Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/18/2004, PH1 - TENTATIVE MAP TO CREATE A 9-UNIT COMMON INTEREST SUBDIVISION WITH SETBACK EXCEPTIONS AT 1771 JOHNSO council j acEnda Report �N � C I TY OF S AN L U IS O B I S P O FROM: John Mandeville, Community Development Director Prepared By: Philip Dunmore,Associate Planner SUBJECT: TENTATIVE MAP TO CREATE A 9-UNIT COMMON INTEREST SUBDIVISION WITH SETBACK EXCEPTIONS AT 1771 JOHNSON AVENUE (TR 177-01). CAO RECOMMENDATION Adopt a resolution approving the common interest subdivision and Mitigated Negative Declaration as recommended by the Planning Commission. REPORT-IN-BRIEF The applicant is seeking approval of a nine-lot common interest subdivision that will result in the construction of seven one bedroom dwelling units and two studio dwelling units. Each residence would be on a small separate lot. The small-lot, detached dwellings proposed raise General Plan consistency issues with respect to the type of housing intended for the Medium High Density Residential land use district as well as maintaining the existing neighborhood character and quality of life. The Planning Commission and ARC substantially analyzed these issues at previous hearings. The project design changed several times during the review process to respond to direction provided by the ARC and Planning Commission. The Architectural Review Commission (ARC)reviewed the proposed development on November 3, 2003 and granted final approval to the site plan and' building design for the residential project conditional on Council approval of the subdivision (see Attachment 9, ARC findings and conditions). The Planning Commission (PC) reviewed the proposal on November 19, 2003 and recommended the City Council approve the map, with setback exceptions, allowing the 9 lot common interest subdivision (see Attachment 10, PC meeting minutes, Attachment 11 PC resolution and Attachment 12 PC staff report). Subdivisions involving five or more lots are considered tract maps and therefore require action by the City Council. Staff is recommending approval of the map as recommended by the Planning Commission on November 19, 2003.. DISCUSSION Data Summary Address: 1771 Johnson Avenue Applicant/Property Owner: Richard Porter, 846 Higuera Street SLO, Ca. 93401 Representative: R2L Architects Zoning R-3 General Plan: Medium High-Density Residential 1\ Council Agenda Report—1771 Johnson Avenue TR 177-01 Page 2 Environmental Status: A Mitigated Negative Declaration was recommended by the Community Development Director on July 26, 2002. The Initial Study document and Mitigated Negative Declaration was revised to reflect the 9-unit project on April 5, 2004 (Attachment 14). Project Description The project is a common interest, condominium style development with each detached dwelling unit on its own individual lot. The proposed development would include demolition of the existing structures on site, including a triplex apartment and a 1-bedroom unit at the rear of the site. The new project includes 7 one-bedroom dwellings and 2 "studio" units for a total of 9 dwellings. The 1-bedroom units would be designed with a loft configuration with living space built above a single car garage. The studio units would have a similar configuration with less interior space. Private open space is provided primarily within small ground level yard areas. A small common open space area with shade trees is proposed for the center of the site. A 16-foot wide driveway would serve the units from Johnson Avenue via an easement to be included with the final map for the proposed subdivision. The project meets the definition of a Common Interest Subdivision, and therefore lots of any size or shape are allowed, consistent with Ordinance 1443 that recently amended the City's Subdivision Regulations (see Attachment 12). Previous Review and Planning Commission Direction The project before the City Council is the result of an evolutionary planning process that involved early direction from staff, Planning Commission and the Architectural Review Commission. The project was initially reviewed by the PC as a 5-unit condominium project on August 28, 2002 (see PC meeting minutes Attachment 3 and PC Staff Report, Attachment 4). Staffs recommendation was to deny the setback exception request and reconfigure the project as an attached rather than detached housing project. As noted in the August 28, 2002 staff report, staff quoted a series of General Plan Policies that highlighted potential inconsistencies with the project. In addition to the issue of attached vs. detached, staff was concerned about the character, size, and quality of the development as it relates to the existing neighborhood. At the hearing, the PC offered direction to the applicant to maximize the unit count on the property in order to more closely meet the Medium High Density General Plan designation for this property. The intention was to incorporate as many units as possible, however the PC did not give specific direction on attached vs. detached development. Utilizing the PC's direction, the applicant revised the project from a five-unit project to a nine-unit project. Instead of 2 and 3 bedrooms in each unit, the nine-unit project was designed with each unit having only 1 bedroom. On January 22°d, 2003 the PC reviewed the applicants revised nine-unit project. At that hearing, staff once again addressed the character of a detached style development and the wisdom of granting setback exceptions to a busy street such as Johnson Avenue. Again, after reviewing General Plan Policies, hearing staffs concerns, and receiving input from the applicant, the Commission directed that the applicant pull the studio apartments off of Johnson Avenue and attach them physically with the one bedroom units immediately to the interior. The Commission then directed the proposal to the ARC prior to returning to the PC for action (see PC meeting minutes, /-Z Council Agenda Report—1771 Johnson Avenue TR 177-01 Page 3 Attachment 5 and PC staff report, Attachment 6). The ARC reviewed the proposal on June 16`t', 2003 (See Attachment 7, ARC meeting minutes and Attachment 8, ARC staff report). Again, staff recommended continuance of the project to address design issues. As pointed out with the PC, staff expressed concerns with the detached nature of the development and setback exceptions requested along Johnson Avenue. Instead, however, the ARC granted final approval to the nine-unit project allowing all of the units to be detached and supporting the proposed setback exception at Johnson Avenue. In response to ARC conditions and City code requirements, the applicant revised the plans. Upon receipt of the revised plans, staff realized that the scope of the project included significant architectural changes that were not reviewed by the ARC. On November 3, 2003 staff brought the project back to the ARC to review the proposed changes. The ARC again granted final approval to the project (see ARC findings and conditions, Attachment 9). On November 19, 2003, following the approval of the revised nine unit design by the ARC, the project returned to the PC for a review of the final design plans and the proposed subdivision map. The PC recommended the City Council approve the project and associated tract map (see Attachment 10, PC meeting minutes, Attachment 11, PC resolution, and Attachment 12, PC staff report). Following approval of the subdivision map by the PC, the City's Subdivision Regulations were amended effective February 6, 2004 (see Attachment 13) which allowed more flexibility in the creation of common interest subdivisions. Therefore, the applicant was asked to revise the tentative parcel map to be consistent with the revised Subdivision Regulations. The revised Map was received in March 2004. The revisions to the map did not result in changes to the physical layout of the project. The changes involved the elimination of a separate lot for the driveway and common area, instead allowing an easement to serve the driveway and common area. Each lot is now designed to accommodate the density value required for each unit. Evaluation The PC staff report (Attachment 12) analyzes the project for consistency with the City's property development standards and contains a General Plan analysis. The PC staff report evaluates the project for consistency with the Housing Element in effect at the time the application was deemed complete. Since that time,.the City has adopted the new Housing Element effective March 30, 2004. According to the City Attorney, the project should be analyzed for consistency with the Housing Element in effect at the time of application completeness as was done in the PC report. Staff has included an analysis of the new Housing Element as an additional evaluation tool. Both versions of the Housing Element result in a similar evaluation of the project. The new Housing Element, however,contains policies that are weighted towards supporting the development. General Plan Evaluation The primarily detached housing lot pattern does not follow the direction recommended in the 1- 3 Council Agenda Report— 1771 Johnson Avenue TR 177-01 Page 4 General Plan description of the Medium-High Density Residential (R-3) district. The Land Use Element describes the nature of R-3 development: Land Use Element Policy 2.4.7. Medium 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. Such development is appropriate near employment centers and major public facilities. Staff response: The project includes multi story detached single-family dwellings, with compact private outdoor spaces. The project is, however a high density project that maximizes the available density with very compact development in close proximity to major public facilities (French Hospital). Staff was originally concerned that the detached design scenario would use too much land space and result in a poor site layout that is out of character with the neighborhood development pattern. At the project hearing, the ARC reviewed alternative development scenarios that included attached structures. However, the ARC favored a detached development since it allows the units to have additional articulation, allowing views and light through the site, while meeting the goals outlined in the Community Design Guidelines. Likewise, the PC endorsed the detached design approach as being consistent with the General Plan and recommended approval of the project as favored by the ARC. Land Use Element Policy 2.2.12: Residential Project Objectives - Residential projects should provide: A) Privacy,for occupants and neighbors of the project; Staff response: The project includes satisfactory private open space areas and private entries for each of the units comparable to other multi-family developments throughout town. B) Adequate usable outdoor area, sheltered from noise and prevailing winds, and oriented to receive light and sunshine; Staff response: The project meets minimum outdoor open space standards similar to other R-3 high-density developments. 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; Staff response: The project is designed with adequate solar orientation. Since the project is below the grade of the roadway and screened by significant landscape at the south property boundary, there will not be significant view potential from or toward the property. The detached orientation of the units allows for light and views to be achieved through portions of the site. E) Security and safety; F)Separate paths for vehicles and for people, and bike paths along collector streets; 1-4 Council Agenda Report—1771 Johnson Avenue TR 177-01 Page 5 Staff response: The driveway is 16 feet wide, which is the minimum width for a project of this scale. Colored concrete is proposed at the south edge of the driveway adjacent to units 2, 3, and 4 to serve as a pedestrian pathway. There is not sufficient space for a detached, separate path for pedestrians on this small site given the width of the property and the proposed layout of the units. G)Adequate parking and storage space; Staff response: The site contains 15 parking spaces, which is the minimum requirement for the 9 units. The new Housing Element encourages flexible parking standards for high-density residential projects within the vicinity of the downtown. Each unit has its own garage to allow for parking and interior storage space. Some units have an additional outdoor parking space, however only one space is solely dedicated to visitor parking. The Zoning Regulations only require 1 visitor parking space for every five units (see parking calculations below). H)Noise and visual separation from adjacent roads and commercial uses. Staff response: The project site is subject to excessive noise levels from Johnson Avenue. The Noise Element recommends providing distance between the noise source (Johnson Avenue) and the receptors (residences and outdoor areas) As proposed, the project does not contain increased setbacks to separate dwellings from a significant noise source. The project is requesting reduced setbacks to allow units closer to Johnson Avenue, increasing noise and decreasing visual separation from the roadway. The Planning Commission considered this General Plan policy and leaned towards maximizing the residential density and providing for creatively designed, detached units rather than increasing the street yard setback. Project conditions will be required in order to reduce the interior noise levels of the units through the use of appropriate construction design and materials. Outdoor open space areas for the units nearest Johnson Avenue could be impacted by the excessive noise levels and will require special sound wall construction to ensure compliance with the City's noise standards. I) Design elements that facilitate neighborhood interaction, such as front porches, front yards along streets, and entryways facing public walkways. Staff response: The project design will facilitate neighborhood interaction since the units and properties are small with front facing entries and shared yard areas. The units at Johnson Avenue have some orientation towards the street; entry paths connecting to the sidewalk. The Planning Commission and ARC have positively received design changes that occurred with staff's initial recommendations. They include moving entry doors closer to the driveway and orienting the front units to Johnson Avenue with pathways and appropriate architectural treatment. Note: The following_policies are from the newly adopted Housing Element, analysis of previous Housing Element Policies can be found in the Planning Commission Staff report, Attachment 12. Housing Element Policy 1.2.2 Discourage the removal or replacement of housing affordable to very-low, low-and moderate income households by higher-cost 1-� l i Council Agenda Report—1771 Johnson Avenue TR 177-01 Page 6 housing, and avoid permit approvals, municipal actions or public projects that remove or adversely impact such housing unless such actions are necessary to achieve General Plan objectives and: (1) it can be demonstrated that rehabilitation of lower-cost units at risk of replacement is financially or physically infeasible, or (2) an equivalent number of new units comparable or better in affordability and amenities to those being replaced is provided, or (3) the project will correct substandard, blighted or unsafe housing; and (4) replacement will not adversely affect a.designated historic resource. Staff response: The project will eliminate four rental units that currently would meet the City's standards for moderately affordable rental housing (although the existing units are not deed- restricted as affordable). Nine individual single-family residences that would be offered for individual sale would replace the four existing rental units. Although a greater number of units would be replaced, the new units would not necessarily be comparable or better in affordability and amenities to those being replaced. The new units would however be at the lower end of the price range of new single-family dwellings in San Luis Obispo since they would be 1 bedroom and studio units on very small lots with few amenities. Housing Element Policy 3.2.6 Preserve the fabric, amenities, yards (i.e. setbacks), and overall character and quality of life of established neighborhoods. Staff response: The determination of whether or not the project preserves the character and quality of the existing neighborhood is subjective. There are several attached unit residential buildings on the west side of Johnson north of the project site. Moving south on Johnson the predominant housing type is single-family homes. The project combines the R-3 density of the attached multifamily housing to the north with detached housing separation of housing in the R-2 and R-1 areas to the south in a more compact arrangement. It is a housing type that is not present in the existing neighborhood. The project will preserve the 10' setback similar to existing structures, but will be different than the 15' setbacks of the R-3 development to the north along the west side of Johnson Avenue. The project, therefore,.does not preserve the yards or building typology of the established neighborhood though a shallower setback to Johnson Avenue is retained. It was the desire of the Planning Commission and ARC to introduce this change in character into the neighborhood because of the way the project maximizes residential density. The project incorporates features from the two dominant housing types in the neighborhood (medium density attached housing and low density detached housing) in a way and location that may serve to transition from one housing type to another. In that way it can be found to preserve the overall fabric and quality of life of the surrounding neighborhood north and south on Johnson Avenue. Housing Element Policy 3.3.2 When the City permits private development projects that displace affordable housing, it will require the developer to assist displaced residents to find affordable local replacement housing. Such measures may include:first priority in purchasing or renting new affordable dwellings to be developed onsite, assistance with relocation costs, or other financial measures. Council Agenda Report— 1771 Johnson Avenue TR 177-01 Page 7 Staff response: Project conditions require the property owner to give the existing tenants first priority in purchasing or renting one of the new proposed units. The Council should consider, however that the demolition of the existing units will occur long before occupancy will be achievable at the new units, and whether additional assistance should be a condition of approval. Housing Element Goal 5.1:Housing Variety and Tenure.'Provide variety in the location, type, size, tenure, and style of dwellings. Housing Element Policy 5.2.1 Encourage the integration of appropriately scaled, special-use housing into developments or neighborhoods of conventional housing. Staff response: The proposed project integrates special user housing (one bedroom and studio units) into a neighborhood that is dominated by conventional housing. Housing Element Policy 6.2.1 Consistent with the growth management portion of its Land Use Element and the availability of adequate resources, the City will plan to accommodate up to 2,909 exempt and non-exempt dwelling units between January 2001 and July 2009. Cal Poly University intends to provide up to 1,178 housing units on State land during the planning period. Staff response:. The construction of additional dwelling units on this infill R-3 site helps the City accomplish the goal of this policy by adding 5 additional units to the City's housing stock. Housing Element Policy 6.3.9 Balance City efforts to encourage residential development by focusing as much on infill development and densification within City Limits as on annexation of new residential land. Staff response: This is an infill development that will allow the maximum density on this R-3 site. Housing Element Policy 7.2.2 Higher density housing should maintain high quality standards for unit design, privacy, security, on-site amenities, and public and private open space. Such standards should be flexible enough to allow innovative design solutions in special circumstances, e.g. in developing mixed-use developments or in housing in the Downtown Core. Staff response: The ARC and Planning Commission believed that the housing design achieved City standards for on-site amenities, private open space etc. considering the scale of development and the size of the lot. The City Council should consider the design of the development for this particular site given the above General Plan policies and determine if the applicant has accomplished a quality design or whether a more conventional "attached" apartment or airspace condominium would be appropriate. 1-� i Council Agenda Report—1771 Johnson Avenue TR 177-01 Page 8 . Subdivision Design This is a common lot subdivision with each lot accommodating a detached single-family residence that would be available for independent sale. A 16-foot wide common driveway would serve all of the lots via an easement over the lots. An easement between the lots allows each unit to maximize the amount of private open space by allowing yards to overlap onto adjacent properties. A common open space area is oriented near the center of the west property boundary. Each lot will contain an individual unit, parking space and yard area in a very compact form. Considering the subdivision is being reviewed as a Common Lot Subdivision, consistent with Chapter 16.36.160 of the Subdivision Regulations, lots of any size or shape may be approved. The proposed tentative map therefore complies with the City's Subdivision Regulations. Density Early direction from the PC required the project to maximize the number of units on this site utilizing the available density. The proposed project meets the density standards provided in the Zoning Regulations. The following table summarizes the density unit value of the project. _.. Lot.Size _ -_-_Allowable Develo ment Pro:osed Develo went .32 acres .32 x 18= 7 one bdr * .66 unit=4.62 5.76 density units 2 studio units * .50 unit= 1.00 Total=5.62 units Driveway Design &Traffic Staff has been concerned about the location of this subdivision and the driveway intersection at Johnson Avenue. The project will essentially utilize the existing driveway as the primary access to the 9 lots. This driveway is very close to the intersection of Lizzie Street and the entrance to French Hospital. Because of the driveway's location and the traffic volume on Johnson Avenue, the Transportation Division has required the driveway to be restricted to prohibit left turns in or out. A driveway directional device (median) has been provided at the driveway entrance to accommodate this. Additional requirements from the Transportation Division included a provision to design a new driveway to allow vehicles to exit the site at the rear of the property into the French Hospital parking lot or into Breck Street. The applicant was required to design this connection with the understanding that it cannot be constructed until such a time that French Hospital allows for an easement to be acquired. The Transportation Division is satisfied with the proposed traffic mitigation as being sufficient to address increased trips from the development. In addition, traffic operations involving the site will continue to be monitored after completion of the project. Parking The parking requirements for the project are based on the standards shown below. The project proposes 9 units and requires 14.5 parking spaces. 15 parking spaces have been provided on the site plan. 1 bedroom unit= 1.5 spaces per unit (7 x 1.5 =10.5) /_g Council Agenda Report- 1771 Johnson Avenue TR 177-01 Page 9 Studio apt. = 1 space per unit (2 x 1= 2) Guest Parking= .1 per 5 units (2 spaces required) Total parking required for site= 14.5 (15 spaces) The City Council should consider whether additional parking spaces should be reserved solely for visitors since only one space will be dedicated visitor parking. Setbacks In the R-3 zone, the required street yard is 15 feet and other yards have a dimension of 5 to 10 feet depending on building height. The applicant is requesting an exception to allow a 10-foot street yard setback where a 15-foot setback is normally required at Johnson Avenue. Additionally, other interior yard exceptions have been request to reduce the required side yards between the proposed units. Some of the units would have a three-foot, three-inch setback from the side property line while some would have four feet. The Zoning Regulations normally require a minimum of five feet at the side yard with additional setback for taller structures. The ARC and PC reviewed the proposed setback exceptions recommending approval of a 10 foot street yard and reduced side yard setbacks between the units. The ARC adopted the following finding in support of the reduced street yard: "A street yard of not less than 10 feet is appropriate for the proposed development since existing construction on the site is developed with a lesser setback with no apparent conflicts and adjacent properties have street yards that average less than 10 feet. The reduced street yard will allow the interior spaces and building separations to be increased, enhancing the livability of the units." The subdivision process is the appropriate process to allow the approval of alternative setbacks for the development. The City Council may consider the proposed setback exception as part of the subdivision approval. Inclusionary Housing Requirements The applicant is not supplying affordable housing units with the proposed development, and therefore will be subject to the payment of an in-lieu fee in order to meet the City's Inclusionary housing requirement. The in-lieu fee for affordable housing for this project will be equal to 5% of the building valuation for the entire project. As an option, the applicant could choose to deed restrict one of the units as a moderately affordable unit or deed restrict another unit off site within the City. CONCURRENCES Other City departments including the Transportation Division of the Public Works Department, the City Utilities Department, and the Fire Department have reviewed the project for consistency with City Standards. A comprehensive review of the project and early direction from other departments l —l] Council Agenda Report—1771 Johnson Avenue TR 177-01 Page 10 helped guide the project into its current configuration. As designed, the project will meet City Standards regulated by the Fire,Utilities and Public Works Department. A list of code requirements has been incorporated into the resolution of approval for the project to allow the applicant to understand some of the requirements prior to recording the subdivision map or building the dwelling units. FISCAL IMPACT When the General Plan was prepared, it was accompanied by a fiscal impact analysis, which found that overall the General Plan was fiscally balanced. Accordingly, since the proposed project is consistent with the General Plan in terms of residential density, it has a neutral fiscal impact. ALTERNATIVES 1. Continue review of the minor subdivision with specific direction to the applicant to address Council's concerns. The City Council should consider staff's original project direction recommending an attached project for this site consistent with General Plan policy. The project could be designed to integrate with the neighborhood by providing one or two structures each integrating several units in a design that respects appropriate setbacks while providing good articulation. The scale and massing could be designed to give the appearance of other single-family residential structures in the neighborhood with special attention to street orientation. A common parking area could be placed at the rear of the site with increased opportunities for project amenities such as common open space and pedestrian circulation. The common driveway would probably have to be relocated to one side of the site to be able to accommodate such a development. 2. Adopt resolution `B" denying the approval of the common interest subdivision. The justification would include the Council's determinate that primarily detached housing in this location is inconsistent with the General Plan and does not provide sufficient amenities to preserve the neighborhood quality of life. Attachments: Attachment 1: Vicinity Map Attachment 2: Subdivision map and development plan Attachment 3: PC meeting minutes, August 28, 2002 Attachment 4: PC staff report, August 28, 2002 Attachment 5: PC meeting minutes,.January 22nd, 2003 Attachment 6: PC staff report, January 22nd, 2003 Attachment 7: ARC meeting minutes, June 16, 2003 Attachment 8: ARC staff report, June 16, 2003 Attachment 9: ARC findings and conditions November 3, 2003 Attachment 10: PC Meeting Minutes November 19`x, 2003 I -l0 Council Agenda Report—1771 Johnson Avenue TR 177-01 Page 11 Attachment 11: PC resolution, November 19`h, 2003 Attachment 12: PC staff report, November 19t", 2003 Attachment 13: Ordinance 1443, revising the City Subdivision Regulations Attachment 14: Revised Initial Study of environmental review. Attachment 15; Resolution "A" recommending approval of the subdivision map and proposed development plan. Attachment 16: Resolution `B" recommending denial of the subdivision map. G:\GROUPS\COMDEV\CD-PLAN\Pdunsmore\Subdivisions\TR 177-01 (1771 Johnson)\CC rpt177-01.5-18-04.DOC Attachment 1 2 R-2 :I II:1 (f Ir Ir 11 R-3 R-2 R- n f. %! -3 R-1 riN -2 Os -3 1' 1 , f !r, Y R n r! R-1 -2 O-S O-S R- V VICINITY MAP TR 177-01 N 1 -771 JOHNSON � - A z Z Attachn ient 2 � UO < a0 0 0 Z J m D O Z WLL - < J N 0 c) 2 O F N F V •. J F m a ¢ W Z O O W W n x o < o N w < 2 W O F C a O 0 w w Z " ~ F- N e _ a a W D p p N W N Z Q > W 0 ZF N N o O G ap Oo w n° j� ° �• 4 o a< b-4 0 0 W Z o, o o � o °a ` i z Wz « H 2 < J <.ILCC� ' W W . . of . � n m > f� G LL O W C7 ? zz p0 � y < W J W W < O E L /♦ m 6 J c o. �� .►� f V Z Y O Lu Z CL N O < ~ w W ; I 0. LL LL LL 000 <z 0 < m a M'1319� _DIY v=W11TFJ{ f 0 q 0 C = GGGG��pU. uZWpiF o. Rps 18'OIDJ WATER �.WZip mg° . ]I 1 V 99 °eF G°Y Om mD_ W_0 l ° X30 D W 04 Hilt, a� HIM I L Z W g m 8 m 4;1 — —" < CN 1' 1[1' •Fx f' . z = o c o w m 8 . '< t O . W z 6 6 z 4 � Q y 0 ©opr� oa 'v a a 4 - 1-13 f rti'ti, ��(fil f 9 7aags atxxrl 19 anuaAv nose or — - ca9ailoJ Iapuaptpay hull 6 Zaagg a[{ly �7 }i(i,lll�l�it t8 TS o . i w1 b ; Attachment 2 - J i _ I CV ISI u ✓ I ii w _ All — o € % .. YYYYYYYY ................ .:: .... �/ ����jj R, T o�•r r Til G C Y P p B Ra$ W � dd $ F p 1 v H d! gg0� z !9 ��[l3 Y „ $ 1§; s• d!f lCCC VPLIi S aat T.d $A G C.4) .. lig ow Aij;.y 1117 n , F399 y�€ V`aa:F 3a�r 1 •^ ff U y Q { M hang aazrl le annany¢osv4of ,E�j'l��i+!�•!{S �P ... .-..�' -21moo !anaap!wg 1!nfl g uIld aVs lxaluoo , Of i s Attachment 2 � — I Y I I I—__rJ I y I I I Y I C v I I a �• ------------ ... — \ I I •d t_ •J I I '• C G I r i I 00 a S 1 O O C I I I 1 6v 167 Y ! �!a!I 1R °nuuy¢o¢vgor _ 1t �! fill], tl[! t7 Attachment 2 R a ^ a ' S�Y tl } W �F ?BESB??BF g 151 i [SR ai Q. a .. .. a z t t _ t R anaaey uosagof 1 l If � R� 26 1,7`1 r a I� I 1 u i .IK 1 all .y is\ a�,.. .•1 ..L. y , } p T 1 . I 1 1 l I —, 6� L•, F• •oaw n AI I_ A i3 .RUR r �J I nni. 1 Crlla - r��i -cam �, � rni;1� •a 11 W 4-18 .a.�i.6JlTi(_� ��� Nllllq ungnnniij 'vim� �!•!1;�� z.�l `�I Ilml i• � •�ao 1 �rynm ep �ill�llllll �� m ��' �nnl� IIIIIIII r mmmnn — isal Mai N''��!��i� � o � I I IIIIII -�---•— - :. _ !� :�� IW1I I._—III Ir ` IItl1�Y1 U1'�.1n1�I�P�Illllil ur -.: ® t pm still IIa llll�llll� IpIIlI4 '—r ° �I� I'll B pi �.� �9 6'J�n IF1i1il'FIJ I���11+ i Y 6U. -_ p :g arzzr1 iv anuaep uocugor aauap;sag a¢ooJpag avp at°'lvnon rynuopiaag run a cvonenaJg .roua;xg �! 5 Attachment 2 = 3� Eig 1 fill, 6 7Jijig II 1 1 1 1 1 11 nl� im II 1 I'�b'�dlp l 'I 1�11I'�i iIIII61m101 ...,.. . I �, ! '' Ililu�' i1lulll" 1 � �tlii��l'�'I I I II II I I I II q II II 11 II I I I I II I I I li 11 C 0 +q .d II I I I II II� 11�pl�nll rllvlll III' I 'yll�''I I Ill1p�� ml Illllu � IIII�I `° I IIY+ I'li VIII IIP I v I � I I I II II o ISI I r61� rll�� a :• I��� I�; ' I, •— p i11 II QI I ii II . ! 11 ! I 1 ! 11 11 I I 1 ii i II u I II I 11 jf� � I 1 11 II 1 I II II I II I I I !I II I I II 11 I I I II I I I II II "'i,l'111!I,'IIIi IIID I lll!j',III:I!il'll 11 IIIIIII01 III. i', 111111'I .III' a ILII 11 'I III �';I N o llol I. L 'IJ!1It • 1 �II�I'�� I II„ P illllu'I u ! I S:IG'��Ij�� Ilia IIJ I! I I it I �� - _�^ n+ne+�w .�; � li�•Z ��JZ !!,,il=tl;{�;i�14 �� � 0. laarrS atzzrt 1° anaany v°°ngor aauapi. u atoojpag aup 44;��1�(,447.•f'EE 555 .-. __..�' aa9a'llo7 [°r}aaptmg Stnp g suoryaealg.:oiia3z3 �{{jl.,,lu•(ti; �3 - � a Attachment 2 t8 gau S! i o . = n � it I I II II �fi 'II'III ulllllll, I � 'lil�ll lil i �I'II I'llll I II � I I �iVu � � � liiiililllld I'I I x ' � C I I II I II I I i ii II I i i II ii d 0 j, 6 I i I ii it i i i II ii > ii II I I 11 ;I II IL I I II II � • I III I'll� I A �I 4 i j W i i 11 I I Ij III I I,II IIII 4 IN I I f li II y I I � II II ` �� I I I II II I I I II II I II II I I I II II I I II II I II II 'I II II II II 111 I, IIII! III' I I I - 1 1 I Il i 1 9 e I I �I A I I T li ii v II III IIIIIIIII`II II iI ' I I I VIII , lllll 'I i 111lII � Ti +I I11'illl IIII 11111,1;1 i I 1 411�u Itl 1, � IllilllllUl��l�ll � ! IIIIIIJI!III'IIIIIIII'iIP II!'Iu� I a 1 l II _ _—_- , rl•I i I stmn a2adYlsag 0?PnjS _ = 1aa11S arsx>7 to anoany uongot tE}!{Ei{i •iii �2 a o no i to SRO E�2 10712 / p �Il a Ian n.�a Van e ?7 i3 7z3 Attachment 2 g - . . afar E s y S3 v II iii il� IIIPII Vic' E tOn � III' �� 1 ,IpII If IAlllpl I O �II�Iipay �� .P ' � lip iii�l!i iii � 11 I ,I �I III II II HI g � m ip II 1l ��.I y . V y . yIYGIdllitlI ; ES W'I n Ilii - C G II III li I'iil I, i III I m o v y ,,fI�C,, Er��"I!Ili' •� III � w �' l�llipf�ctll�� E3 O , I AIN, I "� L. }gang MUI}a anaanY aoaagor [ + l;•• r --•_' ca891103 IarlUM-H Aap 8 eve4d zoojd 'f 3�„��N(�j� tl fl:ff!� ' �:i`� I o -- 9 , c .i; 9 a <<, Attachment 2 E !fit f 3 :36 3sts - 33333343 c _ m m JII � -1 OR II ♦t 3 I pL F 0 0 0 m m U U _ 6 m E o � o •e .. o i d � c 0 -- -- -- ----� I ... I III I I - � v Planning Commission Mini Attachment 3 Meeting of August 28, 2002 Page 2 PUBLIC COMMENTS: Mary Beth Schroeder, 2085 Wilding Lane, felt the antennas are unattractive and should not be allowed in the city. David Thornburgh, applicant's representative, commented on the appearance of the antennas and felt much time has been put into this design and that it complies with the ordinance that also took a lot of time to create. Chairwoman Loh noted the antenna chimney at the west elevation sits at the edge of the building and felt it would be appear very tall. She asked if it could be moved in some. Mr. Thornburgh explained the antenna could be moved a couple of feet, but the antenna would still have to clear the parapet. Planner Azevedo noted that if the chimney were moved internally, closer to the roof, its height may need to be increased for clearance of the antenna transmissions. Commr. Aiken recommended there be a cross-section view demonstrating the relationship to the parapet, with an explanation as to why two antennas could not be incorporated into a single chimney. There were no further comments made from the public. COMMISSION COMMENTS: Comms.. Cooper moved to approve the use permit based on.findings and subiect to staff's conditions, with an added condition 3. The applicant shall endeavor to set back the westemmost chimney as much as possible to visually reduce the height and mass of that chimney. Seconded by Chairwoman Loh. AYES: Commrs. Cooper, Loh, Peterson, Osborne, Boswell, and Caruso NOES: Commr. Aiken ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None The motion carried 6-1. 2. 1771 Johnson Avenue. TR, A and ER 177-01; Request to allow a common interest (condominium) subdivision to create lots from 2 lots; reduced street yards from 15 feet to 10 feet; and environmental review; R-3 zone; Richard Porter, applicant. Associate Planner Philip Dunsmore presented the staff report recommending denial of the setback exception with direction to the applicant on changes to the project necessary for the City to support approval. He recommended the commission continue the item to incorporate staff's direction into the project. as Planning Commission Minu' Attachment 3 Meeting of August 28, 2002 Page 3 Commr. Peterson asked which units the three parking spaces below the existing unit would serve. Planner Dunsmore explained they would serve only the existing one-bedroom unit. Commr. Cooper asked if the Initial Study addressed a widening of the right-of-way from Johnson Avenue. Planner Dunsmore explained there is a plan line setback on this property, but this particular section of Johnson Avenue has been built out to its maximum capacity and there is no plan for future widening. Commr. Boswell asked what the required amount of open space is. Planner Dunsmore replied that the project exceeds the required amount by the condominium standards; each unit should have at least 100-feet of open space. He noted that the existing triplex has a street yard setback of approximately 7 feet. Mark Rawson, 544 Higuera Street, SLO, Project Architect, presented a brief history of the project, and what they are trying to achieve. He noted that staff brought out a few things that they could incorporate into this project. Commr. Aiken asked if the covered parking is contained on a private parcel and would visitors or other tenants have access to it. Mr. Rawson replied yes, and explained there would be easements. Commr. Aiken commented that unit 2 should include parking spaces. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Mary Beth Schroeder, 2085 Wilding Lane, expressed her concern about bringing more traffic onto Johnson Avenue with this project. Jennifer Boar, noted that she is impacted by this project and felt this would provide the opposite of affordable housing. Vice-Chair Osborne questioned the feasibility of the parking and asked if parking could be provided at one of the other units. Ms. Boar replied it would violate the noise issue. Peg McPherson, felt the pictures that were shown do not accurately depict how close the house is to the front unit. She was concerned about the noise when the construction begins. 1�3 Planning Commission Minu Attachment 3 Meeting of August 28,2001 Page 4 L Pam Henderson, commented about the beautiful yard they have in this area and how they would be able to see into her property if she did not have provision for this. Steve Del Martini, noted that the City wants infill projects, but when you try to do an infill project, this is the type of situation they have to work with. Deputy Director Whisenand explained that this is a difficult site and there are backup space and parking issues that need to be addressed. There were no further comments made from the public. COMMISSION COMMENTS: Commr. Cooper entertained a motion to deny the setback request, but with no support of the motion, he withdrew it. Commr Peterson was not opposed to the front yard setback and supported continuing the project. Commr. Aiken did not oppose the setback exception, but is in favor of continuing the project for redesign considerations. He noted that he would like to see the guest parking issue resolved. Commr. Caruso stated he could support the exceptions if this were an R-3 type development, but felt the applicant is trying to squeeze a single family project on very valuable R-3 zoned property. Vice-Chair Osborne noted that this project meets the density standards for this lot size in the R-3 zone. Commr. Boswell commented on Housing Element Policy 2.2.3, and felt if the City is going to be serious about affordable housing in this community, there are some tough decisions to be made. Commr. Cooper felt that this property has no value if it cannot be built on, and stated it is unrealistic to force developers to build infill development that is attached and owner occupied. Commr. Peterson moved to continue the item to a date uncertain, with direction to the applicant to pursue an attached project that better represents the spirit of the R-3 zone. Seconded by Vice-Chair Osborne. Commr. Caruso commented that he would consider and support a detached project that maximizes density. He recommended an amendment that removes the word attached. The motion maker and seconder agreed to the amendment. � -a4 Planning Commission Mini Attachment 3 Meeting of August 28, 2002 - Page 5 Commr. Boswell recommended an amendment to increase the dwelling units so the policy could be more consistent on preserving affordable housing in the community. He stated he is willing to look at easing some of the standards, particularly to front setbacks, back-up area, and parking, and felt the City needs to show some benefit that is occurring to offset relaxing their standards, such as creating housing that meets stronger affordability criteria. The motion maker and seconder accepted the amendment. AYES: Commrs. Peterson, Osborne, Aiken, Boswell, Caruso, and Loh NOES: Commr. Cooper ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None The motion carried 6-1. BUSINESS ITEM: 3. Clitywide. Review of the Conservation Guidelines for City-owned open space lands; City of San Luis Obispo (Neil Havlik), applicant. Natural Resources Manager Neil Havlik presented the staff report recommending that the City Council approve the "Conservation Guidelines for Open Space Lands of the City of San Luis Obispo". He offered some background to the project. He explained that the goals of their guidelines are driven by the stated goals of the Open Space Element, that there are five major guidelines for the development of the conservation guidelines, and the goal of the Open Space Element is to provide open space. He explained that following adoption, they would start a program of planning for the individual open space lands. Michael Clarke, City Biologist, mentioned that once the standard guidelines have been accepted, the challenge would be customizing the standards to meet the needs of individual open .spaces. He explained they are proposing to divide each open space into various land categories with the classifications they feel are relevant. He noted that sensitive habitat areas have been identified, and the primary objective is the protection of wildlife and wildlife habitat. He commented about the different areas that would have to be managed and offered examples of how this process would proceed. He noted there is a monitoring element in the guidelines to ensure the land is being managed successfully. Natural Resources Manager Havlik explained that when the guidelines are adopted, they will form the basis for the individual conservation plans for each City open space. Commr. Cooper commented on the human activities and impacts. He noted that the trailheads are not marked and asked if they will encourage unauthorized trails. He suggested they have a marked clarity of where the end of the public access trail is, and that a map should be available for the public. I o� - , Attachmnt 4 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT ITEM#2 BY: Philip Dunsmore, Associate Planner (781-7522) MEETING DATE: August 28, 2002 FROM: Ron Whisenand, Deputy Director-Development Revie� FILE NUMBER: TR, ER 177-01 PROJECT ADDRESS: 1771 Johnson SUBJECT: Review of a proposed 5-unit condominium subdivision with setback exception requests and Mitigated Negative Declaration. SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION Recommend the Planning Commission deny the setback exception request and continue the project with direction to the applicant and staff on changes to the project necessary to support approval. BACKGROUND Situation The City has received an application to subdivide a +/- 13,800 site for a 5-unit condominium project. The project site is in the Medium High Density Residential Zone (R-3) and is presently developed with a residential triplex and a one-bedroom apartment. The proposed development would include demolition of the existing triplex and construction of new 2 and 3-bedroom townhouse units, each with an attached garage. The existing one bedroom apartment would remain at the rear of the site. The condos are proposed as a Planned Unit Development (PUD), . with individual lot ownership and a common owned parcel for access and open space. The applicant is also requesting a street yard setback exception for the proposed development. The project is subject to environmental review, and an Initial Study of Environmental Impact and Mitigated Negative Declaration have been prepared. The Planning Commission should offer direction to the applicant on necessary changes that will produce a reasonable housing design for the property. The applicant should return to the Planning Commission (following review by the Architectural Review Commission) in order make a recommendation on the proposed subdivision and environmental document to the City Council following the incorporation of necessary project changes. I Attachmallt 4 TR, ER 177-01 (1771 Johnson) Page 2 Data Summary Address: 1771 Johnson Avenue Applicant/Property Owner: Richard Porter, 846 Higuera Street SLO, Ca. 93401 Representative: APS Architects Zoning: R-3 (Medium High-Density Residential) General Plan: Medium High-Density Residential Environmental Status: A Mitigated Negative Declaration was recommended by the Community Development Director on July 26, 2002. Site Description The 13,814 square foot site is located adjacent to the Lizzie Street entrance to French Hospital and is currently developed with a residential triplex and a one-bedroom apartment. Existing residential development borders the property to the west, the French Hospital parking and driveway access is directly east of the property and the rear of the site (south) is vacant land owned by French Hospital. The subject property and adjacent residential parcels to the west are zoned R-3. Residences opposite the property on the other side of Johnson Avenue are within the R-2 district. The hospital property is zoned O (office). Trees on the site include a large 36" diameter pine near Johnson, several native willow trees at the rear property line, and several Jacaranda and Liquidambar landscape trees at the center of the site. The site slopes down from Johnson Avenue approximately 10 feet to the rear property line. y .. Partial view of existing site. Triplex is at right, while one bedroom unit built above a three car garage is at the left of the photo at the rear of the site. Machmnt 4 TR, ER 177-01 (1771 Johnson) Page 3 Project Description The project is a condominium subdivision of an existing .32-acre site. The project includes 2 three-bedroom units, 2 two-bedroom units and an existing 1-bedroom unit currently on the site for a total of 5 dwellings. The site is currently developed with 4 dwellings consisting of a triplex unit and a separate one-bedroom unit. The applicant is proposing to leave the existing 1 bedroom unit on the property to avoid being subject to affordable housing standards that affect projects involving the construction of five or more residences (see attachment 5, applicant letter). The new homes would be designed as individual detached units with attached garages. Including the garages, the homes have two levels (unit 4 is actually 3 levels) and a maximum height of 33 feet. Private open space is provided primarily within small ground level yard areas. A common open space with shade trees is proposed for the center of the site. Eight tree removals (Jacarandas & Liquidambars) are proposed with the site development. One visitor parking space is proposed at the rear of the site. A 16-foot wide driveway will serve the units from Johnson Avenue. The driveway and common open space area will be within a separate common lot maintained by a homeowners association. Instead of typical airspace condominiums, or traditional attached townhomes, the units will be on their own small lots. EVALUATION Staff has evaluated the project with respect to consistency with the City's General Plan, and development related codes, including the Zoning Regulations and Subdivision Regulations. The Planning Commission should consider each of the following issue areas prior to offering direction to the applicant or making a recommendation on the subdivision and Mitigated Negative Declaration to the City Council. 1. Subdivision Design and Property Development Standards Since the project is a common lot development and not an airspace condominium or a planned development, the project must be evaluated for conformance to development standards in the R-3 district as well as the City's condominium standards. Planned Development rezoning of the property in any residential district requires a minimum of one acre, while condominium developments (or common interest, planned unit developments) may be developed on any size parcel and may be subdivided into any size parcel. Since the project is only .32 acre it is not eligible for a planned development and must be designed as a common interest development. The following is an overall evaluation of the project with respect to the City's conventional property development standards. In addition to Chapter 17.16 of the Zoning Regulations (Property Development Standards), this project is subject to the requirements contained in the Property Improvement Standards for New Condominium Projects, (Attachment 3). 0�0 Attachment 4 TR, ER 177-01 (1771 Johnson) Page 4 Subdivision Design The subdivision is designed with a 16-foot wide central driveway on a common lot with units oriented at either side of the driveway on individual lots. Private open space in this project is located primarily on ground level private yards at the rear of each lot. A common open space area is oriented near the center of the west property boundary. The project attempts to maximize land area by proposing two .and three story units with living space above garages. Since the project involves a total of five residential units on a site of less than 1/3 acre, no significant open space or project amenities are proposed. LOT 4m LOT 21 LOT 8n .� ,u+.cewt •mance JOIN -W PROPOSED 5' WIDE PRIVATE ,.. B UTILITY 8 DRAINAGE EASEMENT • ' ' •• • _ ___ EXISTING RESIOENCE — ' ••f .' ,4en Space •r, i 2175 SF----- m ©; _'TO REMAIN B � 255.59-.�F v � • - - 0. _ X71 � 1 TBR C% II (52') .i I FrEST� `�-yl',❑D I'•�LOT it IL'/ o �0 QM P rA v a t e; Djr I V C; m -� _ L lip • L.aI , 1500 S iJ3J ` ' a . . f F 2100 -5 . : `I; NSD°4�•00'E ri • N�•s9'DD"F. 19.95' PROPOSED 2 M P.U.E-USN Proposed Condominium Tract Map, 1771 Johnson The SF#'s on each of the lots indicate the proposed lot size. The dashed line area at the top right side of the map indicates the location of the existing triplex to be demolished on the site. Note the relationship of the front doors of the new units to the common interest lot. As shown, units 1 and 2 will need to be adjusted to provide adequate vehicular maneuvering space. The dotted areas at the rear of each unit identify potential private outdoor open space. Density The proposed project meets the density standards provided in the Zoning Regulations. In the R-3 (Medium High-Density) residential zone, the maximum number of dwelling units per acre is 18. I�q Attachment 4 TR, ER 177-01 (1771 Johnson) Page 5 Density for condominium projects takes into account the entire lot area prior to subdivision. Instead of estimating allowed density for each lot staff has calculated density based on the gross project area including the common lot area. The following table summarizes the density unit value of the project. Lot Size Allowable Development Proposed Development .32 acres .32 x 18 = 2 two bdr * 1.00 units=2 units 5.76 density units 2 three bdr * 1.5 units = 3 units 1 one bdr * .66 unit= .66 Total=5.66 units Lot Coverage Since the project proposes individual lots instead of air space units, each property must comply with the lot coverage standards for the zoning district. In the R-3 district the lot coverage maximum is 60%. As proposed, all units meet lot coverage standards as shown in the chart below. LOT COVERAGE Lot Size Lot Coverage Percentage of coverage 1. 2,550 square feet 1,135 square feet 44.5 2. 2,289 square feet 885 square feet 38.6% 3. 1,500 square feet 640 square feet 42.6% 4. 2,100 square feet 820 square feet 39% 5. 2,175 square feet 675 square feet 31% Setbacks In the R-3 zone, the required street yard is 15 feet and other yards have a dimension of 5 to 10 feet depending on building height. Since the proposed subdivision is not an airspace condominium project or a planned development, each unit must meet required setbacks for the R-3 district unless exceptions are approved with the subdivision. The applicant is requesting an exception to allow a 10-foot street yard setback where a 15-foot setback is normally required at Johnson Avenue. Additionally, other yard exceptions are requested for all of the units. Units 1-4 are proposed to be located approximately 3 feet from the property line at the common lot when required setbacks are 6.5 feet. Unit 4 is shown 3 feet from the northeast property line where 6.5 feet should be required. Existing unit 5 is considered an existing non-conforming unit since it 1 -� Attachment 4 TR, ER 177-01 (1771 Johnson) Page 6 has a 3.5-foot setback where a 6.5-foot setback is required at the rear of the unit. For reference, the existing triplex to be demolished at the site is currently built with a 6-foot street yard setback and an approximately 3 foot north property line setback. The Zoning Ordinance provides two types of exceptions to setbacks. First, those of which the property is entitled to because of physical circumstances, and second, those which the City may approve upon request and subject to certain discretionary criteria. This site does not have physical circumstances that automatically would allow a setback exception. Furthermore, granting of a setback exception will allow new residential development closer to a significant noise source and cause potential line of sight issues for vehicles exiting the site onto Johnson Avenue. As discussed in the noise section later, units 1 and 2 nearest Johnson Avenue are within an area that is subject to road noise exposure from Johnson Avenue. Site visits to the property and discussions with existing tenants have confirmed the existing noise issues. The environmental analysis and Initial Study prepared for the project provides a mitigation measure that requires development to conform to existing setback standards in addition to providing noise attenuation installations for the proposed development. Staff does not support granting a setback exception for the street yard. The site plan can easily be modified to accommodate an additional 5 feet between the proposed units and the Johnson Avenue property line. Other setback exceptions may be acceptable if the design of the project, or it's impacts to health and safety, are not compromised. At a minimum the site plan should be modified to supply required street yard setback prior to approval of the subdivision. Driveway Design. The proposed 16 foot wide private drive will allow for two-way traffic, but does not include space for parking. Building and Planning staff have reviewed the plan and found that some modifications will be required to the location of the garages and units in order to meet the City's Parking and Driveway Standards. As proposed, several of the parking spaces do not provide adequate maneuvering space. Units 1 and 2 only allow 19 feet of backup space where 24 feet of backup space is required. The units or the location of the garages will need to be modified to accommodate the necessary backup space, without eliminating required private open space at the rear yards. Staff has discussed the deficiency with the applicant and the applicant will need to adjust the plans prior to architectural review of the project. Modification of the site plan to allow minimum backup space should occur prior to approval of the subdivision. Parking Since the units are to be constructed on individual lots, each lot should contain the required parking for each unit. Parking for each residence is generally provided within enclosed garages. 1 guest space is provided at the rear of the site behind unit 4. The total parking required at this property is 12 spaces, while 14 spaces are actually provided. The proposed arrangement of the parking, however, is not optimal. The 1 bedroom apartment proposed to remain at the site has a 3-car garage built below it. Unit 1, with 3 bedrooms, contains only 2 parking spaces. Considering this 1 3j Attachment 4 TR, ER 177-01 (1771 Johnson) Page 7 project proposes individual lots, staff feels it is unreasonable to count enclosed parking below the existing apartment for use as parking for other units or for guest spaces. Placing more parking on the site, however, will create the loss of common open space at the property. The Commission should be aware that street parking is not an option at this location on Johnson Avenue, and guest parking may be difficult at this site. Staff believes the shortage of parking for unit 1 may be acceptable, however the site should provide 1 additional outdoor guest parking space within the common lot. An additional guest parking space should be added to the site plan prior to approval of the subdivision. Proposed parking calculations Unit size... .Parkin ;l2 utrement Parkin su lied 1. 3-bedroom 2.5 spaces 2 spaces 2. 2-bedroom 2 spaces 2 spaces 3. 2-bedroom 2 spaces 2 spaces 4. 3-bedroom 2.5 spaces 3 spaces 5. 1-bedroom 1.5 spaces 3 spaces Visitor space 1 space per five units 1 space 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). To qualify as private open space, the private yard must be directly accessible from the unit it serves and must have a minimum dimension in every direction of at least 10 feet inside of a minimum area of at least 100 square feet. Each of the units contains 400 to 500 square feet of open space. All of the units meet the minimum space requirements, . however the units do not have direct access to the rear yard areas. Units 1-4 access the rear yards at the back of the garage or through outdoor gates. Unit 5 has access to a private yard only through an outdoor gate. Units 1-4 should be designed with rear yard access from an inside living area of the unit. Changes to the units, to allow direct access to private oven space from the interior living area of the units should occur prior to approval of a condominium subdivision of the Rroperty. Common open space is provided in the form of a common landscape area at the center of the west property boundary. An existing Black Walnut tree is proposed to remain in this location and additional landscape is proposed at the west property boundary. The approximate size of the common open space area is roughly 1800 square feet. As proposed, the common open space area provides a nice aesthetic landscape addition to the project, however no usable common open Attachmc.nt 4 TR,ER 177-01 (1771 Johnson) Page 8 space is proposed. Groundcover, instead of lawn is proposed for the common open space in order to reduce maintenance and irrigation needs of the common open space. The common open space, however, should be designed as a usable amenity with a pathway, small turf area or benches. Changes that create a usable common open space area in addition. to an aesthetic amenity should occur prior to approval of the subdivision. Building design and.orientation The units are oriented at the site with garages facing the main access driveway. The front doors and entry areas are concealed at the sides to the rear of the units potentially eliminating a sense of community orientation. Units 1 and 2 have front doors that face Johnson Avenue, a busy arterial roadway. The building elevations have a quality appearance through the use of appropriate roof forms, windows, and siding, however the orientation of the main entries should be designed in an inward fashion, visible from the access driveway. Driveways and garages primarily dominate the front elevations of the units in the proposed plan. The site does not allow adequate space for a landscape planter or significant buffering between the driveway and the units. The design of residences on these sites should include front entries that are oriented towards the driveway, recessed garages, and a front yard landscape planter with a sufficient size to contain small trees. Although the lot configuration, size of the units, and general layout of the subdivision is satisfactory, the design and layout of the units will need some work. Following direction or a recommendation from the Planning Commission, the project will be forwarded to the Architectural Review Commission prior to proceeding to City Council. Changes to the design of the units to allow front oriented entry doors should occur prior to approval of a subdivision for the property. a]Y-Y TIEBu�ENY Nay�l,� — Attachment 4 TR, ER 177-01 (1771 Johnson) Page 9 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, goals and objectives that may pertain to the proposed development. Each of the general plan excerpts are in italics, with a staff response following. LU Policy 2.2.4.Residential Next to Nonresidential In designing development at the boundary between residential and nonresidential uses, protection of a residential atmosphere is the first priority. The project is directly adjacent to the French Hospital parking lot, however slope that ranges from 4 to ten feet in height and significant tree and shrub landscape currently separate the two properties. No changes are proposed for the slope and the existing landscape buffer. The site appears to have satisfactory buffering from the adjacent commercial uses. LU Policy 2.2.12:Residential Project Objectives- Residential projects should provide: A)Privacy,for occupants and neighbors of the project; The project includes satisfactory private open space areas and private entries for each of the units (in fact the entries are too private). As proposed, the units do not appear to produce significant overlook issues. The existing triplex at the property produces more significant overlook concern's than proposed units on the property. B) Adequate usable outdoor area, sheltered from noise and prevailing winds, and oriented to receive light and sunshine; The project does not provide a significant amount of adequate usable outdoor area that is sheltered from noise. The private yard areas proposed for units 1 and 2 are within the 65 dB noise area as identified in the General Plan Noise Element. The noise source is from traffic on Johnson Avenue. Units 3 and 4 have rear-yards that are adjacent to the French Hospital parking and driveway area. In order to create usable yard areas, sound walls or a reorientation of the yard areas will be necessary. The common open space area could also be designed as a usable outdoor area instead of a landscape area. 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 project is designed with adequate solar orientation, however since the project is below the grade of the roadway and screened by significant landscape at the south property boundary, there will not be significant view potential from or toward the property. 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 projects that contain more than 6 I"� ' Attachment 4 TR,ER 177-01 (1771 Johnson) Page 10 parking spaces on a single entry driveway. Colored concrete is proposed at the south edge of the driveway adjacent to units 2, 3, and 4 to serve as a pedestrian pathway, however the pathway is shown inside of the required 16-foot driveway width. The small site does not provide alternatives for a separate pedestrian pathway without a significant redesign. Since the project includes only five units, use of the driveway as a pedestrian path may not be a significant concern. G)Adequate parking and storage space; As discussed in the parking section above, the site contains 14 parking spaces, however it only requires 12 parking spaces. This does not automatically mean that the site contains adequate parking, however, and the parking plan should be altered to provide adequate parking. Only 1 guest space will be available and one of the 5 units will be short by 1 parking space. Additionally, nearby street parking is not available on this heavily traveled section of Johnson Avenue. The site needs to function independently to supply adequate parking, maneuverability and access. Parking issues should be resolved prior to approval of the.subdivision. H)Noise and visual separation from adjacent roads and commercial uses. The project site is subject to excessive noise levels from Johnson Avenue. As proposed, the project does not contain noise mitigation measures such as sound walls or increased setbacks. The project is requesting reduced setbacks to allow units closer to Johnson Avenue, thereby potentially decreasing noise and visual separation. The project should be designed to, at a minimum, comply with standard R-3 district setbacks of 15 feet in addition to providing noise mitigation such as sound walls. Project changes to reduce noise impacts should be implemented prior to approval of the subdivision. 1) Design elements that facilitate neighborhood interaction, such as front porches, front yards along streets, and entryways facing public walkways. The project design does not facilitate neighborhood interaction. The units do not contain front porches, balconies, or entry doors that face the front of the units. The front doors are concealed from the driveway and are not oriented to face public walkways, public spaces, or the common open space area. The project should be designed so that the front of the units and the main entries face the driveway and common open space area. Changes should be incorporated into the proiect to enhance neighborhood interaction prior to approval of the subdivision. J) 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 does not have concerns. Land Use Element Policy 2.4.7. Medium High-Density Residential — Development should be primarily attached dwellings in two or three-story buildings, with common outdoor areas and 1 Attachment 4 TR, ER 177-01 (1771 Johnson) Page 11 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 employment centers and major public facilities. The project includes two and three story detached dwellings, with compact private outdoor spaces. Common areas are also relatively compact, but still meet the standards contained in the Condominium Development Standards. Perhaps considering attached townhouse style dwellings (with or without an airspace condominium subdivision) or attached apartment development for the property could increase usable outdoor open space and site circulation opportunities, while allowing for appropriate setbacks from Johnson Avenue. Attached units with different bedroom configurations will also allow the property to maximize the density potential and create additional housing opportunities. 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 close to the downtown planning area and is within walking distance to shops and services. Housing Element Policy 2.2.3: Creation and Preservation-Affordable Rental Housing The City will preserve and expand its supply of affordable rental housing. 4 rental units currently exist on the property proposed for subdivision and new construction. The existing triplex will be demolished with the proposed development, while the existing one bedroom unit will be placed on an individual lot. The project will create four new residential units, however no affordable housing will be created. The new units will be housing on individual lots available for individual ownership. The project does not preserve or expand existing rental housing. Staff questions whether R-3 and R-4 lots should be preserved for rental housing and apartments, or whether these infill sites should be subdivided to provide alternative ownership housing. The Planning Commission should determine whether the project is consistent with Housing Element Policy 2.2.3. 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 scale and density of the project is an appropriate size and density for the R-3 zone at this location. Johnson Avenue separates the project site from the adjacent R-2 and R-1 neighborhoods. The current design, however, is not a quality project that staff believes will maintain the quality of life for existing and future residents. Noise, setbacks, site circulation and design of the units will need to change in order for the units to work as a high quality project. 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 Attachment 4 TR,ER 177-01 (1771 Johnson) Page 12 plan for parks, open space, or similar uses of neighborhood importance. The project site is designated for medium high-density residential development and is currently developed with apartments that are below the site's maximum potential. The project site presents a good infill opportunity for additional housing if the design can overcome some of the existing site constraints. 3.Zoning Ordinance and Housing Variety As discussed above, this project proposes single family, individual ownership properties on land that is designated for higher density Multi-Family development. The Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 17.28, describes the R-3 district: "The R-3 zone is intended primarily for smaller households desiring little private open space and to provide various types of group housing. These areas are generally close to commercial and public facilities serving the whole community and generally committed to this type of development." Although the proposed project is allowed in this district with the proposed density, the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance descriptions of the R-3 district describe smaller households and variety of tenure. Staff has prepared an analysis of the number of households that could be developed on this property under different density scenarios. Lot Size Allowable Proposed Development Potential development Development .32 acres .32 x 18 = 2 two bdr * 1.00 units= 2 units 4 two bdr.=4.0 units 5.76 density 2 three bdr * 1.5 units = 3 units 1 one bdr.= .66 units units 1 one bdr * .66 unit= .66 2 studios= 1.00 units Total =5.66 density units Total=5.66 density units 5 dwellin s total 1 7 dwellin s total Other development scenarios exist, however under staff's scenario above, 7 households could be supplied on this R-3 property instead of the proposed 5. If attached units were developed, additional land could be used for private open space and necessary parking. The Planning Commission should offer direction to the applicant on the preferred development scenario for the property given General Plan Policies and the Zoning Ordinance description. 4. Grading,Drainage and Utilities The proposed development requires grading to achieve acceptable slopes for the driveways and building pads, but generally follows the existing, natural grades of the site. Since the site slopes down from the street, drainage exits the property at the rear of the site. Future additional drainage is also proposed to be conveyed to the rear of the site, where an 18" storm drain inlet is proposed. An easement to accept the drainage will be required prior to issuance of a building `5-7 ttachm,.nt 4 TR, ER 177-01 (1771 Johnson) Page 13 permit for the project. Although maps for the property identify a creek at the south side of this site, the creek is no longer present and was placed in an underground culvert as part of former improvement projects for Lizzie Street and French Hospital. The underground culvert actually diverts drainage beneath Johnson Avenue through Lizzie Street, ultimately surfacing approximately 50 yards west of the subject property into a drainage swale west of Breck Avenue. The project is not subject to the City's creek setback ordinance. All utility services such as electricity, phone and cable will provided to the new units underground. 5. Subdivision Findinzs 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. 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. Findings tailored for the specific subdivision are included in a draft Planning Commission Resolution should the Planning Commission recommend approval of the project to the City Council (Attachment 6). 6. Environmental Review The Community Development Director has recommended a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project. The initial study has been included as attachment 4 to this staff report. Staff identified mitigation measures that should be required of the project in the areas of Aesthetics, Attachm'rit 4 TR, ER 177-01 (1771 Johnson) Page 14 Geology and Soils, Hydrology and Water Quality, Noise and Trak. Some of the known potential impacts to the site will be automatically mitigated by compliance with required building code provisions that will be incorporated in the plan check process. Aesthetics The site contains a variety of aesthetically pleasing landscape trees, such as flowering Jacarandas, Liquidambars, a large pine tree, and a significant Black Walnut tree. Some of the trees are proposed for removal with the proposed subdivision. If trees are removed from the site replacement trees should be required. Implementation of the recommended mitigation measures contained in the analysis are sufficient to mitigate potential impacts to less than significant levels. Geology and Soils Project history was reviewed for former construction in the adjacent neighborhood in order to determine the suitability of the site for new construction. Moderately expansive soils are common in the project vicinity. All new construction will require a City building permit, and therefore require construction that will meet or exceed building code standards for these soils. Although the existing development has withstood the test of time, as structures are approximately 50 years old, a detailed soils report should be required prior to construction on the property. Implementation of the recommended mitigation measure contained in the analysis is sufficient to mitigate potential impacts to less than significant levels. Hydrology and Water Ouality Since the site slopes away.from the road, substantial development of the property is likely to change drainage patterns and create additional cross lot drainage. Provisions must be made to accept and convey offsite drainage to an adequate point of disposal to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director and Building Official. Additionally new paving areas should incorporate pervious surfacing such as turf block or pavers in order to reduce site runoff. Implementation of the recommended mitigation measures contained in the analysis are sufficient to mitigate potential impacts to less than significant levels. Noise The Initial Study identifies potentially significant impacts from roadway noise at Johnson Avenue. Sound walls could act as a noise barrier for the proposed outdoor use areas. The walls could be designed to be compatible with the project and should help create an attractive pedestrian residential setting,through changes in alignment, detail and texture, places for people to walk through, and appropriate landscaping. In addition, specific building practices are recommended for noise reduction, which can be implemented as part of the development. Implementation of the recommended mitigation measures contained in the analysis are sufficient to mitigate potential impacts to less than significant levels. r-3q Attac�rnci it 4 TR, ER 177-01 (1771 Johnson) Page 15 Traffic Less than significant traffic impacts were identified relative to traffic volume on Johnson Avenue and the proximity of the driveway to the French Hospital parking area and Lizzie Street. The present traffic volume on Johnson Avenue is substantial. Options were explored to create an alternative project access through the French Hospital parking area however this option is not yet available. The project was reviewed by the City traffic engineer for potential impacts or suggested design changes. Since the site already contains 4 residential units, it was determined that one additional unit would not create a significant impact to area circulation and traffic. Project conditions were added however, that suggest the exploration of alternative site access through the French Hospital property. This photo shows the proximity of ' the existing property (existing ` triplex unit at right) in relation to the Lizzie Street intersection and the entrance to French Hospital. The _ existing circulation pattern leaves few opportunities for efficient site awl.; f 2 access. CONCLUSION The property may be a good site for infill housing as it is an R-3 site close to the downtown area and available services. As proposed, however, the project may need some changes in order to create safe, reasonably designed housing for this challenging site. Staff understands the extreme need for housing; however, basic design, safety and housing quality needs should not be overlooked. Staff has additional concerns regarding the use of scarce high-density residential property for small lot single-family housing. Should these sites be preserved for innovative attached apartment or airspace condominium development? The project should be continued with direction from Planning Commission, however a draft resolution of approval with appropriate project conditions is included as attachment 6 should the Planning Commission determine that the project should be forwarded to the City Council for approval following review by the Architectural Review Commission. RECCOMENIDATION Recommend the Planning Commission deny the setback exception request and continue the project with direction to the applicant and staff on changes necessary to support approval of the project. '—�ttJ Attachment TR, ER 177-01 (1771 Johnson) Page 16 ALTERNATIVES 1. Recommend approval of the project to the City Council and forward the project to the Architectural Review Commission for refinements that will bring the project to a reasonable level of conformance with the General Plan. 2. 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." Attachments: Attachment 1: Vicinity Map Attachment 2: Reduced Size Development Plan Attachment 3: Property Improvement Standards for New Condominium Subdivisions (SLOMC 17.82.140) Attachment 4: Initial Study of Environmental Impact and Mitigated Negative Declaration Attachment 5: Applicant letter Attachment 6: Draft Planning Commission Resolution with findings and conditions as recommended by staff � �41 Attachment 5 SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - January 22, 2003 CALL TO ORDERIPLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: The San Luis Obispo Planning Commission was called to order at 7:00 p.m. on Wednesday, January 2003, in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo. ROLL CALL: Present: Commissioners Jim Aiken, Orval Osborne, Allan Cooper, Carlyn Christianson, James Caruso, Michael Boswell, and Chairwoman Alice Loh. Absent: None Staff: Associate Planner Phil Dunsmore, Deputy Community Development Director Ronald Whisenand, Assistant City Attorney Gil Trujillo, and Recording Secretary Irene Pierce. ACCEPTANCE OF THE AGENDA The agenda was accepted as presented. MINUTES: Minutes of November 6, 2002. Approve or amend. The minutes of November 6, 2003, were approved as amended. PUBLIC COMMENT ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS There were no comments made from the public. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1. 1771 Johnson Avenue. TR and ER 177-01: Conceptual review of a 9-unit condominium subdivision, and environmental review; R-3 zone; Richard Porter, applicant. (Phil Dunsmore) Phil Dunsmore presented the staff report, recommending the Commission consider the conceptual proposal and continue the project, with direction to the applicant to return to the Planning Commission with refined plans, following review by the Architectural Review Commission. He clarified the proposal is for seven 1-bedroom units and two studio units, for a total of nine condominium units in the planned unit development. He also noted reduced street yard from 15-feet to 10-feet is also being requested. Pc Minutes ' Attachment 5 January 22, 2003 Page 2 Chairwoman Loh asked for clarification on the required 100 square-foot private open space area for each unit, as well as common open space of 100 square feet per unit. She also asked about the required common recreation facility at 20 square feet per unit or 180 square feet total. Planner Dunsmore clarified an outdoor facility is acceptable such as a barbecue facility or ball court might qualify for that common recreation facility requirement. He noted there is a common open space area at the center of the site, but specific site amenities have not yet been detailed. Commr. Cooper asked if the studio units are also two-story units. Planner Dunsmore responded that this is conceptual review, and floor plans are not available at this time. The studio units would be limited to 450 square feet total interior space, with an open sleeping arrangement such as a loft. Commr. Cooper noted he visited the site and did not feel it is possible to make a left turn unless you cross three lanes of traffic and two double-yellow lines. He felt there should be a right-turn only arrangement. He also questioned the noise mitigation along Johnson Avenue. He expressed his main concern is the feasibility of developing attached housing on this site due to increased liability issues related to construction defects, which he outlined. Chairwoman Loh noted possible problems with residents exiting the proposed garages and back-up issues. She also expressed concern with the building orientation, the sight line from the 16-foot driveway exiting onto Johnson Avenue, and the noise level. Commr. Osborne asked if it is possible for the project to connect to the French Hospital parking lot. Planner Dunsmore noted that possibility has been explored but at this time there is no provision to allow that. Staff would suggest, if possible, connecting to the rear of the site either out to an adjacent road system or to the French Hospital parking lot at some future date. However, due to the significant grade change between this site and French Hospital, this would require significant grading and land alteration. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Mark Rawson, APS Architects and applicant's representative, felt the issues that have been addressed could be solved such as vehicle maneuvering. He felt they have met or exceeded the minimum requirements for open space, private yard space, recreational space, etc., He explained that the reason they do not have plans for the studio units is because they are first seeking conceptual approval of this innovative design. He further explained this project is innovative in that they have created a project that maximizes the density and meets the intent of the R-3 zone. He also noted the parking spaces between the units have a secondary function, which they have coined the term PC Minutes Attachment 5 January 22, 2003 Page 3 "patio parking". He felt it would not be unlikely that the units would be occupied by one- car occupants, leaving a usable patio space. He encouraged discussion and feedback from the Commission to make this project acceptable to them. Commr. Cooper asked if attached housing were a requirement, would the project continue. Mark Rawson replied that it would not make economic sense, and the project would not go forward. He expressed his confidence that this project could be the most affordable housing product in San Luis Obispo, and an amenity in that regard. This is medium- high density housing in a type that responds to a marketplace demand. He noted they had considered the same number of units as duplex units, but it was not economical. Commr. Aiken asked if he would consider attached units with a.zero lot line; the building may look like a duplex but would have a property line between the units. He felt this would allow for more open space and eliminate the easement requirements while still achieving the same number of units. He felt it would be more pleasing to reduce the appearance of the number of buildings in the project. Mark Rawson responded that windows would be sacrificed to accommodate a zero lot line. He noted he had considered zero lot lines and no easement, but the easement. affords the ability for windows on that side of the house. He reiterated that it is more desirable to have detached units. Commr. Boswell asked for clarification on whether the studio units are two stories, and if access through French Hospital parking lot is feasible. Mr. Rawson responded the studio units are single-story. He also clarified that access through French Hospital parking lot does not seem feasible due to emergency vehicle ingress and egress, and other issues. Commr. Caruso asked how the people in the existing four units get in and out of the site now, and inquired if there are a large number of accidents due to the awkward access. Mr. Rawson responded that access is only an issue during peak hours. Otherwise, it is no different from any other street. Marybeth Schroeder,2085 Wilding Lane, said there are problems getting onto Johnson Avenue from Wilding Lane, and adding this project would cause more traffic problems and pollution. She opposed the development. Ron McGoffin, 1453 Lizzie Street, expressed concern with parking, and the impact it will have on parking in the area and in front of his house. Mary Dukes, 1415 Morro Street, spoke in support of zero lot lines based on personal experience living in such a unit. Noise between buildings was not an issue, and the look of the project is pleasing. f �� PC Minutes l January 22, 2003 Attachment 5 Page 4 COMMISSION COMMENTS: Commr. Boswell clarified that the language that talks about "attached" is in the Land Use Element, not in the Zoning Regulations. He felt this is a very innovative project that maximizes allowable density, and changes the affordability of the units. He felt access continues to be a problem, even if some of the units were eliminated. He made a motion to support the project as proposed with the exception of combining the studio units and one-bedroom units in order to achieve better setback from Johnson Avenue, and the possibility of additional visitor parking spaces Seconded by Commr. Caruso. Commr. Christianson supported the motion but expressed concerns with attached dwellings in medium-high density zones. She outlined her concerns: problems with the street yard setback; noise and visual separation issues; overlook concerns by neighbors; driveway maneuvering; driveway access to Johnson Avenue involving safety issues; no specific guest parking; no landscape buffers within the development; no pedestrian path within the development; line of sight from the driveway; and the project does not meet land use and zoning directives. Commr. Cooper asked for the applicant's reaction to the motion. Mark Rawson was not opposed to the motion, and felt it is a concept that could be a feasible and marketable solution, but could not speak for the property owner. Commr. Caruso asked if the motion contained direction that the setback exception was not favorable which is why the units would be attached. He did not feel there was support for the setback exception. It was determined that the motion did not contain that direction. Commr. Boswell was not clear on what would be gained by attaching the units. He felt attaching the units would create a parking lot situation without gaining any open space or enhanced affordability. Deputy Director Whisenand explained that attaching units maximizes the amount of open space, as well as balancing the scale and massing of the buildings. Although the number of parking spaces is the same, the efficiency is improved .and small setbacks between units are eliminated. Commr. Osborne was concerned that the project does not preserve or expand affordable rental housing, which is a Housing Element goal, but felt it meets R-3 density requirements. Chairwoman Loh pointed out that the previous design with 5 units had a total density of 5.66 units; however the revised 9-unit project has a density of 5.62 units. Deputy Director Whisenand offered specific direction on issues such as setback from Johnson Avenue, attached versus detached, unit size and mixture of bedrooms, and other issues. He confirmed other issue areas the commission would like to see explored and addressed in the next staff report include overlook, open space �� Pc Minutes Attachment 5 January 22, 2003 Page 5 calculations driveway dimensions and access to garages, sight line and general driveway safety, solar access and orientation . landscape buffer, bringing the doors up even with the garage, and pedestrian access, which was added to the motion. Commr. Aiken felt going with a zero lot line type of development and attaching the units would achieve a more attractive project, and eliminate the narrow appearance of the units. He felt the studio units would be retained as rental units, and thought it unlikely that families would live in the one-bedroom units, and could not support the motion. Chairwoman Loh had concerns with the architectural design of the project, was unclear of the square footage of open space, and could not support the motion. In response to a question from Commr. Osborne, Deputy Director Whisenand explained that there would be some overlap between the Planning Commission and the ARC process. He anticipated the applicant would come back with a more detailed design that will be shared with the Planning Commission. It will then go to the ARC prior to receiving Council approval. The Council will then have the benefit of the Planning Commission's direction and the ARC's design issues. AYES: Commrs. Boswell, Caruso, Christianson, Cooper and Osborne NOES: Commrs. Aiken and Loh ABSENT: None REFRAIN: None The motion passed on a 5-2 vote. Chairwoman Loh suggested that one unit be used as affordable housing rather than payment of an in-lieu fee. 2. 1404 Chorro Street. ARC 187-02: Conceptual review of a new 4-unit residential condominium project; R-4-H zone; John Swift, applicant. (Phi!Dunmore) Associate Planner Phil Dunsmore presented the staff report explaining this is a conceptual review, asking the Commission for specific direction, and asking that the commission refer the project to the ARC for further review prior to returning to the Planning Commission for review of refined plans, a condominium map, and associated environmental document. Chairwoman Loh questioned how the 12.5% slope was calculated. Commr. Christianson asked for clarification between a planned development and a planned unit development. Planner Dunsmore clarified that a Planned Unit Development is a condominium development, which is simply proposing postage stamp lots instead of air-space units, but are considered under the condominium definition. A planned development is a rezoning of the property, which falls under a different category. ' _ L Attachment 6 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT ITEM# 1 VV BY: Philip Dunsmore, Associate Planner (781-7522 MEETING DATE: January 22d, 2003 FROM: Ron Whisenand, Deputy Director-Development RevieN�? FILE NUMBER: TR, ER 177-01 PROJECT ADDRESS: 1771 Johnson SUBJECT: Review of a proposed 9-unit condominium subdivision with setback exception requests and a Mitigated Negative Declaration.. SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION Recommend the Planning Commission consider the proposal and continue the project with direction to the applicant to return to the Planning Commission with refined plans following review by the Architectural Review Commission. BACKGROUND Situation The Planning Commission reviewed a 5-unit condominium project for this site on August 28, 2002. The staff report and meeting minutes are attached as items 4 and 5. The item was continued with direction to return to the Planning Commission with a project that: 1. Is more in keeping with the spirit of the R-3 district; and 2. Maximizes the unit count in order to increase the affordability of the units consistent with General Plan policies. The applicant has now completely redesigned the project site in an attempt to meet the direction of the Planning Commission and build the site to it's maximum potential. The current application is a unique proposal to construct 9 one bedroom and studio detached dwelling units on the .32-acre site. The project is proposed as a planned unit development with each detached dwelling unit on it's own individual lot. The proposed development would include demolition of the existing triplex and the 1-bedroom apartment building at the rear of the site. The condos are proposed as a Planned Unit Development (PUD), with individual lot ownership and a common owned parcel for access and open space. The applicant is also requesting a street yard setback exception for the proposed development. The project is subject to environmental review, and an Initial Study of Environmental Impact and Mitigated Negative Declaration have been prepared for the original project. The initial study will need to be revised to reflect the modified project. If the Planning Commission is satisfied with the current direction of the project, a revised initial study will return to the Planning Commission with a refined set of plans. At this time, the Planning Commission should offer direction to the -�� Attachment 6 TR, ER 177-01 (1771 Johnson) Page 2 applicant on the current proposal or offer feedback on changes that will produce a reasonable housing design for the property. The applicant should then return to the Planning Commission following review by the Architectural Review Commission in order make a recommendation on the proposed subdivision and environmental document to the City Council. Data Summary Address: 1771 Johnson Avenue Applicant/Property Owner: Richard Porter, 846 Higuera Street SLO, Ca. 93401 Representative: APS Architects Zoning: R-3 (Medium High-Density Residential) General Plan: Medium High-Density Residential Environmental Status: A Mitigated Negative Declaration was recommended by the Community Development Director on July 26, 2002. Proiect Description The project is a condominium subdivision of an existing .32-acre site. The project includes 7 one-bedroom dwellings and 2 "studio" units for a total of 9 dwellings. The site is currently developed with 4 dwellings consisting of a triplex unit and a separate one-bedroom unit. The new homes would be designed as individual detached units. The 1-bedroom units would be designed with a loft configuration with living space built above a single car garage. The studio units would have a similar configuration with less interior space and no garage. Private open space is provided primarily within small ground level yard areas. A common open space with shade trees is proposed for the center of the site. A 16-foot wide driveway would serve the units from Johnson Avenue. The driveway and common open space area will be within a separate common lot maintained by a homeowners association. Instead of typical airspace condominiums, or traditional attached townhomes, the units will be on their own small lots. EVALUATION Staff has preliminarily evaluated the project with respect to consistency with the City's General Plan, and development related codes, including the Zoning Regulations and Subdivision Regulations. Please note that the current plans are for conceptual review purposes and the applicant will return with refined plans following direction from the Planning Commission on the concept. The commission should consider each of the following issue areas prior to offering direction to the applicant. Subdivision Design The subdivision is designed with a 16-foot wide central driveway on a common lot with units oriented at either side of the driveway on individual lots. Private open space in this project is located primarily on ground level private yards at the rear of each lot. A common open space area is oriented near the center of the west property boundary. Each lot will contain an individual unit, parking space and yard area in a very compact form. If the Planning Commission likes the 1 48 Attachment TR, ER 177-01 (1771 Johnson) Page 4 approve upon request and subject to certain discretionary criteria. This site does not have physical circumstances that automatically would allow a setback exception. Granting of a setback exception will allow new residential development closer to a significant traffic noise source and cause potential line of sight issues for vehicles exiting the site onto Johnson Avenue. The environmental analysis and Initial Study prepared for the original project provides a mitigation measure that requires development to conform to existing setback standards in addition to providing noise attenuation installations for the proposed development. Staff does not support granting a setback exception for the street yard at this location. Other setback exceptions may be acceptable if the design of the project, or its impacts to health and safety, are not compromised and the project is an innovative project. At a minimum the site plan should be modified to supply required street vard.setback prior to approval of the subdivision.. If the project were to be re-designed to meet required street yard setbacks for the R-3 district, this would result in the loss of the 2 proposed studio units on the site unless the applicant could explore an attached unit configuration. Optional unit configurations should consider the street yard setback, adequate on site circulation, and the potential overlook concerns that may result from taller or higher density development. Driveway Design The proposed 16 foot wide private drive will allow for two-way traffic, but does not include space for parking. The site plan appears to meet the minimum standards to allow vehicle maneuvering but it is very tight. The precise location of the units may need to be modified to supply adequate vehicle maneuvering space. The Public Works department has reviewed the driveway design and believes it may be acceptable if vehicles are limited to right turns in and out of the property. In response to this, the applicant has prepared a driveway scenario that would help eliminate left turns in and out of the project. The conceptual driveway diagram is shown below. If the Planning Commission likes the proposed concept, the applicant will refine the drawings to provide complete parking and driveway dimensions. -' " a If the new driveway is limited to right u turns only onto Johnson Avenue how a will this affect area circulation patterns? 4� Since the majority of trips out of the subdivision have destinations that lead 7 downtown or towards highway 101, wM �" vehicles will be forced into the French Hospital parking area or be forced to ° �z turn around at another location on N Johnson Avenue in order to reach a SNao � westward destination. This scenario 5 c should be considered when offering �p direction on the proposal. 1 4-� Attachment 6 TR, ER 177-01 (1771 Johnson) Page 3 proposed site configuration the applicant will refine the drawings and detail the lot coverage, setbacks and associated property development standards. This proposal will likely require exceptions to interior lot setbacks. In the first review, the Planning Commission expressed willingness to grant exceptions for an innovative site design that maximizes the unit count. 5.49 yard r4 yat4. r0WVAo o .0 o 2 e 31vao Z 5 = 0 +•aR. +'aR y� �. yrd f �ar� 9syy' e Proposed Condominium Tract Map, 1771 Johnson N Density The proposed project meets the density standards provided in the Zoning Regulations. The following table summarizes the density unit value of the project. Lot Size Allowable Development Proposed Development .32 acres .32 x 18 = 7 one bdr * .66 unit=4.62 5.76 density units 2 studio units * .50 unit= 1.00 Total =5.62 units Setbacks In the R-3 zone, the required street yard is 15 feet and other yards have a dimension of 5 to 10 feet depending on building height. The applicant is requesting an exception to allow a 10-foot street yard setback where a 15-foot setback is normally required at Johnson Avenue. Additionally, other interior yard exceptions may be required for other units. The Zoning Ordinance provides two types of exceptions to setbacks. First, those of which the property is entitled to because of physical circumstances, and second, those which the City may Attachment 6 TR, ER 177-01 (1771 Johnson) Page 6 .II I - 1I1II1y 1y111IL-,111'{- • pai p gprA9� �ouJSIJ C1 Typical 1 bedroom unit design with single car garage. General Plan Consistency The following is an analysis of General Plan policies, goals and objectives that may pertain to the proposed development. Each of the general plan excerpts are.in italics, with a staff response following. LU Policy 2.2.12: Residential Project Objectives - Residential projects should provide: A)Privacy,for occupants and neighbors of the project; The project includes satisfactory private open space areas and private entries for each of the units. As proposed, the units may create overlook issues for neighbors on adjacent properties to the north. B) Adequate usable outdoor area, sheltered from noise and prevailing winds, and oriented to receive light and sunshine; The project appears to meet minimum outdoor open space standards. 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 project is designed with adequate solar orientation, however since the project is below the grade of the roadway and screened by significant landscape at the south property boundary, there will not be significant view potential from or toward the property. 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 a project of this scale. Colored concrete is proposed at the south edge of the driveway adjacent to units 2, 3, and 4 to serve as a pedestrian pathway, however the pathway is shown inside of the required 16-foot driveway Attachment 6 TR, ER 177-01 (1771 Johnson) Page 5 Parking The parking requirements for the project are based on the standards shown below. The project proposes 9 units and requires 14.5 parking spaces. 15 parking spaces have been provided on the conceptual site plan. Parking Requirements 1 bedroom unit= 1;5 spaces per unit Studio apt. = 1 space per unit Guest Parking.= 1 per 5 units (2 required) The Planning Commission should be aware that the project provides the adequate number of parking spaces, however the parking configuration does not allow for "visitor only" parking. Each 1-bedroom unit is designed with an outdoor parking space and a single car garage resulting in 2 parking spaces per site. Since only 1.5 parking spaces are required per 1 bedroom unit, the applicant used the additional .5 space per unit supplied to justify visitor parking. The site should be designed with at least 2 visitor-parking spaces within a common area that are reserved solely for visitors. Re-designing the site to accommodate this will result in either a loss of the common open space area or a loss of dwelling units. The common open space area is an important part of the project design and should not be considered for parking. Re-configuring the design to eliminate a unit or revising the plans to attach units may result in enough additional space to allow for visitor parking. Common and Private Open Space The units appear to meet minimum open space standards of at least 100 square feet, however the yard areas have not been clearly dimensioned on the conceptual plans. Common open space is provided in the form of a common landscape area at the center of the west property boundary. An existing Black Walnut tree is proposed to remain in this location and additional landscape is proposed at the west property boundary. Building design and orientation The units are oriented at the site with garages and entries facing the main access driveway. The site does not allow adequate space for a landscape buffer between the driveway and the units. The units are particularly tall and narrow to allow an adequate amount of floor space on a small footprint. If the Planning Commission feels the current proposal is consistent with the General plan for this R-3 site and compatible with the neighborhood, the project will be forwarded to the Architectural Review Commission for further review. 1-� Attachment 6 TR, ER 177-01 (1771 Johnson) Page 7 width. G)Adequate parking and storage space; The site contains 15 parking spaces which is the minimum requirement for the 9 units. Separate guest parking is not provided in the site design. Additionally, nearby street parking is not available on this heavily traveled section of Johnson Avenue. The site needs to function independently to supply adequate parking, maneuverability and access. Parking and access issues will need additional attention prior to acceptance of a schematic plan. H)Noise and visual separation from adjacent roads and commercial uses. The project site is subject to excessive noise levels from Johnson Avenue. As proposed, the project does not contain increased setbacks to separate dwellings from a significant noise source. The project is requesting reduced setbacks to allow units closer to Johnson Avenue, thereby potentially decreasing noise and visual separation. The project should be designed to, at a minimum, comply with standard.R-3 district setbacks of 15 feet in addition to providing noise mitigation such as sound walls. Proiect changes to reduce noise impacts should be implemented prior to acceptance of a conceptual plan. I) Design elements that facilitate neighborhood interaction, such as front porches, front yards along streets, and entryways facing public walkways. The project design will facilitate neighborhood interaction since the units and properties are small with front facing entries and shared yard areas. Land Use Element Policy 2.4.7: Medium 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. Such development is appropriate near employment centers and major public facilities. The project includes multi story detached single-family dwellings, with compact private outdoor spaces. Utilizing an innovative attached dwelling unit design for the property could increase usable outdoor open space and site circulation opportunities, while allowing for appropriate setbacks from Johnson Avenue. 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 close to the downtown planning area and is within walking distance to shops and services. Housing Element Policy 2.2.3: Creation and Preservation-Affordable Rental Housing The City will preserve and expand its supply of affordable rental housing. 4 rental units currently exist on the property proposed for subdivision and new construction. The existing rental triplex and one bedroom unit will be demolished with the proposed development. The project will create nine new individual ownership residential units. The project will be subject to Inclusionary housing requirements, requiring an affordable dwelling unit or in lieu fees Attachment 6 TR, ER 177-01 (1771 Johnson) Page 8 to be paid. 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 density of the project meets R-3 zoning district standards. The character and layout of the units, however, would be different than existing adjacent residences in the neighborhood. The project should be analyzed carefully for potential impacts to existing residences north of the property. 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 medium high-density residential development and is currently developed with apartments that are below the site's maximum potential. The project site presents a good infill opportunity for additional housing if the design can overcome some of the existing site constraints. Zoning Ordinance and Housing Variety As discussed above, this project proposes single family, individual ownership properties on land that is designated for attached Multi-Family development. The Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 17.28, describes the R-3 district: "The R-3 zone is intended primarily for smaller households desiring little private open space and to provide various types of group housing. These areas are generally close to commercial and public facilities serving the whole community and generally committed to this type of development." Development of the property with 9 units maximizes the unit count for this property as suggested by the Planning Commission. The former project proposed only 5 units for this property. Grading,Drainage and Utilities The proposed development requires grading to achieve acceptable slopes for the driveways and building pads, but generally follows the existing, natural grades of the site. Since the site slopes down from the street, drainage exits the property at the rear of the site. Future additional drainage is also proposed to be conveyed to the rear of the site, where an 18" storm drain inlet is proposed. An easement to accept the drainage will be required prior to issuance of a building permit for the project. Subdivision Findings In order to approve the proposed tentative map, the Subdivision Map Act requires the City � -54 Attachment 6 TR, ER 177-01 (1771 Johnson) Page 9 Council must make the following findings. The Planning Commission should pay special attention to the underlined findings below when considering the 9-unit proposal. If the findings can be made, and the Planning Commission feels confident with the current design proposal, the project will be forwarded to the ARC prior to returning to the Planning Commission with refined plans: 1. The proposed map is consistent with the General Plan. 2. The design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is consistent with the General Plan. 3. The site is physically suited for the proposed type of development. 4. The site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development. 5. The design of the subdivision, or the type of improvements, is not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and unavoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. 6. The design of the subdivision, or type of improvements, is not likely to cause serious public health problems. 7. That the design of the subdivision, or the type of improvements, will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, property within the proposed subdivision. Findings tailored for the specific subdivision will be crafted for the project site following review of a refined set of drawings upon returning to the Planning Commission. Compliance with Planning Commission Direction As mentioned earlier, the item was continued with direction to return to the Planning Commission with a project that is more in keeping with the spirit of the R-3 district and maximizes the unit count in order to increase the affordability of the units. There is no doubt that the unit count has been maximized for the property, likely increasing the affordability of the units. The primary question remains as to whether this unique approach is more in keeping with the R-3 district. The project still proposes single-family detached, individual ownership properties where typical R-3 development more often consists of attached apartment style housing. The Commission should provide specific direction as to whether the applicants "detached" style of development can be accommodated on this constrained site. The property may be a good site for infill housing as it is an R-3 site close to the downtown area and available services. As proposed, however, the project may need some changes in order to create reasonably designed housing, free of circulation constraints, for this challenging site. Staff understands the extreme need for housing however, basic design, safety and housing quality needs should not be overlooked. The project should be continued with direction from Planning Commission. Attachment 6 TR, ER 177-01 (1771 Johnson) Page 10 RECCOMENDATION Recommend the Planning Commission consider the proposal and continue the project with specific direction to staff and the applicant. Staff recommends the Planning Commission deny the setback exception request and offer direction to the applicant on any changes necessary to support approval of the project. ALTERNATIVES 1. Recommend approval of the project to the City Council and forward the project to the Architectural Review Commission for refinements that will bring the project to a reasonable level of conformance with the General Plan. 2. 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." Attachments: Attachment 1: Vicinity Map Attachment 2: Reduced Size Development Plan Attachment 3: Property Improvement Standards for New Condominium Subdivisions (SLOMC 17.82.140) Attachment 4: Staff report, August 28, 2002 Attachment 5: Planning Commission Meeting Minutes August 28, 2002 G:\GROUPS\COMDEV\CD-PLAN\Pdunsmore\Subdivisions\TR 177-01 (1771 Johnson)\Staff rpt (#2) 177-01. 1 22-03.DOC r -s� ARC Minutes Attachment 7 June 16, 2003 - Page 5 3. 1771 Johnson Avenue. ARC 177-01; Review of nine attached and detached condominium units to replace existing apartments; R-3 zone; Richard Porter, applicant. Associate Planner Philip Dunsmore presented the staff report, and asked the .Commission to give direction on changes to the project, with the final plans to return to the ARC following approval of the project and subdivision map by the Planning Commission. Commr. Boudreau asked if the culvert is an easement. Planner Dunsmore replied there is a deep culvert on the hospital property that runs between these properties, but noted there isn't an easement on this property Mark Rawson, Project Architect, 444 Higuera Street, gave an overview of the project and noted great potential because of its proximity to downtown. He explained they were proposing to build five 2- and 3-bedroom homes, but the Planning Commission saw a need for smaller size and greater number of homes. Chairperson Stevenson asked if the property owner has considered limiting the number of cars that can be kept at the site, and how they plan to deal with the parking maneuverability. Mr. Rawson replied that the turning templates are not an exact science and felt it is a little on the conservative side. He commented that they are going to let the maneuverability dictate how many units they could create. Commr. Howard asked for suggestions on how to exit Johnson Avenue. Planner Dunsmore noted there wasn't a way to completely prohibit left turns out of.the project site. Commr. Wilhelm noted there is a mechanism in the Parking and Driveway Standards that if the space is widened by 2-feet the backup space could be increased or decreased. Mr. Rawson responded they meet all the minimum size requirements in the Parking and Driveway Standards. Commr. Boudreau asked if there is room to move the building towards the hospital. Mr. Rawson replied yes, it is physically possible and an interesting concept, but would prefer not to because they were trying to keep some space between the back of the unit and the property line. Commr. Smith questioned if the turning radius and maneuverability is in the purview of the ARC. I - 57 ARC Minutes June 16, 200$ Attachment 7 Page 6 Chairperson Stevenson replied yes, and a pertinent issue because it is a design problem. Commr. Lopes suggested having higher windows. Planner Dunsmore pointed out the suggestion in the staff report to push the top level out further. The Commission discussed in depth the maneuverability of the parking, the size of units, exiting onto Johnson Avenue, and several other concerns. Mr. Rawson felt they could come back with resolutions to the issues regarding maneuverability, colors, window details, moving the building one-foot closer to one side or the other, and adding obscure glass. He hoped the.issues could be resolved at the staff level. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Steve Delmartini, 962 Mill Street, felt the Commission should eliminate parking to allow more units. He felt it is unfortunate that San Luis Obispo does not have a PD zoning on less than one acre and pointed out the difficulties of infill development and the need for flexibility to make them work. There were no further comments made from the public. COMMISSION COMMENTS: Commr. Wilhelm commented that the applicant is going to have to come back with Public Works approval on the access issue, and feels he could support this if any of those instances where staff encountered more than two maneuvers to exit. He mentioned he would like if the applicant would take into serious consideration to change the garage door to ten feet. Chairperson Stevenson commented that he would like to see a reduction in the number of guest parking spaces and the unit increased in width by 1-2 feet. Planner Dunsmore noted that the parking is at minimum requirements. Commr. Wilhelm moved final approval of the project with the following comments: that the applicant be required to pursue a 10- foot porthole in the openings where staff has determined that more than two maneuvers are required; and to give the designer the prerogative or condition to require them to move the building closer to Johnson Avenue; and windows would be designed in such a way to not allow overlook. Seconded by Commr. Root. There was discussion on the turnaround issue and attached vs. detached units. l--5$ ARC Minutes June 16,2003 Attachment 7 Page 7 The commission discussed schematic architecture. Chairperson Stevenson noted the commission is not comfortable with the architecture, but would like to approve the project so it could go on to the Planning Commission and but that the applicant should come back with the elevations. He suggested this item be continued to a date certain. Planner Dunsmore suggested the Commission grant schematic approval with those issues to come after Planning Commission review. After much discussion, the applicant gave a brief explanation on the schematic architecture for the project. Chairperson Stevenson suggested adding to the motion: Condition 2. that colors, materials, and window details as described at the meeting. Comms. Smith felt traffic mitigation should have been addressed. A note to staff that the approval was denying detached units and architecture to be resolved with staff. AYES: Commrs. Wilhelm, Root, Boudreau, Howard, Lopes, Smith, & Stevenson NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None The motion carried on a 7-0 vote. 4. Downtown Core Area. ARC 73-03; Review of proposed replacement recycling containers for the Downtown Core Area; City of SLO Utilities Department, applicant. Associate Planner Philip Dunsmore presented the staff report recommending final approval of the project, based on findings. Peter Craum, Integrated Waste Management, noted there is funding from the conservation end and their intent is to address the containers in the downtown. He explained the original green and tan containers were purchased through a grant and have worn poorly, but noted the proposed containers are designed to function well. He explained that they presently only offer one style in stainless steel. PUBLIC COMMENTS: There were no comments made from the public. COMMISSION COMMENTS:. Comms Howard moved final approval of the project based on the findings.. Seconded by Commr. Boudreau. Attachment 8 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 3 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT BY: Philip Dunsmore, Associate Planner (781-7522) MEETING DATE: June 16`h, 2003 FROM: Ron Whisenand, Deputy Director- Development Revie< FILE NUMBER: ARC 177-01 \\ PROJECT ADDRESS: 1771 Johnson SUBJECT: Architectural Review of site plan and elevations of a proposed 9-unit condominium subdivision. SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION Offer direction on changes to the project with final plans to return to ARC following approval of the project and subdivision map by the Planning Commission. BACKGROUND Situation The Planning Commission originally reviewed a 5-unit condominium project for this .32-acre site on August 28, 2002. The item was continued with direction to return to the Planning Commission with a project that: 1. Is more in keeping with the spirit of the R-3 district; and 2. Maximizes the unit count in order to increase the affordability of the units consistent with General Plan policies. The applicant redesigned the project site in order to meet the direction of the Planning Commission and build the site to it's maximum potential. The applicant returned to the Planning Commission on January 22nd, 2003 with a proposal to construct 9 detached dwelling units on the site. The staff report and meeting minutes are attached as item 4. The Planning Commission reviewed the project and offered the following direction: 1. Attach the 2 proposed studio units to the proposed 1-bedroom units to allow a greater setback and a visitor parking space. 2. Examine the project for overlook issues, adequate private open space calculations, adequate driveway maneuvering distance, safety & sight distance, pedestrian access, solar access, landscape buffers, and move the front entry doors up to or forward of the garage. The Planning Commission asked staff to bring the project back for a final review following review and direction by the Architectural Review Commission. Now the project has been modified in an attempt to address Planning Commission direction. At this time the ARC should review the project design and site plan. Special consideration should be given to the list of items y /1`\ - Attachment 8 ARC 177-01 (1771 Jolu,...,n)June 16, 2003 _- Page 2 _ offered as Planning Commission direction from the January 22"d hearing, item#2 above. Data Summary Address: 1771 Johnson Avenue Applicant/Property Owner: Richard Porter, 846 Higuera Street SLO, Ca. 93401 Representative: APS Architects Zoning: R-3 (Medium High-Density Residential) General Plan: Medium High-Density Residential Environmental Status: A Mitigated Negative Declaration was recommended by the Community Development Director on July 26, 2002 (attachment 4). Proiect Description This unique project is a condominium subdivision of an existing .32-acre site. The project includes 7 one-bedroom dwellings and 2 "studio' units for a total of 9 dwellings. The site is currently developed with 4 dwellings consisting of a triplex unit and a separate one-bedroom unit built above a 3-car garage. Plans propose demolition of the existing structures to allow the new construction. 5 of the new homes would be designed as individual detached units, while 4 of the units would be attached in pairs at the front of the site. The I-bedroom units would be designed with a loft configuration with living space built above a single car garage. The studio units would be attached, single story construction with no garage. A 16-foot wide driveway would serve the units from Johnson Avenue. The driveway and common open space area will be within a separate common lot maintained by a homeowners association. Instead of typical airspace condominiums, or traditional attached townhomes, the units will be on independent lots. The inclusion of a separate common lot for the driveway and open space will allow the project to meet the definition of a condominium or "common interest subdivision" as defined by the California Civil Code, Section 1350. Although the Planning Commission has given the applicant direction to attach the 2 studio units nearest Johnson Avenue to the 1-bedroom units, the applicant would like to attach only one of the studio units, thereby resulting in 7 detached and 2 attached units. The figures and exhibits shown in this staff report represent the design with both units attached as recommended by the Planning Commission and supported by staff. A copy of the applicant's favored site plan is provided in the reduced project plans, attachment 2. EVALUATION Staff has evaluated the project with respect to consistency with the City's General Plan, development related codes, the Community Design Guidelines and direction from the Planning Commission. The project will be subject to the City's development standards for the R-3 district as well as the City's Condominium standards. The ARC should consider each of the following issue areas prior to offering direction to the applicant or approving the project design: Nb t/�� ARC 177-01 (1771 Johnb.,n)June 16, 2003 Attachment 8 Page 3_ Site Plan The project is designed with a 16-foot wide central driveway on a common lot with units oriented at either side of the driveway on individual lots. Private open space in this project is located primarily on ground level private yards within each lot. How the private open space areas would function, or exactly what portion of the yards dedicated to qualifying private open space has not yet been determined. It should be noted,however that the rear yards area for all of the units are approximately 6 to 7 feet wide directly below a 29 foot tall wall. On north elevations this would result in total shade. The rear yards are probably not conducive to usable yard area. Perhaps the small yard areas in front of the parking spaces could be utilized as private open space yards. A small common open space area is oriented near the center of the west property boundary. Each lot will contain an individual unit, parking space and yard area in a very compact form. /" �� �i _ iI �I f:. X19• i I -;h� A. _... i �poop, r /1�� I . i l.....r i _f `` 11 m.. 7 1 g N Proposed Site Plan, 1771 Johnson Density The proposed project meets the density standards provided in the Zoning Regulations. The following table summarizes the density unit value of the project. L\ -�Or- ARC 177-01 (1771 Johrsvn)June 16, 2003 Attachment 8 Page 4 Lot?Size. Allowable Develo _hent Pro osed D,evelo 'ment.„ „- .32 acres .32 x 18 = 7 one bdr * .66 unit=4.62 5.76 density units 2 studio units * .50 unit= 1.00 Total=5.62 units Setbacks In the R-3 zone, the required street yard is 15 feet and other yards have a dimension of 5 to 10 feet depending on building height. The site plan, as shown above, meets the street yard setback requirements however other setback exceptions will be necessary for all of the interior lot lines. The site plan favored by the applicant (as shown in the alternate exhibit on attachment 2) will require both a street yard setback exception and side yard setback exceptions. As proposed, the rear yard of each of the residences facing adjacent properties varies between 6-feet, 9-inches to 7 feet. Since the average height of each of the 1-bedroom units is approximately 29 feet, the Zoning Ordinance specifies a setback of 8.5 feet. As noted in the list of Planning Commission direction items from the January 22nd hearing, overlook and solar access are issues that need to be addressed. The proposed site plan does not address overlook and solar access as the units at the northwest property line will overlook adjacent properties and potentially limit solar access to properties located to the north. This site does not appear to have physical circumstances that would warrant setback exceptions. Granting of a setback exception at the street yard will allow new residential development closer to a significant traffic noise source and cause potential line of sight issues for vehicles exiting the site onto Johnson Avenue. The environmental analysis and Initial Study prepared for the original project provides a mitigation measure that requires development to conform to existing setback standards in addition to providing noise attenuation installations for the proposed development. Staff does not support granting a setback exception for the street yard or other yards that are adjacent to the north property line at this location. Other setback exceptions may be acceptable at the south property line or for interior lot lines if the design of the project, or its impacts to health and safety are not compromised. Parking and Access The proposed 16-foot wide private drive allows for two-way traffic serving the project from the existing driveway entrance at Johnson Avenue near the intersection of Lizzie Street. As discussed at the January Planning Commission hearing, the proposed site plan has the following parking and access deficiencies: 1. Several of the units will require more than 2 maneuvers in order to enter and exit the driveway or garage parking space and leave the site in a forward position. As proposed, the site is very tight for vehicle access. 2. The site driveway is unusually close to Lizzie Street and the French Hospital entrance, therefore making left turns into or out of the project site unsafe. The Public Works department will approve the circulation design only if the project is able to prohibit left turns into or out of the site. If the new driveway is limited to right turns only onto Johnson 1--(�3 Attachment 8 ARC 177-01 (1771 John.,.,n) June 16, 2003 Page 5 Avenue how will this affect area circulation patterns? Since the majority of trips out of the subdivision have destinations that lead downtown or towards highway 101, vehicles will be forced into the French Hospital parking area or be forced to tum around at another location on Johnson Avenue in order to reach a westward destination. This scenario should be considered when offering direction on the proposal. Additionally, the proposed driveway control median at the entrance, although designed to prevent dangerous left turns, may increase driveway hazards and limit maneuverability to the first driveway on the north side of the property. 3. The site does not contain dedicated guest parking and Johnson Avenue is not amiable for easy parking. 4. The site plan does not provide for a dedicated vehicle turn-around. The parking requirements for the project are based on the standards shown below. The project proposes 9 units and requires 15 parking spaces. 15 parking spaces have been provided on the conceptual site plan. Parking Requirements 1 bedroom unit= 1.5 spaces per unit Studio apt. = 1 space per unit Guest Parking= 1 per 5 units(2 required) In order for the site to function efficiently,staff recommends the following: A. Design all parking spaces and garages to allow vehicles to enter and exit in a forward position in 2 maneuvers or less. B. Provide a dedicated"hammerhead"tum-around at the end of the driveway. C. Provide at least 2 dedicated visitor parking spaces. Community Design Guidelines Although the project does have some inherent problems with access and overlook, these issues are mainly due to the site's small size and the fact that the applicant would like to build the site to it's maximum density as originally recommended by the Planning Commission. The "problems" however are further exacerbated by a design that proposes detached residences rather than attached apartment or townhouse style space conserving development. The aesthetic appearance, however, of a detached group of units, however, maybe superior to an attached group of units with a large carport or row of parking. Staff has chosen the following excerpts from'the Design Guidelines to be carefully compared to the proposed development plan. The ARC should analyze these and other components of the Community Design Guidelines when offering direction on the project: 2.1 Site Design B. Consider the context. Review existing development near the site and consider how the project can be designed to ft in with the best examples of appropriate site design and architecture in the vicinity of the site. - ' Attachment 8 ARC 177-01 (1771 Joh6z,4jn)June 16, 2003 Page 6 C. Site function. The various activities and elements proposed on a site should be logically located so the project will operate efficiently, and effectively address the needs of all users. D. Provide pleasing transitions. Attention should be given to the transition between the street and the project through definition of the building entry, walkways and landscaping. 5.2 -Subdivision Design and General Residential Project Principles A.,Develop "neighborhoods."Each new residential proiect.should be designed to integrate with the surrounding neighborhood to ensure that it maintains the established character. Subdivisions in City expansion areas should be designed so that individual, separately developed projects work together to create distinct neighborhoods, instead of disjointed or isolated enclaves. G. Windows. Where one or more windows are proposed 10 feet or less from a side lot line, or within 10 feet of another dwelling, the windows should be located and/or screened to provide privacy for the residents of both structures. In some cases, glass block or translucent glass may be appropriate to provide light, but also provide privacy between buildings. 5.3-Infill Development A. General principles. Infill residential development should: 1. Be compatible in scale siting detailing and overall character with adjacent buildings and those in the immediate neighborhood. This is crucial when a new or remodeled house is proposed to be larger than others in the neighborhood. When new homes are developed adjacent to older ones, the height and bulk of the new construction can have a negative impact on adjacent, smaller scale buildings. 2. Continue existing neighborhood patterns. For example, patterns such as front porches and entries facing the street,finished floor height, and garages located at the rear of lots. B. Building design.An infill residential structure should incorporate the traditional architectural characteristics of existing houses in the neighborhood, including window and door spacing, exterior materials, roof style and pitch, ornamentation and other details. C. Visual impacts from building height. The height of infill projects should be consistent with of surrounding residential structures. Where greater height is desired an infill structure should set back upper floors from the edge of the first story to reduce impacts on adiacent smaller homes, and to protect-solar access. D. Outdoor living areas. The use of balconies, verandas, porches, and courtyards within the building form of infill structures is strongly encouraged. 5.4-Multi-Family and Clustered Housing Design A. Site planning. Site planning for a multi family or clustered housing project should create a pleasant, comfortable, safe, and distinct place for residents, without the project "turning its back"on the surrounding neighborhood 1. The placement of new units should consider the existing character of the surrounding residential area..New development should respect the privacy of adjacent residential uses through appropriate building orientation and structure height, so that windows do not overlook and impair the privacy of the indoor or outdoor living space of adjacent units. w7�ti Attachment 8 ARC 177-01 (1771 Johh.vn) June 16, 2003 Page 7 2. Multi family units should be clustered. A project of more than 10 units outside the Downtown should separate the units into structures of six or fewer units. Multi family structures should be set back from adjacent public streets consistent with the prevailing setback pattern of the immediate neighborhood.. 3. Lower density multi family projects should be comprised of "walk-up" rather than "stacked" units, with each unit adjacent to a street having its primary pedestrian entrance from the street sidewalk. Higher density projects should be designed either with ground floor units having individual sidewalk entrances, or as courtyard projects with at least one significant pedestrian entrance from the street sidewalk. Where individual units have access to the street sidewalk, private 'front yard" outdoor space may be differentiated from the public right-of-way by a porch, or small yard enclosed by a low fence. Residential units.and activity areas not adiacent to a street should be accessible via Pedestrian walkways and bikeways separate from vehicle parking areas and driveways. In summary, the guidelines repeatedly suggest a careful review of neighborhood compatibility. Staff is especially concerned about the building height and potential overlook onto properties located to the northwest of the site. The southeast side of the project is adjacent to French Hospital, the rear of the site is adjacent to vacant property and the northwest side of the property is adjacent to single family residences that were constructed in the 1920's. The property opposite the site is also dominated with single-family residences that were constructed in the 1920's. The ARC should consider whether the proposed project is in character with the site and vicinity and whether the project complies with the Community Design.Guidelines. Additionally, the ARC should examine whether the parking, access, open space, pedestrian linkage and individual private open spaces will effectively address the needs of all users at the property. Building design and orientation The units are oriented at the site with garages and entries facing the main access driveway. The narrow site does not allow for a landscape buffer between the driveway and the units. The units are particularly tall and narrow to allow an adequate amount of floor space on a small footprint. The upper floor cantilevers towards the front and side slightly to produce a somewhat top-heavy compact building design. The design of the units is, however, somewhat interesting with horizontal siding varying roof forms and ample windows. 24 _4 ' ^ Typical 1 bedroom unit design with single car garage. - Attachment 8 ARC 177-01 (1771 Johfiwn)June 16, 2003 Page 9 ALTERNATIVES 1. Approve the project design and forward the project to the Planning Commission for approval of the subdivision map and associated improvements. 2. Continue the item with specific direction to the applicant for items to return to the ARC prior to proceeding to the Planning Commission. Findings 1. 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 and it is close to the downtown and associated services. 2. As conditioned, the site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development because the site is within an existing residential developed site adjacent to existing roadways and additional residential dwellings, services are available to serve the development, and utilities have been designed to serve the site per City standards. 3. The project, as conditioned, is consistent with the Community Design Guidelines because it provides infill housing with an adequate site layout and appropriate architectural features for the scale and style of development. 4. The housing design is compatible with the R-3 site and surrounding neighborhood since it replaces existing multi family residential housing and creates a transition between existing residential and commercial properties. 5. As conditioned the project's design will not be detrimental to the health, safety or welfare of persons residing in the project or living or working within the project vicinity.. Conditions 1. This project shall be subject to additional conditions as associated with the Tract Map, TR 177-01 and mitigation measures,ER-177-01. 2. Colors, materials and window details shall be clearly identified on the plans and reviewed and approved by the Community Development Department prior to submitting plans for building plan check. 3. At least 2 dedicated visitor parking spaces shall be provided on the site plan. 4. At least 25% of the common driveway and private outdoor driveway areas shall be designed with pervious surfaces such as pavers or turf block. 5. A vehicle turn around space shall be provided in the common lot or within an easement on a private lot. Attachment 8 ARC 177-01 (1771 Johnson)June 16, 2003 Page 8 Elevation of proposed row of units as seen facing south towards French Hospital A view of the northwest elevation (facing the interior driveway) towards French hospital shows how the typical layout of the units will function in relation to Johnson Avenue at the left. The unit on the far left incorporates an attached studio unit. Note the horizontal siding, variation in roof forms, garage doors and adequate window placement- all features that contribute to an interesting and aesthetically pleasing design. No Johnson Avenue elevation (east elevation) has been provided at this time. Staff believes that this elevation will ultimately be important in order to obtain the visual relationship between units down the access drive. General Plan Consistency The attached Planning Commission staff report contains a discussion of General Plan goals and policies as they relate to the proposed project. Grading,Drainage and Utilities The proposed development requires grading to achieve acceptable slopes for the driveways and building pads, but generally follows the existing, natural grades of the site. Since the site slopes down from the street, drainage exits the property at the rear of the site. Future additional drainage will be conveyed to the rear of the site, where an 18" storm drain inlet is proposed. An easement to accept the drainage will be required prior to issuance of a building permit for the project. RECCOMENDATION Recommend the Architectural Review Commission offer direction to the project with final plans to return to ARC following approval of the project and subdivision map by the Planning Commission. Findings and Conditions for approval of the project have been provided should the ARC wish to grant schematic approval to the project design and refer the item to the Planning Commission for final consideration of the tract map. Attachment 8 ARC 177-01 (1771 Johnbun)June 16, 2003 Page 10 6. A complete landscape plan that provides for drought tolerant trees, shrubs and groundcover shall be submitted with the building plan check for review and approval. The landscape plan should list plant species, sizes, numbers of plants, and identify irrigation systems. 7. No trees shall be removed from the site unless approved by the City arborist and the Community Development Department. 8. Usable amenities including a pathway, lawn area and a bench shall be provided within the common open space area. 9. A common address sign shall be placed at the driveway intersection with Johnson Avenue. Address sign shall list all unit addresses and shall be reviewed with architectural plans for consistency with the proposed subdivision and the existing neighborhood. 10. Based on anticipated traffic conflicts at the driveway entrance to this project,the subdivider shall execute an agreement and post a guarantee with the City to install any necessary onsite and/or offsite improvements or signs to mitigate any apparent traffic safety problems that may occur within two (2) years after occupancy of the proposed residences, to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director. The development site plan shall incorporate adequate measures to preclude left turns into and/or out of the site to accommodate this condition. 11. Johnson Avenue Access: the project's Johnson Avenue driveway shall be designed to limit access to right-inhight out movements only. The developer shall submit a specific design for this driveway to the City Traffic Engineer for review and approval. The design shall reinforce the desired access restrictions. 12. The site plan should evaluate and consider and redesign the site to incorporate a possible future driveway connection to the French Hospital site that would provide direct access to the Lizzie St. traffic signal. This connection would be subject to obtaining rights from the French Hospital owner. A master plan for the hospital campus included a driveway extension from the FairviewBreck intersection that could possibly allow for the connection. It may be possible to provide for a public street connection, instead of a private driveway, to eliminate traffic conflicts at the Breck/Johnson intersection. Code Requirements Public works 1. Provide a blanket utilities easement, outside building areas, and a public pedestrian easement behind the proposed driveway ramp, if needed to accommodate the ADA requirements. A street-type entrance maybe required by the Public Works Director to provide for easier access into the site from Johnson Avenue. � C�c� Attachment 8 ARC 177-01 (1771 Johnbun) June 16, 2003 Page 11 2. The parking as shown on the revised submittal does not comply with the Parking and Driveway Standards for maneuverability into several of the garages. The IS`surface parking space does not work without driving down the driveway and turning around. Revise the drive aisle width, widen the garage door openings, and eliminate the wing walls at the openings as necessary to achieve reasonable access into and out of each garage in one turning motion. 3. The directional island at the driveway approach off of Johnson is approved in concept to limit access to and from this development with right-in and right-out turning movements only. The detail shown does not comply with city or generally accepted traffic engineering standards and ADA requirements but is approved in concept. Utilities 4. A water allocation is required,due to the additional demand on the City's water supplies. The City currently has water to allocate, and does so on a"first-come, fust-served"basis. Water is allocated at the time building permits are issued and the Water Impact Fee is paid. 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. 5. Each parcel is to have its own separate water service laterals. Existing water and sewer services shall be properly relocated and resized, if necessary, to ensure that each parcel is appropriately served in accordance with City standards. A common sewer can be used if properly designed and included in the homeowners' maintenance agreement(CC&Rs)for common facilities. 6. 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. 7. The demolition of the existing building triggers the Utilities Department Sewer Lateral Abandonment Policy. This policy states that the existing sewer lateral(s)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. Transportation 8. Bicycle Parking: project shall provide bicycle parking.for guests and tenants consistent with Section 17.16.060,Table 6.5 of the Zoning Regulations. I -70 Attachment 8 ARC 177-01 (1771 Joh....jn)June 16, 2003 Page 12 9. Staff Comment: this site is too close to the Lizzie Street intersection to provide for left in or left out traffic movements without creating potential safety problems. While the previous project submittals were marginally acceptable given the limited number of units served,this particular proposal would create excessive access demand to all for these movements on Johnson Avenue. 10. Achieving an access easement through the adjoining French Hospital property to provide access to the Lizzie Street intersection is also desirable and could be justified as a condition of approval if we believe that access restrictions at the Johnson Avenue driveway will not be effective. However, making this judgment will depend on the design of the driveway itself. Attachments: Attachment 1: Vicinity Map Attachment 2: Reduced Size Development Plans Attachment 3: Planning Commission Staff report and Meeting Minutes January 22"d, 2003 Attachment 4: Mitigated Negative Declaration,July 26, 2002 11 x 17 plans were distributed in the ARC packet and a full size plan is available for review at the Community Development Department. A colors and materials board is not yet available. -'7/ Attachment 9 h�����INI�IIIIIh III CI of sAn luis oBispo 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 November 10, 2003 Richard and Jennifer Porter 846 Higuera Street, #8 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 SUBJECT: ARC 177-01: 1771 Johnson Avenue Review of modification to approved ARC plans to allow nine detached units Dear Mr. Porter: The Architectural Review Commission, at its meeting of November 3, 2003, granted final approval to the project to allow 9 detached dwelling units, subject to the following findings, conditions and code requirements: Findin s 1. 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 and it is close to the downtown and associated services. 2. As conditioned, the site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development because the site is within an existing residential developed site adjacent to existing roadways and additional residential dwellings. Services are available to serve the development, and utilities have been designed to serve the site per City standards. 3. The project, as conditioned, is consistent with the Community Design Guidelines because it provides infill housing with an adequate site layout and appropriate architectural features for the scale and style of development. 4. The housing design is compatible with the R-3 site and surrounding neighborhood since it replaces existing multi family residential housing and creates a transition between existing residential and commercial properties. 5. As conditioned, the project's design will not be detrimental to the health, safety or welfare of persons residing in the project, living, or working within the project vicinity. 6. A street yard of not less than 10 feet is appropriate for the proposed development since existing construction on the site is developed with a lesser setback with no apparent conflicts, and adjacent properties have street yards that average less than 10 feet. The reduced street yard will allow the interior spaces and building separations to be increased, enhancing the livability of the units. 7. A reduced rear yard setback is appropriate for units directly adjacent to the south property line nearest French Hospital since there will be no potential for limiting solar access, and no potential for overlook considering the slope and adjacent commercial use of the property. OThe City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services,programs and activities. �� Telecommunications Device for the Deaf(805)781-7410. [ /) ARC 177-01: 1771 Johns wenue Page 2 Attachment 9 Conditions 1. This project shall be subject to additional conditions as associated with the Tract Map, TR 177-01 and mitigation measures, ER-177-01. 2. The project design approval allows for the development of 9 detached single family units, consisting of the following: 7 one bedroom units in a three story configuration with an enclosed garage and a maximum height of 33 feet 6 inches, and 2 studio units with parking in enclosed garages below the units and a maximum height of 27 feet, 6 inches. 3. Colors, materials and window details shall be clearly identified on the plans, reviewed, and approved by the Community Development Department prior to submitting plans for building plan check. a. Exposed rafter tails shall be utilized. b. A variety of colors shall be utilized for each of the units. c. Wood siding or hardi-plank siding with a 4"width shall be utilized for siding materials. d. Decorative sills, corbel details, bracing and outrigger details shall be used where appropriate. e. Windows shall be double or single hung vinyl windows with grids in the upper half. f. Decorative attic vents shall be utilized. 4. At least one dedicated visitor parking space shall be provided on the site plan. 5. At least 25% of the common driveway and private outdoor driveway areas shall be designed with pervious surfaces such as pavers or turf block. 6. A vehicle turn around space shall be provided in the common lot or within an easement on a private lot. 7. The roof pitch for units 1 and 5 nearest Johnson Avenue shall be adjusted in order to reduce the overall height of the structures by a minimum of 2 feet. 8. A complete landscape plan that provides for drought tolerant trees, shrubs and groundcover shall be submitted with the building plan check for review and approval. The landscape plan should list plant species, sizes, numbers of plants,.and identify irrigation systems. 9. No trees shall be removed from the site unless approved by the City arborist and the Community Development Department. 10. Usable amenities including a pathway, lawn area, and a bench shall be provided within the common open space area. 11. A common address sign shall be placed at the driveway intersection with Johnson Avenue. The address sign shall list all unit addresses and shall be reviewed with architectural plans for consistency with the proposed subdivision and the existing neighborhood. 12. Based on anticipated traffic conflicts at the driveway entrance to this.project, the subdivider shall execute an agreement, and post a guarantee with the City to install any necessary onsite and/or offsite improvements or signs, to mitigate any apparent traffic safety problems that may occur within two (2) years after occupancy of the proposed residences, to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director. The development site plan shall 1 =�3 ARC 177-01: 1771 Johnsc, .:venue Attachment 9 Page 3 incorporate adequate measures to preclude left turns into and/or out of the site to accommodate this condition. 13. Johnson Avenue Access: the project's Johnson Avenue driveway shall be designed to limit access to right-in/right-out movements only. The developer shall submit a specific design for this driveway to the City Traffic Engineer for review and approval. The design shall reinforce the desired access restrictions. 14. The site plan should evaluate, consider, and redesign the site to incorporate a possible future driveway connection to the French Hospital site that would provide direct access to the Lizzie Street traffic signal. This connection would be subject to obtaining rights from the French Hospital owner. A master plan for the hospital campus included a driveway extension from the Fairview/Breck intersection that could possibly allow for the connection. It may be possible to provide for a public street connection, instead of a private driveway, to eliminate traffic conflicts at the Breck/Johnson intersection. Code Requirements The following code requirements are included for information purposes only. They serve to give the applicant a general idea of other City requirements that will apply to the project. This is not intended to be an exhaustive list as other requirements may be identified during the plan check process. Public Works 1. Provide a blanket utilities easement, outside building areas, and a public pedestrian easement behind the proposed driveway ramp, if needed to accommodate the ADA requirements. A street-type entrance may be required by the Public Works Director to provide for easier access into the site from Johnson Avenue. 2. The directional island at the driveway approach off of Johnson is approved in concept to limit access to and from this development with right-in and right-out turning movements only. The detail shown does not comply with city or generally accepted traffic engineering standards and ADA requirements, but is approved in concept. 3. Prior to proceeding to Planning Commission for action on the map, prepare a concept showing how the project will allow access at the rear of the site, linking with the potential expansion of the French Hospital parking lot. Utilities 4. A water allocation is required, due to the additional demand on the City's water supplies.. The City currently has water to allocate, and does so on a "first-come, first-served" basis. Water is allocated at the time building permits are issued and the Water Impact Fee is paid. 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. 5. Each parcel is to have its own separate water service laterals. Existing water and sewer services shall be properly relocated and resized, if necessary, to ensure that each parcel is appropriately served in accordance with City standards. A common sewer can be used if properly designed and included in the homeowners' maintenance agreement (CC&Rs) for common facilities. ARC 177-01: 1771 Johns kvenue Page 4 Attachment 6. 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. 7. The demolition of the existing building triggers the Utilities Department Sewer Lateral Abandonment Policy. This policy states that the existing sewer lateral(s) 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. Transportation 8. Bicycle Parking: project shall provide bicycle parking for guests and tenants consistent with Section 17.16.060, Table 6.5 of the Zoning Regulations. 9. Staff Comment:this site is too close to the Lizzie Street intersection to provide for left in or left out traffic movements without creating potential safety problems. While the previous project submittals were marginally acceptable given the limited number of units served,this particular proposal would create excessive access demand to all for these movements on Johnson Avenue. 10. Achieving an access easement through the adjoining French Hospital property to provide access to the Lizzie Street intersection is also desirable and could be justified as a condition of approval if we believe that access restrictions at the Johnson Avenue driveway will not be effective. However, making this judgment will depend on the design of the driveway itself. The decision of the Commission is final unless appealed to the City Council within 10 days of the action. Any person aggrieved by the decision may file an appeal. Appeal forms are available in the City Clerk's office, or on the City's website (slocity.org). The fee for filing an appeal is $100.00, and must accompany the appeal documentation. 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 Phil Dunsmore at 781-7522. Sincerely, U %LGJ Pamela Ricci, AIC Senior Planner Community Development cc: County of SLO Assessor's Office Mark Rawson, APS Architects, 444 Higuera Street, Suite 201, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Planning Commission Mir` Attachment 10 November 19,2003 Page 3 COMMISSION COMMENTS: There was much discussion on the problem of drainage in this area. Hearing Officer Ronald Whisenand clarified Finding 1 and gave a brief explanation why the finding was made. Chairperson Osborne suggested the language of Finding 1 be modified to state, "will improve drainage of the property at 1730 Alisal Avenue." Commr. Christianson moved to deny the appeal and uphold the Administrative Hearing Officer's action to approve the fence height exception with Finding 1 amended to read. "no public purpose is served by strict compliance with the City's Fence Height Standards° and not address the drainage issue. Seconded by Commr. Cooper. Commr. Loh noted that she could not support the motion because the drainage issues should be addressed. AYES: Commrs. Christianson, Cooper, and Chairperson Osborne NOES: Commr. Loh ABSENT: Commrs. Aiken, Boswell, and Vice-Chair Caruso. ABSTAIN: None The motion carried on a 3:1 vote. Assistant City Attorney Gil Trujillo noted that this item may be appealed to the City Council within 10 days. 3. 1771 Johnson Avenue. TR/ER/A 177-01; Review of tentative tract map for a common interest subdivision creating 9 lots from 2 lots, with request to allow reduced street yards from 15 feet to 10 feet, including Environmental Review; R-3 zone; Richard Porter, applicant. Associate Planner Philip Dunsmore presented the staff report recommending the Planning Commission adopt a resolution recommending the City Council approve the subdivision map and environmental document. Mark Rawson, Project Architect, 444 Higuera Street, concurred with the staff recommendation, and asked the Commission to recommend approval of the project. PUBLIC COMMENTS; Steve Delmartini, 962 Mill Street, felt there should be flexible standards on these infill developments that are located in rather poor locations. MaryBeth Schroeder, 2085 Wilding Lane, commented that this is not a perfect infill location and felt there are too many units being crowded on a small piece of land. "7(p Planning Commission Mir November 19,2003 — Attachment 10 Page 4 There were no further comments made from the public. COMMISSION COMMENTS: Commr. Loh moved the staff recommendation with Code Re_guirement 21 deleted. Seconded by Commr. Cooper. Deputy Director Ronald Whsenand reiterated that the staff recommendation includes a recommendation to the City Council for approving the project, which includes adoption of the Mitigated Negative Declaration. AYES: Commrs. Loh, Cooper, Christianson, and Chairperson Osborne NOES: None ABSENT: Commrs. Aiken, Boswell, and Vice-Chair Caruso ABSTAIN: None The motion carded on a 4:0 vote. 4. 2176 Johnson Avenue. GPC 142-03; General Plan conformity report regarding the restoration and use of the Sunny Acres facility for a community school; PF zone; SLO County Office of Education, applicant. Associate Planner Philip Dunsmore presented the staff report requesting that the Planning Commission determine, and to report to the City Council, that the proposed school use conforms to the General Plan. Carol Florence, Project Representative, Oasis Associates, concurred with staff's interpretation of the policies and reference of the historical resources, and with staff's recommendation. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Julian Crocker, County Superintendent of Schools, noted that this project. does a number of things by benefiting the kids they are serving as well as providing restoration of a historical site. MaryBeth Schroeder, 2085 Wilding Lane, expressed disappointment with the reopening of the Sunny Acre Community School, and noted concern with the asbestos in the building materials. George Rosenberger, Deputy Director of General Services, asked that the Commission look favorably on the County Office of Education's request. He gave a brief summary on the history of Sunny Acres and how long the County has owned it. There were no further comments made from the public. COMMISSION COMMENTS: 1 --77 Attachment 11 RESOLUTION NO. 5380-03 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 1771 JOHNSON AVENUE TR/ER 177-01 (Tract 2462) WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on November 19, 2003 for the purpose of considering Application TR/ER 177-01, a condominium subdivision with 9 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, TBEREFORE, 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 Medium High-density residential development on property designated for such 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 satisfactory private open space area and the development will occur as part of the neighborhood pattern anticipated for the medium 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 and it is close to the downtown and associated services. 4. As conditioned, the site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development because the site is within an existing residential developed site adjacent to existing roadways and additional residential dwellings, services are available to serve the -79 Attachment 11 Resolution No.5380-03 TR/ER/A i77-01 Page.2 of 7 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 is a similar scale to existing development already functioning at the site. Additionally, new construction 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. Aesthetics A. All trees shall be protected and preserved on the site unless otherwise approved for removal by the City Arborist. Removal of any tree on site shall require a City tree removal permit and mitigation to consist of on-site replanting of trees of a minimum size 15-gallon nursery stock. B. New construction on the lots shall be subject to architectural review. Monitoring Program: Plans submitted for architectural review shall show all existing trees and significant vegetation. Trees proposed for removal shall be clearly shown on the plans. A landscape plan that includes drought tolerant landscape and trees shall be required as part of the architectural review application. Continued compliance with aesthetic mitigation measures will be accomplished through final review of the project improvement plans; building and grading plan check; and occupancy release. 2.. Geology and Soils A detailed soils engineering report shall to be submitted as part of the grading and building permit applications in order to ensure foundation design that is consistent with city building codes. The soils report shall include at a minimum: data regarding the nature,distribution and strength of the existing soils, conclusions and recommendations for grading procedures, t =ag Attachment 11 Resolution No.5380-03 TR/ER/A 177-01 Page 3 of 7 and design criteria for corrective measures, when necessary. Grading and building must be designed and performed in compliance with the soils engineering report. Monitoring Program: Compliance with this mitigation measure will be accomplished through final review of the project improvement plans and the required soils report-; building and grading plan check; and occupancy release. 3. Hydrology and Water Quality A. Provisions must be made to accept and convey offsite drainage to an adequate point of disposal to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director and Building Official. B. All newly graded surfaces shall be protected from soil erosion with City approved temporary erosion control methods or approved permanent landscaping immediately following commencement of final site grading work. C. At least 50% of the driveway and outdoor parking area surfacing shall be constructed using pervious pavers such as turf block. Pervious pavers should be used instead of solid asphalt or concrete with the intention of reducing offsite drainage and allowing some percolation of site drainage. Monitoring Program: Plans submitted for architectural review shall provide a grading and drainage plan for the site and show any necessary easements. Driveway surfacing materials shall be shown on the plan submitted for architectural review. Continued compliance with this mitigation measure will be accomplished through final review of the project improvement plans; building and grading plan check; and occupancy release. 4. Noise A. Proposed lots 1 and 2 nearest Johnson Avenue shall have walls designed for noise buffering between the private yard spaces and Johnson Avenue. The walls shall be designed to be compatible with the project and should help create an attractive pedestrian residential setting through changes in alignment, detail and texture, places for people to walk through, and appropriate landscaping. B. Structures shall be designed to meet standards for a noise mitigation package to reduce interior noise by 15dB as provided in the City's noise guidebook. Monitoring Program: Plans submitted for architectural review shall provide a wall design for the yard spaces on lots 1 and 2. Continued compliance with these mitigation measures will be accomplished through final review of the project improvement plans; building and grading plan check; and occupancy release. 5. Transportation/Traffic A. The subdivider shall dedicate a 3m wide street easement across the frontage of each lot to allow for planting of street trees. Said easement shall be adjacent to and contiguous with 1 -OUI Attachment 11 Resolution No.5380-03 TR/ER/A 177-0I Page 4 of 7 all public right-of-way lines bordering each lot. Development of the project shall consider the placement of the future right of way to determine appropriate setbacks consistent with the R-3 district. (Underlined section has been corrected from original initial study. Formerly read: to allow for Johnson Avenue Street widening.) Monitoring Program: Compliance with these mitigation measures will be accomplished through continued review of the traffic impacts following occupancy of the new properties. Continued review of the traffic at the property may warrant a traffic study to evaluate the necessity of site modifications. Section 3. Recommendation. The Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council approval of application ER/TR 177-01, subject to the following conditions and code requirements. 1. The development plan dated 10-22-03 received by the Community Development Department on October 27, 2003 and approved by the Architectural Review Commission on November 3, 2003 shall be considered the approved development plan in conjunction with this approved subdivision. All amenities as shown on the development plan shall be provided on the final construction plans. 2. A common address sign shall be placed at the driveway intersection with Johnson Avenue. Address sign shall list all unit addresses and the design of the sign shall be subject to review and approval by the Community Development Department. 3. Based on anticipated traffic conflicts at the driveway entrance to this project, the subdivider shall execute an agreement and post a guarantee with the City to install any necessary onsite and/or offsite improvements or signs to mitigate any apparent traffic safety problems that may occur within two (2) years after occupancy of the proposed residences, to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director. The development site plan shall incorporate adequate measures to preclude left turns into and/or out of the site to accommodate this condition. 4. The site plan shall incorporate a future driveway connection to the French Hospital site that would provide direct access to the Lizzie St. traffic signal. This connection would be subject to obtaining rights from the French Hospital owner. The plans should provide a detailed driveway connection that identifies potential grading and slope (show contours). 5. The subdivider shall dedicate a 2m wide public utility easement across the frontage of each lot. Said easement shall be adjacent to and contiguous with all public right-of-way lines bordering each lot. ' Attachment Resolution No.5380-03 TR/ER/A 177-01 Page 5 of 7 6. The subdivider shall dedicate a 3m wide street tree easement across the frontage of each lot. Said easement shall be adjacent to and contiguous with all public right-of-way lines bordering each lot. 7. The proposed on-site sewer main will be privately owned and maintained by the Homeowner's Association. 8. The subdivider shall provide individual electrical, cable, television, natural gas, water service, and sewer connections to the approval of the affected utility companies and the City Engineer. 9. Traffic impact fees shall be paid prior to the issuance of a building permit. 10. The applicant shall pay Park In-Lieu Fees prior to recordation of the Final Map, consistent with SLO Municipal Code Section 16.40.080. 11. 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. 12. The demolition of the existing building triggers the Utilities Department Sewer Lateral Abandonment Policy. This policy states that the existing sewer lateral(s)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. Mapping Requirements 1. The subdivider shall submit a final map to the city for review, approval, and recordation. The map shall be prepared by, or under the supervision of a registered civil engineer or licensed land surveyor. The final map shall be prepared in accordance with the Subdivision Map Act and the Subdivision Regulations. 2. The map shall be tied to at least two points of the City's horizontal control network, California State Plane Coordinate System, Zone 5 (1991.35 epoch adjustment of the North American Datum of 1983 also referred to as "NAD 83" -meters) for direct import into the Geographic Information System(GIS)database. Submit this data either via email, CD or a 3-1/2" floppy disc containing the appropriate data for use with AutoCAD, version 2000 or earlier(model space in real world coordinates, NAD 83 -m). If you have any questions regarding format, please call prior to submitting electronic data. 3. 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 /-50- Attachment 11 Resolution No.5380-03 TMR/A 177-01 Page 6 of 7 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. 4. Prior to acceptance by the City of public improvements, the developer's engineer shall submit a digital version of all public improvement plans &record drawings, compatible with AutoCAD (Digital Interchange Format, DXF) for Geographic Information System (GIS) purposes, to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director. Code Requirements 1. A water allocation is required, due to the additional demand on the City's water supplies. The City currently has water to allocate, and does so on a"first-come, first-served"basis. Water is allocated at the time building permits are issued and the Water Impact Fee is paid. 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. 2. Each parcel is to have its own separate water service laterals. Existing water and sewer services shall be properly relocated and resized,if necessary, to ensure that each parcel is appropriately served in accordance with City standards. A common sewer can be used if properly designed and included in the homeowners' maintenance agreement (CC&Rs)for common facilities. 3. 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. 4. Tree removals have not yet been approved. Tree issues yet to be evaluated. Street trees are required, per city ordinance,to the satisfaction of the City Arborist. 5. Easements shall be required for proposed offsite drainage (cross lot drainage). On motion by Commissioner Loh, seconded by Commissioner Cooper and on the following roll call vote to wit: AYES: Commissioners Loh, Cooper, Christianson and Chairperson Osborne NOES: None REFRAIN: None ABSENT: Commissioners Aiken, Boswell, and Caruso Attachment 11 Resolution No.5380-03 TR/ER/A 177-01 Page 7 of 7 The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 19th day of November 2003. onald Whisenand, Secretary Planning Commission Attachment 12 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT ITEM#3 BY: Philip Dunsmore, Associate Planner(781-7522) MEETING DATE: November 19, 2003 FROM: Ron Whisenand, Deputy Director-Development Revie� FILE NUMBER: TR, ER 177-01 PROJECT ADDRESS: 1771 Johnson SUBJECT: Review of a proposed 9-unit condominium subdivision with setback exception requests and a Mitigated Negative Declaration. SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION Recommend the Planning Commission adopt a resolution recommending the City Council approve the subdivision map and environmental document. BACKGROUND Situation The Planning Commission originally reviewed a 5-unit condominium project for this site on August 28, 2002. On January 22nd, 2003 the Planning Commission reviewed an alternative project to construct 9 detached units on the property. The item was continued with direction to return to the Planning Commission with refined plans following review by the Architectural Review Commission. The application was reviewed by the Architectural Review Commission on November P. The item is now before the Planning Commission for action on the subdivision map, condominium development plans and proposed environmental document. Since the map is considered a tract map, it requires City Council approval, therefore Planning Commission's action is a recommendation to Council. Data Summary Address: 1771 Johnson Avenue Applicant/Property Owner: Richard Porter, 846 Higuera Street SLO, Ca. 93401 Representative: R2L(Formerly APS Architects) Zoning: R-3 (Medium.High-Density Residential) General Plan: Medium High-Density Residential Environmental Status: A Mitigated Negative Declaration was recommended by the Community Development Director on July 26, 2002. Project Description The applicant has refined the project plans in an attempt to meet the direction of the Planning Commission and build the site to it's maximum potential. The current application.is similar to Attachment 12 TR, ER 177-01 (1771 Johnson) Page 2 the proposal reviewed by the Commission on January 22nd to construct 9 one bedroom and studio detached dwelling units on the site. The project is proposed as condominium style development however each detached dwelling unit would be on it's own individual lot. The proposed development would include demolition of the existing triplex and the 1-bedroom apartment building at the rear of the site. The condos are proposed as a Planned Unit Development (PUD), with individual lot ownership and a common owned parcel for access and open space. The applicant is also requesting a street yard setback exception other yard setback exceptions for the proposed development. The project includes 7 one-bedroom dwellings and 2 "studio" units for a total of 9 dwellings. The 1-bedroom units would be designed with a loft configuration with living space built above a single car garage. The studio units would have a similar configuration with less interior space. Private open space is provided primarily within small ground level yard areas. A small common open space with shade trees is proposed for the center of the site. A 16-foot wide driveway would serve the units from Johnson Avenue. The driveway and common open space area will be within a separate common lot maintained by a homeowners association. Planning Commission Direction The original application for this site proposed 5 detached units for this property. On August 28, 2002, the Planning Commission recommended the applicant reconsider the site development and return with a project that is more in keeping with the R-3 district by maximizing the number of units that can be constructed on the property. Upon returning to the Planning Commission on January 22nd of this year, the applicant presented a project that maximized the unit count by proposing nine units on the property. At that time, the Commission had concerns regarding the project design, including driveway access, pedestrian circulation, overlook, solar access, and adequate private yard spaces. The project was referred to the Architectural Review Commission with a motion by the Planning Commission to consider a greater setback and additional visitor parking spaces. The Planning Commission felt that if the studio units nearest Johnson Avenue were pushed back into the site and attached to adjacent units, the project would meet the required setback and reduce the possibility of noise exposure to future tenants. On November 3`d, the ARC granted approval to the project. The approved site plan and building design contains significant improvements over the concept plan reviewed by the Planning Commission. Contrary to earlier Planning Commission recommendations, however, the ARC felt the studio units should be detached and were supportive of a street yard setback exception. The applicant has re-designed the project to accommodate remaining Planning Commission concerns regarding site access, parking, private open space and overlook. The ARC's action is specific to the design presented with this staff report. Should the Planning Commission or City Council establish a revised design with approval of the subdivision map, then the project would need to return to ARC. EVALUATION Attachment 12 TR, ER 177-01 (1771 Johnson) Page 3 Subdivision Design The subdivision is designed with a 16-foot wide central driveway on a common lot with units oriented at either side of the driveway on individual lots. An easement between the lots allows each unit to maximize the amount of private open space by allowing yards to overlap onto adjacent properties. A common open space area is oriented near the center of the west property boundary. Each lot will contain an individual unit, parking space and yard area in a very compact form. Considering the subdivision is being reviewed as a Condominium Subdivision, lots of any size may be approved. The proposed tentative map therefore complies with the City's Subdivision Regulations. The following refinements have been incorporated into the site plan since previous Commission review: ✓ Hammerhead vehicle turn-arounds at the end of the site allow vehicles to turn around and exit onto Johnson in a forward manner. ✓ A dedicated visitor parking space has been added to the site plan. ✓ Easements have been proposed in order to allow the yard spaces to overlap in order to maximize the size of private open space yards. ✓ A driveway directional device has been incorporated in order to eliminate left turns . Driveway directional - , tiff f ? a device s _ d O� ..,' .. A H r 7-71 U`pit J it m_ t�hit' 6 3 1 .� .1 I � 141 -.{• +' I 1 � 11/r _ M-1 Hammerhead driveway Typical yard space overlaps adjacent property. 1 - g7 Attachment 12 TR, ER 177-01 (1771 Johnson) Page 4 Building Design The design of the units supported by the ARC incorporates the following refinements: ✓ 10-foot wide garage doors and a wider driveway area to allow adequate vehicular maneuvering. ✓ Studio units have enclosed parking garages in order to save site space and keep parking out of street yard. ✓ Front doors are oriented towards the front of the unit with a decorative porch, taking advantage of pedestrian paths and achieving the goals of the Community Design Guidelines. ✓ The units have been designed to eliminate overlook through the use of window placement and interior layout orientation. ✓ Exterior embellishments have been refined. f aw 2 mu• uan a Proposed layout as viewed facing north Density The proposed project meets the density standards provided in the Zoning Regulations. The following table summarizes the density unit value of the project. Lot Size Ahowable.Develo went Proposed Develooment .32 acres .32 x 18 = 7 one bdr * .66 unit=4.62 5.76 density units 2 studio units * .50 unit= 1.00 Total=5.62 units Setbacks In the R-3 zone, the required street yard is 15 feet and other yards have a dimension of 5 to 10 feet depending on building height. The applicant is requesting an exception to allow a 10-foot street yard setback where a 15-foot setback is normally required at Johnson Avenue. Additionally, other interior yard exceptions may be required for other units. The ARC has reviewed the proposed street yard setback and has granted approval to the project design based on a 10 foot street yard. The ARC adopted the following finding in support of the reduced street 1-gg Attachment 12 TR,ER 177-01 (1771 Johnson) Page 5 yard: A street yard of not less than 10 feet is appropriate for the proposed development since existing construction on the site is developed with a lesser setback with no apparent conflicts and adjacent properties have street yards that average less than 10 feet. The reduced street yard will allow the interior spaces and building separations to be increased, enhancing the livability of the units. The subdivision process is the appropriate process to allow the approval of alternative setbacks for the development. The Planning Commission or City Council may consider the proposed setback exception as part of the subdivision approval. Prior to approving the setback exception the Commission should consider former staff analysis regarding the traffic noise source at Johnson Avenue. Driveway Design 4U141 � The proposed 16 foot wide private drive will allow for two- '{ r_JI ti,' way traffic. The revised site plan meets the standards to allow vehicle maneuvering as required by the City's �� o Parking and Driveway Standards. The Public Works _ department has reviewed the revised driveway design and . �`=<^y• c, believes it may be acceptable if vehicles are limited to right i turns in and out of the property. The driveway plan has now d! �.- been configured in order to direct traffic in an appropriate manner. _ 1 Maw tun --p i 1 A! Park' a� o The parking requirements for the project are based on the standards shown below. The project proposes 9 units and requires 14.5 parking spaces. 15 parking spaces have now been provided on the site plan. Parking Requirements 1 bedroom unit= 1.5 spaces per unit (7 x 1.5 =10.5) Studio apt. = 1 space per unit (2 x 1=2) Guest Parking = 1 per 5 units (2 required) Total parking required for site= 14.5 (15 spaces) The project provides fifteen spaces that is the adequate number of parking spaces, however the parking configuration still does not provide for two separate visitor spaces as originally recommended by staff. At the previous hearing, the Planning Commission felt that the parking was /` �q Attachment 1 TR, ER 177-01 (1771 Johnson) Page 6 acceptable and that the parking should not dictate the design. The ARC reviewed the parking proposal and granted approval to the site plan layout and parking configuration. Re-designing the site to accommodate an additional visitor parking space will result in either a loss of the common open space area or a loss of dwelling units. The common open space area is an important part of the project design and should not be considered for parking. Re-configuring the design to eliminate a unit would reduce the site's ability to maximize the unit count. Staff believes that the site plan and parking configuration is appropriate given the number of units and the direction of the Architectural Review Commission. Common and Private Open Space. Since this subdivision is a condominium subdivision it is subject to the condominium open space standards. The units meet minimum open space standards of at least 100 square feet, and open space areas have been refined and expanded on the this version of the site plan. Common open space is provided in the form of a common landscape area at the center of the west property boundary. An existing Black Walnut tree is proposed to remain in this location and additional landscape is proposed at the west property boundary.. General-Plan_Consistency The following is an analysis of General Plan policies, goals and objectives that may pertain to the proposed development. Each of the general plan excerpts are in italics, with a staff response following. LU Policy 2.2.12:Residential Project Objectives- Residential projects should provide: A)Privacy,for occupants and neighbors of the project; The project includes satisfactory private open space areas and private entries for each of the units. B) Adequate usable outdoor area, sheltered from noise and prevailing winds; and oriented to receive light and sunshine; The project appears to meet minimum outdoor open space standards. 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 project is designed with adequate solar orientation, however since the project is below the grade of the roadway and screened by significant landscape at the south property boundary, there will not be significant view potential from or toward the property. 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 a project of this scale. Colored concrete is proposed at the south edge of the driveway adjacent to units 2, 3, and 4 to serve as a pedestrian pathway. SAO Attachment 12 TR, ER 177-01 (1771 Johnson) Page 7 G)Adequate parking and storage space; The site contains 15 parking spaces which is the minimum requirement for the 9 units. H)Noise and visual separation from adjacent roads and commercial uses. The project site is subject to excessive noise levels from Johnson Avenue. As proposed, the project does not contain increased setbacks to separate dwellings from a significant noise source. The project is requesting reduced setbacks to allow units closer to Johnson Avenue, thereby potentially decreasing noise and visual separation. The Planning Commission should consider the existing development on the site, adjacent development and the approval granted by the ARC when considering the proposed setback exception and site layout. I) Design elements that facilitate neighborhood interaction, such as front porches, front yards along streets, and entryways facing public walkways. The project design will facilitate neighborhood interaction since the units and properties are small with front facing entries and shared yard areas. Land Use Element Policy 2.4.7. Medium 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. Such development is appropriate near employment centers and major public facilities. The project includes multi story detached single-family dwellings, with compact private outdoor spaces. The applicant and 'Architectural Review Commission have reviewed attached development scenarios. The ARC favors a detached development since it allows the elevations to have enhanced appearance while meeting the goals outlined in the Community Design Guidelines. 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 close to the downtown planning area and is within walking distance to shops and services. Housing Element Policy 2.2.3: Creation and Preservation-Affordable Rental Housing The City will preserve and expand its supply of affordable rental housing. 4 rental units currently exist on the property proposed for subdivision and new construction. The existing rental triplex and one bedroom unit will be demolished with the proposed development. The project will create nine new individual ownership residential units. The project will be subject to Inclusionary housing requirements, requiring an affordable dwelling unit or in lieu fees to be paid. 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. 1-�°1 Attachment 12 TR, ER 177-01 (1771 Johnson) Page 8 The density of the project meets R-3 zoning district standards. The character and layout of the units, however, would be different than existing adjacent residences in the neighborhood. The project should be analyzed carefully for potential impacts to existing residences north of the property. 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 medium high-density residential development and is currently developed with apartments that are below the site's maximum potential. The project site presents a good infill opportunity for additional housing if the design can overcome some of the existing site constraints. Zoning Ordinance and Housing Variety As discussed above, this project proposes single family; individual ownership properties on land that is designated for attached Multi-Family development. The Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 17.28, describes the R-3 district: "The R-3 zone is intended primarily for smaller households desiring little private open space and to provide various types of group housing. These areas are generally close to commercial and public facilities serving the whole community and generally committed to this type of development." Development of the property with 9 units maximizes the unit count for this property as suggested by the Planning Commission. The former project proposed only 5 units for this property. Grading, Drainage and Utilities The proposed development requires grading to achieve acceptable slopes for the driveways and building pads, but generally follows the existing, natural grades of the site. Since the site slopes down from the street, drainage exits the property at the rear of the site. Future additional drainage is also proposed to be conveyed to the rear of the site, where an 18" storm drain inlet is proposed. An easement to accept the drainage will be required prior to issuance of a building permit for the project. Subdivision Findings In order to approve the proposed tentative map, the following findings must be supported by the City Council. The Planning Commission should consider these findings prior to making a recommendation to City Council: 1. The proposed map is consistent with the General Plan. 2. The design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is consistent with the General I --Qp . Attachment 12 TR, ER 177-01 (1771 Johnson) Page 9 Plan. 3. The site is physically suited for the proposed type of development. 4. The site is Physically suitable for the proposed density of development. 5. The design of the subdivision, or the type of improvements, is not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and unavoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. 6. The design of the subdivision, or type of improvements, is not likely to cause serious public health problems. 7. That the design of the subdivision, or the type of improvements, will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, property within the proposed subdivision. Findings tailored for the specific subdivision have been crafted for the project site in the attached resolution for the Planning Commission. RECCOMENDATION Recommend the Planning Commission adopt a resolution recommending the City Council approve the subdivision map and environmental document. ALTERNATIVES 1. Continue the item and offer specific direction to the applicant for refinements that will bring the project to a reasonable level of conformance with the General Plan and condominium subdivision regulations. 2. Recommend denial of the project. This action should be based on the findings listed in the body of the report. Attachments: Attachment 1: Vicinity Map Attachment 2: Reduced Size Development Plan approved by ARC Attachment 3: subdivision map Attachment 4: Property Improvement Standards for New Condominium Subdivisions (SLOMC 17.82.140) Attachment 5: Initial Study of environmental review completed August 6, 2002 Attachment 6: Planning Commission Meeting Minutes January 22, 2003 Attachment 7: Resolution recommending approval of the subdivision map and condominium development plan. G:\COMDEV\CD-PLAN\Pdunsmore\Subdivisions\TR 177-01 (1771 Johnson)\Staff rpt(#3) 177-01. 11-19-03.DOC Attachment 13 ORDINANCE NO. 1443 (2004 Series) AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS ALLOWING LOTS IN COMMON INTEREST DEVELOPMENTS TO HAVE ANY SIZE OR SHAPE, EXCEPT IN THE R-1 ZONE TA/ER 76-03 (Citywide) WHEREAS, the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, Califomia, on December 2, 2003, for the purpose of considering Application TA/ER 76-03, a request to amend the Subdivision Regulations to allow Common Interest Developments to have lots of any size or shape; and 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 August'27, 2003, and November 5, 2003, and recommended approval of the amendment to the City Council; and WHEREAS, notices of said public hearings were made at the time and in the manner required by law; and WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project and has determined that the environmental document adequately addresses the potential environmental impacts of 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. Text Amendment. The proposed amendment to the Subdivision Regulations, as shown in Exhibit A, is hereby approved based on the following finding. 1. The proposed text amendment is necessary to bring the Subdivision Regulations up to date, because the current code does not contain any specific standard or direction for Common Interest Developments, which is a method of subdivision that is authorized by the California Civil Code and the Subdivision Map Act. 0 1443 C-4� Attachment 13 Ordinance No. 1443 (2004 Series) Page 2 - INTRODUCED on the 2nd day of December, 2003, AND FINALLY ADOPTED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo on the 6`h day of January, 2004, on the following roll call vote: AYES: Council Members Ewan, Mulholland and Settle, Vice Mayor Schwartz and Mayor Romero NOES: None ABSENT: None Mayor David F. Romero ATTEST: Lee Price, C.M.C. City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: 4 OoZaO P City Attorney 1 -Q� Exhibit A - Ordinance No. 1443 (2004 Series) Subdivision Regulations Text Amendment Attachment 13 16.36.160 Lot dimensions. Each lot shall have the minimum area and dimensions indicated in the table below for the zone in which it is located. Each lot shall front on a street. MINIMUM LOT AREA AND DIMENSIONS Min. Lot Min. Min. Min. Areal Width Depth Frontage Zone (sq. ft.) (feet) (feet) (feet) C/OS 5 acres 200 200 50 or more as required by zone R-1 6,000 . 50 90 20 R-2 6,000 60 90 30 R-3 6,000 60 90 40 R-4 6,000 60 90 40 O 6,000 60 90 40 PF 6,000 60 90 40 C-N 6,000 60 90 40 C-R 9,000 60 100 40 C-T 9,000 60 100 40 C-C 3,000 25 50 15 C-S 9,000 60 100 40 M 9,000 60 100 40 Exceptions: Lots within all common interest subdivisions, as defined by the Davis-Stirling Common Interest Development Act, may have any size or shape, except in the R-1 zone where subdivisions must meet the lot size and shape standards described in the table above. Lots which are approved in conjunction with Planned Development (PD) zoning, as provided for in the Zoning Regulations may have any size or shape consistent with the structures and improvements shown in the development plan. Notes: 1. In residential subdivision, corner lots shall have a minimum area fifteen percent larger than otherwise required. 2. In residential subdivisions, corner lots shall be ten feet wider than otherwise required. (Ord. 934 § 1 (part), 1982: prior code § 9107.3(B)) 1 -Q(� Attachment 14 �'.• City of San LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM 1. Project Title: Condominium Tract Map TR/ER 177-01 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: Philip Dunsmore (805) 781-7522 4. Project Location: 1771 Johnson (as shown on attachment 1, vicinity map) 5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Rick Porter, 842 Higuera Street, San Luis. Obispo, CA 93401 6. General Plan Designation: Medium High Density Residential 7. Zoning: R-3; Medium High Density Residential 8. Description of the Project: Request to subdivide two existing lots into a nine-lot common interest subdivision to include 9 residential lots with a common driveway. The application includes a request for reduced setbacks at the street yard facing Johnson Avenue and reduced side yards between the units. The project includes 7 one-bedroom dwellings and 2 "studio" units for a total of 9 dwellings. The 1-bedroom units would be designed with a loft configuration with living space built above a single car garage. The studio units would have a similar configuration with less interior space. Private open space is provided primarily within small ground level yard areas. A small common open space with shade trees is proposed for the center of the site. A 16-foot wide driveway would serve the units from Johnson Avenue. 8. Project Entitlements Requested: Tract Map no. 2462 to allow a common interest subdivision in the R-3 district (TR-177-01). Architectural review of 9 new residential units with setback exceptions (ARC 177-01). 10. Surrounding Land Uses and Settings: The project site is bounded by Johnson Avenue to the northeast and by single-family residences to the northwest, and a hospital parking area and driveway on the south. The west side of the property (rear of the lot) adjoins vacant land that belongs to French Hospital. The property is rectangular in shape and encompasses approximately 15,000 square feet. The terrain of the lot slopes at / _Qr7 Attachment 1,+ approximately 10% towards the west with the highest portion of the property fronting Johnson Avenue. The property contains two existing residential apartment structures ( a single detached unit and a triplex), and a paved driveway and small undeveloped parking area. Vegetation on site includes several landscape trees that range in size from 12 to 18 inches at trunk diameter. Non-native shrubs and groundcover screen the site from the south and east. Several native willow trees exist at the south property line. 11. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g. permits, financing approval, or participation agreement): None. 2 CrtY OF SAN Luis OBisp0 INMAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2004 /--qg Attachment 1+ 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" or a "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation is Incorporated" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. X Aesthetics X Geology/Soils Public Services Agricultural Resources Hazards&Hazardous Recreation Materials Air Quality X Hydrology/Water Quality X Transportation&Traffic Biological Resources Land Use and Planning Utilities and Service Systems 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 for a 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 Community Development). The public review period shall not be less than 30 days (CEQA Guidelines 15073(a)). f -gq Attachment 1tf Issues, Discussion and Support, .nformation Sources sources Po' _. .y Potentially Less Than __. No Significant Significant Significant Impact ER# 177 01 Issues Unless Impact Mitigation 1771 Johnson incorporated 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, X there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made, or the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet(s) have been added and agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED 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. April 5,2004 a Date i Ronald Whisenand Deputy Director of Community Development For: John Mandeville,Community Development Director Printed Name CRY OF SAN Luis OHISPO 4 INITIAL STuOY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2004 ,00 Attachment 1t.} Issues, Discussion and Suppon,...,nformation Sources Sources Po— }.ly Potentially Less Than_. No Significant Significant Significant Impact ER # 177-01 Issues Unless Impact 1771 JohnsonMitigation Incorporated EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: 1. A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the analysis in each section. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g. the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants,based on a project-specific screening analysis). 2. All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site,cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. The explanation of each issue should identify the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question. 3. "Potentially Significant Impact'is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant. If there are one or more"Potentially Significant Impact"entries when the determination is made,an EIR is required. 4. "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section 17, "Earlier Analysis," may be cross-referenced). 5. Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering,program EIR,or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063 (c) (3) (D) of the California Administrators Code. Earlier analyses are discussed in Section 17 at the end of the checklist. 6. Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g. general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate,include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. 7. Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. In this case,a brief discussion should identify the following: a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on earlier analysis. C) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project. CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 5 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2004 / -/of Attachment 14 Issues, Discussion and Support,..;; information Sources Sources Po. ly Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact ER# 177-01 Issues Unless Impact 1771 Johnson Mitigation Incotpocated 1.AESTHETICS. Would theproject: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? 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 day or nighttime views in the area? The subject property is currently surrounded by urban uses and is not within a location that is considered a scenic vista. Johnson Avenue, however, is considered a road of moderate scenic value as recognized within the City's General Plan Circulation Element. As proposed, the project does not appear to significantly alter views from the roadway or reduce the aesthetic quality of the corridor. A large parking area for French Hospital is adjacent to the east side of the property, while multi-family residential dwellings are adjacent to the west side of the property. The property is 5 to 7 feet lower than the adjacent roadway and slopes down even further to the rear of the property. Significant tree cover exists at the boundary of the property further concealing the site from view. Aesthetic impacts to the site could occur if trees were removed from within the site or at the site boundaries. The proposed project does not propose the removal of significant trees at the property. The site is already developed with older residential apartment dwellings. New construction combined with new landscape at the property is likely to produce negligible aesthetic impacts, and instead is likely to enhance the aesthetic appearance of the property. Construction on the property will be subject to architectural review by the City's Architectural Review Commission to ensure aesthetic compatibility of the project to the site and its surroundings. MITIGATION MEASURES Aesthetics A. All trees shall be protected and preserved on the site unless otherwise approved for removal by the City Arborist. Removal of any tree on site shall require a City tree removal permit and mitigation to consist of on-site replanting of trees of a minimum size 15-gallon nursery stock. B. New construction on the lots shall be subject to architectural review. 2.AGRICULTURE RESOURCES. Would theproject: a) Convert Prime Farmland,Unique Faurnland,or Farmland of X Statewide Importance(Farmland),as shown on the maps pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency,to non-agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use,or a X Williamson Act contract? c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which,due to X their location or nature,could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? The project is located on a site that is not considered prime farmland, or farmland of unique or statewide importance as indicated on City maintained maps created pursuant to the to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency. The site is too small to be considered important farmland and furthermore is surrounded by developed urbanized uses. No properties within the immediate vicinity are zoned or used for commercial agricultural use. CITY OF SAN Luls OBISPo 6 INMAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2004 1 I0�-- Attachment 1L� Issues, Discussion and Suppon.._;, information Sources Sources Po. .ly Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact ER # 177-01 Issues Unless Impact Mitigation 1771 Johnson Incorporated CONCLUSION: Less than signifkant. 3. AIR QUALITY. Would theproject: a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an X existing or projected air quality violation? b) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air X qty plan? c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant X concentrations? d) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of X people? e) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria X pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed qualitative thresholds for ozoneprecursors)? San Luis Obispo County is a non-attainment area for the State ozone and PMIo (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 1998 Clean Air Plan (CAP) for San Luis Obispo County was developed and adopted by the Air Pollution Control District (APCD) to meet that requirement. The CAP is a comprehensive planning document designed to reduce emissions from traditional industrial and commercial sources, as well as from motor vehicle use. Land Use Element Policy 1.18.2 states that the City will help the APCD implement the Clean Air Plan. The size of the project is below the threshold for operational emissions listed in the CAP. During its operation the project will produce less than 10 pounds per day of reactive organic gases (ROG), oxides of nitrogen (NOx), sulfure dioxide (SO2), or particulate matter (PMIo). The amount of earthwork proposed during grading operations is also below the thresholds for construction related air quality impacts. As a residential project, objectionable odors are not anticipated. The project will not involve a cumulatively considerable net increase in any criteria pollutant for which the region is non-attainment because an increase in PMIo emissions will only occur during the construction phase of the project. Project occupancy is consistent with the population projections contained in the Clean Air Plan. CONCLUSION: Less than significant. 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 plans,policies,or regulations,or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service? `M CnY OF SAN LUIS OBIsPO 7 INITIAL STUDY ENYtRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2004 t - 103 Attachment 1L} Issues, Discussion and Support-, information Sources sources Pc. Iy Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact ER# 177-01 Issues Unless Impact Mitigation 1771 Johnson Incorporated c) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting X biological resources,such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance(e.g.Heritage Trees)? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident X or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors,or impede the use of wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted habitat Conservation X Plan,Natural Community Conservation Plan,or other approved local,regional,or state habitat conservation plan? f) Have a substantial adverse effect on Federally protected X wetlands as defined in Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including,but not limited to,marshes,vernal pools,etc.) through direct removal,filling,hydrological interruption,or other means? Although City creek maps identify a seasonal creek at the east side of the property, the creek, or evidence of.a Swale, or surface water is no longer present on the site. Construction of French Hospital and the adjacent parking area included a project to culvert the creek underground re-routing the creek away from the subject property. The culvert empties into a drainage Swale that is located approximately 50 yards south of the subject property. Presently, no creeks, riparian habitats, or significant drainage courses are within or,immediately adjacent to the subject property. The property contains no known habitat areas and is substantially developed with a parking area and residential apartment dwellings. No significant native trees or vegetation are presently on the site, however several larger non-native trees are established on the property and are proposed to remain with development of the condominium project. Subdivision and redevelopment of the property is likely to create less than significant impacts to biological resources on the subject property and within the project vicinity. CONCLUSION: Less than significant. 5.CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would theproject: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a X historic resource?(See CEQA Guidelines 150645) b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an X archeological resource?(See CEQA Guidelines 15064.5) c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource X or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains,including those interred outside of X formal cemeteries? The existing property does not contain any historic or prehistoric archeological resources as identified on City maintained resource maps. No known archeological resources exist within the project site. According to the City's map of archeological sensitive areas, which is based on information from the Central Coast Historical Resource Information Center at the University of California at Santa Barbara and previous archaeological studies,the site is not within an archeological sensitive area. Given that the site is less than one acre in size and is not within a sensitive area, it is not considered "archaeologically sensitive" and additional study to determine the presence of archaeological of historical resources is not required. Based on an assessment of available historic records and in accordance with Sections 800.4(a)-(d) of 36 CFR Part 800 governing identification and protection and protection of historic resources, it has been determined g CITY OF SAN LUIS OBIsPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2004 1 _ i!o�- Attachment lL f Issues, Discussion and Support,... ,nformation Sources sources Po, ,.ty potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact ER # 177 Ol Issues Unless impact Mitigation 1771 Johnson Incorporated that there are no historic properties that may be affected by the proposed project. The existing residences on the property are not considered historic resources and were constructed between 1950 and 1968. Both of the structures, currently a residential duplex constructed in 1954, and a triplex constructed in approximately 1950, will be demolished with the proposed project. The adjacent properties to the west contain single-family dwellings that were constructed in the 1920's. These adjacent properties contain dwellings considered to be contributing historic residences according to City records. The proposed project is not anticipated to cause an adverse change to the significance of the adjacent contributing historic residences. No construction or demolition is proposed for adjacent properties under this application. The design of the proposed new condominium residences will require architectural review to ensure the design will be compatible with the existing neighborhood and the adjacent historic residences. CONCLUSION: Less than significant. 6. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the ro'ect: a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? 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 X that would be of value to the region and the residents of the State? The project is consistent with the City's Energy Element that encourages concentrations of,residences close to concentrations of employment. The housing will be an infill project surrounded by existing urban development, thereby reducing energy impacts that could be created by placing additional housing further from existing development. The project is close to schools, City services and the downtown area of the city. No known mineral resources exist within the project vicinity. CONCLUSION: Less than si ni cant 7. GEOLOGY AND SOILS Would theproject: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects,including risk of loss,injury or death involving: I. Rupture of a known earthquake fault,as delineated in the X most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area,or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? H. Strong seismic ground shaking? X III. 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 X would become unstable as a result of the project,and potentially result in on or off site landslides,lateral spreading,subsidance, liquefaction,or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil,as defined in Table 18-1-B of the X Uniform Building Code(1994),creating substantial risks to life or property? The site is substantially developed with a parking area and existing residences. Some of the structures on the site will be demolished to accommodate this project, however site grading is not considered to be significant. CITY OF SAN LUIS OsiSpo 9 INITIAL STuOY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2004 / -- !L)6 Attachment 1T Issues, Discussion and Suppon...; .nformation Sources Sources Pc, .ry Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact ER # 177-01 Issues Unless Impact 1771 Johnson Mitigation Incorporated There are no known fault lines on site or in the immediate vicinity. However, the City of San Luis Obispo is in Seismic Zone 4, a seismically active region of California and strong ground shaking should be expected during the life of proposed structures. Structures must be designed in compliance with seismic design criteria established in the Uniform Building Code. Moderately expansive soils are common in the project vicinity. All new construction will require a City building permit, and therefore require construction that will meet or exceed building code standards for these soils. The site lies in an area identified by the Seismic Safety Element of the General Plan as being in the "F", Franciscan Formation, zone which has a high landslide risk. As defined in the Seismic Safety Element, "the Franciscan Formation is composed of incompetent material of complex structure". The evaluation included in the element qualifies its applicability by noting that it is based on natural conditions and does not account for changes in stability that may accompany development. Soils Stability Although a soils study has not been prepared for this site, a soils study prepared in 1991 for the French Hospital expansion project has been evaluated by staff. French Hospital is located adjacent to the project site and has a similar setting. The primary concerns at the French Hospital site were "the potential for different settlement, the potential for subsurface water, and the expansive soil condition" The study concluded that the French Hospital site was suitable, from a geotechnical standpoint, for the proposed project and provided recommendations to insure long-term soils stability. The following mitigation measure is recommended to insure that a thorough geotechnical report is prepared for this site in conjunction with any permits for new structures. The report is needed to ensure that all construction will comply with the City's building and grading regulations and provide recommendations regarding any unique geologic or physical features on the site that will require specific design solutions. CONCLUSION:Less than significant when proposed mitigation is incorporated. MITIGATION MEASURES: Geology and Soils A detailed soils engineering report shall to be submitted as part of the grading and building permit applications in order to ensure foundation design that is consistent with city building codes. The soils report shall include at a minimum: data regarding the nature, distribution and strength of the existing soils, conclusions and recommendations for grading procedures, and design criteria for corrective measures, when necessary. Grading and building must be designed and performed in compliance with the soils engineering report. & HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the r('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 CITY OF SAN Luis OBISPO 10 INITIAL STuoy ENVIRONMENTAL CHEcKusT 2004 1 -I * wit�crlrrl�t Ii j►.� Issues, Discussion and Support,;information Sources Sources Po. .ly Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant impact ER# 177-01 Issues Unless Impact Mitigation 1771 Johnson Incorporated 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 plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of lose,injury, X or death,involving wildland fres,including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residents are intermixed with wildlands? The project proposal does not involve the use of hazardous materials nor will it involve hazardous conditions. In order to accommodate new condominium units on the property, an existing residential apartment structure will be demolished. Demolition of the structure may involve the possibility of encountering asbestos which was a common construction material used in the era of the apartment building that is proposed for demolition. A demolition permit will be required prior to any demolition work on the property. The demolition permit will require a handling and disposal plan for the building materials to be removed from the site and properly disposed of. With appropriate removal and disposal of potential asbestos materials during demolition, the project will result in less than significant impacts. At this time, the existing structure to be demolished has not been identified to contain asbestos or any other hazardous materials. Construction of the condominium project does not involve the introduction of any known hazardous materials. The project site is not located within an airport area or airport land use plan. The project will not result in impacts to an emergency response plan, nor will the project place residences outside of available emergency response resources. CONCLUSION: Less than si ni ant. 9. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the roject: 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 that would exceed the capacity X 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 that 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 Clnt OF SAN LUIS OBISpo 11 INmAL STUDY ENvtRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2004 1 - 01 01 Attachment 1q Issues, Discussion and Support.., information Sources Sources Po. Aly Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact ER# 177 Ol Issues Unless Impact Mitigation 1771 Johnson Incorporated 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 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 de ade water quality? X The existing project site slopes at approximately 10% down towards the rear of the property away from the existing public roadway. Property immediately to the rear of the project site and downhill from the subject property is vacant land owned by French Hospital. The subject property has been developed with paving and residential units since the early 1950's and historic drainage leaves the site at the south to southwest comer. A cross lot drainage easement does not exist, however an easement to allow cross lot drainage to leave the site at the southwest corner of the property will be required prior to development of the property in order to meet building code requirements. The project site is within a`B"flood zone as indicated on FEMA flood zone maps. Zone B indicates that the site is between 100 and 500-year flood zones. This property was likely placed in a zone B when a creek existed adjacent to the site. Since the creek has been culverted and the landform has been significantly altered to accommodate French Hospital and a parking area, the site is not likely to be a flood zone. A visit to the site reveals that existing slope and drainage would no likely result in the property being subject to flooding. New construction will be required to be built at least 1 foot above the 100-year flood elevation on the site. The project will ultimately result in the construction of nine new residences, parking areas,driveways and related accessory construction. The existing drainage pattern of the site will be modified from the introduction of new impervious surfaces and new structures. Construction of the site will require the review of a grading and drainage plan that results in adequate site drainage. A drainage easement will likely be required to handle off site drainage. Construction features such as pervious pavers and turf block in the parking lot areas should be incorporated in order to reduce the potential for excessive site runoff. CONCLUSION: The project construction will be required to meet current building code standards and require review and approval of a grading and drainage plan that is consistent with the UBC and City Standards. On site drainage impacts are anticipated to be less than significant with the implementation of the following mitigation measures. MITIGATION MEASURES Hydrology and Water Quality A. Provisions must be made to accept and convey offsite drainage to an adequate point of disposal to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director and Building Official. B. All newly graded surfaces shall be protected from soil erosion with City approved temporary erosion control methods or approved permanent landscaping immediately following commencement of final site grading work. C. At least 50% of the driveway and outdoor parking area surfacing shall be constructed using pervious pavers such as turf block. Pervious pavers should be used instead of solid asphalt or concrete with the intention of reducing offsite drainage and allowing some percolation of site drainage. 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 fir• CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 12 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2004 1 - W Attachment 14 Issues, Discussion and Suppon,.., information Sources Sources Po. .ly Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact ER # 177-01 Issues unless Impact Mitigation 1771 Johnson Incorporated 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? The project proposal complies with the provisions of the General Plan Land Use Element as it applies to new condominium projects. The proposed subdivision would create 9 lots from 2 existing lots, allowing the individual ownership of 9 properties. The proposed project complies with density standards for the R-3 district. The project is unique in that the request to subdivide the property is not a typical condominium airspace development, however it includes individual lots that within a common lot development-commonly referred to as a "common interest development". The proposed lots will not meet subdivision requirements for depth, width and minimum square feet however will be subdivided under the definition of a common lot subdivision allowing lots of any size or shape. Approval of the project as proposed will require exceptions to the street yard and side yard setback requirements for the R-3 district. CONCLUSION: Less than significant. Exceptions associated with this subdivision proposal are an issue of neighborhood compatibility,property aesthetics,and traffic noise exposure. 11.NOISE. Would the project result in: a) Exposure of people to or generation of"unacceptable"noise X levels as defined by the San Luis Obispo General Plan Noise Element,or general noise levels in excess of standards established in the Noise Ordinance? b) A substantial temporary,periodic,or permanent increase in X ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? c) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundbome X vibration or groundbome noise levels? d) For a project located within an airport land use plan,or within X two miles of a public airport or public use airport,would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? The proposed project is located adjacent to Johnson Avenue, a significant arterial roadway with moderate vehicular traffic. The proposed lots and residential units closest to Johnson Avenue will be within an area that is located inside of the 65-decibel noise contour as established in the City's noise maps. The City Noise Element recommends that new noise sensitive land uses such as residential uses may only be established when the sensitive use (such as a residential backyard or interior of a dwelling) has been mitigated to reduce the noise level to certain standards. The maximum allowable standards for transportation noise sources are 45 dB for indoor residential spaces and 60 dB for outdoor activity areas. Since more than half of the area of the two frontage lots are within the 65dB vicinity as identified within the General Plan Noise Element, the proposed residential yard areas and dwellings shall require noise mitigation measures in order to meet the appropriate standards. The General Plan Noise Element suggests mitigating potential noise exposure through increased setback from noise source and noise attenuation construction methods such as sound walls, insulated windows and additional wall insulation. Project plans include walls to separate private outdoor yard areas from the noise source at the roadway. Additionally, the majority of the private outdoor space is separated from the noise source by the residential structure itself. Construction of the project will temporarily increase ambient noise levels due to demolition and construction Cn-Y OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 13 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2004 r - /09 AL act-mert ILt Issues, Discussion and Supports, nformation Sources Sources Poi .I Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact ER# 177-01 Issues unless Impact Mitigation 1771 Johnson Incorporated activity. Construction activities are regulated to daytime work hours. CONCLUSION: With required mitigation measures the project will create Less than significant noise impacts to persons living within the project or within the vicinity. MITIGATION MEASURES Noise A. Proposed lots 1 and 2 nearest Johnson Avenue shall have walls designed for noise buffering between the private yard spaces and Johnson Avenue. The walls shall be designed to be compatible with the project and should help create an attractive pedestrian residential setting through changes in alignment, detail and texture, places for people to walk through, and appropriate landscaping. B. Residential structures within 20 feet of the property line at Johnson Avenue shall be designed to meet standards for a noise mitigation package to reduce interior noise by 15dB as provided in the City's noise guidebook. 12. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would theproject: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly X (for example by proposing new homes or businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing or people X necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Four apartment units currently exist on the property, all of which would be demolished to construct 9 new residential units. The project may result in the displacement of tenants, however the number of housing opportunities will be increased at the property. The project places needed additional housing in a location near schools, employment and the downtown area. The project is proposed to be built to the maximum density as allowed within the R-3 district. This is consistent with Land Use and Housing Element policies encouraging a variety of housing types, efficient infill development, and compact urban form. Since the 4 residential units removed from the property will be replaced with 9 new compact residences in the moderate price range, the impacts resulting from a loss of housing will be less than significant. CONCLUSION: Less than si ni cant. 13.PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision,or need,of new or physically altered government facilities,the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts,in order to maintain acceptable service ratios,response times,or other performance objectives for any of the public services: a) Fire protection? X b) Police protection? X C) Schools? X d) Parks? X e) Roads and other transportation infrastructure? X f) Other public facilities? X Five additional residences on this property are not likely to create significant impacts to public services. The design of the lots and the proposed access has been approved by the City Fire Department and will not impact 14 CrrY OF SAN Luis OBispo INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CNECKusT 2004 1 -- Ila Ara.r%r! lent 1,A Issues, Discussion and Support,..,, information Sources Sources Po. .ly Potentially less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact ER# 177 01 Issues Unless Impact Mitigation 1771 Johnson Incorporated available public services to the site or adjacent residents. CONCLUSION: Less than significant. 14.RECREATION. Would theproject: a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood or regional parks or X other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Include recreational facilities or require the construction or X expansion of recreational facilities,which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Five additional residences on this property are not likely to create significant impacts to recreation services in the City. Final approval of the new lots will also be subject to impact fees designed to support park acquisition (Quimby fees). CONCLUSION: Less than significant. 15. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the project. a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the X existing traffic load and capacity of the street system? b) Exceed,either individually or cumulatively,a level of service X standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads and highways? c) Substantially increase hazards due to design features(e.g.sharp X curves or dangerous intersections)or incompatible uses(e.g. farm equipment)? d) Result in inadequate emergency access? X e) Result in inadequate parking capacity onsite or offsite? X f) Conflict with adopted policies supporting alternative X transportation(e.g.bus turnouts,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 change in air trafficpatterns? The project will result in a total of nine single-family residential dwellings to be served by a single 16-foot driveway intersecting with Johnson Avenue just north of the French Hospital entrance at Lizzie Street. The site contains sufficient space to allow the site to be designed to allow on site parking for tenants, guests and an adequate turn around area. The Institute of Traffic Engineers Manual estimates that single-family homes generate an average of 10 vehicle trips per day. A total of nine homes might generate 90 trips per day on average. Existing street systems are capable of handling the additional trips. Furthermore, the site is within reasonable walking distance from shopping, schools,and services. The project intends to use the existing driveway access to the site to serve the new residences. The driveway intersects with an arterial roadway close to an existing intersection with a local street. Presently the existing driveway serves four existing residences without significant driveway access difficulties. Left turns out of the project, however, are difficult due to traffic flow, the nearby intersection and a slight curve on Johnson Avenue. The City Traffic Engineer has reviewed the site for potential traffic impacts and feels that the site can accommodate the additional residential units without introducing significant traffic impacts. Expansion of the site and intensity of the housing is not considered significant since the project will increase by only five residential units. As proposed, the project will require mitigation to prohibit left turns out of or into the site in CRY OF SAN Luis OBISPO 15 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2004 l - 111 AlL achment 1� Issues, Discussion and Supporti... information Sources Sources Po, -iy Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact ER# 177-01 Issues Unless Impact Mitigation 1771 Johnson Incorporated order to reduce potential traffic impacts. Additionally, the site should continue to be evaluated for additional site access options such as a driveway at the rear of the site into the French Hospital property or a link to Breck Street. MITIGATION MEASURES Transportation/Traffic A. Left tutus into and out of the site shall be prohibited through the use of a driveway directional device and appropriate signage. B. An access driveway at the rear of the site shall be incorporated into the project unless property acquisition for the driveway and access easement cannot be obtained. The access driveway shall allow two-way access from the project site to the French Hospital site and Lizzie Street or to Breck Street. 16.UTILTTIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the ro'ect: 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 X treatment,wasterwater treatment,or storm drainage facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project X from existing entitlements and resources,or are new and expanded water resources needed? d) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider X which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand and addition to the provider's existing commitment? e) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to X accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? f) Comply with federal,state,and local statutes and regulations X related to solid waste? At this time the City can supply water to the additional residences without significant impacts or without exceeding existing water resources. A water allocation is required, due to the additional demand on the City's water supplies. The City currently has water to allocate, and does so on a"first-come,first-served" basis. Water is allocated at the time building permits are issued and the Water Impact Fee is paid. Three new residences are not likely to create significant impacts to available City Utilities and Service Systems. CONCLUSION: Less than significant. 17.MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the X environment,substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species,cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels,threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community,reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? N/A b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited,but X cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of the past projects, CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 16 INITIAL STUDY ENvtROMdENTAL CHECKLIST 2004 1 -112- ., 1'itt t 14 Issues, Discussion and Supporta.;, information Sources sources Po, ,ply Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact ER # 177-01 Issues unless Impact Mitigation 1771 Johnson Incorporated the effects of other current projects,and the effects of probable futureprojects) N/A c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause X substantial adverse effects on human beings,either directly or indirectly? N/A 18.EARLIER ANALYSES. Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration. Section 15063 (c) (3) (D). In this case a discussion should identify the following items: a Earlier analysis used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. N/A 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. N/A 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 1. City of San Luis Obispo General Plan 2. City of San Luis Obispo Zoning Regulations 3. City of San Luis Obispo Municipal Code (Chapter 17.82, Residential Condominium Development) 4. City of San Luis Obispo Architectural Review Guidelines 5. City of San Luis Obispo Archaeological Resource Preservation Guidelines 6. Air Pollution Control District Clean Air Plan, 1998 7. 1 Project comments from other departments and agencies 8. 1 Project Description and proposed Planned Unit Development (Tract) Map. Attachments: 1. Project Vicinity Map 2. Proposed Tract Map 3. 65 and 60 dB noise contours,traffic noise source at buildout 1990 scenario(San Luis Obispo Noise Element) REQUIRED MITIGATION AND MONITORING PROGRAMS 1. Aesthetics A. All trees shall be protected and preserved on the site unless otherwise approved for removal by the City Arborist. Removal of any tree on site shall require a City tree removal permit and mitigation to consist of on- site replanting of trees of a minimum size 15-gallon nursery stock. B. New construction on the lots shall be subject to architectural review. CITY OF SAN Luis OBISPo 17 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2004 1 - 113 , _ Attachment iq Issues, Discussion and Support..,information Sources sources po. . Aly Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact ER # 177-01 Issues Unless Impact Mitigation 1771 Johnson Incorporated • Monitoring Program: Plans submitted for architectural review shall show all existing trees and significant vegetation. Trees proposed for removal shall be clearly shown on the plans. A landscape plan that includes drought tolerant landscape and trees shall be required as part of the architectural review application. Continued compliance with aesthetic mitigation measures will be accomplished through final review of the project improvement plans;building and grading plan check; and occupancy release. 2. Geology and Soils A detailed soils engineering report shall to be submitted as part of the grading and building permit applications in order to ensure foundation design that is consistent with city building codes. The soils report shall include at a minimum: data regarding the nature, distribution and strength of the existing soils, conclusions and recommendations for grading procedures, and design criteria for corrective measures, when necessary. Grading and building must be designed and performed in compliance with the soils engineering report. • Monitoring Program: Compliance with this mitigation measure will be accomplished through final review of the project improvement plans and the required soils report;building and grading plan check; and occupancy release. 3. Hydrology and Water Quality A. Provisions must be made to accept and convey offsite drainage to an adequate point of disposal to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director and Building Official. B. All newly,graded surfaces shall be protected from soil erosion with City approved temporary erosion control methods or approved permanent landscaping immediately following commencement of final site grading work. C. At least 50% of the driveway and outdoor parking area surfacing shall be constructed using pervious pavers such as turf block. Pervious pavers should be used instead of solid asphalt or concrete with the intention of reducing offsite drainage and allowing some percolation of site drainage. • Monitoring Program: Plans submitted for architectural review shall provide a grading and drainage plan for the site and show any necessary easements. Driveway surfacing materials shall be shown on the plan submitted for architectural review. Continued compliance with this mitigation measure will be accomplished through final review of the project improvement plans; building and grading plan check; and occupancy release. 4. Noise A. Proposed lots 1 and 2 nearest Johnson Avenue shall have walls designed for noise buffering between the private yard spaces and Johnson Avenue. The walls shall be designed to be compatible with the project and should help create an attractive pedestrian residential setting through changes in alignment, detail and texture, places for people to walk through, and appropriate landscaping. The walls shall be located with a minimum street yard setback of 20 feet. B. Residential structures within 20 feet of the property line at Johnson Avenue shall be designed to meet standards for a noise mitigation package to reduce interior noise by l5dB as provided in the City's noise guidebook. s Monitoring Program: CITY of SAN Luis Obispo 18 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2004 1 - I15 Attachment 1' Issues, Discussion and Supporti,.,�information Sources Sources Po. _„ly Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact ER# 177-01 Issues Unless Impact Mitigation 1771 Johnson Incorporated Plans submitted for architectural review shall provide a wall design for the yard spaces on lots I and 2. Continued compliance with these mitigation measures will be accomplished through final review of the project improvement plans; building and grading plan check; and occupancy release. S. Transportation/Traffic A. Left turns into and out of the site shall be prohibited through the use of a driveway directional device and appropriate signage. B. An access driveway at the rear of the site shall be incorporated into the project unless property acquisition for the driveway and access easement cannot be obtained. The access driveway shall allow two-way access from the project site to the French Hospital site and Lizzie Street or to Breck Street. • Monitoring Program: Compliance with these mitigation measures will be accomplished through continued review of the traffic impacts following occupancy of the new properties. Continued review of the traffic at the property may warrant a traffic study to evaluate the necessity of site modifications. `M CITY OF SAN Luis OBISPO 19 INmAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2004 1 - 11(c -- Attachment 15 DRAFT RESOLUTION A RESOLUTION NO. XXXX-04 A RESOLUTION OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO CITY COUNCIL APPROVING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON 1771 JOHNSON AVENUE TR/ER 177-01 (Tract 2462) WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on May 18, 2004 for the purpose of considering Application TR/ER 177-01, a common interest subdivision with 9 units; and WHEREAS, notices of said public hearing were made at the time and in the manner required by law; 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 and the Planning Commission, presented at said hearing. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: Section 1. Findings. Based upon all the evidence, the City Council makes the following findings: 1. The proposed map is consistent with the General Plan because the subdivision will provide for Medium High-density residential development on property designated for such 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 satisfactory private open space area and the development will occur as part of the neighborhood pattern anticipated for the medium 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 and it is close to the downtown and associated services. 4. As conditioned, the site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development because the site is within an existing residential developed site adjacent to existing roadways and additional residential dwellings, services are available to serve the development, and utilities have been designed to serve the site per City standards. / - 11-7 Attachment 15 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 is a similar scale to existing development already functioning at the site. Additionally, new construction 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 program. 1. All trees shall be protected and preserved on the site unless otherwise approved for. removal by the City Arborist. Removal of any tree on site shall require a City tree removal permit and mitigation to consist of on-site replanting of trees of a minimum size 15-gallon nursery stock. 2. New construction on the lots shall be subject to architectural review. Monitoring Program: Plans submitted for architectural review shall show all existing trees and significant vegetation. Trees proposed for removal shall be clearly shown on the plans. A landscape plan that includes drought tolerant landscape and trees shall be required as part of the architectural review application. Continued compliance with aesthetic mitigation measures will be accomplished through final review of the project improvement plans;building and grading plan check; and occupancy release. 3. A detailed soils engineering report shall to be submitted as part of the grading and building permit applications in order to ensure foundation design that is consistent with city building codes. The soils report shall include at a minimum: data regarding the nature, distribution and strength of the existing soils, conclusions and recommendations for grading procedures, and design criteria for corrective measures, when necessary. Grading and building must be designed and performed in compliance with the soils engineering report. Attachment 15 Monitoring Program: Compliance with this mitigation measure will be accomplished through final review of the project improvement plans and the required soils report; building and grading plan check; and occupancy release. 4. Provisions must be made to accept and convey offsite drainage to an adequate point of disposal to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director and Building Official. 5. All newly graded surfaces shall be protected from soil erosion with City approved temporary erosion control methods or approved permanent landscaping immediately following commencement of final site grading work. 6. At least 50% of the driveway and outdoor parking area surfacing shall be constructed using pervious pavers such as turf block. Pervious pavers should be used instead of solid asphalt or concrete with the intention of reducing offsite drainage and allowing some percolation of site drainage. Monitoring Program: Plans submitted for architectural review shall provide a grading and drainage plan for the site and show any necessary easements. Driveway surfacing materials shall be shown on the plan submitted for architectural review. Continued compliance with this mitigation measure will be accomplished through final review of the project improvement plans; building and grading plan check; and occupancy release. 7. Proposed lots 1 and 2 nearest Johnson Avenue shall have walls designed for noise buffering between the private yard spaces and Johnson Avenue. The walls shall be designed to be compatible with the project and should help create an attractive pedestrian residential setting through changes in alignment, detail and texture, places for people to walk through, and appropriate landscaping. The walls shall be located with a minimum street yard setback of 20 feet. 8. Residential structures within 20 feet of the property line at Johnson Avenue shall be designed to meet standards for a noise mitigation package to reduce interior noise by 15dB as provided in the City's noise guidebook. Monitoring Program: Plans submitted for architectural review shall provide a wall design for the yard spaces on lots 1 and 2. Continued compliance with these mitigation measures will be accomplished through final review of the project improvement plans; building and grading plan check; and occupancy release. 9. Left turns into and out of the site shall be prohibited through the use of a driveway directional device and appropriate signage. 10. An access driveway at the rear of the site shall be incorporated into the project unless property acquisition for the driveway and access easement cannot be obtained. The access driveway shall allow two-way access from the project site to the French Hospital site and Lizzie Street or to Breck Street. 1- 119 Attachment 15 Monitoring Program:. Compliance with these mitigation measures will be accomplished through continued review of the traffic impacts following occupancy of the new properties. Continued review of the traffic at the property may warrant a traffic study to evaluate the necessity of site modifications. Section 3. Action. The City Council does hereby approve the common interest subdivision (ER/TR 177-01), subject to the following conditions and code requirements: 1. The development plan dated 10-22-03 received by the Community Development Department on October 27, 2003 and approved by the Architectural Review Commission on November 3, 2003 shall be considered the approved development plan in conjunction with this approved subdivision. All amenities as shown on the development plan shall be provided on the final construction plans. 2. The existing tenants on site shall be given the first right of refusal to purchase or lease one of the nine new dwelling units. 3. A common address sign shall be placed at the driveway intersection with Johnson Avenue. Address sign shall list all unit addresses and the design of the sign shall be subject to review and approval by the Community Development Department. 4. Based on anticipated traffic conflicts at the driveway entrance to this project, the subdivider shall execute an agreement and post a guarantee with the City to install any necessary onsite and/or offsite improvements or signs to mitigate any apparent traffic safety problems that may occur within two (2) years after occupancy of the proposed residences, to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director. The development site plan shall incorporate adequate measures to preclude left turns into and/or out of the site to accommodate this condition. 5. The site plan shall incorporate a future driveway connection to the French Hospital site that would provide direct access to the Lizzie St. traffic signal. This connection would be subject to obtaining rights from the French Hospital owner. The plans should provide a detailed driveway connection that identifies potential grading and slope (show contours). 6. The subdivider shall dedicate a 2m wide public utility easement across the frontage of each lot. Said easement shall be adjacent to and contiguous with all public right-of-way lines bordering each lot. 7. The subdivider shall dedicate a 3m wide street tree easement across the frontage of each lot. Said easement shall be adjacent to and contiguous with all public right-of-way lines bordering each lot. 8. The proposed on-site sewer main will be privately owned and maintained by the Homeowner's Association. Attachment 15 9. The subdivider shall provide individual electrical, cable, television, natural gas, water service, and sewer connections to the approval of the affected utility companies and the City Engineer. 10. Traffic impact fees shall be paid prior to the issuance of a building permit. 11. The applicant shall pay Park In-Lieu Fees prior to recordation of the Final Map, consistent with SLO Municipal Code Section 16:40.080. 12. 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. 13. The demolition of the existing building triggers the Utilities Department Sewer Lateral Abandonment Policy. This policy states that the existing sewer lateral(s) 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. Mapping Requirements 14. The subdivider shall submit a final map to the city for review, approval, and recordation. The map shall be prepared by, or under the supervision of a registered civil engineer or licensed land surveyor. The final• map shall be prepared in accordance with the Subdivision Map Act and the Subdivision Regulations.. 15. The map shall be tied to at least two points of the City's horizontal control network, California State Plane Coordinate System, Zone 5 (1991.35 epoch adjustment of the North American Datum of 1983 also referred to as "NAD 83" - meters) for direct import . into the Geographic Information System (GIS) database. Submit this data either via email, CD or a 3-1/2" floppy disc containing the appropriate data for use with AutoCAD, version 2000 or earlier (model space in real world coordinates, NAD 83 - m). If you have any questions regarding format,please call prior to submitting electronic data. 16. The final map, public improvement plans and specifications shall use the International System of Units (metric system). The English System of Units may be used on the final map where necessary (e.g. - all record data shall be entered on the map in the record units, metric translations should be in parenthesis), to the approval of the City Engineer. IT Prior to acceptance by the City of public improvements, the developer's engineer shall submit a digital version of all public improvement plans & record drawings, compatible with Autocad (Digital Interchange Format, DXF) for Geographic Information System (GIS) purposes, to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director... � - J�J Attachment 15 Code Requirements 18. A water allocation is required, due to the additional demand on the City's water supplies. The City currently has water to allocate, and does so on a "first-come, first-served" basis. Water is allocated at the time building permits are issued and the Water Impact Fee is paid. 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. 19. Each parcel is to have its own separate water service laterals. Existing water and sewer services shall be properly relocated and resized, if necessary, to ensure that each parcel is appropriately served in accordance with City standards. A common sewer can be used if properly designed and included in the homeowners' maintenance agreement (CC&Rs) for common facilities. 20. 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. 21. Tree removals have not yet been approved. Tree issues yet to be evaluated. Street trees are required, per city ordinance, to the satisfaction of the City Arborist. 22. Access to the garages from the driveway does not appear to meet city standard requirements for one maneuver entry. The problem appears to be due to the lack of enough depth between the garage opening and the far edge of the driveway; the proposed plan has a scaled dimension of 19 feet. Vehicles entering the garage do not have enough perpendicular distance to negotiate the 90-degree turn into the garage in one maneuver. Typically a minimum of 24 feet is required; this dimension may be reduced if the garage opening is increased. 23. Easements shall be required for proposed offsite drainage (cross lot drainage). Attachment 15 On motion of seconded by and on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: the foregoing resolution was adopted this_day of , 2004. Mayor David F. Romero ATTEST: City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: City mey Jonathan Lowell Attachment 1(0 DRAFT RESOLUTION B RESOLUTION NO. XXXX-04 A RESOLUTION OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO CITY COUNCIL DENYING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON 1771 JOHNSON AVENUE TR/ER 177-01 (Tract 2462) WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on May 18, 2004 for the purpose of considering Application TR/ER 177-01, a common interest subdivision with 9 units; and WHEREAS, notices of said public hearing were made at the time and in the manner required by law; 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 and the Planning Commission, presented at said hearing. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: Section 1. Findings. Based upon all the evidence, the City Council makes the following findings: 1. The proposed map is not consistent with the General Plan because the subdivision will provide for detached Medium High-density residential development on property designated attached multi family development. 2. The design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is not consistent with the General Plan because each dwelling does not have sufficient open space and the project does not have substantial amenities. 3. The site is not physically suited for the proposed type of development because it is too small and does not provide for adequate access. 4. As conditioned, the site is not physically suitable for the proposed density of development because the site will create potential traffic impacts since it is too close to the Lizzie Street intersection and the entrance to French Hospital. 5. The design of the subdivision is not consistent with the character of the neighborhood, and is not consistent with the Community Design Guidelines for the type and density of development. Attachment 16 DRAFT RESOLUTION B Section 2. Action. The City Council does hereby deny the common interest subdivision (ER/TR 177-01) On motion of seconded by and on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: the foregoing resolution was adopted this_day of 2004. Mayor David F. Romero ATTEST: City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Attorney Jonathan Lowell