply with City standards. Vice-Chair Loh suggested they should be added in for ARC purposes. Chairperson Peterson asked if additional landscaping could be added within the Cal Trans right-of -way to insure their sound wall is completely hidden. Assistant Attorney Gil Trujillo stated it would be problematic as a condition, but could be noted as a suggestion or recommendation that the applicant attempts to work with Cal Tans on this particular issue. Deputy Director Whisenand stated staff would make sure when the ARC process goes forward to include more detailed analysis of views from the freeway towards the sound wall. Carol Florence, Oasis Associates, supported the project and encouraged a recommendation for approval. She stated there are five opportunities for tandem parking in the project that will work if they are identified as exclusive use of the occupants of the designated dwelling. She stated they are in compliance with the zoning ordinance whether allowed through additional bicycle spaces or through tandem parking. She noted there would be a 10-foot wall dropping down to a 5 or 6-foot high wall. Commr. Osborne complimented the project. He asked if the applicant is willing to taking the measures to reduce bedrooms and provide additional parking. Commr. Aiken asked if the windows that back up to the freeway could be opened. Mike Peachey, Architect, replied they could not be opened. Commr. Caruso noted there is a 20-foot drop between the street and the back of the property. The site would be graded to take up most of the fall, but he voiced his a3 Attachment 3 Planning commission Minu.cs December 19, 2001 Page 8 concern with the drainage that comes out from behind units 15 and 16. He questioned if the water was going to stop when it gets down to this DI in the traffic circle. Ms. Florence replied they are going to train it to go directly into that DI. Commr. Caruso suggested that the engineer take a look at where the drainage is going. Commr. Boswell asked when the noise report was conducted and asked if it was based on the existing noise condition or projected noise condition. Ms. Florence replied both. Commr. Boswell asked if the owner of the property would retain ownership of the affordable unit. Ms. Florence stated he might, which has nothing to do with the fact that they are providing an affordable unit versus paying the in-lieu fee. Commr. Boswell asked if it would be retained as a rental. Ms. Florence replied it does not play into how they are dealing with the affordable housing requirement. Commr. Boswell asked if it is in the moderate-income category. Planner Mcllvaine replied that moderate is a definite option for this. Commr. Boswell asked if the parking requirements could be reduced if there was a low- or very low-income provided in the parking_ provision. He suggested that the parking be covered. Ms. Florence noted that because of the architecture, they would be able to incorporate some outside storage. Vice-Chair Loh asked if there would be enough room for the closet and storage area. Ms. Florence replied the storage would be in the garage. Vice-Chair Loh felt that tandem parking is not workable in this project. Mike Peachey, Architect, stated the staff report hints that they comply with the General Plan and that they try to encourage compact urban form. He expressed that as a designer, he needs help to create projects that conform to the General Plan. Commr. Aiken asked why the windows on the freeway side couldn't be opened. Mr. Peachey replied it is a noise issue. He stated there would be adequate ventilation and light. �ay Attachment 3 Planning Commission Minutes December 19, 2001 Page 9 Commr. Aiken suggested it should be left up to the individual occupants to decide whether or not they open their windows. Mr. Peachey stated this is a building code issue. Commr. Aiken noted on the east and west sides of the lower level units the windows are adjacent to the common open space areas. Commr. Cooper questioned if the applicant wants a 10% total reduction when the code states 5%. Mr. Peachey replied he did not realize there was a difference between residential and commercial. He noted he usually asks for 10% on residential. Planner Mcllvaine noted two separate sections of the zoning ordinance; one talks about bicycle space requirements and the other talks about reducing vehicle parking. Vice-Chair Loh stated that on the grading and drainage plan, the DI (drain inlet) is not enough in this location. Mr. Peachey commented that the engineer could recommend some interceptor drain to help the drainage. Vice-Chair Loh noted the spot elevation is tilted up a little for the parking garage and felt a 2% minimum would solve the problem. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Dean Miller, 673 Pasa Tiempo, offered some ideas on the noise problem. He would like to see the transportation addressed. He felt the sound wall is not a problem and would not be seen. He expressed his concern about the parking. There were no further comments made from the public and comment session was closed. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS: Commr. Caruso moved to approve the proiect as written including the condition to provide another parking space and to recommend the applicant provide the left-hand turn lane with the proiect Seconded by Vice-Chair Loh. Commr. Boswell asked if the proposal is lacking two spaces, as proposed. Planner Mcllvaine replied correct. Commr. Boswell asked if this would be achieved through reduction of one bedroom and then use of this area for additional parking space. �-ate Attachment 3 Planning commission Minutes December 19, 2001 Page 10 Planner Mcllvaine replied yes. Commr. Cooper asked if they were asking the applicant to make the off-site improvements to the street. Chairperson Peterson said he did not agree with the parking issue and agreed with the applicant's position that they be given a bicycle exemption. He felt there are a lot of side effects that go along with taking the parking out on this street and putting in a center turn lane. Vice-Chair Loh commented that if a left-turn lane were provided into the project site, there would only be two parking spaces sacrificed. She felt traffic congestion in this area is more important than the sacrifice of two parking spaces. Chairperson Peterson asked if they were talking about a left-turn lane or a center turn lane the entire length of Walnut Street. Vice-Chair Loh replied a left-turn lane, not the whole center. Commr. Caruso noted the staff report states restriping of the street and removing curb parking to create a center turn lane serving fronting properties. Commr. Osborne felt it would make the situation worse to remove the on-street parking. Commr. Boswell stated because of the traffic on Walnut Street he is not supportive of a short left turning area and suggested that a longer center turn lane be provided that would access the bank as well as the project. He also suggested striping in front of the driveway for the cars queuing to turn on Santa Rosa Street. Commr. Boswell asked that the applicant consider the affordable unit for low-income housing, rather than moderate income. Commr. Aiken asked that an amendment be added to the motion that the driveway entrance be 20-feet wide in the first portion from the curb back to the first units. The motion maker and the seconder agreed to the amendment. Chairperson Peterson expressed concern about not having a Transportation Planning Staff member present to discuss the Walnut Street traffic issues. Vice-Chair Loh commented that the Initial Study identifies potentially significant impacts and asked if they eliminated the left-turn pocket, would the issue be mitigated. Deputy Director Whisenand replied the mitigation measure to address the significant effect involves a number of possible mitigation strategies. The Traffic Engineer felt that change in signalization at the corner of Walnut and Santa Rosa Streets would resolve or lessen the impact to a less than significant level. He asked the Commission if they would like to continue the item when the traffic engineer is present. Z/a� Attachment 3 Planning Commission Minures December 19, 2001 Page 11 Commr. Boswell suggested they either continue the item or retain the mitigation measure as proposed. Commr Caruso made a motion to call the question Seconded by Commr. Cooper. AYES: Commrs. Caruso, Cooper, and Loh NOES: Commr. Osborne, Aiken, Boswell, and Peterson ABSENT: None The motion failed, so the discussion continued. Vice-Chair Loh had concerns that traffic engineers said there is no problem with the traffic light on Walnut and Santa Rosa Streets. Chairperson Peterson stated he was not comfortable deciding on what the appropriate mitigation is regarding adding that center turn lane. He said he would prefer having a traffic expert look at the signalization and the issues before continuing discussion. Commr. Aiken asked that an amendment be added to the motion to add Condition 24 making it a requirement that proper left turn lanes be provided through design, to meet City Engineering requirements The amendment was accepted by the motion maker and seconder. AYES: Commrs. Caruso, Loh, Aiken NOES: Commrs. Osborne, Cooper, Boswell, and Peterson ABSENT: None The motion failed 3-4. Commr. Boswell made a motion to continue this item and provide direction that the additional information on mitigating traffic concerns be brought back to the Commission and appropriate staff. Seconded by Vice-Chair Loh.. AYES: Commrs. Boswell, Loh, Caruso, and Peterson NOES: Commrs. Osborne, Cooper, Aiken ABSENT: None BU%LESS ITEM: 3. End of d Drive. GPC 188-01; General Plan Conformity Re he possible acquisiti conservation easement over a 180 ithin the City's greenbelt; City of licant. Natural Resources Mana I p ted staff report, recommending to the City Council a property acquisitio forms with the General Plan. Co n asked if the space to the left, which is the City limits, is part of the open space. Mr. Havlick replied no. �a7 Attachment 4 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT ITEM # 1 BY: Michael Codron, Associate Planner (781-7175)z WO MEETING DATE: January 9, 2002 FROM: Ron Whisenand, Deputy Director - Development Revi /1'' FILE NUMBER: TR, ER 130-01 PROJECT ADDRESS: 1144 Walnut SUBJECT: Review of a proposed 17-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 findings and subject to conditions of approval. BACKGROUND Situation/Previous Review The City has received an application to subdivide a .95 acre site for a 17-unit condominium project to include 10 2-bedroom and seven 3-bedroom townhouse units, each with an attached two-car garage. The project is subject to environmental review, and art Initial Study of Environmental Impact and Mitigated Negative Declaration have been prepared. 'Ihe Planning Commission is being asked to make a recommendation on the proposed subdivision and environmental document to the City Council. The project was first reviewed by the Planning Commission on December 19, 2001. In general, the Commission supported the project but wanted additional information regarding potential traffic impacts and site drainage. This report provides additional information regarding those issues and includes a summary of the main project components. Data Summary Address: 1144 Walnut (including 1150 and 1162 Walnut and 642 A. B Toro Street) Applicant/Property Owner: JM Wilson Development Corporation Representative: Oasis Associates, Inc. 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 December 11, 2001. �a� Attachment 4 TR, ER 130-01 (1144 Walnut) Page 2 Site Description The 41,382 square foot site has an irregular shape and includes two land parcels with the addresses 1144, 1150 and 1162 on Walnut, and 642 A, B on Toro Street. The project is bordered by both residential and commercial development including a bank to the west and a hotel to the east. Residential land to the south of the project site is zoned for Medium Density (R-2) development. Residential land to the east of the project site is zoned for Medium-High (R-3) development. The project site is on the northern edge of the Downtown Planning Area. The site is one-half block north of the Mill Street Historic District. Highway 101 is located north of the project site. The highway travel lanes are located approximately 68 feet from the rear property line of the project site. Dense shrubs and trees occupy the space between the property line and the highway. Trees on the site include pepper, palm, avocado, cypress, redwood and pine. The site slopes down from Walnut Street approximately 20 feet to the rear property line. Proiect.Description The project is a condominium subdivision of an existing .95 acre site. The project includes 10 two-bedroom units and 7 three-bedroom units for a total of 17 dwellings. The homes would have a townhouse configuration with attached two-car garages. Including the garages, the homes have three levels and a maximum height of 35 feet. Private open space is provided primarily on decks and balconies, with some units having ground level yards. Recreation space is provided in the form of a barbecue area, turf area and a % court basketball area. The project site is presently developed with five dwellings. Project plans indicate that these and all accessory structures would be demolished. Six palm trees on the site will be retained or relocated on site. An existing stand of yuccas, as well as a 46" cypress and a 14" avocado tree will also be retained. All tree removals are noted on the demolition plan. A noise study has been prepared for the project and the project includes a proposal to develop sound barriers in two locations in order to reduce noise levels from Highway 101 at the interior of the project site. EVALUATION The project proposal was originally reviewed by the Commission at the December 19, 2001, public hearing. While the Commission supported the proposed subdivision design, there were unresolved issues with respect to the proposed traffic mitigation. There were also outstanding questions with respect to drainage. This report addresses those issue areas in more detail so the Planning Commission has sufficient information to make a recommendation on the project to the City Council. The proposal is consistent with the City's property development standards and the City's subdivision regulations. Staff believes that the project is also consistent with the General Plan, which was discussed in detail in the staff report for the December meeting. �-a 9 Attachment 4 TR, ER 130-01 (1144 Walnut) Page 3 1. Proiect Overview Density The proposed project meets the density standards provided in the Zoning Regulations. 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. PROJECT DENSITY Lot Size Allowable Proposed Development Development .95 acres or 41,382 ft.z .95 x 24 = 10 2bdr * 1.00 units= 10 units 22.8 density units 7 3bdr * 1.5 units = 10.5 units Total=20.5 units Setbacks In the R-4 zone, the required street yard is 15 feet and other yards have a dimension of 5 to 10 feet depending on building height. A detailed review of the architectural plans indicates that the project meets all City setback standards. Parking Parking was discussed during the previous review. The applicant is proposing to provide fewer vehicle parking spaces than normally required by the Zoning Regulations. The applicant is proposing to provide additional short-term bicycle parking in-lieu of two vehicle parking spaces, based on the parking reductions provided for in Section 17.16.060.E.2 of the Zoning Regulations. This section normally applies to commercial projects, where less vehicle parking is needed if people are biking to work. Staff does not recommend applying this code section to residential projects, because the City's standards are intended to be a minimum standard for on-site vehicle storage (people don't generally store their cars at work or school and bike home). A reduction in available on-site parking for guests and households that may own more than two cars could have an impact on parking availability in the surrounding neighborhood. Adequate on-site parking may become even more important if on-street parking is reduced on Walnut Street, which would be necessary to accommodate a center turn lane (see Traffic discussion on page 5 of this report). Staff believes that the best way to resolve the parking issue is to eliminate the third bedroom proposed for Unit 8 and to provide one additional parking space next to this unit. This will result in a total parking requirement of 40 spaces, which could be met on-site in a manner that is consistent with the intent of the Zoning Regulations and as historically applied by the City's Architectural Review Commission. "T 'J� Attachment 4 TR, ER 130-01 (1144 Walnut) Page 4 2. Drainage Drainage will be conveyed to an existing storm drain in the Cal Trans right-of-way. The storm drain system is designed to function with gravity flow, avoiding any requirement to pump water back up to Walnut Street. The proposed plan was reviewed by the City's Building Division, which evaluates the adequacy of drainage plans. No concerns were raised by Building Division staff regarding the proposed plan. At the prior public hearing, the Planning Commission did raise a concern because the plan provides only one drain inlet (D.I.) for the entire courtyard. The concern was that the amount of water flowing overland would be significant by the time it made it down to the D.I. Staff contacted the project engineer who indicated that additional D.I.'s could be provided, but that they are unnecessary. The proposed concrete swales will contain the storm water until the water reaches the D.I. adjacent to Unit 12. The project engineer indicated that the slope of the site would allow the water to be quickly conveyed to the D.I. and that even in a 100-year storm, the depth of the water would only be six inches at the D.I. Spot elevations on the grading and drainage plan indicate that a safe overflow route for storm water continues over the pipe and would not impact Unit 12. Overall, the engineer indicated that the amount of water that is tributary to the on-site storm drain system is not significant and that the proposed system is designed to accommodate storm water flows from large storms. 3. 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 (Attachment 8). Staff identified potentially significant effects of the project in the areas of noise, traffic 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. Noise The Initial Study identifies potentially significant impacts from highway noise. An acoustical analysis was prepared for the project and the recommendations of the analysis have been incorporated into the project design. Units 9-12, combined with sound walls at the rear comers of the project site, act as a noise barrier for the proposed outdoor use areas. In addition, specific building practices are recommended for noise reduction, which are required to be implemented as part of the development. The General Plan says that providing distance between noise sources and new noise sensitive uses is the preferred way to mitigate noise (Noise Element Policy 1.2.13, General Plan Digest). Earth berms may be used where feasible, and walls are generally the least preferred approach. In this case, providing distance between the traffic noise and the proposed noise sensitive uses is not feasible because noise levels need to be mitigated across the entire project site. Earthen berms are also not feasible because of the site topography and required height of the noise barrier. In ��I - Attachment 4 TR, ER 130-01 (1144 Walnut) Page 5 order to construct a 10-foot tall earth berm, the berm would need to be developed over an area with a dimension of at least 40-feet. Staff supports use of the proposed sound barriers because the sound walls and the buildings will be screened from the highway travel lanes by the abundant amount of existing vegetation between the project site and the highway, approximately 68 feet. The design of the proposed walls will be considered by the Architectural Review Commission during their review of the project. Traffic The Commission expressed concerns with the proposed traffic mitigation measures during the previous review of the project. The recommended mitigation measures were developed by Public Work's staff to address a potential conflict between vehicles queuing to make left turns into the project site and vehicles traveling eastbound on Walnut Street toward the Highway 101 on-ramp at Toro Street. Since curb parking is allowed on both sides of Walnut Street, any vehicle stoped in the eastbound travel lane awaiting a gap in traffic to make a left turn may cause a queue to develop. Currently, a similar traffic condition exists at the driveway entrance to the Washington Mutual Bank at the corner of Walnut and Santa Rosa. Cars that are stopped to make a left turn into the bank can block traffic back into the intersection. However, at the bank location, parking is restricted along the curb near the intersection. This restriction provides enough room for vehicles to move around the vehicle stopped in the travel lane. In contrast, at the project site, on-street parking makes it impossible to maneuver around turning vehicles, and traffic will likely queue. While minor queues are tollarable and occur throughout the city on two-lane roads, staff is concerned that the queue on Walnut Street might extend back to the Santa Rosa-Walnut intersection and cause significant traffic congestion. The mitigation measure recommended by staff will require the applicant to work with Cal Trans to improve the signal timing at the intersection. This modification will allow westbound traffic to move through the intersection more efficiently and will provide more opportunities for residents to turn left into the project site. The monitoring program called for by the mitigation measure requires the applicant's traffic consultant to monitor traffic on the street and to prepare a report for the City's Traffic Engineer. The engineer will use this report to determine if additional mitigation measures are required to reduce impacts to insignificant levels. One of the proposed additional mitigation measures involves the installation of a center turn lane on Walnut Street. Development of a turn lane will require on-street parking to be eliminated on the project side of Walnut Street. This change would result in the loss of approximately 12 parking spaces. Staff does not believe that these parking spaces should be eliminated unless there is a clearly-demonstrated need for a center turn lane. The proposed mitigation monitoring program will provide staff with information necessary to make this determination. 3,:? Attachment 4 TR, ER 130-01 (1144 Walnut) Page 6 The City's Traffic Engineer and the applicant's traffic consultant will be present at the January 9 public hearing to respond to questions from Commissioners. REFERRALS AND PUBLIC COMMENT The project proposal was routed to various City departments and other interested agencies such as the Air Pollution Control District and Cal Trans. Comments received have been incorporated as conditions of approval where necessary. Staff has recently received a letter from Thomas Courtney (see Attachment 11), owner of the office building on 656 Santa Rosa. Mr. Courtney lists six concerns with the existing traffic conditions on Santa Rosa and Walnut Street. Staff believes that the proposed mitigation measures adequately address Mr. Courtney's concerns, although some of the observed conditions described in the letter are unrelated to the project. ALTERNATIVES 1. Recommend denial of the project. This action should be taken if the Planning Commission can not make the required findings listed in the recommend resolution. 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. Attachments: �chment 1: Vicinity Map chment 2: Reduced Size Development Plan Attachment 3: Property Improvement Standards for New Condominium Subdivisions (SLOMC 17.82.140) Attachment 4: Section 17.16.060.E.2 of the Zoning Regulations, Bicycle Parking Attachment 5: Tandem Parking Exhibit, prepared by the project architect Attachment 6: Open Space Diagram, prepared by the project architect achment 7: Initial Study of Environmental Impact and Mitigated Negative Declaration achment 8: Project Description prepared by applicant's representative ttachment 9: Draft Planning Commission Resolution with findings and conditions as recommended by staff Attachment 10: Schematic diagram showing potential lane changes on Walnut Street tachment 11: Letter from Santa Rosa Partners, Thomas Courtney, Owner(1-2-02) tachment 12: Draft Minutes from December 19, 2001 ttachment 13: Project traffic analysis, prepared by Penfield and Smith, June 2001 Crossed out attachments are attached directly to the Council Agenda Report or can be found in the Council Reading File. 33 - Attachment 4 17.82.140 Property improvement standards for new condominium projects. A. Private Open Space. There shall be provided with each unit a minimum of two hundred fifty square feet of qualifying private open space for projects in the R-1 or R-2 zones, and a minimum of one hundred square feet for projects in the R-3 or R-4 zones. To qualify, open space must be private and directly accessible from the unit it serves, and must have a minimum dimension in every direction of ten feet for open space provided at ground level or six feet for open space provided on a balcony or elevated deck, and must be located outside the street yard required by zoning regulations. B. Common open space. There shall be provided in each project a minimum of one hundred square feet of qualifying open space per unit for projects in the R-3 or R-4 zones. To qualify, open space shall have a minimum dimension in every direction of ten feet for open space provided at ground level or six feet for open space provided on a balcony or elevated deck, and must be located outside the street yard required by zoning regulations. Common open space need not be located with each unit. There is no minimum common open space requirement for projects in the R-1 and R-2 zones. C. Total open space. There shall be provided in each project a minimum of one thousand square feet per unit of qualifying private and common open space for projects in the R-I zone, seven hundred fifty square feet per unit for projects in the R-2 zone, and four hundred square feet per unit for projects in the R-3 or R4 zones. D. Common recreation facilities. There shall be provided in each project in the R-3 or R-4 zones a minimum of twenty square feet per unit of common indoor recreation facilities, or forty square feet per unit of improved outdoor recreation facilities. Common recreation facilities shall be available for, and limited to,the use of the project's tenants and their guests. Common recreation facilities must be located outside the street yard required by zoning regulations. E. Open space and recreation facilities in nonresidential zones. Requirements for open space and recreational facilities for projects in nonresidential zones shall be set by the council at the time the project is reviewed. F. Storage. Each dwelling unit shall have provision for at least two hundred cubic feet of enclosed, weatherproof and lockable private storage space, exclusive of cabinets and closets within the unit. This space shall be for the sole use of the unit owner. The minimum opening shall be two and one half feet by four feet and the minimum height shall be four feet. G. Laundry facilities. A laundry area shall be provided in each unit, or in common laundry space. Common facilities shall consist of at least one washer and dryer for each ten units or fraction thereof. H. Energy conservation. Solar water heating shall be provided for each unit, and appropriate easements shall be provided for collector locations. The community development director may waive the requirement for solar water heating in cases where the chief building official has determined that equivalent energy savings will be obtained by other means. Tenants shall not be prohibited from installing clotheslines in private open areas which aresubstantially screened from common view. (Ord. 984 § 2(part), 1983: prior code § 9854.1; Ord. 1315 § 2, 1996) 02001 Code Publishing, Inc. Page 1 Attachment 4 E. Bicycle and Motorcycle Spaces. Each use or development which requires ten or more spaces shall provide facilities for parking bicycles and motorcycles as follows: 1. Motorcycle Spaces. Parking for motorcycles shall be provided at the rate of one space for each twenty car spaces. Projects which provide more motorcycle spaces than required may reduce the required car spaces at the rate of one car space for each five motorcycle spaces, up to a ten percent reduction. 2. Bicycle Spaces. Parking for bicycles shall be provided in accordance with Table 6.5 at the end of this section. Projects which provide more bicycle and/or motorcycle spaces than required may reduce the required car spaces at the rate of one car space for each five bicycle spaces, up to a ten percent reduction. All bicycle parking that exceeds the required number of spaces shall be apportioned between short-term and long-term bicycle spaces as stipulated by Table 6.5. 02001 Code Publishing, Inc. Page 1 Attachment 4 rTT1 CTTI IMdI 10 u"It a U.It I1 Ran a lift 13 Rall A © © Ran B I _J O _ J N ® To } r mal u Ran A t P:e Vyr 7 QMcJM 5[x.c¢S I U4 14 �n,t,�osed (AI�.'�s Q�jj�Q413 PIm A 1 1 1 d8w UA& Plot a Ron A � � '•� ..fit Unit 0 ® Plan A w� Ran 8 I Ytlf 16 Rml A I l in. I I IAIk 17 Ynk 1 Ran A Ran A ' i UWl. u4 3 iIMA Pkn 9 n n u u u r^V r Attachment 4 �O� luamd°peap IPl°Isallipe,{ uopeataay 3 Qa o - laaa•!5 1naleY pua aaedg gado cc V 6 - 6 O E E m n a c e 'O 6 V T �: _ oommomommoo�nmmvr vrm �+ m d c �+ oc oormmm_mroo�mmnnm m r m a au a0000000000e00000 ° =m m 200 E-- 00 m o = V B oo _ `m s V CC v. S� m` u.oemmmm.Ommeommmmmo � ° v w u GJ ° Sa m�rrnn rrro orrrnn m u w N o m ` 6 m e ° v OOOOYiO�VOe0000000�N f y N _ _ y L 6 a Y ln�Nt� WmOOm O W 0 C � C1 m m i�l e_NCJ OY]mn a � N m m E mm W O � u � o V - V C V r O 6 c m ° CC o N N E c o ope U U d UOn � � 1 m h Q N m N Q� n O N r - o i u r V E N o � I - _ LIZ Cj ul Cz .a N t N N 00 oe o Eco E Nm ENN Ucn X R. m w civ o W O n iivacnment 4 P • .W TTS � y f Project driveway Remove on-street r parking Dedicated right J Rr tum lane (ex.) ` Install new center-turn lane a Begin on-street \� parking (ex.) , Restricted parking (ex.) s fix. � � IIY / y C Walnut Street section - looking eastbound er �4�kr 11 Foot 10 Foot 11 Foot 8 Foot Travel Lane Center Tum Lane Travel Lane Street Parking ` 40 Feet 1144 Walnut - Proposed Traffic Mitigation 20 0 20 40 Feet Potential Lane Modification (Schematic) Attachment 4 SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 9, 2002 CALL TO ORDER/PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: The San Luis Obispo Planning Commission was called to order at 7:05 p.m. on Wednesday, January 9, 2002, in the City Hall Council Chamber, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California. ROLL CALL: Present: Commrs. James Caruso, Orval Osborne, Allan Cooper, Alice Loh, Jim Aiken, Michael Boswell, and Chairperson Stephen Peterson Absent: None Staff: Associate Planner Michael Codron, Deputy Community Development Director Mike Draze, Transportation Planner Jim Hansen, Assistant City Attorney Gil Trujillo, Community Development Director John Mandeville and Recording Secretary Irene Pierce. ACCEPTANCE OF THE AGENDA The agenda was accepted as presented. PUBLIC COMMENT ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS Tom Cantrel, complimented the Commissioners on all the hard work they do. He voiced his concern on the Dalidio plan and felt there are going to be issues concerning the water, cars, property value issues and so forth. There were no further public comments. PUBLIC HEARING: 1. 1144 Walnut Street. TR and ER 130-01; Request for a 17-unit condominium project with attached 2- and 3-bedroom units and site improvements, and environmental review; R-4 zone; JM Wilson Development Corp., applicant. Associate Planner Michael Codron presented staff report recommending the City Council adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impact, and approve the proposed tentative map based on the findings and subject to the conditions and code requirements noted in the draft resolution. Commr. Caruso asked when the City prefers traffic observations to occur. Transportation Planner Jim Hansen replied they typically do the counts mid-week when Cal Poly is in session. 11-s Attachment 4 Planning Commission Minutes Meeting of January 9, 2002 Page 2 Commr. Boswell asked if the City or the applicant is working towards fixing an existing problem with this project caused by the bank because Walnut Street is an off ramp from the freeway. Planner Hansen explained that Cal Trans controls the intersection, and they have agreed to work with the City and Traffic Engineer on the project. Commr. Boswell suggested if there is a problem, the work should be done now to alleviate it. He felt monitoring will produce the same results now as it would later. Planner Hansen stated that from a traffic operation standpoint, a problem does not currently exist. The monitoring program is designed to alert them to make the necessary changes. Vice-Chair Loh asked about the removal of parking along the project frontage. Planner Codron explained that the project would have a street type entrance, with 5- meters of red curb on both sides of the driveway. Vice-Chair Loh stated she supported the first drainage plan. Chairperson Peterson voiced his concern with the appearance of the sound walls from the freeway. Community Development Director John Mandeville stated it is possible for the City to work with Cal Trans to encourage additional landscaping within their right-of-way. Commr. Cooper noted there is a concern about the mitigation monitoring program and would like to be assured that there is a program that would insure that conditions would improve on this street. Planner Hansen explained that two thresholds would trigger additional mitigation: 1) an increased number of collisions at the intersection, and 2) traffic queues from this site to the intersection. Vice-Chair Loh asked if the City had discussed the traffic problems of this particular site with Cal Trans. Planner Hansen described his conversations with Cal Trans and said that the City would work with Cal Trans and the applicant. Vice-Chair Loh asked who would do the monitoring. Planner Hansen replied the applicant would monitor as part of their mitigation monitoring program. Commr. Caruso expressed his concern with the monitoring system. Z7 —41D Attachment 4 Planning Commission Minutes Meeting of January 9, 2002 Page 3 Assistant City Attorney Gil Trujillo stated that monitoring programs are a requirement of CEQA. Chairperson Peterson suggested the City get control of this signal from Cal Trans to have more flexibility for changes that are needed. Planner Hansen stated there is a new employee at Cal Trans who he is working with to help take control of these rights-of-way, but Cal Trans would still review what they do. Carol Florence, Oasis Associates, agreed with staff's representation that they are going to eliminate a bedroom in unit 8 and add the additional parking space. She stated they initiated the hydraulic calculations for the drainage. She handed out photographs of the site to help the Commission understand the depth of existing vegetation between the traveled right-of-way and the back of the project. Steve Orroz, Traffic Engineer for Penfield & Smith, Santa Maria, stated the project size that was analyzed for the traffic study was for 18-units. He stated one unit was reduced during the planning process so there is one fewer unit worth of traffic being generated, which makes their study more conservative. He stated there are four existing units on the project site, so the net increase of traffic is down to 13-units. He explained the reason the traffic mitigation measure exists is to address the existing queuing issue. He stated the driveway on Toro Street near the intersection of Walnut Street would be removed to improve the conditions. Mr. Orroz felt they are improving the existing condition by eliminating driveways and reducing conflicts. Commr. Aiken asked if Cal Trans would control the streets that connect the ramps with the intersections. Mr. Orroz replied sometimes, but not in this case. Commr. Boswell asked how many on-street parking spaces are in the red area. Mr. Orroz replied approximately 12. Commr. Boswell asked what would be left without the center turn lane, keeping the corner clear, and having clearance on the side of the driveway. Planner Codron noted that two or three parking spaces would be eliminated. The public hearing was opened. Bonnie Treyhan, 643 Toro Street, expressed her concern with the traffic when there is a closure on the grade. She stated this is a main thoroughfare when the traffic is rerouted after a closure on the grade, and indicated that the majority of the residents are students, except for five people who live on the property. Attachment 4 Planning Commission Minutes Meeting of January 9, 2002 Page 4 Seeing no further public speakers, the public session was closed. Vice-Chair Loh moved to recommend to the City Council, approval of the proposed tentative map and the Mitigated Negative Declaration, based on findings and subiect to conditions of approval. Seconded by Commr. Aiken. Commr. .Aiken suggested that the Commissioners revisit some of the conditions that were discussed at the previous meeting. Commr. Boswell stated that he supports this motion and felt that monitoring would be the most appropriate measure. Chairperson Peterson expressed that he was happy to see this project move forward and felt this an example of the type of development they are looking for in terms of higher-density infill housing project. He suggested amending the motion to make the rear windows on these units openable so the individual tenants could control their air circulation on their own. Commr. Aiken agreed to this amendment provided that it is approved at the .Building Division level and not in conflict with the code. Director Mandeville stated there is an overlap between the purview of the Planning Commission and the ARC, and typically the ARC would resolve the issue. But, he also noted it is also appropriate for the Planning Commission to comment and review any aspect of a project that is brought before them. Vice-Chair Loh as the motion maker accepted the amendment. Commr. Caruso stated he does not support the motion because he felt there is no solution to the traffic conflict. Commr. Osborne stated he supports the motion because this is the type of infill they are looking for and he agreed that the traffic problem is an existing problem. He asked if the current project has the 20-foot driveway. Planner Codron replied no. Ms. Florence stated they would be willing to provide a 20-foot driveway. Commr. Cooper stated he supports the motion, but noted the trigger mechanisms for requiring a turning lane are more difficult to achieve than he would like. Commr. Aiken expressed his agreement with the amendments of the 20-foot wide driveway and the openable windows, as long as they are permitted by code. Assistant City Attorney Trujillo requested a change on page 1 of the resolution, to insert the date December 19, 2001, prior to the date January 9, 2002. 41-LIa Attachment 4 Planning Commission Minutes Meeting of January 9, 2002 Page 5 Vice-Chair Loh as the motion maker agreed. Commr. Aiken as the seconder agreed. AYES: Commrs. Loh, Aiken, Boswell, Osborne, Cooper and Peterson NOES: Commr. Caruso ABSENT: None The motion carried 6-1. C MENT AND DISCUSSION: 2. tall A. Agenda Forecast: January 23, 2 Modification to an improved use permit to w 4-foot high fence to be located ona erty line. Citywide amendment to City z g regulations related to property maintenan 3. Commission: Vice-Chair Loh expressed a ciation to the staff heir hard work. Commr. Caruso stated the Coun oard of Su isors will be considering the General Plan Amendment authorization for Dalid' roperty the following Tuesday, noting the County Planning Department St a is ommending that the amendment not be authorized. Commr. Boswell suggested that st . give nef report at some point of the City's Mitigation Monitoring efforts. He f here is go to be pressure from the State for the City to grow faster than it would ' to and would courage staff to provide their insight as to what they see coming ,a report it to the Plan ' .g Commission. Director Mandeville state n January 29, a SLOCO presentative is going to be making a presentation a City Council which will be tel ed. He asked if there was a Commission cons s on having a staff briefing on mitiga monitoring. The Commissio as in favor of this. Commr. O me asked about the Airport Annexation. Direc andeville stated after the final editing is complete on the draft I plan, their go ould be to begin distributing a public review draft late in February. puty Director Draze mentioned the City's Advisory Body annual dinner show appreciation to those who spend time advising City Departments. 1- -113 Attachment 5 �illll 11 I II II IIII����,�� �IIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIII Illll Of San WIS OBISPO city 990 Palm Street,:San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 January 10, 2002 JM Wilson Development Corp. 444 Higuera Street, Suite 200 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 SUBJECT: TR and ER 130-01: 1144 Walnut Street Request for a 17-unit condominium project with attached 2 and 3- bedroom units and site improvements, and environmental review Dear Applicant: The Planning Commission, at its meeting of January 91 2002, recommended that the City Council adopt the mitigated negative declaration of environmental impact, and approve the proposed tract map, based on findings and subject to conditions and code requirements noted in the attached resolution. The action of the Planning Commission is a recommendation to the City Council and, therefore, is not final. This matter has been tentatively scheduled for public hearing before the City Council on February 19, 2002. This date, however, should be verified with the City Clerk's office at (805) 781-7102. If you have any questions, please contact Michael Codron at (805) 781-7175. Sincerely, Ro ald Whisenand Deputy Community Development Director Development Review cc: SLO County Assessor's Office Carol Florence Oasis Associates 3427 Miguelito Court San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 p chment: Resolution No. 5328-02 FThe 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. —7 _ 7 � Attachment 5 RESOLUTION NO. 5328-02 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 1144 WALNUT STREET TRIER 130-01 (Tract 2447) WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted public hearings in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on December 19, 2001 and again on January 9, 2002, for the purpose of considering Application TRIER 130-01, a condominium subdivision with 17 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 provide for high-density residential development. 2. As conditioned, the design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is consistent with the General Plan because each dwelling has access to a compact, private open space area and the development will occur as part of the neighborhood pattern anticipated for the high density residential zone. 3. The site is physically suited for the proposed type of development because it is an under- developed 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 utilities have been designed to serve the site per City standards. Attachment 5 Resolution 5328-02 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 potentially significant 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 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 to the City Council adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project, with the following mitigation measures and monitoring program. 1. Mitigation The final project design shall comply with all recommendations of the July 18, 2001 acoustical analysis prepared by Brown-Buntin Associates for the project. • Monitoring Program: This mitigation measure will be monitored through the Building Permit application process. Where compliance is not evident through an evaluation of construction drawings, notes shall be added to the project plans to insure implementation of the recommendations. 2. Mitigation In coordination with the City Traffic Engineer, immediately contact Caltrans District 5 staff and determine the potential for adjusting the timing of the traffic signals at Walnut Street and Santa Rosa Street (SR 1). The objective of these potential signal timing adjustments would be reduce the westbound queue on Walnut Street during peak traffic periods such that ingress and egress at the project driveway from Walnut street is not obstructed. • Monitoring Program: Monitoring of the mitigation measure shall include the following components: T—�� Attachment 5 Resolution 5328-02 Pace 3 A. Retain a qualified traffic specialist to observe traffic operations on Walnut Street between Santa Rosa and Toro Streets during am and pm peak traffic periods. These observations shall be conducted six months from the time the project is fully occupied; and again at one year from full occupancy; and two years from full occupancy. B. Traffic observations shall note the length of any queue of eastbound vehicles on Walnut Street at the project driveway and its effect on traffic operations. A significant traffic operations problem will exist when: i. The length of any eastbound queue extends across the driveways serving the Washington Mutual Bank (1106 Walnut Street) or the office complex across Walnut Street (656 Santa Rosa Street). Or ii. City records show an incidence of traffic collisions associated with vehicles turning into the project driveway at a rate equal to or grater than 2 collisions for any 12-month period. . C. The traffic specialist will prepare a brief written report with findings and submit it to the City's Traffic Engineer for review and acceptance. The Engineer may require other field observations if the specialist's report is inconclusive. 3. Mitigation If the Mitigation Monitoring program for the above mitigation measure determines that alternative mitigation measures are necessary to mitigate significant impacts, then the following mitigation measures shall apply to the project, to the approval of the City's Traffic Engineer: A. Further modifications to the Santa Rosa-Walnut Street traffic signals to improve traffic flow along Walnut Street during peak traffic periods and reduce traffic queues. B. Re-striping of the street and removing curb parking to create a center turn lane serving fronting properties. C. Other safety measures deemed effective by the City's Traffic Engineer. 4. Mitigation The Conditions, Covenants, and Restrictions (CC&R's) for the project shall include a requirement, to be enforced by the Homeowners' Association and the City, that all garages must be available for parking two vehicles at all times. • Monitoring Program: Planning Division staff will insure that this language is included in the project CC&R's with their normal review of the CC&R's for the project. e-1-47 Attachment 5 Resolution 5328-02 Page 4 5. Mitigation 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. e Monitoring Program: This mitigation measure will be monitored by Planning Division Staff through Architectural Review, the Building Permit plan check process and through blue card(final) inspections of the project site. 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 and code requirements. 1. The damaged detached sidewalk along the westerly frontage shall be replaced per city standard. The detached sidewalk shall transition after the telephone and electrical equipment pedestals to an integral sidewalk. New curb and gutter shall be installed where gutter does not exist along this section of frontage. 2. Disabled access ramps shall be provided at the new entrance to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director. 3. The section of damaged sidewalk near the intersection of Walnut and Toro at the power pole shall be replaced. The damaged disabled access ramp at the corner shall be replaced. 4. Sewer lateral and storm drain improvements extending into Cal Trans right-of-way shall be reviewed and approved by Cal Trans. A city encroachment permit is also required for review of connection to the city sewer main. 5. Provide a new street light near the driveway entrance to the project to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director. 6. Provide public pedestrian easements as necessary to accommodate ADA access at curb ramp and/or driveway entrance. 7. The subdivider shall dedicate a public utility easement, 2 meters wide, across the portion of the property that is contiguous to the Walnut Street and Toro Street rights-of-way. Easements for onsite public utilities and appurtenance purposes shall be provided to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director and the utility companies. Attachment 5 Resolution 5328-02 Page 5 8. The subdivider shall dedicate a public street tree easement. 3 meters wide, across the Walnut Street frontage of the property. 9. 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. 10. 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. 11. 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. 12. 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). 13. 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. 14. Applicant shall install a"street type" entrance to the driveway at Walnut 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. 15. 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. 16. 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. 17. 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.. Attachment 5 Resolution 5328-02 Page 6 18. The applicant shall pay Park In-Lieu Fees prior to recordation of the Final Map, consistent with SLO Municipal Code Section 16.40.080. 19. Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions (C.C.&R.$) are required, to the approval of the Community Development Director and the Public Works Director. 20. The project shall meet the City's parking space requirement through the provision of additional on-site parking, reduction of the parking requirement by eliminating bedrooms, or both, to the approval of the Community Development Director. 21. The subdivider shall place underground, all existing overhead utilities adjacent to the tract boundary along the public street frontage(s), to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director and utility companies. 22. The redevelopment of the site triggers the Utilities Department Sewer Lateral Abandonment Policy. This policy states that the sewer lateral must be abandoned at the main prior to demolition unless the lateral is intended for reuse and it passes a video inspection. If the sewer lateral is intended for reuse, the owner shall submit a VHS videotape documenting the internal condition of the pipe to the Utilities Department for approval. 23. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66474.9(b), the subdivider shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City and/or its agents, officers and employees from any claim, action or proceeding against the City and/or its agents, officers or employees to attack, set aside, void or annul, the approval by the City of this subdivision, and all actions relating thereto, including but not limited to environmental review. 24. The windows on the rear elevations of Units 9-12 shall be operable, to the approval of the Chief Building Official. 25. The driveway width at the project entrance and adjacent to Unit 1 and Unit 17 shall be a minimum of 20 feet. Driveways in other locations on the project site may be 16 feet wide. Code Requirements 1. A water allocation is required, due to the additional demand on the City's water supplies. Currently, a water allocation can only be obtained through the water retrofit program. The City's Water Conservation division can help in determining the needed allocation and the necessary number of retrofits. Water Conservation can be reached by calling 781-7258. The cost of retrofitting is directly credited against the project's Water Impact Fees, at a rate of$150 per bathroom retrofitted. 2. Water and Wastewater Impact Fees shall be paid at the time building permits are issued. Both the Water and Wastewater Impact Fees are charged on a"per residential unit" basis. //'�� Attachment 5 Resolution 5328-02 Page 7 3. The on-site sewer shall be privately owned and maintained. The water meters shall be manifolded in groups of no more than 4-1" meters or 6-3/4" meters. If the units are to be air-space condos, they can use a separate fire sprinkler service and the domestic water meters can be 3/4". Otherwise, water for the fire sprinklers shall pass through the domestic water meters, which then must be 1" size. 4. In the event the units are to be air-space condos, a separate connection would be required for automatic fire sprinklers. The fire service lateral shall include a USC approved backflow preventer appropriate for the proposed use. The backflow preventer shall be located as close to the public right-of-way as possible, in direct alignment with the connection to the public water main. The backflow preventer can be located no further than 25 feet from the right-of-way line without prior written approval of the Utilities Engineer. If the fire service supports one or more fire hydrants, the USC approved backflow preventer shall also include detector capabilities (double detector check assembly). The FDC may be located behind the backflow prevention assembly, in accordance with manufacturer's recommendations. The location and orientation of the FDC shall be approved by the Fire Department. A monthly service fee of$22.40 shall be required if the property does not have a connection to the City system for domestic use. 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. In addition to the proposed tree preservations and/or relocations, street trees shall be planted along Walnut and Toro per city standard. Tree species and locations shall be reviewed and approved by the City Arborist prior to building permit issuance. 7. Access shall be in accordance with Article 9 of the California Fire Code, and to the approval of the City Fire Marshall. S. A hydraulic analysis of the storm drain system based upon a 10 year storm shall be submitted at the time of building permit application to insure compliance with existing City standards. On motion by Commr. Loh, seconded by Commr. Aiken, and on the following roll call vote to wit: AYES: Commrs. Osborne, Cooper, Peterson, Loh, Aiken and Boswell NOES: Commr. Caruso REFRAIN: None ABSENT: None Attachment 5 Resolution 5328-02 Page 8 The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 9h day of January. 2002. IRonad Whisen d, Secretary Planning Commission IIIIp p I - Attachment 6 ����VVIIIIIIIIIIII�IIIIIII �I1I�������I'I IIIIIIII of sAn hAiS oullispoc��y 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 February 7, 2002 JM Wilson Development Corp. 444 Higuera Street, Suite 200 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 SUBJECT: ARC 130-01 : 1144 Walnut Street Review of building designs of a proposed 17-unit condominium development project and site improvements Dear Applicant: The Architectural Review Commission, at its meeting of February 4, 2002, granted final approval of building designs, based on the following findings and subject to the following conditions: Findings 1. The project is architecturally compatible with the site and with buildings in the surrounding neighborhood because each unit along Walnut Street is oriented to the public street and driveways are limited to a single point of access, which allows for more landscaping and improves the overall streetscape appearance. 2. The project is consistent with the City's Zoning Regulations and is appropriate for the R-4 zoning district, which encourages high-density residential development. Conditions 1 . Plans submitted with a building permit application for the project shall be in substantial compliance with the plans approved by the ARC, to the approval of the Community Development Director. 2. The final driveway entry design shall be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Director. 3. Garbage collection shall be coordinated through the Homeowner's Association and individual waste wheelers shall not be brought up to Walnut Street for collection. 4. The basketball court shall be replaced with an activity that will generate less of a nuisance for occupants of the adjacent units. 5. The sound walls shall be planted with Ficus pumila and irrigation shall be installed to aid fast vine growth. 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. -5 3 Attachment 6 ' ARC 130-01 _ Page 2 6. The ground floor window in Unit 9 that looks onto the common open space area shall be redesigned to provide light and air for the bedroom without compromising privacy. The window should be horizontally oriented and placed high on the building wall. 7. The applicant shall consider reducing the intensity of the color palette. 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 Whisenand Deputy Community Development Director Development Review cc: County of SLO Assessor's Office Carol Florence Oasis Associates 3427 Miguelito Court San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Attachment 6 Draft ARC Minutes February 4, 2002 Page 11 PUBLID OMMENTS: There we%nublricomments. ®RAFT COMMISENTS: Commr. Rawson move o qrant final approval based on the findings and subiW to the conditions in the staff redV, with an added condition to resolve the 'issue ofJWstair on the front elevation to elimi a the siding on the stair, and that the framalre made out of lumber or a more tradition4stair frame. Seconded by Commr. Bou u. Chairperson Stevenson suqqest thev add some pigment.to t oncrete. Idemp Vice-Chair Lopes suggested the 'Xisome gravel, whi2braAens the surface and adds texture. Commr. Rawson agreed to add that as a n. Commr. Rawson stated he agrees^ada condition thatsays as much as feasible to add a lantin stri alonof the Property. AYES: Comm awson, Boudreau, Lopes, Schultz, ard, and Chairperson Stev on NOES: N ABSENT: mmr: Novak ABSTAI None The tion carried 6-0. 7.. 1144 Walnut Street. ARC 130-01; Review of building designs of a proposed 17-unit condominium development project and site 'improvements; R-4 zone; J.M. Wilson Development Corp., applicant. Commr. Rawson abstained from participation on this item because his architectural firm designed this project. Associate Planner Michael Codron presented the staff report, recommending final approval to the proposed building designs and site improvements, based on findings and subject to conditions. ���� Attachment 6 Draft ARC Minutes February 4, 2002 Page 12 Carol Florence, Oasis Associates, requested final approval and communicated that they concur with staffs recommended conditions. She noted there are five additional mitigation measures that came from the initial study that is part of the Planning Commission's resolution. Glen Wood, project architect, explained that the site was designed with the noise impact in mind. They left four buildings parallel to Highway 101 at the rear of the site to block the noise and protect the rest of the site from the impact of the noise from Highway 101 as well as reducing the need for a large wall on the freeway. Chairperson Stevenson asked if there is a 10 or 11-foot wall proposed in the back. Ms. Florence replied they only wrap the corners of the project, but they do not extend to the back. She explained they are trying to protect the common spaces at the corners and the walls provide noise attenuation for the courtyard. Vice-Chair Lopes asked what kind of fence or wall is in back of the units next to the highway. Ms. Florence replied a masonry wall, six feet tall. Vice-Chair Lopes noted that those rear yards do not meet the City's noise threshold. Ms. Florence explained they were unable to utilize those yards in their calculations for private open space and additional open space areas are provided to compensate. Vice-Chair Lopes asked if the windows that face the freeway could be opened. Mr. Wood replied they are operable windows. Chairperson Stevenson voiced his concern about the basketball court in the parking area. Commr. Schultz asked if there would be CC& R's for this project. Ms. Florence replied yes, there would be. PUBLIC COMMENTS: There were no public comments. COMMISSION COMMENTS: Vice-Chair Lopes expressed that the building colors are too vibrant. He also suggested that the Melaluca tree be replaced by another tree. Ms. Florence explained they were looking for trees that are narrow and stay in small places. Attachment 6 Draft ARC Minutes February 4, 2002 DRAFT Page 13 g Commr. Schultz felt that the columns on the balconies were too top heavy. Chairperson Stevenson asked if the building is all stucco and if they considered hardy plank on any of them. Mr. Wood replied yes they are stucco, and no they haven't considered hardy plank. Chairperson Stevenson suggested the colors be softened slightly to bring out the hue. Commr. Howard moved to grant final approval to the project based on findings and subject to conditions of approval in the staff report, but to change condition 4 to replace the basketball court with a sport activity that creates less of a nuisance. Seconded by Commr. Boudreau. Vice-Chair Lopes suggested that the colors be toned down. Commr. Howard added a.condition to consider toning down some of the colors. AYES: Commrs. Howard, Boudreau, Lopes, Schultz, and Chairperson Stevenson NOES: None ABSENT: Commr. Novak ABSTAIN: Commr. Rawson The motion carried 5-0. Ms. Florence stated they call it a condominium project, but it is actually called a common interest development. The meeting was adjourned at 9:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Irene E. Pierce Recording Secretary ��s^7 - Attachment T �i�llllll IIIIIIIIIIII������ plllll I III ®„I city of SAn WIS OBISPO 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM For ER 130-01 1. Project Title: Walnut Street Infill Development 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, Associate Planner (805) 781-7175 4. Project Location: 1144 Walnut Street, City of San Luis Obispo (at the western corner of the Walnut/Toro Street intersection) 5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Applicant: JM Wilson Development Corporation 444 Higuera Street, Suite 200 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 6. General Plan Designation: High Density Residential 7. Zoning: R-4 (High Density Residential) 8. Description of the Project: The project is a condominium subdivision of an existing .95 acre site. The project includes 10 two-bedroom units and 7 three-bedroom units for a total of 17 dwellings. The homes would have a townhouse configuration with attached two-car garages. Including the garages, the homes have three levels and a maximum height of 35 feet. Private open space is provided primarily on decks and balconies, with some units having ground level yards. Recreation space is provided in the form of a barbecue area, turf area and a '/s court basketball area. The project site is presently developed with five dwellings. Project plans indicate that these and all accessory structures would be demolished. Six palm trees on the site will be retained or relocated on site. An existing stand of yuccas, as well as a 46" cypress and a 14" avocado tree will also be retained. All tree removals are noted on the demolition plan. A noise study has been prepared for the project and the project includes a proposal to develop sound barriers in two locations in order to reduce noise levels from Highway 101 at the interior of the project site. The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to_include the disabled in all of its services, program's and activities. V Telecommunications Device for the Deaf mw 781-7410. /f Attachment 7 9. Surrounding Land Uses and Settings: The project is bordered by both residential and commercial development including a bank to the west and a hotel to the east. Residential land to the south of the project site is zoned for Medium Density (R-2) development. Residential land to the east of the project site is zoned for Medium- High (R-3) development. The project site is on the northern edge of the Downtown Planning Area. The site is one-half block north of the Mill Street Historic District. Highway 101 is located north of the project site. The highway travel lanes are located approximately 68 feet from the rear property line of the project site. Dense shrubs and trees occupy the space between the property line and the highway. Trees on the site include pepper, palm, avocado, cypress, redwood and pine. The site slopes down from Walnut Street approximately 20 feet to the rear property line. 10. Project Entitlements Requested: The applicant has requested review and approval of a vesting tentative tract map and Architectural Review of the proposed building designs. 11. Other public agencies whose approval is required: None CRY OF SAN.Luis OBiSPO 2 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2001 q`V Attachment 7 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 X 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 FISH AND GAME FEES There is no evidence before the Department that the project will have any potential adverse effects on fish X and wildlife resources or the habitat upon which the wildlife depends. As such, the project qualifies fora de minimis waiver with regards to the filing of Fish and Game Fees. The project has potential to impact fish and wildlife resources and shall be subject to the payment of Fish and Game fees pursuant to Section 711.4 of the California Fish and Game Code. This initial study has been circulated to the California Department of Fish and Game for review and comment. STATE CLEARINGHOUSE This environmental document must be submitted to the State Clearinghouse for review by one or more State agencies (e.g. Cal Trans, California Department of Fish and Game, Department of Housing and X Community Development). The public review period shall not be less than 30 days (CEQA Guidelines 15073(a)). dCITY OF SAN LUIS OBISpo 3 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2001 adv Attachment 7 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 X agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant" impact(s) or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact(s) on the environment, but at least one effect (1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze 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. December 11,2001 atur Date Ron Whisenand Deputy Director, Development Review John Mandeville,Community Development Director Printed Name for CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 4 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2001 4--Z Attachment 7 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: I. 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. `i CITY OF SAN LOIS OBISPO 5 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2001 �6a Issues, Discussion and Support.,_ ,Information Sources Sources poi y Potentially Less Than No Signnicant Significant Significant Impact Issues Unless Impact ER # 130-01 Mitigation Incorporated ttac Ment 1. AESTHETICS. Would theproject: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? I X b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including,but not limited 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 nighttime views in the area? Evaluation a), b), c),d) The project involves redevelopment of two residential lots substantially surrounded by urban development. The project is not in the area of any roads of high or moderate scenic value, as determined by the City's Scenic Roadways Map. The project includes development within the property development standards of the Zoning Regulations and no height exceptions are required. The project site contains no scenic resources, such as significant trees or rock outcroppings. The project will not create a new source of substantial light or glare.. Conclusion No impacts have been identified relating to aesthetics. The project is subject to Architectural Review. The City's Architectural Review Commission routinely reviews new development projects to insure a high level of architectural integrity and aesthetic quality. No further mitigation is required. 2.AGRICULTURE RESOURCES. Would theproject: a) Convert Prime Farmland,Unique Farmland,or Farmland of X Statewide Importance(Farmland),as shown on the maps pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of 2 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 site is designated as Urban Land by the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency. The project will not convert prime farmland to any non-agricultural use. The project site is within the Downtown Planning Area and will not conflict with any agricultural zoning or Williamson Act contract. The project is an in-fill development that will not result in changes that could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural uses. Conclusion The project will not have any impact on agricultural resources. 3. AIR QUALITY. Would theproject:. a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an X existing or projected air quality violation? 3,4 b) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air X quality plan? c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant X concentrations? CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 6 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2001 L/-63 MLLdcnment / Issues, Discussion and Suppor ,Information Sources Sources Po iy Potentially Less"Phan No Sign,.. ant Significant Significant Impact ER # 130 01 Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated d) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of X people? e) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard X (including releasing emissions which exceed qualitative thresholds for 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. 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 17 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. The project proposal has been routed to the Air Pollution Control District(APCD) for comments. The APCD concluded that the project will not exceed CEQA significance thresholds for construction or operational emissions. Air quality mitigation measures are not required by APCD for the project, but APCD does recommend dust control measures for construction and energy efficiency measures to reduce emissions at the power plant source. The recommendations of the APCD are attached to this Initial Study. d) The project is a residential condominium development and will not create objectionable odors under normal circumstances. Conclusion The project does not exceed APCD thresholds and air quality mitigation measures are not required. The City's Grading Ordinance includes dust control measures that will apply to the project. Energy efficiency is a factor that is routinely considered by the City's Architectural Review Commission and conditions of approval may be required to insure that City goals are met with respect to solar orientation, building materials and general methods for conservation. No further mitigation is required. 4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would theproject: a) Have a substantial adverse effect,either directly or indirectly or 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 X other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional 5 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 �6 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 7 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2001 Attachment 7 Issues, Discussion and Suppoi Information Sources Sources Pc y potentially Less an No --- Sig�....,ant Significant Significant Impact Issues Unless Impact ER # 130-01 Mitigation Incorporated biological resources,such as a tree preservation policy or X ordinance(e.g. Heritage Trees)? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native X resident or migratory wildlife corridors,or'impede the use of wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted habitat Conservation Plan,Natural Community Conservation Plan,or other approved X local,regional,or state habitat conservation plan? f) Have a substantial adverse effect on Federally protected wetlands as defined in Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including,but not limited to,marshes, vernal pools,etc.) X through direct removal,filling,hydrological interruption, or other means? Evaluation a), b), c), e), f) 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 reported 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. There are no significant trees that are proposed for removal. 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 6 X historic resource?(See CEQA Guidelines 15064.5) b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an 7 X archeological resource?(See CEQA Guidelines 15064.5) c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource X onsite or unique geologic feature? - d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of 8 X formal cemeteries? Evaluation a) The project site is presently developed with five residential structures that are over fifty years old. The street numbers of the buildings.are 1144, 1150 and 1162 on Walnut Street and 642 A, B on Toro Street. Historic resources are evaluated based on a number of criteria including, style, design, age, architect, environmental design continuity, history-person, history-event and history-context as described in the Historical Preservation Program Guidelines (Attachment 1). Staff has evaluated the potential historic significance of the existing dwellings and does not believe that any of the buildings represent significant historic resources and staff does not believe that these structures are eligible for inclusion in the City's Inventory of Historic Resources. These buildings has been surveyed by the City but have never been nominated for inclusion in the City's Inventory of Historic Resources. The project site and surroundings are part of a neighborhood that was significantly disturbed by the development of Highway 101. Walnut Street used to be called Sycamore Street and Hathaway used to connect through to what is now Toro Street. Fig Street used to back up to the project site and the site was part of a larger neighborhood. The development of the freeway interchange at Toro Street changed the pattern of development in the block and brought a significant amount of vehicle traffic by the project site each day on route between Highway I and Highway 101, in many ways separating the site from the neighborhoods to the south and east and the Mill Street Historic District. The block is now bordered on the east by a hotel and on the west by a bank building. Due to these circumstances, the historic setting of the block has been altered and the CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 8 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2001 4 —b S attachment 7 Issues, Discussion and Suppoi Information Sources Sources Po Y Potentially Less Than No Sign...-ant Significant Significant Impact ER # 130 O1 Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated buildings no longer represent significant environmental design continuity. Based on the City's Sanborn Maps, staff believes that two structures on 1144 Walnut and 1150 Walnut were constructed between 1903 and 1926. This is because the Sanborn Maps show a significant changes in the building footprints for these buildings between 1903 and 1926 (Attachment 2). These buildings are simple cottages with railroad vernacular design. The building on 1162 Walnut is a simple bungalow, constructed in 1922. The two residential buildings on 643 Toro A and B were constructed in 1947. According to the Sanborn Maps, each lot was developed prior to 1903, but the structures on the lots today are not the original homes(Attachment 2). The structures proposed for demolition are simple bungalows, with eclectic design features. The homes on 1144 Walnut and 1150 Walnut have had shingle siding applied directly over the original horizontal siding, which is visible in many areas where the shingles have rotted and fallen off. The house on 1150 Walnut has had its porch enclosed, which greatly impacts the historic character of the building from the street elevation. Additions are also obvious at the rear of these buildings. The building on 1162 Walnut is in fair shape and has retained its original lap siding. The City's Building Demolition Code includes specific provisions to encourage the conservation of older dwellings in the City. The requirements of the code include a 90-day"cool-off'period during which time the homes proposed for demolition are advertised as available for relocation. When the structures to be demolished are in good condition, they are often relocated. The Demolition Code also requires photo and historic documentation of structures over 50 years old. The City keeps the documentation in the Community Development Department Library for future research. With these code requirements in place, no further mitigation is necessary. b) The City's Archeological Resource Preservation Guidelines require preliminary archeological studies for properties that are considered sensitive sites. The project site does not meet the criteria for sensitive site designation because it is more than 200 feet away from the City's major creeks and known archeological sites. The site is also outside of a historical district and the property is not on the City's Inventory of Historic Resources. These factors indicate that the project is likely to have no impact on archeological resources. c), d) The project site does not contain any known paleontological or geological resources and is not within an area where burials are likely to be encountered, as indicated by the City's Burial Sensitivity Map, on file in the Community Development Department. Conclusion The project site contains structures that are over 50 years old that are proposed for demolition. Based on the City's Historic Resource Criteria for Building Evaluation and Recommendations, the buildings proposed for demolition are not significant historic resources or eligible for inclusion in the City's Inventory of Historic Resources. The requirements of the Building Demolition Code will insure proper documentation of the existing structures and will potentially provide for their relocation. No further mitigation is required. 6. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the roject: a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? 9 X b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient X manner? c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the X State? Evaluation a) The development will not conflict with adopted energy conservation plans or promote the use of non-renewable resources in an inefficient manner. �r CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 9 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2001 1-1-66 tAadcnment 7 Issues, Discussion and Support Information Sources SourcesEi0gni,,_am y Potentially Less Than No -- Significant Significant Impact ues Unless Impact ER # 130-01 Mitigation incorporated 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 Califomia 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. The Architectural Review Commission regularly reviews development projects for compliance with this standard. 7. GEOLOGY AND SOILS Would theproject: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse 10,11 X effects,including risk of loss, injury or death involving: 1. Rupture of a known earthquake fault,as delineated in the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area,or based on other X substantial evidence of a known fault? II. Strong seismic ground shaking? X 111. Seismic related ground-failure,including liquefaction? X IV. Landslides or mudflows? X b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? X c) Be located on.a geologic unit or soil that is unstable,or that would become unstable as a result of the project,and potentially X result in on or offsite landslides, lateral spreading,subsidance, liquefaction,or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil,as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code(1994),creating substantial risks to life X 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. 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,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, CITY OF SAN Luis OBISPO 10 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2001 44 -47 Attachment 7 Issues, Discussion and Suppor. Information Sources Sources Po `y Potcntialh' Less Than No Sigt...rant Significant Significant Impact Issues Unless Impact ER # 130-01 Mitigation Incorporated 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. 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) 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 soils engineering report includes specific recommendations to insure that foundations are designed to withstand settlement. d)The soils engineering report includes expansion index numbers for three soil samples on the project site. Two of the samples are considered medium potential expansion,as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code(1998). One sample is rated high potential for expansion. The recommendations in the soils report suggest that deeper footings and engineered fill dirt are required to support building foundations,as differential settlement of the native soil is likely. The soils engineering report concludes that the project site is suitable for the proposed development provided the recommendations in the report are incorporated into the project plans and specifications. Conclusion 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. According to the Soils Engineering Report prepared for the project, the soil is suitable to support the proposed building foundations and flat-work provided the recommendations in the report are incorporated into the project design. The Building Division of the Community Development Department routinely reviews project for their compliance with the recommendations of the soils engineering report for the site. No further mitigation is required. 8. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the pro'ect: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment 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 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 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 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? g) Impair implementation of,or physically interfere with,the X adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 11 INITUIL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2001 1-1-108 Attachment 7 Issues, Discussion and Suppo, Information Sources Sources Pi y Potentially Less Than No Sig,....,am Significant Significant Impact Issues Unless Impact ER # 130-01 Mitigation Incorporated. plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of lose, injury, or death, involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are 10 X 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 outside of the Airport Land Use Plan area. 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 ashavinga low potential for impacts from wildland fires. Conclusion The project will not involve any impacts with respect to hazards or hazardous materials. 9. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would theproject: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge X requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere 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 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 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 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 X a Federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map 12 or other flood hazard delineation map? g) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which X would impede or redirect flood flows? h Otherwise substantially degrade water qual i ? X 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. CrrYOF SAN LUIS OBIsPO 12 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHEQKuST 2001 ( / - Attachment 7 Issues, Discussion and Suppon Information Sources Sources Pot ) Potentially Less Than No Sigm,,.,ant Significant Significant Impact Issues Unless Impact ER # 130-01 Mitigation Incorporated 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 plan, policy, or regulation of X an agency with jurisdiction over the project adopted for the 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 X community conservationplans? 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 20.5 density units. This is less than the maximum density allowed on the site, which is 22.8 density units(24 x .95 acres). b) The project site includes one land parcel on a .95 acre site. The project will be served by existing streets and will be bordered by residential and commercial uses. The project will not physically divide an established community. c) The project will not 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. 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 13,14 X Element,or general noise levels in excess of standards established in the Noise Ordinance? b) A substantial temporary,periodic,or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing X without the project? c) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundbome vibration or groundbome noise levels? X d) For a project located within an airport land use plan,or within two miles of a public airport or public use airport,would the X project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 13 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2001 /- '�� Attachment 7 Issues, Discussion and Suppo. , Information Sources Sources K ,.y Potentially Less Than No Sigm.'ant Significant Significant Impact Issues Unless Impact ER # 130-01 Mitigation Incorporated Evaluation a) The project site is within an area determined by the City's Noise Element to exceed the noise standards for residential development. The Noise Element requires all outdoor use areas to have an average noise level of 60 dB. Interior noise areas must have a maximum average noise level of 45 dB. In order to address the potentially significant noise impacts of the project, the applicant has submitted an acoustical analysis, prepared by Brown-Buntin Associates, Inc. The study concludes that development of the project site will satisfy the City's noise exposure criteria if specific recommendations are incorporated. These recommendations have been incorporated into the project design and are included in the plans submitted by the applicant. Staff is recommending a mitigation measure to insure that these recommendations are carried through to the construction drawings for the project. The most significant recommendations of the study are the development of a 10' tall sound wall at the northeast comer and an I I' foot sound wall at the northwest corner of the project site. Sound walls in these areas will insure that noise levels within the courtyard area meet the City's standards. The project is designed so that many of the private and common outdoor use areas are within the courtyard. Balconies and decks at the second and third levels of the proposed buildings open into the courtyard area. Private yards are included in some of the units that are farther from the noise source. b) During construction, ambient noise levels in the area of construction will increase. Construction noise is regulated by the City's Noise Ordinance and the project will have to meet the noise standards contained in the Ordinance, which includes limitations on the days and hours of construction. No further mitigation is necessary. c) The project is a residential subdivision and will not expose people to excessive groundbome vibration or noise levels.. d) The project is outside of the Airport Land Use Plan area. Mitigation Measure: 1. The final project design shall comply with all recommendations of the July 18, 2001 acoustical analysis prepared by Brown-Buntin Associates for the project. Conclusion The applicant has had an acoustical analysis prepared for the project and the project has been designed to meet the standards contained in the City's Noise Element for exposure of residents to transportation noise sources. A mitigation measure is recommended to insure that the recommendations of the acoustical analysis are carried through to the construction drawings for the project. No further mitigation is necessary. 12. POPULATION AND_HOUSING. Would theproject: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example by proposing new homes or businesses) or X indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing or people necessitating the construction of replacement housing X elsewhere? Evaluation a), b) The population added by this project is within the General Plan's projection and will not induce substantial growth in 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 developed with five homes and will not displace substantial numbers of existing housing or people. Lost housing will be replaced on the project site. CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 14 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2001 Ll— 7� Hnacnment 7 Issues, Discussion and Suppot , , Information Sources Sources Pc Potentially Less Than No Signrucant Significant Significant Impact Issues Unless Impact ER # 1.30-01 Mitigation Incorporated 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? 15 X b) Police protection? X c) Schools? X d) Parks? X e) Roads and other transportation infrastructure? X Other public facilities? 15 X Evaluation a), b), f) As an infill site, adequate public services (fire, police, other public facilities) are available to service the property. 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. 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. e) The project site is served by a local collector street. Walnut Street is used heavily by vehicles traveling to and from the Highway 1/101 interchange at Walnut Street. The additional vehicle travel generated by this project is expected to have an insignificant impact on this road. Conclusion No resource deficiencies have been identified with respect to public services. 14. RECREATION. Would theproject: a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Include recreational facilities or require the construction or 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 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 15 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2001 //� 4-� Attacnment 7 Issues, Discussion and Suppo. Information Sources Sources Pi .y Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact ER # 130 O1 Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated 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. Conclusion Park and recreation facility demand will increase incrementally with the development of the project. 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 16 X existing traffic load and capacity of the street system? b) Exceed,either individually or cumulatively,a level of service 16 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 curves or dangerous intersections)or incompatible uses(e.g. 15 X farm equipment)? d) Result in inadequate emergency access? X e) Result in inadequate parking capacity onsite or offsite? X f) Conflict with adopted policies supporting alternative X transportation(e.g. bus tumouts,Bicycle racks)? g) Conflict with the with San Luis Obispo County Airport Land X Use Plan resulting in substantial safety risks from hazards, noise, or a chane in air trafficpatterns? Evaluation a), b) The project site is located along a Highway 101 interchange which brings vehicles along Walnut Street to Highway 1, Santa Rosa Street. This interchange is presently subject to high traffic volumes and the project is not anticipated to significantly increase the number of vehicles on the street or reduce the level of service for Walnut Street or any adjacent roads. Because of the unique situation of the property relative to Highway 1 and Highway 101,the applicant has had a traffic analysis prepared for the project by Penfield and Smith. The study concludes that the intersections adjacent to the project will remain unchanged in their level of service. Staff concurs with the conclusion of the traffic analysis, but is aware of operational problems with the existing intersection at Santa Rosa and Walnut,as discussed below. c) Although traffic at the adjacent intersections will remain unchanged after construction of the project, staff is concerned that the existing condition will conflict with ingress to the project site for vehicles traveling eastbound on Walnut Street. Staff is primarily concerned that a vehicle stopped to make a left turn into the project site could back up traffic to the Santa Rosa Street intersection. As a result,mitigation measures are proposed to avoid potentially significant impacts. The mitigation measures require the applicant to work with Cal Trans, in coordination with the City's Traffic Engineer, to optimize the timing of the traffic signal at Walnut Street and Santa Rosa(Highway 1). City staff believes that adjustments are possible that would allow vehicles to travel through this intersection more efficiently, reducing the number of vehicles that are queuing on Toro Street. Staff believes that additional green time on the cross street (Walnut) will make it easier for cars to tum left into the project site, without backing up traffic behind them, towards Santa Rosa. Mitigation Monitoring for the project will determine whether or not alternative mitigations are needed to address operational problems. Alternative mitigations include re-striping Walnut Street to provide for a center tum pocket in front of the project site, which would involve the elimination of some on-street parking. CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 16 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2001 1-1-23 Ht>;acnmen>; i Issues, Discussion and Suppoi. Information Sources Sources Po y Potentially Less Than No Sign...cant Significant Significant Impact Issues Unless Impact ER # 130-01 Mitigation Incorporated d) The project plans have been evaluated by the City's Fire Marshall who has determined that there are no emergency access constraints or impacts. The project can be adequately served by emergency response vehicles, include fire trucks which do not require on-site access. e) The project includes parking for 39 vehicles on the project site. The total parking requirement for the project is 41 vehicles. Ten additional bicycle parking spaces are provided to make up for two vehicle spaces that are lacking. The applicant has also proposed five locations where tandem parking would be feasible if additional on-site parking is determined to be necessary by the Planning Commission or the City Council, which must review and approve the project parking proposal. On-street parking in the vicinity of the project site is available on Walnut Street and on Toro Street. Under the current circumstances, staff does not believe that on-street parking availability will be significantly impacted by the project. However, if all of the traffic mitigations are triggered and on-street parking is removed from Walnut Street, adjacent streets will be impacted by vehicles normally parked on Walnut Street. To maximize the number of parking spaces actually used for parking on the project site, staff is recommending a mitigation measure to insure that garages are used for vehicle parking only and that parking on-site is maximized. The applicant has also proposed a plan that shows five tandem parking spaces on the project site. Additional parking on-site would reduce potential on-street parking problems,but the tandem parking request is not standard and must be approved by the City Council. f) The project does not conflict with policies supporting alternative transportation. The APCD has provided comments on the project (Attachment 3) and the District suggests providing secureon-site bicycle parking to encourage the use of bicycles as a mode of transportation for project residents. The City also requires that each garage be able to accommodate storage for two bicycles. g) The project is outside of the Airport Land Use Plan area. Mitigation Measures: 2. In coordination with the City Traffic Engineer, immediately contact Caltrans District 5 staff and determine the potential for adjusting the timing of the traffic signals at Walnut Street and Santa Rosa Street (SR 1). The objective of these potential signal timing adjustments would be reduce the westbound queue on Walnut Street during peak traffic periods such that ingress and egress at the project driveway from Walnut street is not obstructed. 3. If the Mitigation Monitoring program (page 21 of this initial study) for the above mitigation measure determines that alternative mitigation measures are necessary to mitigate significant impacts, then the following mitigation measures shall apply to the project,to the approval of the City's Traffic Engineer: A. Further modifications to the Santa Rosa-Walnut Street traffic signals to improve traffic flow along Walnut Street during peak traffic periods and reduce traffic queues. B. Restriping of the street and removing curb parking to create a center turn lane serving fronting properties. C. Other safety measures deemed effective by the City's Traffic Engineer. 4. The Conditions, Covenants, and Restrictions (CC&R's) for the project shall include a requirement, to be enforced by the Homeowners' Association and the City,that all garages must be available for parking two vehicles at all times. Conclusion Potentially significant impacts have been identified with respect to operational issues and the potential need for a left-turn pocket into the project site and parking availability. These issues are somewhat tied together because elimination of on-street parking on Walnut Street would be required to develop the left-tum pocket. Staff believes that changes to the signal timing of the Cal Trans intersection at Walnut and Santa Rosa will most likely alleviate these concerns: CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 17 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2001 Attachment 7 Issues, Discussion and Suppe J Information Sources sources P y Potentially Less'rhan No SiE -cant Significant Significant Impact Issues Unless Impact ER # 130-01 Mitigation incorporated 16. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would theproject: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable X Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction or expansion of new water treatment,wasterwater treatment,or storm drainage facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental X effects? c) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources,or are new and X expanded water resources needed? d) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand and addition to X the provider's existing commitment? e) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to X accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? f) Comply with federal,state,and local statutes and regulations 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 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 3.57 acre feet(.21*17 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 1994 City Limits). Another 142 acre feet is available for allocation to the City's expansion areas. 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 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. Mitigation Measure: 5. 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. �1 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 18 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2001 Attachment 7 Issues, Discussion and Suppor, , Information Sources Sources Po .yPotentially Less'rhan No Sigmucant Significant Significant Impact ER # 130 O1 Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated 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, a mitigation measure is recommended to insure the provision of on-site recycling facilities to reduce the waste stream generated by the project. 17. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment,substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species,cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- X 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 cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of project.are considerable X 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 cumulativelysignificant. c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings,either directly or X indirectly? With the incorporation of mitigation measures,the project will not result in substantial adverse impacts on humans. mai Curr OF SAN Luis Oetspo 19 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 211111 Z/-76 Attachment 7 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. Identi earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. No earlier analysis was used in this evaluation. 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. c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions of the project. 19. SOURCE REFERENCES on file in the Community Development Department, unless otherwise stated 1. Circulation Element,Figure 6,Scenic Roadways Ma 2. Website of the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency: http://www.consrv.ca.gov/dlrp/FMMP/ 3. CEQA Air Quality Handbook, APCD, 1995 4. Project comments from.APCD,attached. 5. City of SLO creek map. 6. City of SLO,Historical Preservation Program Guidelines 7. City of SLO,Archeological Resource Preservation Guidelines 8. City of SLO, Burial Sensitivity Ma 9. Energy Conservation Element 10. Safety Element Hazard Maps 1 I. Soils Engineering Report prepared for the project by GeoSolutions, Inc., October 2001. 12. Flood Insurance Rate Map(Community Panel 0603100005 C)dated July 7, 1981 —on file in the Public Works Department 13. Noise Element 14. Acoustical analysis prepared by Brown Buntin Associates, Inc. for the project proposal,attached 15. Project routing comments by City staff 16. Traffic analysis prepared by Penfield and Smith,June 2001 Attachments: Attachment 1: Historical Preservation Program Guidelines, Criteria for Delineation of Historic Resources for Building Evaluations and Recommendations Attachment 2: 1903 and 1926 Sanborn Maps of the project site Attachment 3: Project comments from Air Pollution Control District REQUIRED MITIGATION AND MONITORING PROGRAMS 1. Mitigation The final project design shall comply with all recommendations of the July 18, 2001 acoustical analysis prepared by Brown-Buntin Associates for the project. CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 20 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2001 y-7� Attachment 7 o Monitoring Program: This mitigation measure will be monitored through the Building Permit application process. Where compliance is not evident through an evaluation of construction drawings, notes shall be added to the project plans to insure implementation of the recommendations. 2. Mitigation In coordination with the City Traffic Engineer, immediately contact Caltrans District 5 staff and determine the potential for adjusting the timing of the traffic signals at Walnut Street and Santa Rosa Street (SR 1). The objective of these potential signal timing adjustments would be reduce the westbound queue on Walnut Street during peak traffic periods such that ingress and egress at the project driveway from Walnut street is not obstructed. • Monitoring Program: Monitoring of the mitigation measure shall include the following components: A. Retain a qualified traffic specialist to observe traffic operations on Walnut Street between Santa Rosa and Toro Streets during am and pm peak traffic periods. These observations shall be conducted six months from the time the project is fully occupied; and again at one year from full occupancy; and two years from full occupancy. B. Traffic observations shall note the length of any queue of eastbound vehicles on Walnut Street at the project driveway and its effect on traffic operations. A significant traffic operations problem will exist when: i. The length of any eastbound queue extends across the driveways serving the Washington Mutual Bank (1106 Walnut Street) or the office complex across Walnut Street (656 Santa Rosa Street). Or ii. City records show an incidence of traffic collisions associated with vehicles turning into the project driveway at a rate equal to or grater than 2 collisions for any 12-month period. . C. The traffic specialist will prepare a brief written report with findings and submit it to the City's Traffic Engineer for review and acceptance. The Engineer may require other field observations if the specialist's report is inconclusive. 3. Mitigation If the Mitigation Monitoring program for the above mitigation measure determines that alternative mitigation measures are necessary to mitigate significant impacts, then the following mitigation measures shall apply to the project, to the approval of the City's Traffic Engineer: 6005 CITY OF SAN Luis Omspo 21 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2001 y-7� Attachment 7 A. Further modifications to the Santa Rosa-Walnut Street traffic signals to improve traffic flow along Walnut Street during peak traffic periods and reduce traffic queues. B. Re-striping of the street and removing curb parking to create a center turn lane serving fronting properties. C. Other safety measures deemed effective by the City's Traffic Engineer. 4. Mitigation The Conditions, Covenants, and Restrictions (CC&R's) for the project shall include a requirement, to be enforced by the Homeowners' Association and the City, that all garages must be available for parking two vehicles at all times. o Monitoring Program: Planning Division staff will insure that this language is included in the project CC&R's with their normal review of the CC&R's for the project. 5. Mitigation 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: This mitigation measure will be monitored by Planning Division Staff through Architectural Review, the Building Permit plan check process and through blue card (final) inspections of the project site. �+i CITY OF SAN Luis OBISPO 22 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2001 Attachment 7 Attachment 1 City of San Luis Obispo Cultural Heritage committee DELINEATION OF HISTORIC RESOURCE CRITERIA FOR BUILDING EVALUATION AND RECOMAENDATIONS ARCHITECTURAL CRITERIA I. Style. Describes form of building such as size,structural shape and details within that form (i.e., arrangement of windows and doors, ornamentation, etc.) Building style will be evaluated as a measure of:. 1. The relative purity of a traditional style (as compared to building styles in San Luis Obispo); 2. Rarity of existence at any time in the locale; and/or current rarity although the structure reflects a once popular style; 3. Traditional, vernacular and/or eclectic influences that represent a particular social milieu and period of the community; and/or the uniqueness of hybrid styles and how these styles are put together. 4. The degree to which the structure has maintained its integrity (i.e., assessment of alterations and structural condition, if known). II Design Describes the architectural concept of a structure and the quality of artistic merit and craftmanship of the individual parts. Reflects how well a particular style or combination of styles are expressed through compatibility and detailing of elements. Also, suggests degree to which the architect (i.e., carpenter-builder) accurately interpreted and conveyed the style(s). Building design will be evaluated as a measure of: , 1. Notable attractiveness with aesthetic appeal because of its uniqueness, artistic merit, details and craftsmanship; 2. Overall attractiveness because of craftsmanship and aesthetic value, though not necessarily unique; 3. An expression_of.interesting details and eclecticism among carpenter-builders, although the craftsmanship and artistic quality may not be superior. Ll Attachment 7 � Attachment i , i III. Age Age is a measure of how relatively old a structure is in the context of the history of San Luis Obispo, primarily Anglo-American history (circa 1850). (See Scale of Building Age). CRITERIA FOR BUILDING EVALUATIONS IV. Architect Describes the professional (an individual or firm) directly responsible for the building design and plans of the structure. The architect will be evaluated as a reference to: 1. A master architect (e.g., Wright). 2. A known architect who made significant contributions to the state or region (e.g., Julia Morgan). 3. An architect who, in terms of craftsmanship, made significant contributions to San Luis Obispo (e.g., Abrahams who, according to local sources, designed the house at 810 Osos - Frank Avila's father's home - built between 1927 - 30). 4. An early architect who is otherwise of no special significance but can be identified as a professional (e.g., pioneer architects of the region as confirmed by AIA archival membership records of California and the Central Coast). V. Environmental Design Continuity Describes the inter-relationship of structures and their relationship to a common environment. Refers to the continuity, spatial relationship, and visual character of a street, neighborhood, or area. Environmental design continuity will be evaluated as a measure of the: 1. Symbolic importance of a structure to the community and the degree to which it serves as a conspicuous and pivotal landmark (i.e., easily accessible to the public, helps to establish a sense of time and place). 2. Compatibility of a structure with neighboring structures in its setting on the basis of period, style (form, height, roof lines), design elements, landscapes, and natural features; and how these combine together to create an integral cultural, historic, or stylistic setting. 3. Similarity to and/or compatibility of a structure with its neighboring structures which, collectively, although of no particular aesthetic value, combine to form a geographically definable area with its own distinctive character. Attachment 1 Attachment 7 HISTORICAL CRITERIA VI. History - Person Describes a person, group, organization, or institution that has been connected with the structure, either intimately or secondarily, for at least two generations (i.e., 40 years). Historical person will be evaluated as a measure of the degree to which a person or group was: 1. Significant to the community as a public leader (i.e.,-mayor, congressman, etc.) or for his or her fame and outstanding recognition - locally, regionally, or nationally. 2. Significant to the community as a public servant who has made early, unique, or outstanding contributions to important local affairs or institutions (i.e., councilmen, educators, medical professionals, clergymen, railroad officials). 3. Contributions which, though minor, directly or indirectly, had a beneficial effect on the community (i.e., firemen, law enforcement officers, postal workers, businessmen/shopkeepers, city employees, etc.). VII. History - Event Associated with a social, political, economic, governmental, educational or other institutional event that has been important to the community. Historical event will be evaluated as a measure of: 1. A landmark, famous, or first-of-its-kind event for the city - regardless of whether the impact of the event spread beyond the city. 2. A relatively unique or interesting contribution to the city (i.e., the Ah Louis Store as the center for Chinese-American cultural activities in early San Luis Obispo history). 3. A contribution which, though minor, nonetheless was important to the community (i.e., local interest groups); or, alternatively, a unique or interesting contribution only loosely connected with the structure, object, site, or district. VIII. History-Context Associated with and also..a prime illustration of predominant patterns of political, social, economic, cultural, medical, educational, governmental, military, industrial, or religious history. Historical context will be evaluated as a measure of the degree to which it reflects: ��ea achment 1 Attachment 7 / 1. Early, first, or major patterns of local history, regardless of whether the historical effects go beyond the city level, that are intimately connected with the building (i.e., County Museum). 2. Secondary patterns of local history but closely associated with the building (i.e., Park Hotel). 3. Secondary patterns of local .history but loosely associated with the building. Historical context will also be evaluated on the basis of: 4. Whether or not a structure occupies its original site and/or whether or not the original foundation has been changed, if known. Attachment 7 Attachment 2 _ - 1903 Sanborn Map Q Q Q 9 "V V 9 V ` C O . � Attachment 7 Att ment 1926 Sanborn Map O C3 \\/9 W P lf� Q 9 Q y. D v r. P � s P � O P , O a � a CD �,f v O w O P P 0 � O O O � P 0 0 9 P O �-gs Attachment 7 Attachment 3 AIR POLLUTIOI-N CONTROL DISTRICT COUNTY OF SAN !.ITIS OBISPO DATE: October 15, 2001 TO: Michael Codron City of San Luis Obispo FROM: Anna Bertinuson �J Air Pollution Control District SUBJECT: Walnut Street Infill Development (130-31) Thank you for including the District in the annexation request review process. We have completed our review of the Walnut Street Infill Development Project. The proposed project consists of 17 new residences, each with an attached two-car garage. The property has four existing residences to be removed and one single car garage to be removed. We have the following comments regarding this request. GENERAL COMMENTS We would first like to commend the applicant on several elements of the project design: 1. The project provides development within the city limits with nearby access to commercial services and transit service, which will reduce dependence on driving. 2. The project provides development within the URL where such development is planned for and expected. 3. The proposed residential buildings are two stories, resulting in a greater floor to area ratio. This creates a higher density land use, making transit services more viable and effective. 4. An important part of the annexation review process is a consistency analysis with the District's Clean Air Plan (CAP). The CAP was developed to address issues that contribute to poor air quality in our area, and to identify strategies to reduce those impacts; this includes land use policies designed to reduce reliance on the automobile, such as compact, infill and mixed-use development. The proposed infill development project is consistent with the surrounding land uses and provides development where such development is planned and expected. The proposed project has been determined to be consistent with the CAP. SPECIFIC COMMENTS Staff calculations of the potential construction and operational emissions from this source indicate the project will not exceed our CEQA significance thresholds. However, the District has the following comments regarding the development proposal: DUST CONTROL MEASURES San Luis Obispo County exceeds the state air quality standard for PMIO, therefore, emissions of PM10 area high priority concern for the District. Additionally, fugitive dust emissions reduce visibility and can cause a nuisance problem for nearby properties. In order to reduce the potential for dust nuisance concerns during the construction phase of the project, the District recommends inclusion of the following fugitive dust mitigation measures: 3433 Roberto Court • San Luis Obispo,CA 93401 • BOS-781-S912 • FAX: 805-781-1002 deanair@sloapcd.dst.ca.us ❖ www.sloapcd.dst.ca.us `% printed on recycled paper ��d Attachment 7 Attachment 3 ♦ Reduce the amount of the disturbed area where possible. ♦ Use of water trucks or sprinkler systems in sufficient quantities to prevent airborne dust from leaving the site. Increased watering frequency would be required whenever wind speeds exceed 15 mph. Reclaimed (nonpotable) water should be used whenever possible. ♦ Vehicle speed for all construction vehicles shall not exceed 15 mph on any unpaved surface at the construction site. ENERGY EFFICIENCY MEASURES Air quality mitigation measures are not required for this project. However, increasing the energy efficiency at the site will decrease the demand on electrical supply, thus reducing emissions at the power plant source while saving money for the occupant. Therefore, the District recommends suggesting the following Energy Efficiency Measures to the applicant: ♦ Increase walls and attic insulation beyond Title 24 requirements. ♦ Shade tree planting along southern exposures of buildings to reduce summer cooling needs. . ♦ Use built-in energy efficient appliances, where applicable. ♦ Use double-pane windows. ♦ Use sodium streetlights. ♦ Use energy efficient interior lighting. SITE DESIGN MEASURES The District recommends suggesting secure on-site bicycle parking to the applicant. On-site bicycle parking will increase the viability of choosing bicycling over driving for residents and guests.. Increased bicycle use at the site may help ease traffic circulation and parking congestion problems on site and in the city. ASBESTOS SURVEY Demolition activities have potential negative air quality impacts, including issues surrounding proper demolition and disposal of asbestos containing material (ACM). As you may be aware, this project is subject to the requirements stipulated in the National Emission Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP), which includes but is not limited to: 1)notification requirements to the District, 2) asbestos survey conducted by a Certified Asbestos Inspector, and, 3) applicable removal and disposal requirements of identified ACM. Please contact Tim Fuhs of the APCD Enforcement Division at 781-5912 for further information. Again, we appreciate the opportunity to review the project. If you have any questions or comments please contact me at 781-5912. AJB/Img cc: Tim Fuhs, Enforcement Division H:\ois\plan\respmse\2407 AJB.doc Attachment 8 PROPOSED VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 2447 R4 HIGH-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL-CONDOMINIUM SUBDIVISION APNs 001-207-015 &001-121-029 Walnut Street @ Toro Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 6 September 2000 PROJECT INTRODUCTION Applicant: Mr.John Wilson JM Wilson Development Corp 444 Higuera Street, Suite 200 San Luis Obispo,CA 93401 805.782.8155 Applicant's Agent: C.M.Florence Oasis Associates,Inc. 3427 Miguelito Court San Luis Obispo,CA 93401 805.541.4509 Legal Description: A portion of Block 35 of the City of San Luis Obispo Recorded in Book A at Page 168 of Maps and a Portion of Block 7 of Hathway's addition to the City of San Luis Obispo recorded in Book A at page 130 of Maps, all in the City of San Luis Obispo, County of San Luis Obispo, State of California. A Preliminary Title Report prepared by Cuesta Title Company and dated August 1, 2001 is included as an attachment to this submittal. Parcel Size: Existing total lot area=0.95 Acres(41,533 SF) Surrounding Land Use: North—Highway 101 South—Walnut Street(R-2 residential beyond) East—R-4(residential)and Toro Street(R-3 residential beyond) West—R-4(residential)and O(office) Project Description and Objectives: The applicant is requesting the approval of Vesting Tentative Tract Map 2447 (VTTM 2447) with High- Density Residential (R-4) zoning. A completed Planning Application Form is included as an attachment to this submittal. The VTTM 2447, prepared by Westland Engineering Company and dated August 2001 is also included as an attachment to this submittal. The proposed project consists of 17 new residences, each with an attached two-car garage. The property has four existing residences to be removed and one single Oasis Associates,Inc. 6 September 2001 JM Wilson Development Corp Vesting Tentative Tract Map 2447 1 C:l Ca 'T —U U Attachment 8 car garage to be removed. The project also includes site improvements, landscaping, and additional parking. Access to the proposed project is obtained from Walnut Street. Access to the proposed units will be through a private access driveway, which will not be dedicated to the City. DEVELOPMENT COMPLIANCE Zoning Intent: The intent of High-Density Residential(R-4) zoning is described as follows. The R-4 zone is intended to provide housing opportunities for smaller households desiring little private open space. It is further intended to allow for concentrations of housing close to concentrations of employment and college enrollment, in areas largely committed to high- density residential development. It will be applied to areas designated "high-density residential"on the general plan map. The following reflect the benefits associated with the proposed concept and its compliance with R-4 zoning intent. Housing Opportunities The project is an excellent use of underutilized "in-fill' property in a residential zone. It will provide 41 bedrooms in 17 individually owned units. Each unit will be comprised of a three-story building with a two- car garage on the lower story. This effectively solves the problem of limited on-street parking, while still maintaining valuable private and common open space. The proposed site plan provides for compact yet useable exterior private space (i.e., courtyards, decks, and yards) as well as accessible open space in the form of common courtyards,recreation facilities, and street-front yards. Design Appropriateness The project is compatible with the existing neighborhood from a density perspective and is located among like uses (medium-density and single family residential uses). From an aesthetic perspective, the project has been designed to reflect a handsomely detailed and articulated architectural style in keeping with residential scale development,and within the character of the existing neighborhood. Project Proximity The location of the project is within walking distance of Santa Rosa Park, downtown San Luis Obispo,. existing city bus routes, banks and restaurants. It is also a short drive or bike ride to shopping, schools, hospitals,and centers of employment. Project Regulations and Standards: The proposed project is an air-space envelope condominium development. Ownership boundaries of the 17 units are a departure from traditional condominium development in that individual ownership of some open space (backyards) will occur and each unit will be individually owned and maintained. For all design and construction standards, units will comply with those set forth for condominium development as described in Chapter 17.82 of the City of San Luis Obispo's Zoning Regulations. Unit Density Unit density will be 21.6 dwelling units per net acre, which is below the maximum density of 24 dwelling units per net acre for Zone R-4. Oasis Associates,Inc. 6 September 2001 JM Wilson Development Corp Vesting Tentative Tract Map 2447 2 Attachment 8 Open Space and Recreation Facilities Private Open Space will be provided for all units through the implementation of balconies and decks. Fourteen of the units will also have private rear yards, but due to acoustical constraints, the rear yards of Units 9 - 12 have not been included in the private open space calculations. Common open space in the form of courtyards, streetscape yards, and garden areas offers a variety of outdoor environments that are accessible by all residents. Common recreation facilities include a proposed basketball area,barbeque area, and turf area. Storaee and Facilities Each garage will have "workshop" space for additional storage and sufficient space to park two vehicles. Areas for laundry facilities will be provided in each unit. Parking and Circulation The proposed private driveway will allow for two-way traffic and provide adequate space for vehicle maneuvering in and out of garages, while maintaining a pedestrian scale atmosphere. Vehicles will enter and exit the property via a street type entrance on Walnut Street. It was determined that fire truck access into the core of the site will not be required(pers. comm. Fire Marshal D. Drake,08 Feb 01). In addition to the 34 garage parking spaces(2 per unit), there will be 5 guest parking spaces, 2 motorcycle spaces, and.12 bicycle spaces. A complete Parking Summary can be found on Sheet ARC 3 of the Walnut Street Infill Development plans prepared by Architectural Production Services(APS), dated September 6,2001 that are included as an attachment to this submittal. Setbacks The street-front yards of Units 1-4 and 17 include the required 15'setback easement,while other yards have a 5-10' setback depending on building height. ADDITIONAL PROJECT ELEMENTS Grading,Drainage and Utilities: A Preliminary Grading Plan prepared by Westland Engineering Company and dated August 2001 is included as an attachment to this submittal. The Plan addresses grading of the proposed driveway, unit pads, and all open space areas. Since this lot is sloped, the driveway will be graded so that the steeper sections occur between driveways, allowing garage pads to be level. Common recreation facilities such as the barbeque area and the basketball area will be graded to provide level usable spaces. On-site drainage will be directed to drain inlets and conveyed to the City storm drain system located within Caltrans right-of-way. Each unit will have separate services for water, sewer, phone, gas and cable television. All utilities will be underground. A proposal for a Water Offset credit based on the demolition of four existing structures on the site has been submitted to the City. An exhibit of the calculations completed for this proposal is included as an attachment to this submittal. All necessary retaining walls,storm drainage,open space access,water and sewer infrastructure,and public utility easements are shown on the VTTM 2447 and the Preliminary Grading Plan. Acoustics: An Acoustical Analysis has been prepared by Brown-Buntin Associates, Inc., dated July 18, 2001 and is included as an attachment to this submittal. In areas where noise impact was predicted to exceed the City's criterion, mitigation measures were recommended. The following construction recommendations have been noted and integrated into the proposed design. • Noise barrier walls to protect.ground-level outdoor activity areas • Adequate ventilation systems Oasis Associates,Inc. 6 September 2001 JM Wilson Development Corp Vesting Tentative Tract Map 2447 3 Attachment 8 • Low air infiltration rate window frames • Solid exterior doors • Reduced glass area on facades of particular units Traffic: A Traffic Analysis prepared by Penfield & Smith, dated June 2001, is included as an attachment to this submittal. The project's impact on existing traffic was analyzed and it is anticipated that intersections adjacent to the project will remain unchanged and continue to operate at acceptable levels of service. Therefore, the project does not create any significant impacts. The project meets all City standards for site access, sight distances at intersections,and parking demands. Existing Lot Features Elements: A Demolition Plan prepared by Westland Engineering Company, dated August 2001, is included as an attachment to this submittal. The Demolition Plan clearly labels all significant existing vegetation on the property and designates those plants that will be removed, relocated to a different spot on the site, or left remaining. It also labels all existing structures, including walls and driveways that will be removed prior to development. Soils: A Soil Engineering Report will be submitted to the City under separate cover. ATTACHMENTS The following items are included in this application submittal. Qty. Description 1 Planning Application Form-Oasis Associates check#5009 1 Preliminary Title Report-document 12 Vesting Tentative Tract Map 2447- 18"x26"sheet I Vesting Tentative Tract Map 2447- 8-1/2"xI I"reduction 12 Walnut Street Infill Development-(6)24"x36" sheets 1 Walnut Street Infill Development- 11"x17"reduction set 12 Preliminary Grading Plan- 18"x26" sheet I Preliminary Grading Plan- 8-1/2"xI V reduction 1 Water Offset Calculations- 8-1/2"x11"exhibit I Acoustical Analysis-document 1 Traffic Analysis-document 12 Demolition Plan- 18"x26"sheet I Demolition Plan-8-1/2"xI V reduction Oasis Associates,Inc. 6 September 2001 JM Wilson Development Corp Vesting Tentative Tract Map 2447 4 Attachment 9 SANTA ROSA PARTNERS 656 Santa Rosa Street. Suite 3A San Luis Obispo. CA 93401 (805)541-3150 January 2,2002 Transmitted via fax 781-7/73 Hard Copy to Follow Michael Codron,City Planner Community Development Department CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo,CA 93401 RE: 17-UNIT CONDOMFgUM PROJECT/TR 130-01 (Hearing Date 1/9/02) 1144 Walnut Street, San Luis Obispo, CA Dear Michael: This letter is in response to your notice received on December 28, 2001 regarding the proposed 17-unit coridoilir iiuin project. I own the property and office building at 656 Santa Rosa Street and have briefly reviewed the proposed Site Plan and Architectural Elevations. We are pleased to support this addition to our neighborhood subject to addressing existing traffic related impacts which occur within the vicinity of the proposed project and at the intersection of Walnut Street and Santa Rosa Street. Traffic impact concerns based on actual and/or observed conditions: 1. Vehicle staking on Santa Rosa Street for vehicles turning left onto Walnut Street: There is approximately 4 car staking now and even less if there is a bus or truck in the tum lane. Need to increase stacking to at least 6-8 vehicles to handle peak hour congestion and the impact from the proposed condominium project. 2. Vehicles turning left into Bank (Washington Mutual) driveway off of Walnut Street — short stacking (approx. 3 cars)occurs as cars"wait" for on-coming traffic to clear. The short stacking impacts traffic flow and vehicles turning from left and right from Santa Rosa Street onto Walnut. 3. Vehicles turning right onto Walnut from Santa Rosa—Drivers make turn very fast, especially when light is green that creates an unsafe condition for those vehicles exiting from 656 Santa Rosa Office building and Washington Mutual building driveways. 4. Large number of southbound vehicles looking for Hwy 101 on-ramp tum left on Walnut and then make a U- turn to get back onto Walnut. Many of these vehicles use the Bank site or the driveway of 656 Santa Rosa for the purpose to tum around in order to go back over the bridge to take southbound on-ramps. Improved ID signage needed at Olive Street and along Santa Rosa to identify on-ramps to 101. 5. On-site parking of Condominiums: There is a strong probability that these condos will be purchased for students. The 2-bedrooms could have up to 4 occupants with 4 cars; the 3 bedrooms could have up to 6 occupants with 6 cars. Off street parking is already impacted by existing multiple residential and commercial building projects. The proposed 17-units with 41-bedroom project with 34 on-site garage parking spaces and 5 on-site vehicle guest park will further impact the traffic and parking on Walnut Street. 6. Walnut street is extremely impacted from vehicles traveling North on Hwy 101 and exiting from the freeway onto Walnut Street as well.as from vehicles using the on-ramp for those going north. The peak impact is in the morning between 7-9 am and 11:00 am to 1:00 pm and in the late afternoon from 4 to 7 pm. A traffic analysis could confirm the actual conditions. Sincerely, SANT A PARTNERS C11Y Of SAN LUIS OBISPO - 4= Thomas M.Courtney,Owner CC: Sutro&Co.; AIM Systems,Inc.;Courtney Architects COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT N:\656B1dg\CondoPmjcctkN10202.doc 9a Attachment 9 �Il�llllllllllfllll������ lcityl ® sAn lois OBISPO A Moira955 Morro Street • San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 February 6, 2002 Mr. Thomas Courtney Santa Rosa Partners 656 Santa Rosa Street, Suite 3A San Luis Obispo,CA 93401 Subject: SANTA ROSA STREET/WALNUT STREET INTERSECTION CONCERNS Dear Mr. Courtney: Michael Codron in the City's Community Development Department requested that I prepare a response to your letter expressing your concern with traffic at the Santa Rosa / Walnut intersection. I have prepared this letter in response to Mr. Codron's request. I will attempt to answer your questions to the best of my ability. However, it should be noted that the Santa Rosa / Walnut intersection is controlled by Caltrans, as Santa Rosa is also State Highway 1. Therefore,the City does not have jurisdiction over changes that occur on Santa Rosa at this intersection. I will forward a copy of your letter as well as my response to Caltrans for their review. You will notice that I will mention the City's annual traffic safety report several times in my response. Through the production of this report, staff will be evaluating roadway safety citywide. The report will help staff program limited resources for the areas that require the most attention. Through this annual endeavor, staff will continue to monitor the operation of this area and make recommendations for improvements as they become warranted. As you may be aware, the proposed traffic mitigation measures associated with the project at 1144 Walnut require the developer to hire a traffic engineering consultant to monitor traffic conditions along Walnut for a period of two years after the project is completed and occupied to determine if the project creates a significant negative effect on traffic circulation in this area. if it is determined that the project does create a significant negative traffic impact, appropriate mitigation measures will be taken. Responses to traffic concerns listed in your letter: 1. Vehicle queuing on southbound Santa Rosa turning left onto Walnut: This is a Caltrans controlled approach so they have ultimate jurisdiction. My initial evaluation of this location is that it would be difficult to significantly extend the length of the left turn pocket at this location because the bridge spanning Highway 101 constrains the width of the roadway and subsequently the number of lanes. It appears that Caltrans has maximized the length of the turn pocket at this location-, the lane tapers necessary to move the through lanes to accommodate the turn pocket extend to the bridge deck. 2. Vehicle queuing on eastbound Walnut to turn into Bank: While queuing of vehicles at this location frequently occurs, it currently does not present a significant safety T t n i bi is rtted d the disabled in all of its services, programs and activities. �-93 Attachment 9 concern. Motorists are able to bypass the queuing vehicles by traveling to the right of them in the wide lane. Review of the collision history, dating back to 1999, indicates that motorists have successfully been able to queue for the bank as well as navigate around this queue with little incident. The effects of the queuing at this location will continue to be monitored as part of the proposed mitigation program associated with the project at 1 144 Walnut and as part of the City's annual traffic safety report. 3. Speed of vehicles turning right from Santa Rosa onto Walnut: Review of the collision history at this intersection indicates that motorists have been able to make this right turn as well as enter and exit the driveway at 656 Santa Rosa with little incident. This location will continue to be monitored as part of the annual traffic safety report and mitigation recommended should it become necessary. 4. Vehicles traveling southbound on Santa Rosa (Hwy 1) looking for southbound 101: As this is Caltrans' jurisdiction, the City does not have the authority to place the additional directional signs you request. A copy of your letter is being forwarded to Caltrans;you may wish to follow up with them. 5. Parking on Walnut: The proposed mitigation program that is associated with the 1144 Walnut condominiums is designed to minimize the restriction of parking on Walnut to the greatest extent possible. If it is determined that on-street parking removal is necessary for the safe flow of traffic, this will be done. On-site parking requirements are implemented by the City's Community Development Department. I verified with Michael Codron that the project includes the appropriate number of on-site spaces (40) required by the City. Additional questions about the number of on-site spaces required for this development are best directed to Mn Codron. 6. Traffic impacts on Walnut from Highway 101: The City and Caltrans are currently in the beginning of discussions about potential improvements to the Highway I / Highway 101 interchange. Ultimately these discussions may lead to a.project to improve traffic circulation through this area by changing the on and off-ramp configurations so that traffic does not travel along Walnut, but directly connects to Santa Rosa. It is not anticipated that the additional traffic generated by the project at 1144 Walnut will significantly impact the already congested peak periods that you mentioned. If you have any additional questions please feel free to contact me by phone at(805)783-7707,or by e-mail at jhanson@slocity.org. Sincerely, Jim Hanson Principal Transportation Engineer CC: Michael Codron Julie Gonzalez, Caltrans Jacques Van Zeventer,Caltrans --------------- ---- --- ------------------- --- ---- :iTA 1'E OF tJALIF_ORNIA_-BUSINESS,TRANSPC -ION AND HOUSING AGENT_Y-._.---__ -_ .---_-_'-_-.--.--_-- Gray Davis.Gosemor DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 50 SANL ISS BISP CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO Attachment 10 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 934015415 TELEPHONE:(805)549-3111 TDD(805)549-3259 INTERNET httpahvvrvr.dot.ra.gov!dict0:/ FEB I :-, 2002 — February 15, 2002 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 05-SLO-1 L16.70 Walnut Street Infill Development SCH # 2001121052 Mr. Michael Condron, Planner City of San Luis Obispo 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Dear Mr. C;ondron: Thank you for submitting the Traffic Analysis for the Walnut Street Development. Caltrans District 5 staff has reviewed the above-referenced document. The following comments were generated as a result of this review: 1. Caltrans staff concurs with the results of the Traffic Analysis. The Walnut Street Infill Development Project will not have a significant impact on the State Highway System. Please be advised though that the traffic signals at the Walnut and Santa Rosa Street intersection are considered fully accuated as the signal timing there is demand driven. As such, mitigation considered for this project that relies on the adjustment of these signals for optimization, may prove problematic. Please consult with Caltrans Traffic Operations personnel prior to finalizing your mitigation conditions. Thank you for the opportunity to review the documents for this project. If you have any further questions, please call me at, 549-3683. Sincerely- James incerelyJames Kilmer District 5 Development Review Cc: Dave Murray, Caltrans Julie Gonzales, Caltrans 41-9� Attachment 11 Draft Resolution"A" RESOLUTION NO. (2002 Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO APPROVING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON 1144 WALNUT STREET; TR/ER 130-01 (Tract 2447) WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing on March 19, 2002, in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California for the purpose of considering Tract 2447, a condominium subdivision with 17 units and environmental review; and WHEREAS, notices of said public hearing were made at the time and in the manner required by law; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted public hearings on December 19, 2001 and again on January 9, 2002, for the purpose of considering Application TR/ER 130-01, a condominium subdivision with 17 units; and WHEREAS, the Architectural Review Commission conducted a public hearing on February 4, 2002, and approved the proposed building designs for the project; and WHEREAS, the City Council reviewed and considered the Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impact and the mitigation monitoring program prepared for the project; and WHEREAS, the City Council 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 Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: Section 1. Findings. Based upon all the evidence, the Council makes the following findings. 1. The proposed map is consistent with the General Plan because the subdivision will provide for high-density residential development. 2. As conditioned, the design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is consistent with the General Plan because each dwelling has access to a compact, private open space area and the development will occur as part of the neighborhood pattern anticipated for the high density residential zone. 3. The site is physically suited for the proposed type of development because it is an under- developed site that is adjacent to an existing street right-of-way. Attachment 11 Resolution No. (2002 S,-.es) Page 2 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 utilities have been designed to serve the site 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 potentially significant 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 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 City Council does hereby adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project, with the following mitigation measures and monitoring programs. 1. Miti ag tion The final project design shall comply with all recommendations of the July 18, 2001 acoustical analysis prepared by Brown-Buntin Associates for the project. • Monitoring Program: This mitigation measure will be monitored through the Building Permit application process. Where compliance is not evident through an evaluation of construction drawings,notes shall be added to the project plans to insure implementation of the recommendations. 2. Mitigation In coordination with the City Traffic Engineer, immediately contact Caltrans District 5 staff and determine the potential for adjusting the timing of the traffic signals at Walnut Street and Santa Rosa Street (SR 1). The objective of these potential signal timing adjustments would be reduce the westbound queue on Walnut Street during peak traffic periods such that ingress and egress at the project driveway from Walnut street is not obstructed. �J-9� Resolution No. (2002 S,,-.es) Attachment 11 Page 3 • Monitoring Program: Monitoring of the mitigation measure shall include the following components: A. Retain a qualified traffic specialist to observe traffic operations on Walnut Street between Santa Rosa and Toro Streets during am and pm peak traffic periods. These observations shall be conducted six months from the time the project is fully occupied; and again at one year from full occupancy; and two years from full occupancy. B. Traffic observations shall note the length of any queue of eastbound vehicles on Walnut Street at the project driveway and its effect on traffic operations. A significant traffic operations problem will exist when: L The length of any eastbound queue extends across the driveways serving the Washington Mutual Bank (1106 Walnut Street) or the office complex across Walnut Street (656 Santa Rosa Street). Or ii. City records show an incidence of traffic collisions associated with vehicles turning into the project driveway at a rate equal to or grater than 2 collisions for any 12-month period. . C. The traffic specialist will prepare a brief written report with findings and submit it to the City's Traffic Engineer for review and acceptance. The Engineer may require other field observations if the specialist's report is inconclusive. 3. Mitigation If the Mitigation Monitoring program for the above mitigation measure determines that alternative mitigation measures are necessary to mitigate significant impacts, then the following mitigation measures shall apply to the project,to the approval of the City's Traffic Engineer: A. Further modifications to the Santa Rosa-Walnut Street traffic signals to improve traffic flow along Walnut Street during peak traffic periods and reduce traffic queues. B. Re-striping of the street and removing curb parking to create a center turn lane serving fronting properties. C. Other safety measures deemed effective by the City's Traffic Engineer. • Monitoring Program: Monitoring of the mitigation measure will be performed by the City's Traffic Engineer based on the report to be submitted by the applicant's traffic consultant. If the first mitigation measure is not feasible because of problems coordinating with Cal Trans, then this mitigation measure will be required with the initial project development and will be monitored by Community Development Department Staff in coordination with the Traffic Engineer and other Public Works Department Staff as improvement plans and building plans are submitted for the project. Resolution No. (2002 S.-.es) Attachment 11 Page 4 4. Mitigation The Conditions, Covenants, and Restrictions (CC&R's) for the project shall include a requirement, to be enforced by the Homeowners' Association and the City, that all garages must be available for parking two vehicles at all times. • Monitoring Program: Planning Division staff will insure that this language is included in the project CC&R's with their normal review of the CC&R's for the project. 5. Mitigation 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: This mitigation measure will be monitored by Planning Division Staff through Architectural Review,the Building Permit plan check process and through blue card (final) inspections of the project site. Section 3. Action. The City Council does hereby approve application TR-ER 130-01, a 17-unit condominium project on 1144 Walnut Street, subject to the following conditions and code requirements. 1. The damaged detached sidewalk along the westerly frontage shall be replaced per city standard. The detached sidewalk shall transition after the telephone and electrical equipment pedestals to an integral sidewalk. New curb and gutter shall be installed where gutter does not exist along this section of frontage. 2. Disabled access ramps shall be provided at the new entrance to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director. 3. The section of damaged sidewalk near the intersection of Walnut and Toro at the power pole shall be replaced. The damaged disabled access ramp at the corner shall be replaced. 4. Sewer lateral and storm drain improvements extending into Cal Trans right-of-way shall be reviewed and approved by Cal Trans. A city encroachment permit is also required for review of connection to the city sewer main. 5. Provide a new street light near the driveway entrance to the project to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director. 6. Provide public pedestrian easements as necessary to accommodate ADA access at curb ramp and/or driveway entrance. Attachment 11 Resolution No. (2002 S._.es) Page 5 7. The subdivider shall dedicate a public utility easement, 2 meters wide, across the portion of the property that is contiguous to the Walnut Street and Toro Street rights-of-way. Easements for onsite public utilities and appurtenance purposes shall be provided to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director and the utility companies. 8. The subdivider shall dedicate a public street tree easement, 3 meters wide, across the Walnut Street frontage of the property. 9. 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. 10. 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. 11. 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. 12. 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). 13. 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. 14. Applicant shall install a"street type" entrance to the driveway at Walnut 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. 15. 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. 16. 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. _��60 Resolution No. (2002 S,-,es) Attachment 11 Page 6 17. 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. 18. The applicant shall pay Park In-Lieu Fees prior to recordation of the Final Map, consistent with SLO Municipal Code Section 16.40.080. 19. Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions (C.C.&R.$) are required, to the approval of the Community Development Director and the Public Works Director. 20. The project shall meet the City's parking space requirement through the provision of additional on-site parking,reduction of the parking requirement by eliminating bedrooms, or both,to the approval of the Community Development Director. 21. The subdivider shall place underground, all existing overhead utilities adjacent to the tract boundary along the public street frontage(s), to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director and utility companies. 22. The redevelopment of the site triggers the Utilities Department Sewer Lateral Abandonment Policy. This policy states that the sewer lateral must be abandoned at the main prior to demolition unless the lateral is intended for reuse and it passes a video inspection. If the sewer lateral is intended for reuse;the owner shall submit a VHS videotape documenting the internal condition of the pipe to the Utilities Department for approval. 23. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66474.9(b), the subdivider shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City and/or its agents, officers and employees from any claim, action or proceeding against the City and/or its agents, officers or employees to attack, set aside, void or annul, the approval by the City of this subdivision, and all actions relating thereto, including but not limited to environmental review. 24. The windows on the rear elevations of Units 9-12 shall be operable, to the approval of the Chief Building Official. 25. The driveway width at the project entrance and adjacent to Unit 1 and Unit 17 shall be a minimum of 20 feet. Driveways in other locations on the project site may be 16 feet wide. Code Requirements 1. A water allocation is required, due to the additional demand on the City's water supplies. Currently, a water allocation can only be obtained through the water retrofit program. The City's Water Conservation division can help in determining the needed allocation and the necessary number of retrofits. Water Conservation can be reached by calling 781-7258. The cost of retrofitting is directly credited against the project's Water Impact Fees, at a rate of$150 per bathroom retrofitted. Resolution No. (2002 S,-.es) Attachment 11 Page 7 2. Water and Wastewater Impact Fees shall be paid at the time building permits are issued. Both the Water and Wastewater Impact Fees are charged on a"per residential unit"basis. 3. The on-site sewer shall be privately owned and maintained. The water meters shall be manifolded in groups of no more than 4-1" meters or 6-3/4" meters. If the units are to be air-space condos, they can use a separate fire sprinkler service and the domestic water meters can be V. Otherwise, water for the fire sprinklers shall pass through the domestic water meters,which then must be 1" size. 4. In the event the units are to be air-space condos, a separate connection would be required for automatic fire sprinklers. The fire service lateral shall include a USC approved backflow preventer appropriate for the proposed use. The backflow preventer shall be located as close to the public right-of-way as possible, in direct alignment with the connection to the public water main. The backflow preventer can be located no further than 25 feet from the right-of-way line without prior written approval of the Utilities Engineer. If the fire service supports one or more fire hydrants, the USC approved backflow preventer shall also include detector capabilities (double detector check assembly). The FDC may be located behind the backflow prevention assembly, in accordance with manufacturer's recommendations. The location and orientation of the FDC shall be approved by the Fire Department. A monthly service fee of$22.40 shall be required if the property does not have a connection to the City system for domestic use. 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. In addition to the proposed tree preservations and/or relocations, street trees shall be planted along Walnut and Toro per city standard. Tree species and locations shall be reviewed and approved by the City Arborist prior to building permit issuance. 7. Access shall be in accordance with Article 9 of the California Fire Code, and to the approval of the City Fire Marshall. 8. A hydraulic analysis of the storm drain system based upon a 10 year storm shall be submitted at the time of building permit application to insure compliance with existing City standards. On motion of , seconded by and on the following roll call vote: �/Oa Resolution No. (2002 S,,.ges) Attachment 11 Page 8 AYES` NOES: ABSENT: The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this_day of 2002. Mayor Allen Settle ATTEST: Lee Price, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: jityv me Jeffr G. Vgensen -- Attachment 12 Draft Resolution `B" RESOLUTION NO. (2002 Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO DENYING A VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON 1144 WALNUT STREET; TR/ER 130-01 (Tract 2447) WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing on, March 19, 2002, and has considered testimony of the applicant, interested parties, and the evaluation and recommendation of staff; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the project is not consistent with the State Subdivision Map Act, City Zoning Ordinance, Building Code and other applicable City ordinances. BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. Findings. That this Council, after consideration of the proposed project (TR, ER 130-01), the applicant's statement, staff recommendations and reports thereof, makes the following findings: [Council to choose one or more of the following findings from the California Subdivision Map Act or list other findings as appropriate.] 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. 5. The design of the subdivision, or the type of improvements, are likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and unavoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. 6. The design of the subdivision, or type of improvements, is likely to cause serious public health problems. 7. The design of the subdivision, or the type of improvements, will conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, property within the proposed subdivision. SECTION 2. Denial. That the project, TR/ER 130-01, 1144 Walnut Street, is hereby denied. �ion Attachment 12 Resolution No. (2002Series) Page 2 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 2002. Mayor Allen Settle ATTEST: Lee Price, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Attorney Jeffrey G. Jorgensen > r LT Ti �ar I BVI 0 > 0 x 0 3 CO CD CD ?D­ 0 co =r 11 C) L MEOW 0 0 M cc :3 z o Er 0 3 cn 0 • ® `� CD 0 CD C/3 -,rte.._ �K�� •. �t 1�' -�{ 4"SI ' l/f K 1 17. iL aY c07 0 O O c CD (D MEOW CD Wim= i Q F C) M■■I o . r �r O ,.. cc O v� rD Cf) r �: `V lVTT � Ocn ;n CD cn t