HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/20/2006, PH 8 - CONSIDERATION OF TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 2787, A FIVE-UNIT RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM PROJECT AT 562 S r
r
council medig°.M�4 as oC�
j acEnaa izEpoRt
CITY OF SAN LUIS OB IS PO
FROM: John Mandeville,Community Development Director
Prepared By: Jaime Hill, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 2787, A FIVE-UNIT
RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM PROJECT AT 562 SANDERCOCK
STREET (TR/ER-202-05).
CAO RECOMMENDATION
As recommended by the Planning Commission, adopt a resolution approving a negative
declaration of environmental impact and a tentative tract map for a five-unit residential
condominium subdivision.
DISCUSSION
Background
The City has received an application to construct a residential condominium project at 562
Sandercock Street, across the street from Hawthorne Elementary School. The applicant intends
to demolish the existing structure on the site in order to construct the new units and site
improvements. Residential condominium projects with five or more units require approval of a
tract map, which requires review by both the Planning Commission and City Council for
compliance with the Subdivision Regulations and the City's Condominium Regulations. The
Architectural Review Commission (ARC) reviewed this project on January 9, 2006, and
provided direction on minor site planning changes and building articulation details (Attachment
3). On May 10, 2006, the Planning Commission reviewed the project and recommended
approval of the subdivision map and environmental document to the City Council (Attachments
4, 5, and 6). Following approval of the environmental document and tract map the project will
return to the ARC for final architectural approval.
Data Summary
Address: 562 Sandercock Street
Property Owner: Michael Sathre
Applicant: Aaron Gannage, Gannage & Associates
Zoning: R-2 (Medium-Density Residential)
General Plan: Medium-Density Residential
Environmental Status: An initial study of environmental review has been prepared
for the project and staff has determined that the project will
result in less than significant impacts when developed in
accordance with the recommended Mitigated Negative
Declaration (Attachment 7)_ p
6
Council Agenda Report `—
TR/ER 202-05 (562 Sandercock Street)
Page 2
Site Description
The 0.26-acre site is located mid-block on Sandercock Street and is currently developed with a
single-family residence. The project site is surrounded by a mixture of single and multi-family
residences, small commercial spaces along High Street, and Hawthorne Elementary School.
Although the area is dominated by small detached dwellings, the proposed development is
similar in scale to much of the more recent development in the area.
Project Description
The project includes five dwelling units that will be available for individual sale. The applicant
has requested a density bonus in exchange for providing one affordable unit. This will allow the
applicant to develop larger units than would otherwise be allowed in the R-2 district on this
property. The style of the proposed architecture is California/Mission style with white exterior
plaster, wrought iron decorative features, arched doorways, natural wood trellises and gates, and
clay tile roofing.
Evaluation
The Planning Commission has considered each of the project's issue areas prior to making a
recommendation of approval on the subdivision and mitigated negative declaration of
environmental impact to the City Council. The Planning Commission found the subdivision to
be consistent with General Plan Policy and in compliance with the Subdivision Regulations, and
therefore recommended approval of the project as proposed. A complete review of the issue areas
summarized below can be found in the Planning Commission Staff Report, Attachment 6.
1. General Plan
The site's Medium Density Residential land use designation allows for a variety of single-family
and small multi-family developments in the surrounding neighborhood. Consistent with General
Plan Land Use and Housing Element policies, this plan proposes to utilize an infill site to
maximize the property's density and provide relatively affordable and conveniently located
housing units. As discussed in the Planning Commission staff report, the project was found to be
consistent with Land Use Element Policies 2.2.10 and 3.2.1, and Housing Element Policies 7.2.1
through 7.2.4. These policies relate to neighborhood compatibility and demolition of existing
housing.
2. Compliance with R-2 Zone Development Standards
The project complies with all property development standards including parking, height, lot
coverage, and other yard setbacks. As mentioned previously, the applicant is requesting a density
bonus in exchange for providing one affordable housing unit. Because of the small size of the
dwellings, dedicating one affordable unit will qualify the project for a 25% density bonus. With a
proposed density bonus of 25%, the property will allow a total density of 3.87 dwelling units. In
order to achieve the density bonus, the studio unit would be deed-restricted as an affordable unit
for 30 years. The density bonus provision maximizes the site density and allows incorporation of
Council Agenda Report — -
TR/ER 202-05 (562 Sandercock Street)
Page 3
an affordable housing unit. Although smaller in size than the other units, the proposed affordable
studio unit is comparable in quality and amenities and is integrated within the project.
3.Subdivision Regulations
The project complies with all standards for condominium developments, as established by the
Subdivision Regulations. Through a combination of ground level yard space and decking the
amount of private, common and total open spaces exceed that required to meet the Subdivision
Regulations; and required lockable storage has been included within the garage of each unit,
consistent with standards for the provision of lockable storage outside the units themselves.
Environmental Review
The Planning Commission has recommended a Negative Declaration for the project. The initial
study has been included as Attachment No. 7 to this staff report.
CONCURRENCES
The Public Works and Fire Department have reviewed the project and found the proposed project
and driveway access to be acceptable. The Utilities Department provided specific comments on
the location of the trash enclosure. Additional discussion can be found in the attached Planning
Commission staff report.
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, it has a neutral fiscal impact.
ALTERNATIVES
1. Continue review of the proposed subdivision with specific direction to the applicant.
2. Approve a resolution recommending that the City Council deny the proposed subdivision,
based on findings of inconsistency with the Subdivision Regulations and/or General Plan
Policies as specified by the City Council.
Attachments:
Attachment 1: Vicinity Map
Attachment 2: Reduced Size Development Plans
Attachment 3: ARC meeting follow-up letter and minutes
Attachment 4: Planning Commission Resolution
Attachment 5: Planning Commission meeting minutes
Attachment 6: Planning Commission staff report
Attachment 7: Initial Study of Environmental Impact
Attachment 8: Draft Resolution approving a mitigated negative declaration and tentative map
G:\CD-PLANITHill\Subdivision\202-05 TR-ER-ARC(562 Sandercock)\Council Rpt 202-05.doc
INNINLIINIIIIIIL�lN► '
mr r �
Attachment 2
j ILLI
rt E��I it
I $
III k to, I IN fit
f
it f.I It I It till
•t tl � f �aY�r rf iaf a
(t �I'a �• ;a��� flLFtf � 'l;��r
a r
a>aaaaa9cf)
CD
V SI NS fJN+N++ 7
CD
E
f/lS9 TaT OOC1 G
�yy=Z �mm X
C C Cm{-mICm�9OZ�lO
o66s666MEUm V1
N �ZZ ,n2
mmChc>mmm y
z;> <sg N
N1-�aa�a
0 5 \
C,C" W Z
N
HIM
\
—pit _m e
j{ •--Y �?• Q e = w C " 9 gpT O
%
t rE' C L 3 s y o
�.t 0
66
'J •ms s'" O h`n gS 'i"'
� i`•�o %� �e�w 4•a t: S � 8 F W
/ •\X�l „r, 1, � m � g s ��
m c � m
m h3 °= Z s m
> z A --1 '=1 ;g70
C _� Nma
m n
m O
m
z
O
z
m
m
• I
Proposed Condominium Develop. GmwShM -- -s
{ 1562 Sandercock Street
San Luis Obispo,CA 93401
p `Mss41t M-M
Allach"nent 2
INA
• � ., �iANDEKCOCK 5fRE8•T _
I1
I �
=G G
�� u89•'wS t;c' 11.
tv
13
W � MY j•O'I � , _ ppi
a
a IIo w li A I @: � ,• I
-YS
N I
r
:.� I� e� � � � � BIZ e•�. �'� `�4
RRO AN
4i'c•+i o 0 \ fd• �e J \rte •na
T�;IY2 � � � __� � _:.ev`—•lo �i-, 6—>I�—r_ _ '.i6X o\\J+ i
M,
a � Ue
Attachment 2
a=
Sandercock Street
)01' r'
M
i;m
' --� - k'll
P � worau Y _
��
MX. a
i'
Z � a¢a ® \ F 4 1
GCD
S
ddd I
M
'D
Z
I z a t
10.!r a
Sil
11
� G m
� f ►intIlia
ill z
e
2 jr-
� 7
I �
Q � a
F..w - ----- ----
..iffi
list
CHH �1 FS ffAs
M
eee
5 , S f eee z
t"t i C� ee
D Proposed Condominium Develop. sroe Plan = 7
d 1 562 Sandercock Street $ "'�"�°• __
j San Luis Obispo,CA 93401
a
Attachment 2
®® ® ® ® ® ® ® 11 Elam®0 ® ®® OB 9M ® ®®® ® ®8 8B !!8 8B8 8 B T
gong in I I Ulf
ran
r� � � 1 i ii1�� `� LEriif�,�(i
° lli ��F ���p� `� t' �°iT. �l r. iiEitrt�;i � c Z
ilr a ° It1' q'► t ii ' Ili i ��I ' } �{ t� .i I f! �a z
i 1! � � �aE��til.. 1 lei 1 I } �e�•'.� ' �t'� E` �� t e
i rr t r t E � i E t 1 > > �i t i ' trl i • 1 t
ilii l� " r
i �fit
r
till —�
.O
aZ
ao
-n
O
0 -
Z I O g 0 r
r
N N
HE
O O O u o
'-n
rn
E i
o
ea�s�s
ff t N
e
Proposed Con � ®dominium Develop. iP�
D 1 562 Sanderoock Street !I
N San Luis Obispo,CA 93401 p
Attachment 2
j m
cn
a .
I6
,
_ n S - -
iz € r - - --
o -$
O
0
Z41
4S Opo
{
I
1
�!
>Y ■ 1
P,
-i-n _
0
o p r�
1
IB
Z
IF s
Ia
l�1 '
ilip
1 IBEl
D 1 Proposed Condominium Develop. rb"Plan (TJ,
1 562 Sandercock Street
W San Luis Obispo,CA 93401 p
Attachment 2
s d 4111
-n v
zIM
? -i
§IM �<
111W
Z _ ' �;�.. ,.,.
0 � {.
cn s
0
G)
m '"K 0
C $Ayr TI
D a�{�
Zz
Z
V}}y Y•�efi SY,S16 f/)
l '.. !b
m p
O
c i
D Proposed Condominium Develop.
1 562 Sandercock Street p
i San Luis Obispo,CA 93401 D c
Attachment 2
+�t!.t �•fl){'�'i<•pyly`a . �', �,.. �' Y�•:,�;'�'e"•J`'r y;.i&.
:1^',,l` - .r•:•.\fi�l:ik .} !ir •k•i�}d:�,-P'.i�C{r�•'l
- - - -
's. f
.i�.:t y.. ti p a
'� R' .k 4 f a:':• Jr
F
v �� ,r�•��q,, O .�rp M�¢
Cis'y
OiL>y`` :1
..... .
r.?Y •K.�h.ti:ri m.
?t T r
M s r m
<
D
Yr
V-Pi T'
O
0
wocr .coma .��
1 Proposed Condominium Develop.
D 1 562 Sanderoock Street —_
1 Ln San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Q —
Attachment 2
4'"•:ir't.'..
ITl v4tY'" '9^y''�+'2�ri�`'7 r.�. g� 'fri _ '3..�.r. • v�'
C
fn e}} •:i• r- - -
rh
D r a: fi�`�.�yfasa Z tti
Cl)
ch♦.�,a hY��T l%hwt'.
M0 to
1tY 4 O
O
. ,yam �;J4t•' ���r�-0eN ._
Z
SG 3`0
`w �•
1 i!
• D Proposed Condominium Develop. mo2
SM
' 1 562 Sanderoock Street
EWvad
i 0) San Luis Obispo,CA 93401 D —
Attachment 2
ArMI
R.
r p.N""rLli pw.� +F�.,tr. (r,,. '?6:::•' +it J:..
t f'
D �� om•
.? �R.rl.''tRY/�YY t.! TD
�;�'.
,'� ~
Z 'P .' S:}•..• Z ;tet. .•.4i`.
0 \a.. f�.,,,4�.y,fl,.' d. .max{'1•:�Y}1; 7a'
Ch
f J1: y•' z
J',F•t(f A1'.
r r.
"`Aro• Z •�?y� 'tt.
D Proposed Condominium Develop. EWyndons
1 562 Sandercock Street
V _.r....__..a.
San Luis Obispo,CA 93401
Attachment 2
Ln LL4a
p
B �
,lam n
a _
m 0 m
9m
§ Z § Z� io
�
n W 42
Q >
MB
8
® 0®®®08@98999me (j) [
t �ilrriel 1$ ,y�:� SSi �
a �
c
� A
D 1 Proposed Condominium Develop. °"e
562 Sanderoock Street
secu
> _
do San Luis Obispo,CA 93401
f Attachment 3
= �I��BI�IIIIII�hllllll����� �I�I�IIII
�
city of sAn WIS OBISPO
990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249
January 11, 2006
Mike Sathre
233 Mayfield Court
Nedwbury Park, CA 91320
SUBJECT: ARC 202-05.—562 Sandercock Street
Review of the design for a 5-unit residential condominium
development, including a 25% density bonus for affordable housing
Dear Mr. Sathre:
The Architectural Review Commission, at its meeting of January 9, 2006, continued
action on your project to a date uncertain, with the following direction based on the
analysis contained in the staff report:
1. Require one short-term bicycle parking space located in a central location.
2. Provide details of the fire double detector check valve and landscape backflow
preventer and other mechanical equipment, including the location and proposed
screening.
3. Provide a landscaping plan indicating plantings in both the common and private open
spaces, utilizing tree species with vertical growth to maximize usable yard spaces.
4. Reduce the height of fencing between private yard spaces to 4 —5 feet in height.
5. Expand the driveway to a width of 16 feet for at least one car length back from the
inside of the sidewalk to allow two cars to pass without queuing in the street.
6. Adjust the site plan to provide sufficient turnaround area for the vehicle parked
below Unit 5.
7. Use interlocking paving or other decorative paving system to soften the appearance
of the widened driveway and parking court.
8. Provide trash facilities that comply with the requirements of City waste collection
services. The possibility of individual waste-wheelers to serve units should be
investigated. If needed, the design of the trash enclosure shall accommodate both
trash and recycling bins, complement the building design, and be practically located
so that is easily accessible to all residential units.
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.
Attachment 3
ARC 202-05 --
Page 2
9. Provide further articulation of the east elevation of the front building and the west
elevation of the rear building.
10. Consider exposed rafter tails instead of a fascia.
11. Use dormer vents similar to those installed on Lemos Feed at the comer of Orcutt
Road and Broad Street.
12. Use operable, hopper-style windows for the garage door windows of the front
building. These windows shall include muntins to create a pane pattern similar to
the windows in the upstairs portion of the building.
13. Add a walkway at the base of the stairs of Unit 5 to the patio.
14. Window frames shall be in an off-white or beige color to coordinate with the
proposed building colors.
15. Provide a detailed colors and materials board with actual color chips and samples,
rather than a colored photocopy, to get a clearer depiction of actual colors.
16. Provide a door to Unit 5 that is of a similar style and character as the doors of the
other proposed units. Look at providing some type of covering above the door for
weather protection.
If you have questions, please contact Jaime Hill at (805) 781-7165.
Sincerely,
IAIP GG%
Pamela Ricci,
Senior Planner
Community Development
cc: County of SLO Assessor's Office
Aaron Gannage
P.O. Box 6411
Los Osos, CA 93402
' ARC Minutes `: Attachment 3
January 9, 2006
Page 3
On motion by Commr. Boudreau to approve the applicant's requested tree_ removals for
lots 1 thru 7. subject to conditions. Seconded by Commr. Root.
AYES: Commrs. Boudreau, Root, Wilhelm, Stevenson, Lopes, Smith and Howard
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
Building Footprints
Commr. Stevenson questioned the size of houses versus lot size. He wanted to see
scaling devices used in the home designs to reduce the apparent massing and smaller-
scale homes on Lots 1 and 2. He also suggested looking into secondary dwelling units
on some lots.
Commr. Wilhelm felt the proposed house designs should have different sizes and styles
and suggested the architects meet with the surrounding neighborhood to review scaling
devices and architectural styles and designs to reduce the apparent massing of
proposed structures to help achieve consensus on the lot designs.
Commr. Lopes agreed that the house sizes should vary.
Commr. Smith supported the proposal as presented.
Commr. Root preferred a wide variety of styles and designs with the potential for an
added guest house or granny unit as a option to buyers.
On motion by Commr. Lopes to continue action _to a date uncertain on building
footprints and designs with direction. Seconded by Commr. Wilhelm
2. 562 Sandercock Street ARC 202-05; Review of the design for a 5-unit residential
condominium development, including a 25% density bonus for affordable housing;
R-2 zone; Mike Sathre, applicant.
Associate Planner Tyler Corey, presented the staff report, recommending continuance
to date uncertain with specific direction on changes to incorporate into the site plan and
elevations for final approval.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
Aaron Gannage, applicant's representative, spoke in support of the request, noting he
will look into changes to the placement or need for a trash enclosure.
There were no further comments from the public.
COMMISSION COMMENTS:
Discussion focused on details of the building designs. ��
ARC Minutes Attachment 3
• January 9, 2006
Page 4
Commr. Smith questioned the density, which staff then clarified
Commr. Lopes expressed concerns with elements proposed in project buildings that
may not be in keeping with the neighborhood. He suggested that more vertical
elements be used in the windows of the garages of the front building to mimic the
windows on the second story, and adding a covering above the entry to Unit 5.
Chair Howard questioned the location of the trash enclosure.
Commr. Wilhelm felt the east elevation of the front wall should contain additional
articulation similar to the other walls and suggested consideration of adding a walkway
to unit 5.
Commr. Boudreau suggested the use of exposed rafter tails.
Commr. Stevenson had suggestions on stealth dormer vents.
On a motion by Commr. Wilhelm to continue action to a date uncertain with direction
Seconded by Commr. Boudreau.
AYES: Commrs. Boudreau, Root, Wilhelm, Howard, Smith, Lopes & Stevenson
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN:. None
The motion carried on a 7-0 vote.
3. Staff
A. Agenda Forecast
Pam Ricci gave an agenda forecast of upcoming projects.
4. Commission:
A.. Minutes of December 5, and December 19, 2005
The minutes were approved as submitted.
B. Recent Project Review
Commr. Lopes brought up the following items:
1. 857 Higuera asked staff to verify whether the green color of the remodeled space
to accommodate the new sushi restaurant was consistent with the approved colors
board. Pam Ricci indicated that the project planner would confirm that the
completed project was consistent with approvals when he completed the blue card
inspection. 8-�8-
= Attachment 4
RESOLUTION NO. 5451-06
A RESOLUTION OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION
RECOMMENDING APPROVAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF NEGATIVE
DECLARATION AND CONDOMINIUM TRACT MAP FOR 5 RESIDENTIAL UNITS
FOR PROPERTY AT 562 SANDERCOCK; TR/ER 202-05 (Tract 2787)
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
May 10, 2006, for the purpose of considering application TRIER 202-05, a request to allow a
five-unit residential airspace condominium subdivision; 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 Negative
Declaration of environmental impact for the project; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has duly considered all evidence, including the
testimony of the applicant, interested parties, and the evaluation and recommendations by staff,
presented at said hearing.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of
San Luis Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. Findings.
1. The proposed map is consistent with the General Plan because the subdivision will provide
for residential development consistent with the.Medium-Density Residential Zone.
2. As conditioned, the design and improvement of the proposed subdivision is consistent with
the General Plan because each dwelling has access to a compact, private open space area
and the development will occur as part of the neighborhood pattern anticipated for the
medium density residential zone.
3. The site is physically suited for the proposed type of development because it is an under-
developed.site that is adjacent to an existing street right-of-way.
4. As conditioned, the site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development
because the site is within an existing City block, services are available to serve the
development,and utilities have been designed to serve the site per City standards.
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
Attachment 4
PC Resolution 5451-06
TR/ER 202-05
562 Sandercock Street
Page 2
for fish or wildlife.
6. The design of the subdivision, or type of improvements, is not likely to cause serious public
health problems because the type of improvements are residential and development will be
designed to meet existing building and safety codes.
7. The design of the subdivision, or the type of improvements, will not conflict with easements,
acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, property within the proposed
subdivision because no such easements exist.
8. A Negative Declaration was prepared by the Community Development Department on May
3, 2006. The Planning Commission finds and determines that the project's Negative
Declaration adequately identifies 'that there is no foreseeable potential for significant
environmental impacts by the proposed project.
SECTION 2. Action.
The Commission hereby recommends approval of the Tentative Tract Map for 5 residential units
and adoption of said Negative Declaration (TR/ER 202-05), with incorporation of the following
project conditions:
Conditions:
1. The project shall be forwarded to the Architectural Review Commission to review the
project design for consistency with the Community Design Guidelines following approval of
the Common Interest Subdivision by the City Council. Their review shall include approval
of the final location and design of the necessary trash enclosure(s).
2. An affordable housing agreement consistent with the draft affordable housing proposal, shall
be submitted for review and approval of the Community Development Director prior to
proceeding to the City Council.
3. The final map shall indicate common and private open space yards and the CC&R's shall
describe maintenance of all common areas.
4. Long term bicycle storage, shall be supplied for each unit, to the approval of the Community
Development Director.
5. Refuse collection shall be provided and maintained by the Homeowners Association or their
designee for the general use of all residents of the site at the rate of six waste wheelers,
including three recycling,two trash and one green bin.
6. The responsibility of ensuring that refuse containers are placed at the curb for collection no
earlier than 7:00 p.m. the day prior to collection and returned to their designated enclosures
�-2D
Attachment 4
PC Resolution 5451-06
TR/ER 202-05
562 Sandercock Street
Page 3
no later than 9:00 a.m. after collection shall be the responsibility of the Homeowners
Association or their designee.
7. The applicant shall pay Park In-Lieu Fees prior to recordation of the Final Map, consistent
with SLO Municipal Code Section 16.40.080.
8. 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.
9. The Conditions, Covenants, and Restrictions (CC&R's) for the project shall include a
requirement, to be enforced by the Homeowner's Association and the City, that all garages
must be available for parking a vehicle at all times.
10. A masonry wall shall be constructed along the east property line between Units 2 and 3,
adjacent to the uncovered parking area, to minimize effects of vehicle noise and light on
adjacent parcels.
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. The map shall be recorded prior to building permit issuance in accordance with the city's
subdivision regulations and the Subdivision Map Act.
2. Public improvements required as a condition, code requirement, or mitigation measure may
be shown on a separate plan and approved prior to building permit issuance. Said
improvements may be completed or a bond posted for their completion to allow for
recordation of the map prior to the completing of all required and/or proposed
improvements.
3. The required improvements may be processed as required for Tract maps or may be
processed under an encroachment permit at the discretion of the City Engineer. If an
encroachment permit is used to complete all improvements, then a separate plan review fee
shall be established based on the requirements for subdivisions. Depending on the proposed
timing for map recordation and building permit issuance, a completion guarantee may be
required per city standards.
Attachment 4
PC Resolution 5451-06
TR/ER 202-05
562 Sandercock Street
Page 4
4. The provisions of Section 16.20.220 of the Subdivision Regulations are applicable to any
public improvements and generally those improvements that may have a direct impact on
public improvements as determined by the City Engineer.
5. Traffic impact fees shall be paid for this development prior to building permit issuance.
Credit for removal of the existing buildings will be applied based on the use of the existing
development. Credit will only be applied to permanent, lawfully existing structures.
6. An encroachment permit will be required from the Public Works Department for any work
or construction staging in the public right-of-way.
7. Any easements including but not limited to provisions for all public and private utilities,
access, drainage, common driveways, and maintenance of the same shall be shown on the
final map or recorded separately prior to map recordation if applicable.
8. A new street light and all associated facilities including but not limited to conduits, sidewalk
vaults, fusing, wiring, and luminaries shall be provided on the westerly side of the proposed
driveway approach per city standards. The light shall be spaced to honor the existing street
light locations and to provide reasonable separation between the existing lights. Off-site
street lighting improvements, alterations, or upgrades may be required along roadways
leading to and from the proposed development to complete the necessary public
improvements.
9. All wire utilities to the new units shall be underground.
10. The owner/applicant shall exhaust options to provide alternate telecommunication service
drops or underground service to the existing neighboring properties in an effort to eliminate
the existing wood utility pole located to the west of the driveway. If not successful; the pole
shall be relocated to provide the required clearances from the driveway transition.
11. The tentative map shows new power, telephone, and cable utilities underground in an
easement along the Sandercock frontage. The map and/or building plan submittal shall
include complete engineering drawings or a composite utility plan from the serving utilities
confirming their infrastructure requirements.
12. Underground electrical service may be provided from the existing overhead system provided
at the rear of the property. _The owner/applicant shall secure any necessary easements
required to extend services to this development.
13. Any sections of damaged or displaced curb, gutter & sidewalk or driveway approach shall
be repaired or replaced to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director prior to recordation
of the map.
8=z�
J. Attachment 4
PC Resolution 5451-06
TR/ER 202-05
562 Sandercock Street
Page 5
14. The existing street pavement shall be maintained in good repair during construction. The
final pavement condition shall be evaluated at the completion of the project for excessive
wear or damage resulting from construction operations. Pavement repairs and a slurry seal
may be required per city standards if determined as being necessary by the City Engineer.
15. The existing curb grades shall be verified as being consistent with the approved street
grades. If it is determined that the curb and gutter has settled to unacceptable limits, then
they shall be restored to curb and gutter elevations approved by the City Engineer. Any new
curb grade plans shall be prepared by a licensed engineer and shall be the responsibility of
the owner/developer.
16. The subdivider shall dedicate a 6' (2m) wide public utility easement and a 10' (3m) wide
street tree easement across the frontage of each lot. Said easements shall be adjacent to and
contiguous with all public right-of-way lines bordering each lot.
17. A private sewer mainline may be proposed in-lieu of separate sewer laterals for each unit. If
proposed or required by the Utilities Director, the on-site sewer main shall be privately
owned and maintained by the Homeowner's Association.
18. A maintenance agreement.for the sewer, paving, landscape improvements, and any other
common improvements shall be recorded prior to or concurrent with the map recordation:
19. The parking lot design shall comply with the parking and driveway standards and
Engineering Standard Section 2010.E.7. All parking spaces must be designed so that
vehicles can enter in one maneuver. Furthermore, all spaces shall be designed so that
vehicles can exit to the adjoining street in a forward direction in not more than two
maneuvers.
20. The demolition of the existing building shall comply with all local, state, and federal
requirements for the demolition of structures.
21. A preliminary soils report is required in accordance with the Subdivision Map Act and the
City of San Luis Obispo Subdivision Regulations. The report is required at the time of
tentative map submittal or if approved may be deferred to map recordation. The report shall
be referenced on the final map in accordance with the city's Subdivision Regulations and the
Subdivision Map Act.
22. This project shall comply with the requirements for engineered grading in accordance with
the grading ordinance. The grading, drainage, and erosion control plans shall be prepared by
a licensed civil engineer.
23. The building plan submittal shall include a complete grading, drainage and topo plan. The
grading plan shall show existing structures and grades located within 15' of the property
lines in accordance with the grading ordinance. The plan shall consider historic offsite
Attachment 4
PC Resolution 5451-06
TR/ER 202-05
562 Sandercock Street
Page 6
drainage tributary to this property that may need to be conveyed along with the improved
on-site drainage. This development will alter and/or increase the storm water runoff from
this site. The improved or altered drainage shall be.directed to the street and not across
adjoining property lines unless the drainage is conveyed within recorded easements or
existing waterways..
24. The grading and drainage plan shall show the existing and proposed contours and/or spot
elevations to clearly depict the proposed grading and drainage. Show and label the high
point elevation or grade break at the yard areas, drainage arrows, and spot elevations to
show positive drainage away from the building pads and foundations to an approved point of
disposal. The plan shall include the FF of the units, finish grade elevations, finish surface
elevations, and parking lot drainage.
25. The building plan submittal shall include an erosion control plan and erosion control notes
in accordance with the Waterway Management Plan Drainage Design Manual and to the
satisfaction of the Building Official and Public Works Director. Erosion control measures
shall be implemented and maintained for construction occurring between October 15 and
April 15.
26. One 15-gallon street tree is required for each 35 lineal feet of frontage. A portion or all the
required street trees shall be planted in the parkway per city engineering standards #8010
and #8230 prior to recordation of the map. The remaining street trees shall be planted
within the street tree easement area. The final mix of species and tree locations shall be
approved to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and City Arborist.
27. The proposed street trees and any parkway landscaping shall be installed and maintained by
the HOA. The final planting plan for the parkway and onsite landscape areas shall consider
the required line-of-sight distances for vehicles exiting onto Sandercock.
Mapping and Misc.Requirements
28. All boundary monuments, lot corners and.centerline intersections., BC's, EC's, etc., shall be
tied to the City's Horizontal Control Network At least two control points shall be used and a
tabulation of the coordinates shall be submitted with the final map or parcel map. All
coordinates submitted shall be based on the City coordinate system. A 3.5" diameter
computer floppy disk, containing the appropriate data compatible with Autocad (Digital
Interchange Format, DXF) for Geographic Information System (GIS) purposes, shall be
submitted to the City Engineer.
29. The parcel map/final map preparation and monumentation shall be in accordance with the
city's Subdivision Regulations, Engineering Standards, and the Subdivision Map Act. The
parcel map may use Customary U.S. Units or the International System of Units (metric
system). All record data shall be entered on the map in the record units, metric translations
should be in parenthesis if applicable.
Attachment 4
PC Resolution 5451-06
TR/ER 202-05
562 Sandercock Street
Page 7
Grading&Drainage
30. In order to mitigate for a decrease in water quality, the stormwater runoff from all improved
areas of the development site, except rooftops, shall be treated in accordance with the Best
Management Practices published in the California Stormwater Quality Association's Best
Management Practice Handbook, January 2003. For the purposes of water quality design,
all water quality BMPs shall be designed to treat runoff from a 25 nim/24-Hour storm event.
31. Prior to the approval of public improvement plans, the subdivider shall submit an updated
report based on the final design in accordance with the City's Waterways Management Plan
Drainage Design Manual
Water,Sewer &Utilities
32. The existing sewer laterals stubbed to the property shall be properly abandoned at the public
main. 'The sewer lines in the public right-of-way shall be parallel or perpendicular to the street
centerline. The minimum slope for any public sewer is 0.005. The water service configuration
appears adequate, however it is suggested that the ten meters be configured in manifolds of 4,3,
and 3 meters each,with the landscape meter being the fourth meter on one of the manifolds.
On motion by Commissioner Christenson, seconded by Commissioner Carter, and on the
following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Christenson, Carter, Ashbaugh, McCoy, and Stevenson, and
Chairwoman Miller
NOES: Commissioner Brown
REFRAIN: None
ABSENT: None
The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 10t'day of May, 2006.
Pamela Ricci, Sec
Planning Commission
GAMMSubdivision\202-05 TR-ER-ARC(562 Sandercock)\PC reso 202-05.doc
�I�
Planning Commission Mlnl _
May 10, 2006
` Attachment 5
Page 3
On motion by Commr. Christianson to recommend approval of the map amendment
from R-2-PD to R-3 and a subdivision map to allow theadditional condominium unit, to
the City Council, provided that staff refines Condition 2 and the HOA votes on the
easement issue prior to the City Council hearing. Seconded by Commr. Brown.
AYES: Commrs. Ashbaugh, Brown, Christianson, Carter, McCoy and Miller
NOES: Commr. Stevenson
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
The motion carred on a 6:1 vote.
2. 562 Sandercock St TR and ER 202-05: Review of air space condominium map (5
units plus a common lot); R-2 zone; Mike Sathre, applicant. (Jaime Hill)
Associate Planner Jaime Hill presented the staff report, recommending the Commission
recommend to the City Council adoption of the condominium tract map and Negative
Declaration, noting that the project includes a density bonus for the dedication of one
unit as an affordable dwelling.
Aaron Gannage, applicant's representative; spoke in support of the project and was
available for questions.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
Kirk Collins, Principal of Hawthome Elementary School, expressed concems with
parking and the trash enclosure location.
John Henrich, San Luis Obispo, voiced concern with parking, the elimination of the
mulberry tree, and added noise.
There were no further comments from the public.
COMMISSION COMMENTS:
Commission discussion focused on parking and density.
Commr. Brown asked staff if the project is consistent with the General Plan and
expressed opposition to monitoring the use of the garages.
Commr. Carter questioned the potential parking problems.
Commr. McCoy supported staff's condition requiring that driveways be kept clear and
only used for parking when necessary.
On motion by Commr. Christianson to recommend the Council approve the
condominium tract map and negative declaration, with the elimination of condition #7
which required one year review of the trash collection, and adding conditions that would
0 �lR
Planning Commission Min. _ Attachment
May 10, 2006
Page 4
require the garages to remain available for vehicle_ parking, for the portion of the east
property line adiacent to the uncovered parking be developed with a masonry wall, and
to include a list of Code Requirements as recommended by the Public Works
Department. Seconded by Commr. McCoy.
AYES: Commrs. Ashbaugh, Christianson, Carter, McCoy, Stevenson and Miller
NOES: Commr. Brown
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
The motion carried on a 6:1 vote.
3. Staff
A. Agenda Forecast
Planner Ricci presented an agenda forecast of upcoming projects.
4. Commission
ADJOURMENT:
With no further business before the Commission, the meeting adjourned at 9:20 p.m. to
the regular meeting of the Planning Commission scheduled for Wednesday May 24,
2006, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street.
Respectfully submitted by
Jill Francis
Recording Secretary
Approved by Planning Commission on May 24, 2006.
Diane R. Stuart, CM
Management Assistant
Attachment 6
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT ITEM#2
BY: Jaime Hill,Associate Planner (781-7165) MEETING DATE: May 10, 2006
FROM: Pamela Ricci, Deputy Director(Development Review)
FILE NUMBER: TR/ER 202-05
PROJECT ADDRESS: 562 Sandercock Street
SUBJECT: Review of a proposed tract map to allow a new 5-unit condominium subdivision on
the north side of Sandercock Street, across from Hawthorne Elementary School.
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a resolution recommending approval of the condominium tract map and Negative
Declaration to the City Council.
.BACKGROUND
Situation
The applicant would like to demolish the existing structure on the site and construct a new 5-unit
residential condominium project and site improvements: Condominium projects with 5 or more
units require approval of a tract map, which requires review by both the Planning Commission
and City Council for compliance with the Subdivision Regulations and the City's Condominium
Regulations. The Architectural Review Commission (ARC) conceptually reviewed this project
on January 9, 2006, and continued it to a date uncertain with direction on site planning and
building articulation details (Attachment 3). Following approval of the environmental document
and tract map by the Council the project will return to the ARC for final architectural approval.
Data Summary
Address: 562 Sandercock
Applicant/Property Owner: Michael Sathre
Representative: Aaron Gannage, Gannage &Associates
Zoning: R-2 (Medium-Density Residential)
General Plan: Medium-Density Residential
Environmental Status: An initial study of environmental review has been prepared
for the project and staff has determined that the project will
result in less than significant impacts when developed in
accordance with the recommended Negative Declaration
(Attachment 5).
Attachrnprit 6
TR/ER 202-05 (562 Sandercock)
Page 2
Site Description
The 11,250 square-foot (0.26-acre) site is located on Sandercock Street directly across from
Hawthorne Elementary School, and is currently developed with a single-family residence. The
project site is mid-block and is surrounded on Sandercock by a mixture of single and multi-
family residences. The northerly boundary of the site abuts a C-N zone with a combination of
commercial spaces, single-family homes, and multi-family housing units, and the southerly
boundary fronts a PF zone that is developed with the aforementioned elementary school.
Although the area is dominated by small detached dwellings, the proposed development is
similar in scale to much of the more recent development in the area. Trees on the site include
several fruit trees, willows, and a large Mulberry, all of which are proposed for removal.
Project Description
The project includes complete site demolition, including removal of the existing residence and
associated improvements and ornamental trees. The residence at 562 Sandercock has not been
designated as historic and although it is believed to have been constructed prior to 1927, staff has
determined that it does not represent a historic resource. The potential for a structure to be found
historically significant is based on a number of criteria including, style, design, age, architect,
environmental design continuity, history-person, history-event and history-context as described in
the Historical Preservation Program Guidelines. The residence is a simple, single-story non-descript
building within the Weill's Addition neighborhood that through staff's research was not found to
have any significant historic ties.
Following demolition of the existing structure, the applicant is proposing to construct two new
structures with a total of five dwellings, parking, and outdoor space. The site has been designed
around a motor court with a single driveway and with garages and uncovered parking located at
the center of the site. The building at the front of the site is approximately 2,797 square feet and
includes one- and two-bedroom units on two levels, each with an attached single-car garage. The
building will face Sandercock with a covered patio and front entrances for each of the two units.
The rear building is approximately 3,503 square feet and includes three units, including a studio,
one-, and two-bedroom dwellings within two levels. These units in the rear building also have
direct access to attached single-car garages and covered entries for each unit, while also
providing private rear yards. Including the garages, the two story structures have a maximum
height of 21 feet, 5 inches. Parking is provided in private single-car garages and four uncovered
spaces, which includes one guest-parking stall. Private open space is provided through a
combination of covered patios, second-story balconies, and small ground level yard areas
adjacent to the units. The style of the proposed architecture is California/Mission style with
white exterior plaster, wrought iron decorative features, arched doorways, natural wood trellises
and gates, and clay tile roofing.
The applicant is proposing to dedicate one unit for affordable housing in order to maximize the
project's allowed density. Since one of the five units is proposed to be deed-restricted to low or
moderate affordability levels, the project will be entitled to a 25% density bonus. This will allow
g--z�
Attachment 6
TR/ER 202-05 (562 Sandercock)
Page 3
the applicant to develop slightly larger units than would otherwise be allowed in the R-2 district
on this property. Density is further discussed in the Evaluation section below.
EVALUATION
The General Plan goals that new projects be compatible with existing surrounding development
and acknowledge site context are also tenets in many of the applicable infill and multi-family
development guidelines contained in the Community Guidelines. In general, staff feels that the
design of the proposed units achieves these goals, while adding a new home ownership option in
this neighborhood. The following discussion outlines the issue areas relative to this project and
calls out discussion areas for the Planning Commission to consider.
1.General Plan
The site's Medium-Density Residential land use designation allows for a variety of single-family
and small multi-family developments in the surrounding neighborhood. Consistent with several
General Plan Land Use and Housing Element policies, this plan proposes to utilize an infill site to
maximize the property's density, including a 25% density bonus for dedicating the studio unit as an
affordable unit. A significant factor in analyzing General Plan consistency is determining whether
the proposed development is compatible with the neighborhood. General Plan LU policy 2.2.10
and Housing Element Policies 7.2.1 through 7.2.4 discuss the importance of neighborhood
compatibility and relate specifically to infill development. Although this project entails more units
than other developments in the area, staff believes that the project has been designed to be
compatible with the neighborhood in terms of density, scale, massing and building articulation as
viewed from the street.
As previously mentioned, the residence that will be removed as part of the site redevelopment is not
been historic, is not enforceably restricted as affordable housing, and will be available for relocation
prior to demolition. Housing Element Policy 3.2.1 directs that the City encourage rehabilitation,
remodeling or relocation of rehabitable housing rather than demolition. In this case, the demolition
of the non-historic housing may be permitted as the conservation of the existing housing would
preclude the achievement of other housing objectives and adopted City goals. Therefore, the
proposed project could be found consistent with this policy as it will allow more intensive
development of the infill site with a project that will provide for relatively affordable and
conveniently located housing called for by other policies.
2. Community Design Guidelines
Two chapters of the Community Design Guidelines, Chapter 5.3: Infill Development, and Chapter
5.4:Multi-Family and Clustered Housing Design should be considered when reviewing this project.
The guidelines stress the importance of neighborhood compatibility in terms of building design,
scale, and detailing. The project incorporates many features that are consistent with guidelines
found in both chapters in that it provides for building heights and setbacks consistent with the
neighborhood, provides for clustered attached units, and provides traditional architectural features
_ Attachment 6
TR/ER 202-05 (562 Sandercock)
Page 4
and building articulation. Proposed parking areas are covered and screened from street view, and
facade and roof articulation is appropriately incorporated given the scale of the project. Balconies
and private outdoor spaces are provided for each unit. The overall design as viewed from
Sandercock illustrates general compliance with the design guidelines. The ARC in general endorsed
the design of the project with direction on details that they wanted to see in revised plans submitted
for their final review(Attachment 3).
2.Medium-Density Residential Development(R-2) Zone Development Standards
As proposed, .the project complies with the property development standards, including vehicle
and bicycle parking,height, lot coverage, and street and other yard setbacks. The allowed density
in the R-2 district is 12 units per acre. This property is 0.2582 acres, which allows for 3.10
density units. With a proposed density bonus of 25%, a total density of 3.87 dwelling units will
be allowed on the property. In order to achieve the density bonus, the studio unit would be deed-
restricted as an affordable dwelling. The density bonus allows for the project to be developed as
proposed with a density of 3.82 units. The following table provides a complete analysis of the
proposed development and City standards.
Table 1: Project Statistics and Code Requirements
zSTANDARD CODE'RE LTIREIVIENT:
Yards
• Street 20 Feet 20 Feet to trellis/23 Feet to Building
• Other 7.0 Feet (East) 7 Feet
7.0 Feet(West) 7 &14 Feet
8.5 Feet (North) 10 Feet
Building Height 35 Feet 21 Feet 5 Inches
Max. Lot Coverage 50% 33%
Parking
• 2 2-bdr unit 4`spaces 2 covered&2 uncovered
• 2 1-bdr units 3 spaces 2 covered& 1 uncovered
• 1 Studio 1 space 1 covered
• Guest l space (1 per 5 units) 1 uncovered
Total =9 spaces Total=9 Spaces
Density Site Area(11,250)/43,560* 12 = 2 2-bdr=2.00 units
3.1 Maximum Density 2 1=bdr= 1.32 units
3.1 +25% for Affordable Bonus 1 Studio=0.50 units
Total =3.87 Total =3.82 Units proposed
3.Subdivision Regulations
The Tentative Tract Map will be subject to processing under the City's recently approved
Subdivision Regulations, which became effective on April 6, 2006.. The Subdivision Regulations
Attachment 6
TR/ER 202-05 (562 Sandercock)
Page 5
contain standards for common and private open space, recreation amenities and storage. Unlike a
rental apartment project, which are open to discretion on the size and placement of open space
areas, the condominium standards have specific guidelines that must be incorporated into
ownership condominium projects. The applicable standards for common and private open space
and recreation amenities have been included as Attachment 4. Condominium projects in the
Medium-Density Residential Zone (R-2) are required to provide a minimum of 250 square feet of
private open space, 150 square feet common open space, and 750 square feet of total open space
per unit. Through a combination of ground level yard space and decking each unit is provided
with more than the required amount of complying private open space area.. Likewise, the total
amount of common and total open spaces exceed that required to meet the Subdivision
Regulations. Storage must also be included for each unit and must consist of at least two hundred
cubic feet of enclosed, weatherproof and lockable private storage space, exclusive of cabinets
and closets within the unit. The analysis below describes these requirements and the proposed
project:
Private Open Space (250 s.f. per unit): In total, including ground level yards and upper level
decks, the project includes 1,658 square feet of private open space. Therefore, the proposed
project provides ample private open space .yards for all units that exceed the minimum
requirements (5 x 250= 1,250 square feet).
Common Open Space (150 s.f. per unit): The proposed project includes approximately 3,150
square feet of common open space that exceed the minimum requirements (5 x 150 =750 square
feet). .
Combined "Total" open space (400 s.L per unit): The project includes a total of 5,390 square
feet of private and common open space, which exceeds the total minimum requirement (5 X 400
= 2,000 square feet).
Storage: Each unit contains storage areas or cabinets within the garages that generally comply
with the minimum storage requirements of 200 cubic feet.
4. Trash Collection
Because of the number of units that have been designed for this relatively small site, finding a
suitable trash collection solution without creating a profusion of individual waste wheelers has
been a challenge. With the goal of limiting impacts to street parking and circulation on
Sandercock, it is desirable to minimize the number of individual bins that need to be placed
along the right-of-way on trash collection day. As an alternative, it would be impractical to
provide on-site dumpster service at this location given the maneuvering requirements of a trash
collection vehicle. through collaboration with San Luis Garbage and the City Utilities and
Public Works Departments an alternative collection model has been devised. Six shared waste
wheelers (two trash, three recycling and one green bin) will be provided for general use amongst
the five units. Because no individual property owner would be designated as the responsible
party, several conditions of approval have been recommended that would make the Homeowners
�',3z
Attachment 6
TR/ER 202-05 (562 Sandercock)
Page 6
Association ultimately responsible for ensuring that the bins are appropriately maintained and
utilized. Details of the trash enclosure(s) will be provided for review by the Architectural Review
Commission as part of the final project approval.
5.Landscaping and other site details
The development plan reviewed by the ARC indicates removal of existing trees and vegetation
along with demolition of existing improvements. Trees on the site include several fruit trees,
willows, and a large Mulberry, all of which are proposed for removal. The applicant has since
provided a preliminary landscape plan which proposes a logical arrangement of trees, shrubs and
groundcover plants for the street yard and other yard open spaces. Given the size and
configuration of the site and required improvements,the landscape plan seems a bit minimal, and
will be further reviewed by the ARC. Other finish details, such as the design of the light fixtures
will also be part of the final architectural review.
Summary
The Architectural Review Commission has conceptually reviewed the design details of the
development site and the architecture of the proposed units and found that the project is
appropriate and consistent with the Community Design Guidelines. The responsibility of the
Planning Commission and City Council is to review the subdivision map requirements and the
applicable General Plan Policies and open space standards.
ALTERNATIVES
1. Continue the item. An action to continue the item should include a detailed list of additional
information or project modifications required.
2. Recommend denial of the project to the City Council. Action denying the application should
include the basis for denial. If the condominium map is denied, then the applicant could still
potentially develop the site with an apartment project.
ATTACHMENTS
"•-, "--om 9i ReduE+edseala p- j—t plans
Attachment 4• Condo
Arrarhwan • Lnitl1 Sljljig of Fmrirnn•-g--..,i n ...:@W cn non nc
Endasp-
G:VF ill\Subdivision\202-05 TR-ER-ARC(562 Sandercock)\TR 202-05 PC rpt.DOC
Attachment 7
�a�hI�IIIIIIN8111111 IIIIIIillllll - ' -
C'r or 'SAn v IS OBISPO
990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249
INITIAL STUDY
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
For ER 202-05
1. Project Title: Sandercock Development
2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of San Luis Obispo
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
3. Contact Person and Phone Number-: Jaime Hill, Associate Planner
(805)781-7165
4. Project Location: 562 Sandercock Street, City of San Luis Obispo (north side of Sandercock,
just west of Story Street)
5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address:
Applicant: Mike Sathre
233 Mayfield Court
Newbury Park, CA 91320
Representative: Aaron Gannage, Gannage & Associates
P.O. Box 6411
Los Osos, CA 93412
6. General Plan Designation: Medium Density Residential
7. Zoning: R-2 (Medium Density Residential)
8. Description of the Project:
The 11,250 square-foot (0.26-acre) site is located on Sandercock Street directly across from
Hawthorne Elementary School, and is currently developed with a single-family residence. The
project site is mid-block and is surrounded on Sandercock by a mixture of single and multi-
family residences. Trees on the site include several fruit trees, Willows, and a large Mulberry, all
of which are proposed for removal. Development of the proposed project will include demolition
of the existing residence and construction of two new structures with a total of five dwellings,
parking, and outdoor use areas. The site has been designed around a motor court with a single
driveway and with garages and uncovered parking located at the center of the site. The building
at the front of the site is approximately 2,797 square feet and includes one- and two-bedroom
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.
Attachment 7
units on two levels, each with an attached single-car garage. The rear building is approximately
3,503 square feet and includes three units, including a studio unit which would be dedicated as
affordable, and one-, and two-bedroom dwelling within two levels,each with an attached single-
car garage.
9. Surrounding Land Uses and Settings:
The project is bordered primarily by residential development. Additionally, the parcel adjacent to
the north is designated Neighborhood Commercial (C-N) and is developed with a book store,and
the parcel across Sandercock to the south is designated Public Facility (PF) and is developed with
an Elementary School. Shopping and services are located nearby along the Broad Street Corridor.
10. Project Entitlements Requested:
The applicant has requested review and approval of a tentative tract map and architectural review
of the proposed condominium development.
11. Other public agencies whose approval is required: None
�3S
Attachment 7
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least
one impact that is a"Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
Aesthetics Geology/Soils Public Services
Agricultural Resources Hazards&Hazardous Recreation
Materials
Air Quality Hydrology/Water Quality Transportation&Traffic
Biological Resources Land Use and Planning Utilities and Service
Systems
Cultural Resources Noise Mandatory Findings of
Significance
Energy and Mineral Population and Housing T.a,
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)).
—� Attachment 7
DETERA19NATION:
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and X
a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
there will not be a significant effect in this case because' revisions in the project have been
made, or the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet(s) have been added and
agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED 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.
s-2 6
Signature Date
Pamela Ricci, Interim Deputy Director, Development Review John Mandeville,Community Development Director
Printed Name for
Attachment 7
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
0 ��O
At4achment 7
Issues, Discussion and Support...,, .nformation Sources Sources Pt. .. dy Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER # 176-05 Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
Page No.6
1.AESTHETICS. Would theproject:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? 1 X
b) Substantially damage scenic resources,including,but not limited 1,2, 8 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 8,20 X
the site and its surroundings?
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would 20,21 X
adversely effect nighttime views in the area?
Evaluation
a), b), c), d) The project involves redevelopment of a single parcel substantially surrounded by urban development. The
project is not in the area of any roads of high or moderate scenic value, as determined by the City's Scenic Roadways Map.
The project includes development within the property development standards of the Zoning Regulations and no height or
setback exceptions are required. The project site contains no scenic resources, such as significant trees or rock outcroppings.
The project will not create a new source of substantial light or glare.
Conclusion
No impacts have been identified relating to aesthetics. The project is subject to architectural review. The City's Architectural
Review Commission routinely reviews new development projects to insure a high level of architectural integrity and aesthetic
quality. No further mitigation is required.
2.AGRICULTURE RESOURCES. Would theproject:
a) Convert Prime Farmland,Unique Farmland,or Farmland of
Statewide Importance(Farmland),as shown on the maps 9, 11, X
pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of 12
the California Resources Agency,to non-agricultural use?
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use,or a 9 X
Williamson Act contract?
c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which,due to 10 X
their location or nature,could result in conversion of Farmland,
to non-agricultural use?
Evaluation
a),b),c)The site is designated as Urban Land by the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources
Agency. The project will not convert prime farmland to any non-agricultural use. The project site is within the Downtown
Planning Area and will not conflict with any agricultural zoning or Williamson Act contract. The project is an in-fill
development that will not result in changes that could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural uses.
Conclusion
The vroiect will not have any impact on agricultural resources.
3. AIR QUALM. Would theproject:
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an 13, 14 X
existing or projected air quality violation?
b) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air 13 X
quality plan?
c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant 21 X
concentrations?
d) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of 21 X
People?
o lJ /
r�u�lt;alrn�nt i
Issues, Discussion and Support...y information Sources Sources PL ...ady Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant hnpact
ER # 176-05 Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
Page No.7
e) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria
pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an
applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard 21 X
(including releasing emissions which exceed qualitative
thresholds for ozone precursors)?
Evaluation
a),b),c),e) San Luis Obispo County is a non-attainment area for the State PMtu(fine particulate[natter 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 Clean Air Plan(CAP)for San Luis Obispo County was
developed and adopted by the Air Pollution Control District(APCD)to meet that requirement. The CAP is a comprehensive
planning document designed to reduce emissions from traditional industrial and commercial sources,as well as from motor
vehicle use. Land Use Element Policy 1.18.2 states that the City will help the APCD implement the Clean Air Plan.
According to the Air Pollution Control District's(APCD)"CEQA Air Quality Handbook,"land uses that cause the generation
of 10 or more pounds per day (PPD) of reactive organic gases, oxides or nitrogen, sulfur dioxide, or fine particulate matter
have the potential to affect air quality significantly. A 50-unit apartment complex generates over 10 pounds of these
pollutants. Since the site is proposed to be developed with 17 condominium dwellings, the project is of a size that is below
APCD's air quality significance thresholds. Therefore, the project and resulting development will not generate a significant
impact on long-term air quality impacts.
d)The project is a residential condominium development and will not create objectionable odors under normal circumstances.
Conclusion
The project does not exceed APCD thresholds and air quality mitigation measures are not required. The City's Grading
Ordinance includes dust control measures that will apply to the project. Energy efficiency is a factor that is routinely
considered by the City's Architectural Review Commission and conditions of approval may be required to insure that City
goals are met with respect to solar orientation,building materials and general methods for conservation. No further mitigation
is required.
4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would theproject:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect,either directly or indirectly or 1,5, X
through habitat modifications,on any species identified as a 10
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 10 X
other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional
plans,policies,or regulations,or by the California Department
of Fish and Game or U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service?
c) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting 5, 10
biological resources,such as a tree preservation policy or X
ordinance(e.g.Heritage Trees)?
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident
or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native 10 X
resident or migratory wildlife corridors,or impede the use of
wildlife nursery sites?
e) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted habitat Conservation
Plan,Natural Community Conservation Plan,or other approved 5 X
local,regional,or state habitat conservation plan?
f) Have a substantial adverse effect on Federally protected
wetlands as defined in Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
�-yo
Attachment 7
Issues, Discussion and Support.... .nformation Sources sources Pt. ._.dy Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER# 176-05 Issues unless hnpact
Mitigation
Incorporated
Pae No.8
(including,but not limited to,marshes,vernal pools,etc.) 5 X
through direct removal,filling,hydrological interruption,or
other means?
Evaluation
a),b),c), e), f) The site is not within a riparian corridor and there are no creeks on the property. No endangered,threatened
or other protected species have been reported on the project site. There are no local ordinances or habitat conservation plans
that affect the property or that identify the site as potential habitat for any protected species of plant or animal. Although
several trees are proposed for removal the City's Urban Forester has review the project and determined that the proposed
landscape plan provides for adequate replacement plantings.
Conclusion
The project does not have the potential to impact biological resources.
5.CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would theproject:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a 16,17, X
historic resource?(See CEQA Guidelines 15064.5) 18
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an 15 X
archeological resource?(See CEQA Guidelines 15064.5)
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource 5, 15 X
or site or unique geologic feature?
d) Disturb any human remains,including those interred outside of 16, 17 X
formal cemeteries?
Evaluation
a) The project will remove a small existing residence from the site.Although it is believed to have been constructed prior to
1927, staff has determined that it does not represent a historic resource. The potential for a structure to be found historically
significant is based on a number of criteria including, style, design, age, architect, environmental design continuity, history-
person, history-event and history-context as described in the Historical Preservation Program Guidelines. The residence is a
simple, single-story non-descript building within the Weill's Addition neighborhood that through staffs research was not
found to have any significant historic ties.
The City's Building Demolition Code includes specific provisions to encourage the conservation of older structures in the
City. The requirements of the code include a 90-day "cool-off' period during which the buildings proposed for demolition
would be advertised as available for relocation. The Code also requires photo and historic documentation of structures over
50 years old. The City keeps the documentation in the Community Development Department Library for future research.
With these code requirements in place,no further mitigation is necessary.
b) The City's Archeological Resource Preservation Guidelines require preliminary archeological studies for properties that
are considered sensitive sites. The project site does not meet the criteria for sensitive site designation because it is more than
200 feet away from the City's major creeks and known archeological sites. The site is also outside of a historical district and
the property is not on the City's Inventory of Historic Resources. These factors indicate that the project will have no impact
on archeological resources.
c), d) The project site does not contain any known paleontological or geological resources and is not within an area where
burials are likely,as indicated by the City's Burial Sensitivity Map,on file in the Community Development Department.
Conclusion
The project site contains structures that are over 50 years old that are proposed for demolition. Based on the City's Historic
Resource Criteria for Building Evaluation and Recommendations, the building proposed for demolition is not a historic
resource. The requirements of the Building Demolition Code will require proper documentation of the existing structure and
Attachment 7
Issues, Discussion and Suppon. a .nformation Sources sources P(.. ...mly Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER# 176-05 Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
Page No.9
will potentially provide for its relocation. No further mitigation is required.
6. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the ro'ect:
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? 6,21 X
b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient 21 X
manner?
c) Result in the loss of availability of a(mown mineral resource
that would be of value to the region and the residents of the 9 X
State?
Evaluation
a) The development will not conflict with adopted energy conservation plans or promote the use of non-renewable resources
in an inefficient manner.
b)Any development on the site must comply with the policies contained in the General Plan Energy Conservation Element.
The Energy Conservation Element states that, "New development will be encouraged to minimize the use of conventional
energy for space heating and cooling,water heating,and illumination by means of proper design and orientation,including the
provision and protection of solar exposure." The City implements energy conservation goals through enforcement of the
California Energy Code,which establishes energy conservation standards for residential and nonresidential construction.
Future development of this site must meet those standards.
c)There are no known mineral resources on the project site that would be of value to the region or the State.
Conclusion
No further mitigation is required beyond compliance with City established energy conservation standards and all applicable
State requirements. The City's Development Standards for New Condominium Projects (SLOMC 17.82.110)requires solar
water heating to be provided to each unit unless equivalent energy savings can be made through other means. The
Architectural Review Commission regularly reviews development projects for compliance with this standard.
7. GEOLOGY AND SOILS Would theproject:
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse 4, 19 X
effects,including tisk of loss,injury or death involving:
I. Rupture of a known earthquake fault,as delineated in the 19 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? 19 X
III. Seismic related ground-failure,including liquefaction? 19 X
IV. Landslides or mudflows? 19 X
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? 21 X
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable,or that 19 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 21 X
Uniform Building Code(1994),creating substantial risks to life
or ert ?
Evaluation
a)San Luis Obispo County,including the City of San Luis Obispo,is located within the Coast Range Geomorphic Province,
which extends along the coastline from central California into Oregon. This region is characterized by extensive folding,
faulting,and fracturing of variable intensity. In general,the folds and faults of this province comprise the pronounced
northwest trending ridge-valley system of the central and northern coast of California.
AllaC rn.f"1 o n l 7
Issues, Discussion and Suppon,,.v .nformation Sources Sources Po. .amty Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Irnpact
ER# 176-05 Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
Pae No. 10
Under the Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zones Act,the State Geologist is required to delineate appropriately wide special
studies zones to encompass all potentially and recently-active fault traces deemed sufficiently active and well-defined as to
constitute a potential hazard to structures from surface faulting or fault creep.
In San Luis Obispo County,the special Studies Zone includes the San Andreas and the Los Osos faults.The edge of this study
area extends to the westerly city limits line,near Los Osos Valley Road.According to a recently conducted geology study,the
closest mapped active fault is the Los Osos Fault,which runs in a northwest direction and is about one mile from the City's
westerly boundary. Because portions of this fault have displaced sediments within a geologically recent time(the last 10,000
years),portions of the Los Osos fault are considered"active".Other active faults in the region include:the San Andreas,
located about 30 miles to the northeast,the Nacimiento,located approximately 12 miles to the northeast,and the San Simeon-
Hosgri fault zone,located approximately 12 miles to the west.
Although there are no fault lines on the project site or within close proximity,the site is located in an area of"High Seismic
Hazards",which means that future buildings constructed on the site will most likely be subjected to excessive ground shaking
in the event of an earthquake. Structures must be designed in compliance with seismic design criteria established in the
California Building Code for Seismic Zone 4. To minimize this potential impact,the Uniform Building Codes and City
Codes require new structures to be built to resist such shaking or to remain standing in an earthquake.
b),c)The project will not result in the loss of topsoil as most of the site will be covered by impervious surfaces or planted
with vegetation. The soils engineering report includes specific recommendations to insure that foundations are designed to
withstand settlement.
Conclusion
Future development will be required to comply with the Uniform Building Codes and City Codes which require new
structures to be built to resist such shaking or to remain standing in an earthquake,and proper documentation of soil
characteristics for designing structurally sound buildings. The Building Division of the Community Development Department
routinely reviews project for their compliance with the recommendations of the soils engineering report for the site. No
further mitigation is required.
8. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the ro'ect:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment 21 X
though the routine use,transport or disposal of hazardous
materials?
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment 9,21 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 21 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 21 X
emissions or hazardous or acutely hazardous materials,
substances,or waste?
e) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous 9 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 9 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 ofa or physically interfere with,the 4L-7 X
�- y`3
Attachment 7
Issues, Discussion and Suppon., , .11formation Sources Sources p(. -,may potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER # 176-05 Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
Pae No. 11
adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation
plan?
h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of lose,injury, 4 X
or death, involving wildland fires,including where wildlands are
adjacent to urbanized areas or where residents are intermixed
with wildlands?
Evaluation
a), b), c), d), e) 'The site does not contain any know hazardous substances and is not located in an area of high risk. As a
residential subdivision the project will not emit any hazardous emissions or require handling of hazardous wastes. The site is
not on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5.
f) The project site is outside of the Airport Land Use Plan area.
g) The project has been reviewed by the Fire Marshall and will not conflict with any emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan.
h) The Safety Element of the General Plan identifies the site as having a low potential for impacts from wildland fires.
Conclusion
The vroiect will not involve any impacts with respect to hazards or hazardous materials.
9. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would theproject:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge 7 X
requirements?
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere 7,21 X
substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be
a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the Iocal
groundwater table level(eg.The production rate of preexisting
nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support
existing land uses for which permits have been granted)?
c) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the 21 X
capacity of existing or planned storm-water drainage systems or
provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff.
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or 10,21 X
area in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or
siltation onsite or offsite?
e) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or 10,21 X
area in a manner which would result in substantial flooding
onsite or offsite?
f) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on 9 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 9 X
would impede or redirect flood flows?
h Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? 21 X
Evaluation
a), b), h) The project will not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. All of the residences will
be served by the City's sewer system and run-off is required to be directed to an approved point of disposal, in this case a
storm drain. The project will be served with water by the City's Utilities Department and will not use or otherwise deplete
groundwater resources or negatively effect water quality.
FttFc1,1.rnent 7
Issues, Discussion and Suppon,,,y ,aformation Sources Sources PL'. ."ady Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER# 176-05 Issues unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
Pae No. 12
c),d)Future development of the site will increase the amount of impervious surfaces on the site and affect the absorption rate,
drainage patterns and the amount and rate of surface runoff. To assure that potential drainage impacts are minimized to a
level of insignificance, any future development of the site will be required to be designed to meet all applicable City codes,
including City grading and drainage standards. Site drainage will be adequately evaluated with the grading plans as part of
the required Architectural Review process. A safe overflow route in the event of a 100 year storm is required to be
incorporated into site development plans.
e),f)The project site is not within the boundaries of an area subject to inundation from flood waters in a 100-year storm.
Conclusion
No impacts have been identified with respect to water quality or hydrology. Drainage plans will be evaluated for consistency
with existing City codes as part of the subdivision approval process and through architectural review. No further mitigation is
required.
10. LAND USE AND PLANNING- Would theproject:
a) Conflict with applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of I X
an agency•with jurisdiction over the project adopted for the
purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
b) Physically divide an established community? 1,2 X
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural 5 X
community conservationplans?
Evaluation
a) The General Plan Land Use Map designates the site Medium Density Residential. The land use designation is described as
"primarily dwellings having locations and forms that provide a sense of both individual identity and neighborhood cohesion
for the households occupying them,but in a more compact arrangement than Low-Density Residential.Such dwellings are
generally one-or two-story detached buildings on small lots,or attached dwellings, with some private outdoor space for each
dwelling". The project site is zoned R-2(Medium Density Residential)with a maximum allowable density of 12 units per net
acre,or 3.10 for this 0.26 acre site. The applicant is proposing to dedicate one unit as an"affordable dwelling"which
automatically grants them a 25%density bonus,bringing the maximum density allowed for the site to 3.87 density units.The
project has been designed with a density equivalent of 3.82 density units. This is less than the maximum density allowed on
the site,which is 3.87 density units.The five units are dispersed between two buildings,and each unit is provided with a
private entrance,garage,and yard area.
b) The project site includes one land parcel on a 0.26 acre site. The project will be served by existing streets and will be
bordered by other residential uses. The project will not physically divide an established community.
c) The project will not conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plans or natural community conservation plans.
Conclusion
The project will be developed with the type of improvements anticipated by the General Plan and Zoning Regulations and will
not create any impacts to land use and planning.
11.NOISE. Would the project result in:
a) Exposure of people to or generation of"unacceptable"noise
levels as defined by the San Luis Obispo General Plan Noise 3 X
Element,or general noise levels in excess of standards
established in the Noise Ordinance?
b) A substantial temporary,periodic,or permanent increase in 3,21
ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing X
without the project?
Atta 4',ii eat 7
Issues, Discussion and Suppon,,,y ,nformation Sources Sources PC_ •LLady Potentially less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER #176 05 Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
Pae No. 13
c) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne 21 X
vibration or groundbome noise levels?
d) For a project located within an airport land use plan,or within 9
two miles of a public airport or public use airport,would the X
project expose people residing or working in the project area to
excessive noise levels?
a)The project site is completely outside of the measured noise contours for High and Broad Streets,the closest noise sources
of any significance. Since the project is subject to ambient noise levels at build-out of less than 60 dB Ldn (24-hour day and
night average),the potential impact of noise exposure for future residents is considered less than significant.
b) During construction, there will be a temporary increase in ambient noise levels. This type of noise is regulated by the
City's Noise Ordinance, which regulates times of construction and maximum noise levels that may be generated. If noise
levels exceed the Noise Ordinance thresholds,the property owner would be subject to possible citations.
c), d)The project will not expose people to the generation of excessive groundbome noise levels or vibration. The project is
outside of the Airport Land Use Plan area and is not directly in a flight path where occupants would be subject to noise from
aircraft operations.
Conclusion
The location of the project is outside of the areas defined by the Noise Element as subject to excessive noise levels. During
construction there will be a temporary increase in ambient noise levels, as controlled by the City Noise Ordinance. No
impacts with respect to noise have been identified.
12 POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would theproject:
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly 1,21
(for example by proposing new homes or businesses) or X
indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other
infrastructure)?
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing or people 1,21
necessitating the construction of replacement housing X
elsewhere?
Evaluation
a), b) The population added by this project is within the General Plan's projection and will not induce substantial growth in
the area or result in population exceeding local and regional growth projections. The project site is substantially surrounded
by urban development and the development of the site represents an in-fill development opportunity. This type of
development is encouraged because it can take advantage of existing facilities for water,sewer,storm drainage,transportation
and parks. The project site is presently developed with a small home that is rented on a short term basis. As a result,
significant numbers of people will not be displaced by the project.
Conclusion
The population growth created by the project is considered to be less than significant since the development is on an existing,
residentially zoned, parcel of land and development of the project site has been accounted for in the population estimates
contained in the City's General Plan.
13.PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the
provision,or need,of new or physically altered government facilities,the construction of which could cause
significant environmental impacts,in order to maintain acceptable service ratios,response times,or other
rformance objectives for any of the public services:
a) Fire protection? 1,21 X
b) Police protection? 1,21 X
c) Schools? 1,21 X
L 7
Issues, Discussion and Supportse.y ,oformation Sources Sources Po. . Wy Potentially less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER #176 05 Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
Pae No. 14
d) Parks? 1,21 X
e) Roads and other transportation infrastructure? 1,21
X
Other public facilities? 1,21 X
Evaluation
a)b),d),e),f) No potential impacts have been identified to any public services because of the small scale of the project and
its location within an existing residential neighborhood.
c) The school districts in the state are separate governing bodies with authority to collect fees to finance school construction
and parcel acquisition. Section 65955 of the Government Code prohibits the City from denying a subdivision or collecting
any fees beyond those required by the school district itself,to mitigate effects of inadequate school facilities. Any effect that
the additional children will have on school facilities will be mitigated in whole or in part by the districts per square foot fees,
charged at the time of building permit issuance for each residence.
Conclusion
The project has been routed to City Departments for review and comments on the proposal. As part of each routing, the
reviewing department is required to certify that serving the project will not result in a deficiency to any City facility or
resource. All reviewing departments have indicated their ability to serve this project.
14.RECREATION. Would theproject:
a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood or regional parks or 21 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 21 X
expansion of recreational facilities,which might have an adverse
physical effect on the environment?
Evaluation
a) The project will add incrementally to the demand for parks and other recreational facilities. However,given the size of the
project and the expected number of residents, no significant recreational impacts are expected to occur with development of
this site. Park Land In-Lieu fees will be collected, with credit given for the existing lot, to insure adequate provision of park
facilities for the new residents of the project,per existing City policy.
b) The project does not include the construction of recreational facilities beyond small, private, open space areas. The
construction of these facilities will not have an adverse physical effect on the environment because of their small scale.
Conclusion
Park and recreation facility demand will increase incrementally,and not significantly,with the development of the project.
15. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would theproject:
a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the 2,21 X
existing traffic load and capacity of the street system?
b) Exceed,either individually or cumulatively,a level of service 2,21 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 21 X
curves or dangerous intersections)or incompatible uses(e.g.
farm equipment)?
d) Result in inadequate emergency access? 21 X
e) Result in inadequate parking capacity onsite or offsite? 10,21 X
f) Conflict with adopted policies supporting alternative 2,21 X
transportation(e.g.bus turnouts,bicycle racks)?
r-y/
' I
Issues, Discussion and Support,,.9 wilormation Sources Sources Po. .gamy Potentially tress Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER# 176-05 Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
Page No. 15
g) Conflict with the with San Luis Obispo County Airport Land 9 X
Use Plan resulting in substantial safety risks from hazards,noise,
or a change in air trafficpatterns?
Evaluation
a), b), c), d) The project will incrementally contribute to an increase in traffic on Sandercock and surrounding streets. The
City's Transportation Division has indicated that these streets are operating at acceptable levels of service and that they can
adequately accommodate the project's anticipated vehicle trips without changing the current level of service. The City has
also determined that the driveway configuration proposed for the project is acceptable and will provide sufficient visibility
from and toward vehicles entering and exiting the project site, and will not cause vehicles to queue in the street. The Fire
Marshall has reviewed the private drive configuration proposed for the project and determined that the site can be adequately
accessed by emergency vehicles.
e) Each dwelling will require one to two parking spaces. No parking will be permitted along the private driveway. On-street
parking is fairly constrained due to the location of Hawthorne Elementary School immediately across from the project site.
Guest parking is provided to meet the City's code requirement, which will make it more convenient for guests visiting
residents of the project.
f) Each unit within the project will includes a single-car garage that will be able to accommodate bicycle storage in addition
to a parked vehicle. Residents of the project will have access to transit stops on Broad,Santa Barbara,and South Streets.
e) The project is outside of the Airport Land Use Plan area.
Conclusion
The project will add incrementally to existing traffic conditions in the City, but the City's Transportation Division has
determined that development of the project as proposed will not have an effect on the level of service on adjacent streets.
Parking proposed by the project meets Zoning Regulations requirements. No impacts have been identified with respect to
transportation and traffic.
16.UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would theProject:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable 7,21 X
Regional Water Quality Control Board?
b) Require or result in the construction or expansion of new water 7,21 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 7,21 X
from existing entitlements and resources,or are new and
expanded water resources needed?
d) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider 7,21 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 7,21 X
accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs?
f) Comply with federal,state,and local statutes and regulations 7,21 X
related to solid waste?
Evaluation
a), b)This project has been reviewed by the Utilities Department staff. Comments note that the project is subject to water
impact fees which were adopted to ensure that new development pays its fair share of the cost of constructing the water
supply,treatment and distribution facilities that will be necessary to serve it.
Issues, Discussion and Suppon,,,,j information Sources Sources Po.. q potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER # 176-05 Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
Pae No. 16
c) The City Water&Wastewater Management Element projects the City water needs at its ultimate build-out of 56,000
people.The project site is included in the anticipated build-out,because it was in the Urban Reserve at the time the element
was adopted. Each unit in the subdivision will have an annual water usage estimated at.21 acre feet. For the total project,the
annual water usage is estimated at 1.05 acre feet(.21*5 units). The 2001 Water Resources Report indicates that there is
currently 142 acre feet of water available to allocate to in-fill development(development within the 1994 City Limits).
Another 142 acre feet is available for allocation to the City's expansion areas.
d) The City wastewater treatment plant has adequate capacity to serve this development.The existing sewers in the vicinity
have sufficient capacity to serve the development. The developer will be required to construct private sewer facilities to
convey wastewater to the nearest public sewer. The on-site sewer facilities will be required to be constructed according to the
standards in the Uniform Plumbing Code. Subdivision improvement plans and building plans will be checked for compliance
with UPC standards. Impact fees are collected at the time building permits are issued to pay for capacity at the City's Water
Reclamation Facility. The fees are set at a level intended to offset the potential impacts of each new residential unit in the
project.
e),f)Background research for the Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989(AB939)shows that Californians dispose of
roughly 2,500 pounds of waste per month. Over 90%of this waste goes to landfills,posing a threat to groundwater,air
quality,and public health. Cold Canyon landfill is projected to reach its capacity by 2018. The Act requires each city and
county in California to reduce the flow of materials to landfills by 50%(from 1989 levels)by 2000. To help reduce the waste
stream generated by this project,consistent with the City's Source Reduction and Recycling Element,recycling facilities must
be accommodated on the project site and a solid waste reduction plan for recycling discarded construction materials must be
submitted with the building permit application.The project is required by ordinance to include facilities for recycling to
reduce the waste stream generated by the project,consistent with the Source Reduction and Recycling Element.
Conclusion
No impacts have been identified relative to utilities or service systems. The City has recently adopted a solid waste recycling
ordinance to insure recycling of construction debris.No further mitigation is required.
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?
As indicated in the Table on Page 3, the project does not have the potential to have adverse impacts on any of the issue areas
evaluated.
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited,but X
cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable"
means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable
when viewed in connection with the effects of the past projects,
the effects of other current projects,and the effects of probable
future rojects
No impacts have been identified in this initial study.
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause X
substantial adverse effects on human beings,either directly or
indirectly?
The pro'ect will not result in substantial adverse impacts on humans.
18.EARLIER ANALYSES.
�-y9
Issues, Discussion and Suppolb„g information Sources Sources Po. _y Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER # 176 05 Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
Page No. 17
Earlier analysis may be used where,pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have
been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration. Section 15063 (c) (3) (D). In this case a discussion
should identify the following items:
a) Earlier analysis used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review.
The San Luis Obispo Land Use Plan Element update and Final EIR can be found at the City of San Luis Obispo Community
Development Department at 990 Palm Street,San Luis Obispo,California.
b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately
analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards,and state whether such effects were addressed by
mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
Not applicable.
c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated,” describe the mitigation
measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific
conditions of the project.
Not applicable.
19. SOURCE REFERENCES
1. City of SLO General Plan Land Use Element,August 1994
2. City of SLO General Plan Circulation Element,November 1994
3. City of SLO General Plan Noise Element
4. City of SLO General Plan Safety Element
5. City of SLO General Plan Conservation Element
6. City of SLO General Plan Energy Conservation Element,April 1981
7. City of SLO Water and Wastewater Element,July 1996
8. City of San Luis Obispo Municipal Code
9. City of San Luis Obispo,Land Use Inventory Database
10. Site Visit
11. USDA,Natural Resources Conservation Service, Soil Survey of San Luis Obispo Count
12. Website of the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency:
http://www.c nsrv.ca. ov/dl /FMMP/
13. Clean Air Plan for San Luis Obispo County,Air Pollution Control District,2001
14. CEQA Air Quality Handbook,Air Pollution Control District,2003
15. City of San Luis Obispo,Archaeological Resource Preservation Guidelines,on file in the Community
Development Department
16. City of San Luis Obispo,Historic Site Ma
17. City of San Luis Obispo Burial Sensitivity Map
18. City of San Luis Obispo,Historic Resource Preservation Guidelines,on file in the Community Development
Department
19. San Luis Obispo Quadrangle Map,prepared by the State Geologist in compliance with the Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning Act,effective January 1, 1990
20.
City of San Luis Obispo Community Design Guidelines
21. Project Plans
Attachment 8
RESOLUTION NO.####-06
A RESOLUTION OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO CITY COUNCIL APPROVING A
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP FOR 5 RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM UNITS FOR
PROPERTY AT 562 SANDERCOCK STREET; TR/ER202-05
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
May 10, 2006 pursuant to an application filed by Michael Sathre, property owner, and
recommended approval of the subdivision map to the City Council; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo has considered testimony of
the applicant, interested parties, and evaluation and recommendations by staff; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the draft Negative Declaration of
environmental impact as prepared by staff;
BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of San Luis Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. Findings.
1. The proposed tentative tract map is consistent with the General Plan because the
subdivision will provide for residential development consistent with the Medium-Density
Residential Zone.
2. As conditioned, the design and improvement of the proposed subdivision is consistent
with the General Plan because each dwelling has access to a compact, private open space
area and the development will occur as part of the neighborhood pattern anticipated for
the medium density residential zone.
3. The site is physically suited for the proposed type of development because it is an under-
developed site that is adjacent to an existing street right-of-way.
4. As conditioned, the site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development
because the site is within an existing City block, services are available to serve the
development, and utilities have been designed to serve the site per City standards.
5. The design of the subdivision, or the type of improvements, is not likely to cause
substantial environmental damage or substantially and unavoidably injure fish or wildlife
or their habitat because the site does not have any creeks or other potentially significant
habitat areas for fish or wildlife.
6. The design of the subdivision, or type of improvements, is not likely to cause serious
public health problems because the type of improvements are residential and development
will be designed to meet existing building and safety codes.
7. The design of the subdivision, or the type of improvements, will not conflict with
easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, property within
Resolution No.####-06 _ Attachment 8
562 Sandercock St. 202-05
Page 2
the proposed subdivision because no such easements exist.
8. A Negative Declaration was prepared by the Community Development Department on
May 3, 2006. The Planning Commission finds and determines that the project's Negative
Declaration adequately identifies that there is no foreseeable potential for significant
environmental impacts by the proposed project.
SECTION 2. Action.
The Council hereby approves the tentative tract map for a five unit residential condominium
development and adoption of said Negative Declaration (TR/ER 202-05), with incorporation of
the following project conditions and code requirements:
Conditions:
1. The project shall be forwarded to the Architectural Review Commission to review the project
design for consistency with the Community Design Guidelines following approval of the
Common Interest Subdivision by-the City Council. Their review shall include approval of the
final location and design of the necessary trash enclosure(s).
2. An affordable housing agreement consistent with the draft affordable housing proposal, shall
be submitted for review and approval of the Community Development Director prior to
proceeding to the City Council.
3. The final map shall indicate common and private open space yards and the CC&R's shall
describe maintenance of all common areas.
4. Long term bicycle storage shall be supplied for each unit, to the approval of the Community
Development Director.
5. Refuse collection shall be provided and maintained by the Homeowners Association or their
designee for the general use of all residents of the site at the rate of six waste"wheelers,
including three recycling, two trash and one green bin.
6. The responsibility of ensuring that refuse containers are placed at the curb for collection no
earlier than 7:00 p.m. the day prior to collection and returned to their designated enclosures
no later than 9:00 a.m. after collection shall be the responsibility of the Homeowners
Association or their designee.
7. The applicant shall pay Park In-Lieu Fees prior to recordation of the Final Map, consistent
with SLO Municipal Code Section 16.40.080.
8. 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.
f-,-5'Z
Resolution No.####-06
Attachment 8
562 Sandercock St.202-05
Page 3
9. The Conditions, Covenants, and Restrictions (CC&R's) for the project shall include a
requirement, to be enforced by the homeowners association and the City, that all garages
must be available for parking a vehicle at all times.
10. Subdivider shall prepare conditions, covenants, and restrictions (CC&R's) to be approved by
the. Community Development Director and City Attorney prior to final map approval,
CC&R's shall contain the following provisions:
a. Creation of a homeowners' association to enforce the CC&R's and provide for
professional, perpetual maintenance of all common areas including private driveways,
drainage, on-site sewer facilities, parking lot areas, walls and fences, lighting, and
landscaping.
b. Grant to the City the right to maintain common areas if the homeowners' association
fails to perform, and to assess the homeowners' association for expenses incurred, and
the right of the city to inspect the site at mutually agreed times to assure conditions of
CC&R's and final map are being met.
c. No parking except in approved, designated spaces.
d. Grant to the city the right to tow away vehicles on a complaint basis which are parked
in unauthorized places.
e. No outdoor storage of boats, campers, motorhomes, or trailers nor long-term storage
of inoperable vehicles.
L No outdoor storage by individual units except in designated storage areas.
g. No change in City-required provisions of the CC&R's without prior City Council
approval.
h. Homeowners' association shall file with the City Clerk the names and addresses of all
officers of the homeowners' association within 15 days of any change in officers of
the association.
i. Provision of appropriate "no parking" signs and red-curbing along interior roadways
as required by the City Fire Department.
j. CC&R's shall not prohibit location of solar clothes drying facilities in private yards
which are substantially screened from view.
k. All garages must be available for parking a vehicle at all times, to be enforced by the
homeowners association and the City
11. A masonry wall shall be constructed along the east property line between Units 2 and 3,
adjacent to the uncovered parking area, to minimize effects of vehicle noise and light on
adjacent parcels. p-
0 �Jr3
Resolution No.####-06 Attachment 8
562 Sandercock St. 202-05
Page 4
11. A masonry wall shall be constructed along the east property line between Units 2 and 3,
adjacent to the uncovered parking area, to minimize effects of vehicle noise and light on
adjacent parcels.
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. The map shall be recorded prior to building permit issuance in accordance with the city's
subdivision regulations and the Subdivision Map Act.
2. Public improvements required as a condition, code requirement, or mitigation measure may
be shown on a separate plan and approved prior to building permit issuance. Said
improvements may be completed or a bond posted for their completion to allow for
recordation of the map prior to the completing of all required and/or proposed improvements.
3. The required improvements may be processed as required for Tract maps or may be
processed under an encroachment permit at the discretion of the City Engineer. If an
encroachment permit is used to complete all improvements, then a separate plan review fee
shall be established based on the requirements for subdivisions. Depending on the proposed
timing for map recordation and building permit issuance, a completion guarantee may be
required per city standards.
4. The provisions of Section 16.20.220 of the Subdivision Regulations are applicable to any
public improvements and generally those improvements that may have a direct impact on
public improvements as determined by the City Engineer.
5. Traffic impact fees shall be paid for this development prior to building permit issuance.
Credit for removal of the existing buildings will be applied based on the use of the existing
development. Credit will only be applied to permanent, lawfully existing structures.
6. An encroachment permit will be required from the Public Works Department for any work or
construction staging in the public right-of-way.
7. Any easements including but not limited to provisions for all public and private utilities,
access, drainage, common driveways, and maintenance of the same shall be shown on the
final map or recorded separately prior to map recordation if applicable.
8. A new street light and all associated facilities including but not limited to conduits, sidewalk
vaults, fusing, wiring, and luminaries shall be provided on the westerly side of the proposed
driveway approach per city standards. The light shall be spaced to honor the existing street
light locations and to provide reasonable separation between the existing lights. Off-site
street lighting improvements, alterations, or upgrades may be required along roadways 0
Attachment 8
Resolution No.####-06 ,
562 Sandercock St. 202-05
Page 5
leading to and from the proposed development to complete the necessary public
improvements.
9. All wire utilities to the new units shall be underground.
10. The owner/applicant shall exhaust options to provide alternate telecommunication service
drops or underground service to the existing neighboring properties in an effort to eliminate
the existing wood utility pole located to the west of the driveway. If not successful, the pole
shall be relocated to provide the required clearances from the driveway transition.
11. The tentative map shows new power, telephone, and cable utilities underground in an
easement along the Sandercock frontage. The map and/or building plan submittal shall
include complete engineering drawings or a composite utility plan from the serving utilities
confirming their infrastructure requirements.
12. Underground electrical service may be provided from the existing overhead system provided
at the rear of the property. The owner/applicant shall secure any necessary easements
required to extend services to this development.
13. Any sections of damaged or displaced curb, gutter & sidewalk or driveway approach shall be
repaired or replaced to the satisfaction of the Public Works.Director prior to recordation of
the.map.
14. The existing street pavement shall be maintained in good repair during construction. The
final pavement condition shall be evaluated at the completion of the project for excessive
wear or damage resulting from construction operations. Pavement repairs and a slurry seal
may be required per city standards if determined as being necessary by the City Engineer.
15. The existing curb grades shall be verified as being consistent with the approved street grades.
If it is determined that the curb and gutter has settled to unacceptable limits, then they shall
be restored to curb and gutter elevations approved by the City Engineer. Any new curb grade
plans shall be prepared by a licensed engineer and shall be the responsibility of the
owner/developer.
16. The subdivider shall dedicate a 6' (2m) wide public utility easement and a 10' (3m) wide
street tree easement across the frontage of each lot. Said easements shall be adjacent to and
contiguous with all public right-of-way lines bordering each lot.
17. A private sewer mainline may be proposed in-lieu of separate sewer laterals for each unit. If
proposed or required by the Utilities Director, the on-site sewer main shall be privately
owned and maintained by the Homeowner's Association.
18. A maintenance agreement for the sewer, paving, landscape improvements, and any other
common improvements shall be recorded prior to or concurrent with the map recordation.
19. The parking lot design shall comply with the parking and driveway standards and
Engineering Standard Section 2010.E.7. All parking spaces must be designed so that
vehicles can enter in one maneuver. Furthermore, all spaces shall be designed so that
Resolution No.####-06 ` Attachment 8
562 Sandercock St. 202-05
Page 6
vehicles can exit to the adjoining street in a forward direction in not more than two
maneuvers.
20. The demolition of the existing building shall comply with all local, state, and federal
requirements for the demolition of structures.
21. A preliminary soils report is required in accordance with the Subdivision Map Act and the
City of San Luis Obispo Subdivision Regulations. The report is required at the time of
tentative map submittal or if approved may be deferred to map recordation. The report shall
be referenced on the final map in accordance with the city's Subdivision Regulations and the
Subdivision Map Act.
22. This project shall comply with the requirements for engineered grading in accordance with
the grading ordinance. The grading, drainage, and erosion control plans shall be prepared by
a licensed civil engineer.
23. The building plan submittal shall include a complete,grading, drainage and topo plan. The
grading plan shall show existing structures and grades located within 15' of the property lines
in accordance with the grading ordinance. The plan shall consider historic offsite drainage
tributary to this property that may need to be conveyed along with the improved on-site
drainage. This development will alter and/or increase the storm water runoff from this site.
The improved or altered drainage shall be directed to the street and.not across adjoining
property lines unless the drainage is conveyed within recorded easements or existing
waterways.
24. The grading and drainage plan shall show the existing and proposed contours and/or spot
elevations to clearly depict the proposed grading and drainage. Show and label the high point
elevation or grade break at the yard areas, drainage arrows, and spot elevations to show
positive drainage away from the building pads and foundations to an approved point of
disposal. The plan shall include the FF of the units, finish grade elevations, finish surface
elevations, and parking lot drainage.
25. The building plan submittal shall include an erosion control plan and erosion control notes in
accordance with the Waterway Management Plan Drainage Design Manual and to the
satisfaction of the Building Official and Public Works Director. Erosion control measures
shall be implemented and maintained for construction occurring between October 15 and
April 15.
26. One 15-gallon street tree is required for each 35 lineal feet of frontage. A portion or all the
required street trees shall be planted in the parkway per city engineering standards #8010 and
#8230 prior to recordation of the map. The remaining street trees shall be planted within the
street tree easement area. The final mix of species and tree locations shall be approved to the
satisfaction of the City Engineer and City Arborist.
27. The proposed street trees and any parkway landscaping shall be installed and maintained by
the HOA. The final planting plan for the parkway and onsite landscape areas shall consider
the required line-of-sight distances for vehicles exiting onto Sandercock. ����
� Attachment 8
Resolution No.####-06 -
562 Sandercock St. 202-05
Page 7
Mapping and Misc. Requirements
28. All boundary monuments, lot corners and centerline intersections, BC's, EC's, etc., shall be
tied to the City's Horizontal Control Network. At least two control points shall be used and a
tabulation of the coordinates shall be submitted with the final map or parcel map. All
coordinates submitted shall be based on the City coordinate system. A 3.5" diameter
computer floppy disk, containing the appropriate data compatible with Autocad (Digital
Interchange Format, DXF) for Geographic Information System (GIS) purposes, shall be
submitted to the City Engineer.
29. The parcel map/final map preparation and monumentation shall be in accordance with the
city's Subdivision Regulations, Engineering Standards, and the Subdivision Map Act. The
parcel map may use Customary U.S. Units or the International System of Units (metric
system). All record data shall be entered on the map in the record units, metric translations
should be in parenthesis if applicable.
Grading & Drainage
30. In order to mitigate for a decrease in water quality, the stormwater runoff from all improved
areas of the development site, except rooftops, shall be treated in accordance with the Best
Management Practices published in the Califomia Stormwater Quality Association's Best
Management Practice Handbook, January 2003. For the purposes of water quality design, all
water quality BMPs shall be designed to treat runoff from a 25 mm/24-Hour storm event.
31. Prior to the approval of public improvement plans, the subdivider shall submit an updated
report based on the final design in accordance with the City's Waterways Management Plan
Drainage Design Manual
Water,Sewer & Utilities
32. The existing sewer laterals stubbed to the property shall be properly abandoned at the public
main. The sewer lines in the public right-of-way shall be parallel or perpendicular to the
street centerline. The minimum slope for any public sewer is 0.005. The water service
configuration appears adequate, however it is suggested that the ten meters be configured in
manifolds of 4, 3, and 3 meters each, with the landscape meter being the fourth meter on one
of the manifolds.
On motion of seconded by and on
the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this day of 2006. G
Q ��
Attachment 8
Resolution No.####-06
562 Sandercock St. 202-05
Page 8
Mayor David.F. Romero
ATTEST:
Audrey Hooper, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Jonath well, City Attorney
G:\CD-PLANUHill\Subdivision\202-05 TR-ER-ARC(562 Sandercock)\Council Reso 202-05.doc