Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-28-13SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA Council Chamber City Hall - 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 August 28, 2013 Wednesday 6:00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER/PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL: Commissioners John Fowler, Michael Multari, Charles Stevenson, 2 Positions Vacant, Vice -Chairperson John Larson, and Chairperson Michael Draze ACCEPTANCE OF AGENDA: Commissioners or staff may modify the order of items. MINUTES: Minutes of July 24 and August 14, 2013. Approve or amend. PUBLIC COMMENT: At this time, people may address the Commission about items not on the agenda. Persons wishing to speak should come forward and state their name and address. Comments are limited to five minutes per person. Items raised at this time are generally referred to staff and, if action by the Commission is necessary, may be scheduled for a future meeting. PUBLIC HEARINGS: NOTE: Any court challenge to the action taken on public hearing items on this agenda may be limited to considering only those issues raised at the public hearing or in written correspondence delivered to the City of San Luis Obispo at, or prior to, the public hearing. Any decision of the Planning Commission is final unless appealed to the City Council within 10 days of the action (Recommendations to the City Council cannot be appealed since they are not a final action.). Any person aggrieved by a decision of the Commission may file an appeal with the City Clerk. Appeal forms are available in the Community Development Department, City Clerk's office, or on the City's website (www.slocity.org). The fee for filing an appeal is $273 and must accompany the appeal documentation. If you wish to speak, please give your name and address for the record. Please limit your comments to three minutes; consultant and project presentations limited to six minutes. 1. 3725 Orcutt Road. MS/TR/ER 137-11: Minor subdivision to create three parcels in conjunction with a Vesting Tentative Map to create a subdivision with 80 lots and review of the initial study of environmental impact; Terence Orton, applicant. (Pam Ricci) Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the Planning Commission regarding any item on this agenda will be made available for public inspection in the Community Development, 919 Palm Street, during normal business hours. Planning Commission Agenda Page 2 COMMENT AND DISCUSSION: 2. Staff a. Agenda Forecast 3. Commission ADJOURNMENT Presenting Planner: Pam Ricci N The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services, programs and activities. Please contact the City Clerk or staff liaison prior to the meeting if you require assistance. ■ city of Meeting Date: August 28, 2013 San WI s OBI spO Item Number: 1 PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT SUBJECT: Review of a Vesting Tentative Map (Tract 3044) to create 80 lots, a minor subdivision to create three underlying parcels, and an initial study of environmental impact. PROJECT ADDRESS: 3725 Orcutt Road FILE NUMBER: MS/TR/ER 137-11 BY: Pam Ricci,Senior Planner Phone Number: 781-7168 E-mail: priccii@slocity.org FROM: Doug Davidson, Deputy Director 1�, . b . RECOMMENDATION: Adopt the Draft Resolution (Attachment 1), which recommends approval of the project to the City Council, based on findings, and subject to conditions. SITE DATA Applicant Representative Zoning General Plan Site Area Environmental Status SUMMARY Wingate Holdings, LLC Orton Engineers R-2-SP, Medium -Density Residential; and R-3-SP, Medium - High Density Residential (all with the Specific Plan overlay) Medium -Density and Medium- —T High Density Residential 10 acres An initial study of environmental impact was prepared to document the project's consistency with the certified EIR for the Orcutt Area Specific Plan (OASP). The applicant is proposing to develop a 10-acre site in the Orcutt Area Specific Plan with a residential development that provides for a variety of housing types and neighborhood amenities. A total of 142 individual residential units are proposed including 45 single-family homes, 33 single- family attached terrace homes, 12 loft -style apartments, and 52 senior flats. The submitted Vesting Tentative Map (VTM) 3044 includes a total of 80 lots with individual lots for all of the single- family product types (78 total), a single lot for the 64 multiple family units, and a single lot for the public park. This is the first development proposal to move forward through the City review process since the Orcutt Area was annexed to the City on November 16, 2011. MS/ER/TR 137-11 (3725 Orcutt Road) Page 2 The project application process started shortly after the Orcutt Area was officially annexed to the City in November 2011 with the applicant's request for a pre -application review. Official project applications for entitlements including environmental review, the vesting tentative map, and architectural review were submitted about a year later in November of 2012. On May 8, 2013, the Architectural Review Commission (ARC) received an introduction to the overall project design. The ARC's discussion of the project focused on pedestrian access, parking & architectural styles. The ARC did not take any formal action on the project, but the meeting follow-up letter and minutes which include the Commission's preliminary comments are attached (Attachment 6). On August 1, 2013, an informational meeting was held with property owners in the GASP to allow staff to provide background on the project components and describe the review process. City staff has worked over the last two years with the project applicant team to refine the proposal, including the proposed street network and infrastructure, to provide a quality design and meet City standards. This report provides a summary of the project and includes as attachments more detailed documentation of the affordable housing program and other features. Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission adopt the attached draft resolution which recommends approval of the proposed parcel map and VTM to the City Council based on its compliance with OASP guidance and other City standards. 1.0 COMMISSION'S PURVIEW The applicant is requesting approval of the VTM 3044 to create 80 lots which will enable the individual sale of the single-family detached and attached homes. Approval of a vesting tentative map confers a "vested right" to develop in substantial: compliance with the ordinances, policies and standards in effect when the application was determined complete per Chapter 16.34 (Vesting Tentative Map) of the City's Municipal Code and Sections 65920, 66474.2 and 66498.1 of the California Government Code. The VTM will also set the official zoning boundary between the R-2 and R-3 zoning districts on the site. The Commission with their review of the VTM will be examining the lotting pattern, street network, infrastructure, and density of the proposed project. In conjunction with the VTM, the applicant has also submitted a parcel map to create three parcels for financing purposes. The Commission will also be reviewing the initial study of environmental impact which documents the project's consistency with the OASP and the EIR prepared to analyze the development of the Specific Plan. The Planning Commission with the review of the parcel map and VTM will provide a recommendation to the City Council which takes final action on the maps. 2.0 SPECIFIC PLAN BACKGROUND On March 2, 2010 the City Council certified the Final EIR for and approved the GASP. This action by the City Council included approval of both text and map amendments to the City's General Plan, and rezoning the subject site to R-2-SP and R-3-SP (Medium -Density & High -Density Residential with the Specific Plan Overlay). On November 16, 2011 the OASP area was annexed into the City of San Luis Obispo. MS/ER/TR 137-11 (3725 Orcutt Road) Page 3 The overall goals of the Specific Plan are to: • Develop a new residential neighborhood to meet the City's housing needs. • Provide a variety of housing types and costs to meet the needs of renters and buyers with a variety of income -levels, including affordable housing for residents with low and very -low income levels. • Protect and enhance Righetti Hill, creek/wetlarid habitats, and visual resources in open space areas. • Provide a variety of park and recreational facilities for residents of the Orcutt Area. • Phase the proposed development so that public facilities are developed concurrently with each new phase in a rational and cost effective fashion. • Encourage the use of bicycles and walking within the Plan Area by incorporating bicycle/pedestrian paths and lanes along the roads and through the parks and open space areas. • Protect the new residents from railroad noise by including a buffer between the railroad and the new residential areas. The buffer area will include a regional detention system consisting of floodable terraces and will provide recreational opportunities with a landscaped bicycle/pedestrian path system; and to identify a visual and noise setback for new residents on Orcutt Road and Tank Farm Road by incorporating a landscape buffer with a pedestrian path along these road frontages. • Provide goals and identify mitigation and related Environmental Impact Studies. Some of the tenets of the OASP are to: integrate with existing surrounding development in terms of use and scale, provide open space, protect sensitive natural resources, create a pedestrian friendly environment, and provide a new source of housing affordable and diversified housing within the City of San Luis Obispo. The OASP sets the land use and development parameters for future development and the tract maps set the infrastructure, circulation, and lotting patterns. 3.0 PROJECT INFORMATION 3.1 Site Information/Setting The project site consists of about 10 acres of grassland that has historically been used for grazing and suburban residential uses. Within VTM 4033, there are three detached single-family residences with access to Orcutt Road via a private roadway. The existing homes on the site, which are serviced by septic and well systems, along with the accessory structures will be demolished to accommodate development of VTM 4033. Immediately to the west of VTM 4033 are two R-3-SP zoned sites within the OASP that are currently used for suburban residential and intermittent grazing purposes. To the north and south of VTM 4033 properties immediately adjacent are zoned R-2-SP and are additionally located within the OASP and used for suburban residential and/or intermittent grazing purposes. To the east, a growing garden and low -density residential uses are located within the jurisdiction of the County of San Luis Obispo. MS/ER/TR 137-11 (3725 Orcutt Road) Page 4 3.2 Project Description As the first development in the OASP in the center of the planning area, the provision of street access and utilities was carefully thought out and planned for. Proposed development is planned to occur in phases with detached single-family homes closer to Orcutt Road (R-2 zoning) preceding the smaller, denser housing types at the back of the site (R-3 zoning). The project proposes a variety of housing product types including, single family detached, duplex units, single-family attached row houses, loft style apartment units and apartment style senior housing units. 30% of the allowable density in the project is proposed affordable units and 42% of the allowable density in the project is proposed special needs senior housing. The affordable units are distributed throughout the development in a non -distinguishable manner and include affordable units in all residential product types proposed within the project. Affordable units will include homes for moderate, lower and very low-income non_senior and senior households. 1 1 f v� r .or T -� • I' ���"�J,����g o �rl .� L . LOT. lure w1. id. Lor. Lo1rf - r • + + iii iii I . TEGO•SY PI ♦Z. r � Lf7L N� 1 T {} 1T�--1'■ LLrr IL UPOM jg( �M $�1.i jtlr�r • 5. LOIr i _ b LOILI rr rr LOT r i ' • • • loTr 4al LOT ; LJIL Win IOT. LOT LOT D Lor. LM• LOT r S ! ■ • ' ' i Lorr• . ■ LOT. i [LOT 6. �N- J %�_ — " ■ . • • / . ■• • -�q••rr• a LOT ■ L_� i41 q wda•<. • ;• � s �. � Z� 1 i i p.i. ols rc-d Y T� : "LOTH 1'.� O )I. l LCL. Lin. - r • • w }LOT. z • • ■ ■ of 4� �I tDl n �L Gf� %M r , wt w + Pc-Tsob'a PT. c•r f � L �AU LOT: 1 LLT. p•aPs-: �c �■ 101u 101 .. LOT. WI. OTY OP ■ s Ll� .. oesPo i i LL •• a■■*■ •ra•ar•■ ■r•••r•rrrr Figure 1— Overall Project Site Plan The project includes pedestrian ways, covered bicycle staging area, and a bus turnout with covered staging area to promote the pedestrian friendly environment envisioned by the OASP and the subject community. The approximately one -acre park, envisioned as the "hub" of the community, achieves multi-purpose/multi use functions including biological enhancement and drainage mitigation, play/turf area, open space, public art, seating areas, paths and plaza space for community events, thereby providing both active and passive recreation amenities for the future residents of the subdivision and the overall community as a whole. R-2 Zoning - Single Family Homes Forty-five, one- and two-story, single-family homes are proposed in the northeastern portion of the project within the R-2 zoning district. Forty-one are detached and four will be duplex homes. The homes range in size from approximately 1,500 square feet to over 2,900 square feet. While garages are front -loaded, the variation of setbacks, highly distinguished architectural statements, building forms, varying front wall planes, material selections, window articulation, distinctive roof designs, overhangs and deeply set garage doors reduce the predominance of the garages on the street scene. MS/ER/TR 137-11 (3725 Orcutt Road) Page 5 R-3 Zoning The R-3 portion of the site includes an expanded convenience store, an early education and care facility adjoining a public park all of which provide pedestrian oriented services and open space to the subject development and surrounding areas. Both convenience store and daycare uses are allowable in the R-3 zone. Row Houses Thirty-three single-family row houses are proposed in the western portion of the project surrounding the park. Each home includes a private back yard; the units abutting single family homes are located on split pads to minimize the amount of grading and need for retaining walls, and allow for an at grade, level rear yard immediately accessed from the living area. The three and four bedroom homes range in size from approximately 1,300 to 1,800 square feet and include two car garages in either a side -by -side or tandem configuration as well as three and four car tandem configurations. Atelier Building The Atelier mixed -use building is proposed to be completed in the final construction phase of the project. Specific plans for the building design like those for other housing prototypes would need to be approved by the Architectural Review Commission (ARC). The building is planned in a podium style with below grade parking. The largest portion of the building with four stories would be located in the southwestern corner of the site. This part of the building would include the neighborhood convenience store and the children's day care center with the 52 senior apartments (flats) on upper floors. The northern portion of the building will include a total of 12 two-story to three-story loft homes with individual garages beneath. To provide visual relief and pedestrian connectivity between the two portions of the building, a promenade level landscaped pedestrian path will be provided (above the below grade garage) between the townhouses and multi -use building. This promenade will provide a physical and visual connection between the park, Roadway A, and public transit. The building will read as three separate structures with complementary, yet distinguished, architectural facades. The building interfaces with the park both visually and functionally and also provides an anchor and entry to the project from Roadway A. The northern lofts will be configured with individual entries facing Roadway A, garages under with access from the rear. 10 of the 12 loft units will be physically connected to the promenade deck of the four story building and the remaining two units will be located along Roadway A and the northern perimeter of the property. Each unit will be provided private outdoor use area. Uses within the 4 story portion of the Atelier buildings(s) include: • 52 senior apartments are provided on floors two through fourof the building. The flat style units may be either studio or one and two bedroom configurations and will range in size from approximately 500 square feet to approximately 1,000 square feet. The adjacent park, bicycle staging area, trail connections and bus turnout will provide residents quick and convenient access to recreation, daily convenience needs and "non -car -centric" MS/ER/TR 137-11 (3725 Orcutt Road) Page 6 transportation modes. All units will be provided exterior terraces or balconies. • The Early Education and Care Facility will accommodate approximately 84 children and is proposed on the first floor of the Atelier Building. The 5,000 square -foot facility will include four to six rooms and provide early education and care services to children of all economic sectors. The facility's location provides immediate access to the trail system, park and mass transit to encourage alternative transportation opportunities. However, a joint use turnout on Roadway A will provide a convenient drop off/pick up location for parents. This facility will be offered with a long-term lease and completed tenant improvements to a successful operator with a proven track record of providing quality daycare and early education services. Non-profit operators will be given priority in the selection criteria. • The General Store/Convenience Commercial will occupy approximately 5,000 square feet of space and provide residents of the community with a small coffee house and deli and direct access to daily convenience needs, limited groceries, and packaged and/or prepared foods. Given the direct orientation onto the park plaza, a joint use agreement will be established between the operator and the City for the placement of seats tables and benches on the plaza. The applicant is requesting that the building be allowed to exceed the 35-foot maximum height threshold for the R-3 zone. The specific request is that a building height of up to 47 feet above natural grade be allowed consistent with previously approved market rate and affordable projects within the City. Staff s evaluation of this request is discussed in Section 4.4 of this report. 4.0 PROJECT ANALYSIS (Environmental & Land Use) 4.1 Environmental Review Section 65457 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) provides that once the EIR has been certified and the specific plan adopted, any residential development project, including any subdivision or zone change that is undertaken to implement and is consistent with the specific plan is exempt from additional CEQA review. The OASP Final EIR contained numerous mitigation measures which are required to be brought forward and incorporated into the tiered environmental assessment prepared for site -specific projects. An initial study of environmental impact was prepared for the proposed project to document its consistency with the OASP and to identify the required mitigation measures from the EIR that applied to this development site. With the preparation of the GASP, the project site was not identified as having any unique or sensitive habitats, its average cross slope is under 10% and it does not contain any creeks or wetland areas. The Initial Study (Attachment 5) did not identify any significant environmental impacts associated with the project that would require the preparation of a subsequent environmental document. The Community Development Director with his review of the initial study acknowledged that a new environmental document was not required because any significant effects had been analyzed adequately in the OASP EIR and avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR. MS/ER/TR 137-11 (3725 Orcutt Road) Page 7 4.2 Density Figure 13 of the OASP shows that most of the site has been designated as R-2, Medium Density Residential, and that the western portion of the site that borders "A" street is designated as R-3, Medium -High Density Residential. OASP Section 9.3 notes that the boundaries between designated land uses may need to be adjusted through the subdivision map review to reflect the lot pattern in the development. In the case of the subject project, the boundary between R-2 and R-3 zoning is shown on the VTM and follows the lot lines between the single-family attached row - houses and the single-family, mostly detached homes. Chapter 16.18 of the City's Subdivision Regulations states that the design of lots shall be based on intended use and that lot lines be contiguous with zoning boundaries. Consistent with this guidance, the proposed boundary between the R-2 and R-3 zoning for this site which places the principally single-family detached homes in the R-2 zoning category and the attached row houses in the R-3 zoning is a logical location. OASP Policy 3.2.8 states that "the majority of medium -density residential should be comprised of detached and attached single-family homes. " The proposed row houses that are located in the proposed R-3 zone are consistent with OASP Policy 3.2.13 that states: "Multiplex dwelling units may consist of attached units with a maximum of eight units per building (either rental or for -sale units). " The proposed row houses will have 5-7 units per building and will have small ground lots and be individual for -sale units. The 10-acre project site includes about 6.25 gross acres of R-2 and 3.75 gross acres of R-3 zoning. Deducting for streets, and in the case of the R-3 parcel, the park, the net acreage of R-2 is 5.4 and R-3 is 2.05. While the gross acreage of R-3 is larger than that depicted in Figure 13 of the OASP, the net acreage is consistent with the land uses allocation shown in the OASP taking into consideration the area dedicated to the park. The resultant allowable density numbers for the R-2 zoning is 65 for the R-2 and 37 for the R-3 for a total allowable density of 102. Table 1 - Site Density Calculations Site Density Calculation Gross OASP Net Units Allowable Zoning Acres Streets Parks Acres Acre Density R-2 6.25 0.85 5.4 12 65 R-3 3.75 1.7 2.05 18 37 Total Allowable Density before Bonus 1 1 102 As described in further detail in the following section, the applicant is including 30 affordable units within the project. This allows the applicant a 33% density bonus which brings the project's allowed density to 136 density units. OASP Policy 3.1.b notes that density calculations are simplified from typical Zoning Regulations standards in that any dwelling with two or more bedrooms counts as 1.0 density unit (as opposed to the 1.5 for three bedrooms or 2.0 for four bedrooms). Policy 3.1.c states that density is calculated based on the net site area prior to subdivision rather than a lot -by -lot basis to accommodate the smaller lots allowed within the Orcutt Area. The applicant is proposing a total of 132 density units with the variety of housing types included in the project. This number of units is below the 136 density units allowed with the density bonus. MS/ER/TR 137-11 (3725 Orcutt Road) Page 8 4.3 Affordable Housing Policy 3.3.2 requires that: "Each development within the Orcutt Area shall construct a minimum 10 percent of moderate income affordable dwelling units (ADU) and S% low income ADUs at the time of development, or dedicate land for affordable housing. " The applicant has committed to including ADUs within the project and the proposal exceeds these minimum requirements. Table 2 below summarizes the proposed housing in the project by dwellings or total individual units in the project by type. Table 2. Project Housing Distribution (Dwellings) TRACT 3044 PROPOSED HOUSING DISTRIBUTION Unit Type Size Bedrooms Market Moderate Lower Very Low Total SFD 1500-2500 3 to 5 43 2 45 Row Houses 1400-1600 3 to 4 29 4 33 Lofts 1100-1500 2 to 3 8 2 2 12 Senior 500-1100 1 to 2 32 12 6 2 52 Totals 112 20 8 2 142 Since most of the proposed 142 individual units in the project have two or three bedrooms, they count as 1.0 unit as noted from the earlier citation of OASP Policy 3.1.b. However, there are some one -bedroom senior apartments that have a lower equivalent density value of 0.66; therefore, the total number of project density units is 132. The details are shown in Table 3 below. As discussed in the previous section, this proposed density is under the allowed threshold of 136 units. Table 3. Project Housing Distribution (City Density Units) TRACT 3044 PROPOSED HOUSING DISTRIBUTION Density on Bedroom Counts (Studio .5du, 1Br .66du, 2Br 1 du) Unit Type Size Bedrooms Market Moderate Lower Very Low Total SFD 1500-2500 3 to 5 43 2 0 45 Row Houses 1400-1600 3 29 4 0 33 Lofts 500-1200 2 to 3 8 2 2 0 12 Senior 500-1100 1 to 2 22 12 6 2 42 Totals 102 20 8 2 132 Affordable percentages* 20% 8% 2% 30% The applicant's 33% density bonus was achieved by the inclusion of the senior apartments (20% bonus) plus the project's percentage of moderate for -sale affordable units (13% bonus). The project because of its proposed affordability levels and features such as child day care center and senior apartments qualifies for up to three concessions or incentives. Chapter 17.90 of the City's Zoning Regulations includes the City's Affordable Housing Incentives. This Chapter was recently modified to comply with State law and approved by the City Council. Specific development standard waivers are discussed in this report. Other incentive requests discussed with the applicant relate to the timing and applicability of various development and impact fees. A more specific analysis of these requests will be reviewed by the City Council with MS/ER/TR 137-11 (3725 Orcutt Road) Page 9 their review of the project. 4.4 Development Standard Reductions/Waivers The applicant is requesting minor modifications to lot standards of the OASP and Subdivision Regulations to accommodate the project's proposed mix of housing, along with a request for a 47- foot building height for the proposed mixed -use Altelier Building, as shown on Sheet 10 of the project packet and in Table 4 below: Table 4. Development Standard Reductions/Waivers LOTS MODIFICATION ZONE AFFECTED OASP STANDARD REQUIRED REQUESTED RATIONALE R-2SP 27, 38, 45 Corner lot width R-2SP 1,7-19,22,26 Max. Lot Size R-3 SP 46 thru 78 Min. Lot Size 50 ft min. 46 ft min 5,000 sq ft 7,223 sq ft max 5,000 sq ft 972 to 2,072 sq ft R-3 SP 46 thru 78 Lot Coverage 60% 65% R-3 SP 46 thru 78 Lot Depth 80 ft 54 feet R-3 SP 46 thru 78 Lot Width 50 ft 18 to 37 ft R-3 SP Lot 79 Max. Height 35 ft 47 ft R-3 SP Lot 79 Lot Coverage 60% 80% R-3 SP Lot 79 Rear Yard 15' 0 to 15 ft varies Plan adjusted to accommodate pedestrian path. Required adjustment to maintain density and affordability Needed to support unit mix which supports affordability as proposed. Also needed to accommodate site configuration and site development Needed to support the density for the affordability and to accommodate the traditional row house concept Needed to support the density for the affordability and to accommodate the traditional row house concept Needed to support the density for the affordability and to accommodate the traditional row house concept Needed to support the density for the affordability and to accommodate the traditional row house concept Needed to support density for affordability and to a lot sufficient land for public park Needed to support density for affordability and to a lot sufficient land for public park Needed to support density for affordability and to a lot sufficient land for public park Setback additionally needed for proper interface of park with building Note: most homes access off of private ways versus public streets thus 6' setbacks to private ways for lots 44 thru 76 are not considered to require a waiver of setback requirements as well as minimum 10' garage door setbacks on lots 5 and 8. These are determined to be conforming due to being on private ways and front yard setbacks are measured from public streets. State and City affordable housing statutes indicate that these development standard waivers be supported by the City to enable the development of the project unless there are specific health and safety issues created. The various waiver requests are discussed in the following paragraphs: Single -Family Detached Lots The waiver related to the single-family detached lots is to have some lots that are larger in area than the maximum standards in the GASP. The largest lot at 7,223 square feet is not unusually large in size and the exceptions are generally requests for sites that border other adjacent properties or are situated where the additional size is beneficial (i.e. adjacent to where future street improvements are MS/ER/TR 137-11 (3725 Orcutt Road) Page 10 planned or edge of the development). Row Houses (Lots 46-78) The majority of the exceptions are proposed to allow the row houses on Lots 46-78 to be individually owned with their own ground lots rather than as a condominium. The "postage stamp" lots range in size from 972 to 2,072 square feet and the requested waivers are for overall lot size, lot dimensions and coverage. The Chief Building Official confirmed that this type of development is acceptable and meets health and safety codes with appropriate construction techniques to have one - hour fire walls between units. This type of attached housing in the configurations shown on the site plan is consistent with the type of development called for with R-3 zoning in the OASP. Atelier Building Height The applicant is requesting that the building be allowed to exceed the 35-foot maximum height threshold for the R-3 zone. The specific request is that the building be allowed to reach a height of up to 47 feet above natural grade consistent with previously approved market rate and affordable projects within the City. City policies do support allowing some variance to height standards when the added height is enabling the development of affordable housing which is the case with the subject request. The City's Mixed Use zone specifically includes the reference to allowing a higher height limit to accommodate housing. Two recent residential projects with affordable units were allowed higher buildings; Laurel Creek was granted a building height of 47 feet and the ROEM Project at the Village at Broad was granted a building height of 45 feet. Staff finds that the proposed height of 47 feet can be supported because: 1) It is consistent with the height standard applied to other recently approved affordable housing projects in the City. 2) The added height accommodates the production of needed senior housing on the upper floors of the building. 3) The building is located along the arterial Roadway A. 4) The building is located so that it is set back from the park which provides physical and visual separation from surrounding land uses. 5) The building design is planned to take into account site elevation changes to minimize its scale. 6) The building does not adversely impact views or affect solar shading to surrounding properties. 7) The ultimate design will require the review and approval of the ARC who will carefully review its bulk, scale, architectural style, and detailing. 4.5 Parking Sheet 7 of the development packet includes a description of the parking provided for the different housing types and the mixed -use Atelier Building. With their initial review of the project, the ARC recommended that the applicant explore ways to provide guest parking near the row houses in the MS/ER/TR 137-11 (3725 Orcutt Road) Page 11 R-3 portion of the site that are located on relatively narrow streets without on -street parking. The parking plan shows that a minimum of 18 parking spaces will be provided adjacent to the park. 4.6 Open Space/Recreation Figure 2.4 in the GASP, the Open Space and Parks Plan, identifies the subject property as one suitable for a local parkland dedication. Consistent -with OASP Policy 2.3.4 which indicates that property owners may propose parkland dedications through the subdivision review process, Lot 78 is proposed to be improved by the developer and dedicated to the City of San Luis Obispo as an approximately one -acre fully improved public park which will act as the central "Hub" of the proj ect. The park will include a naturalized detention/retention area, large public plaza, walking paths, bicycle path trail head and covered staging area, restrooms, turf area, central fountain and covered seating area. Given it is intended that the convenience commercial use(s) will utilize portions of the plaza and the day care will utilize one of the quads of the park green for their operations, long term arrangement for this joint use will be established between the City and the Developer for maintenance and operation costs of the park. Public Restrooms will be provided internal to the Mixed Use building with direct access to the park plaza. Per Program 2.3.4a, the request for development of parkland on the site will require the review and support of the City's Parks and Recreation Commission. This review has been scheduled for Wednesday, September 4t" 4.7 Convenience Store Plans indicated that a 5,000 square -foot convenience store is proposed in the Atelier mixed -use building. A convenience store is an allowed use in the R-3 zone, but is limited in the Zoning regulations to 4,500 square feet. Condition No. 46 is recommended which limits the store in the project to that square footage and notes that the coffee house/deli uses are allowable if small in scale and incidental to the main convenience store use. 5.0 PROJECT ANALYSIS (Subdivision Design) A parcel map has been submitted as a companion to the VTM. This map is specifically for financing purposes. The proposed parcel line between Parcel 1 & Parcel 2 is coterminous with the rear lot boundaries for groups of homes shown on the VTM. The proposed parcel line between Parcel 2 & Parcel 3 is located between Lots 79 & 80 and the side lot lines of row houses. As final map phases are recorded, the underlying parcel lines will essentially be eliminated. Findings for and conditions for approval of the parcel map are included in Section 1 of the draft resolution. Conditions 1-3 provide guidance on the role of the parcel map and how it is utilized in the map recording process. 5.1 VTM Design Lots 1-26 are more traditional lots ranging in size from 3,915 to 7,223 square feet and are proposed to accommodate detached single-family homes. Lots 27-45 include mostly detached single-family MS/ER/TR 137-11 (3725 Orcutt Road) Page 12 homes, but there are also two duplexes. These lots range in size from 3,280 to 4,970 square feet. Lots 1-45 are included in the R-2 zoning category. Table 3.1 of the OASP provides unique residential lot standards for the R-1 & R-2 zones and indicates that the R-3 & R-4 zones would follow typical City standards. The lot area standards for R-2 lots are 3,000 square feet, 5,000 square feet maximum, and 4,500 square feet average. The lot standard waivers for the proposed row houses on Lots 46-78 were previously discussed and analyzed in Section 4.4 of this report. 5.2 Grading The subject site has an average cross slope of less than 10% which slopes downward from Orcutt Road to the back (west side) of the site. The preliminary grading plan respects the natural slope of the site and proposed cuts or fills do not exceed eight feet. Total grading, balanced on site, is estimated to be approximately 25,000 cubic yards. The grading concept has been designed to follow the natural southwestern descending contours of the land and achieve maximum solar and view access for individual lots. At grade access is provided to adjoining properties. Maximum retaining wall heights are estimated to be six feet in limited locations. To minimize the amount of grading and need for retaining walls, portions of the row house units and single-family homes have been designed with a split pad design; this provides garages under living spaces, but creates the convenience of an at grade, level rear yard immediately accessed from the living area. 5.3 Site Circulation The project site currently has access to Orcutt Road. Given that it is the first project within the OASP, the future connection of inner -tract roadways and connection points to adjacent properties have been considered (Attachment 3 - Figure 5.1 — OASP Circulation Plan). A second access will be provided through a half -street on the south side of the property that will continue along the neighboring property to the west that ultimately intersects Bullock Lane. Orcutt Road access from the site will be in place until a third point of access is created with the development of adjacent properties. In the interim, there will be a 40-foot wide roadway serving the development directly from Orcutt Road. At a future time, the private street labeled "Le Jardin" on the site plan will be finished with a cul-de-sac eliminating general vehicular access to Orcutt Road and a 20-foot emergency access way and pedestrian corridor will be provided beyond the cul-de-sac. Inner -tract roadways are designed to provide efficient access within the subdivision while considering the natural contours of the land, solar access, safety, speed reduction, maximization of views within the subdivision as well as future inner -tract connections to the adjoining future development parcels. Inner tract circulation is provided through both public and private streets. The developer is responsible for all improvements and costs for its inner -tract roadways and private streets located on their property. OASP Policy 5.1.a states that "Existing arterial roadways should be improved where necessary in order to provide safe, adequate circulation. " In the case of the project, OASP Program 5.1.1 notes that Orcutt Road shall be improved to include a continuous two-way left -turn lane, Class II bicycle lane, and curb and gutter between Johnson Avenue and Tank Farm Road. Condition No. 4 indicates that the improvements to Orcutt Road per the OASP requirements need to be completed in the MS/ER/TR 137-11 (3725 Orcutt Road) Page 13 project's first phase. 5.4 Pedestrian and Bike Paths The OASP delineates an onsite Class 1 bicycle path trailhead terminating on the subject site. The project design incorporated and actually exceeds this requirement through inclusion of a covered bicycle staging area located adjacent to the public park "hub" of the site. Enhanced parkways with pedestrian paths, off road inner -tract pedestrian paths, inner tract path connections to adjacent parcels and internal park paths and seating are provided to encourage a "non -car -centric" lifestyle. The maximum distance any resident of the community will have to travel to gain access to a bicycle path is approximately 500 feet with a majority of the homes within 200 feet of a bicycle path. Since the ARC'S review of the project, the footprint for the Atelier Building has been divided to accommodate a centrally located promenade within the project linking the park to Roadway A. 5.4 Project Phasing Project phases are shown on the tentative map and a series of eight sheets details the units proposed and improvements with Phases 1-8. Each phase is designed as a complete block, able to function independently with required access, utilities landscaping and improvements. The phasing plan implementation is designed to ensure a minimum of construction traffic and activity impacts to completed phases of the project. The project will include a master home owner's association that will be responsible for maintenance of all common area landscaping, all private roadways and applicable infrastructure improvements, all fences and walls, all private drainage infrastructure on individual lots and within the park and all private street lighting (see Condition 45). Additionally, the homeowners association will be responsible for enforcement of the Rules and Regulations. Rules and Regulations will be designed to protect the long-term integrity of the community as well as provide necessary protections for rights to quiet enjoyment for all residents and protect residents from visual nuisances. 5.5 Sewer Service The City wastewater treatment plant and existing and proposed sewer lines in the vicinity and within the project site have sufficient capacity to serve the project site. The developer will be required to construct on -site sewer facilities according to the Uniform Plumbing Code standards. The project proposal includes an alternate connection to the wastewater collection system which is allowable within the OASP subject to specific criteria. The proposal for sewer service shows that the sewer main would extend down the south side of the project site then continue along the south side of the adjacent property to the west to Bullock Lane (see Figure 2 on the following page). This alignment parallels the `B" street main shown on the OASP Wastewater Plan (Figure 6.2) which is located on the south side of the adjacent property to the south of the project site. After submittal of a detailed sewer analysis and numerous meetings and consultations with City Utilities Department staff, the submitted proposal to provide sewer service for the project and possible connections for other nearby property owners was supported. The Community Development Director issued a letter approving a Specific Plan Adjustment MS/ER/TR 137-11 (3725 Orcutt Road) Page 14 approving the alternate alignment for the sewer line (Attachment 7). The MASP defines an adjustment as "minor changes to specific features of the OASP that do not significantly alter the development type and still meet the intent of the Plan." . c Y Maur �000 �Caeo S P B C I F INCH P ON A N I ^rx`u°r'r,"'" ^uw� ® °iu. :9r iY P.opcccl �-ewxs WASiEWA AN Figure 2. Sewer Plan The alternate sewer proposal meets the criteria for a Specific Plan Adjustment and does not result in any impacts to existing service. An added benefit of the sewer proposal is that a wastewater line in need of deferred maintenance will be replaced with the development of the project with installation of a new sleeve and line between Bullock Lane and Capitolio Way under the Southern Pacific Railroad. Impact fees are also collected when building permits are issued to pay for capacity at the City's Water Reclamation Facility. Condition No. 31 requires that the installation of the sewer line shall be completed prior to the issuance of a building permit for the 301h residneital unit. 5.6 Drainage The project will be provided a state of the art drainage system. The primary goal is to achieve the net effect of no increased run off from the site after build out. The drainage system includes the following key features: • All single-family units will be equipped with rain barrels to retain and reuse gutter runoff • All single-family lots will be provided subterranean retention connected to the gutter system and on lot drains which connect to the master storm -water system. • The Public Park will be equipped with both subterranean and above grade retention/detention connected to the master storm -water system. The above grade retention/detention will be improved as a dry creek complete with compatible landscaping, grading and rock outcropping features to provide a visual and functional feature to the development. MS/ER/TR 137-11 (3725 Orcutt Road) Page 15 Naturalized bio swales will be incorporated into the landscape and grading plan to provide both naturalized drainage and landscape enhancement including a cross lot naturalized bio swale behind lots 44 thru 57. The Homeowners Association will be responsible for maintenance of all on lot drainage systems as well as the retention/detention systems developed in the park. Conditions 32-39 outline drainage requirements and Condition No. 45 states the maintenance responsibilities of the HOA. 6.0 CONCLUSION This hearing is the culmination of nearly two years of coordination between the City and the applicant to further refine the project design to create a new neighborhood with many amenities that respects the natural setting and topography. The project application is consistent with the stated goals in the OASP and provides a new neighborhood with many admirable components and features, including, but not limited to: 1. A range of different housing types to appeal to households of varied income levels and needs. 2. It provides a sizable affordable component that is distributed throughout the site. 3. A commitment to quality and energy efficient construction. 4. A new sustainable neighborhood with internal pedestrian connections and provision for future linkages to adjoining sites. 5. Community amenities including a park, public art, day care center, bicycle staging area, trail connections, convenience store, and bus turnout. 6. Balanced site grading that respects the existing site topography. 7. Providing a catalyst for development of the overall area as envisioned by the OASP. 7.0 OTHER DEPARTMENT COMMENTS The Public Works and Utilities Departments have reviewed the project and have provided comments that are incorporated into the resolution as conditions of approval and code requirements. 8.0 ALTERNATIVES 5.1. Continue the project with direction to the applicant and staff on pertinent issues. 5.3 Deny the project based on findings of inconsistency with the OASP, General Plan, or Subdivision Regulations. 8.0 ATTACHMENTS 1. Draft Resolution 2. Vicinity Map 3. Figure 5.1 — OASP Circulation Plan 4. Project Plans 5. Initial Study (ER 137-11) 6. ARC follow-up letter & minutes 7. Director's Specific Plan Adjustment letter regarding sewer service dated 6-6-13 GACD-PLAN\PRICCI\Wingate Development 137-11\Staff Reports Attachment 1 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF A PARCEL MAP CREATING 3 UNDERLYING PARCELS AND A VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 3044 CREATING 80 LOTS FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3725 ORCUTT ROAD (MS/TR/ER 137-11; TRACT 3044) WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on August 28, 2013, for the purpose of considering MS/TR/ER 137-11, a vesting tentative tract map subdividing an approximately 10-acre site into 80 lots; 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 initial study 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. Recommendation. The Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council approval of application MS 137-11 (SLO 10-0086), a parcel map to create three underlying parcels for financing purposes, based on the following findings, and subject to the following conditions: Findings: 1. As conditioned, the design of the tentative map is consistent with the General Plan and the Orcutt Area Specific Plan which promote the development of projects consistent with the Plan. 2. The site is physically suited for the type and density of development allowed in the R-2-SP and R-3-SP zones through the proposed Vesting Tentative Map (VTM) 3044 (TR 137-11) and the proposed parcels shown on this Minor Subdivision are a companion to the VTM for financing purposes. 3. The design of the tentative map and the proposed improvements are not likely to cause serious health problems, substantial environmental damage or substantially and unavoidably Planning Commission Resolution No. MS/TR/ER 137-11 Page 2 injure fish or wildlife or their habitat, since further development or redevelopment of the proposed parcels will occur consistent with VTM 3044 and the required architectural review process, which will allow for detailed review of development plans to assure compliance with City plans, policies, and standards. 4. As conditioned, the design of the subdivision will not conflict with easements for access through (or use of property within) the proposed subdivision. 5. The tentative map is exempt from environmental review (Class 15, Minor Land Divisions, Section 15315. of CEQA Guidelines) because: no variances or exceptions are required; all services and access to the proposed parcels to local standards will be provided with VTM 3044; the parcel was not involved is a division of a larger parcel within the previous two years; and the parcel does not have an average cross slope of greater than 20%. Conditions: All easements including but not limited to those required for access, utility extensions, grading, and drainage to serve all three parcels of the minor subdivision shall be shown and noted on the map. The easements offered on the map should coincide with the ultimate development proposal as shown on Vesting Tentative Tract Map (VTM) 3044. 2. VTM 3044 shall be approved prior to recordation of the Parcel Map. 3. A notice of requirements or other agreement acceptable to the City of San Luis Obispo may need to be recorded in conjunction with the Parcel Map to clarify development restrictions, conditions of development, and reference to any pertinent conditions of approval related to VTM 3044. Section 2._ Findings. Based upon all the evidence, the Commission makes the following findings in support of the Vesting Tentative Map 137-11 (Tract No. 3044): As conditioned, the design of the Vesting Tentative Tract Map is consistent with the General Plan because the proposed subdivision respects existing site constraints, will incrementally add to the City's residential housing inventory, result in parcels that meet density standards, and will be consistent with the density and lot sizes established by the Orcutt Area Specific Plan. 2. The site is physically suited for the proposed type of development allowed in the R-2-SP and R-3-SP zones. 3. The design of the subdivision will not conflict with easements for access through (or use of property within) the proposed subdivision. 4. The design of the vesting tentative tract map and proposed improvements are not likely to cause serious health problems, 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 and wildlife. Planning Commission Resolution No. MS/TR/ER 137-11 Page 3 5. The proposed project will provide quality affordable housing consistent with the intent of California Government Code 65915, and the requested density bonus, incentives and concessions are reasonably necessary to facilitate the production of affordable housing units. 6. No further environmental analysis is required based on the conclusions of the initial study of environmental impact prepared for the project which concludes that all potentially significant effects were analyzed adequately in Orcutt Area Specific Plan Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) adopted by the City Council on March 2, 2010, and have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, subject to the following mitigation measures mitigation measures being incorporated into the project and the mitigation monitoring program being followed: AIR QUALITY MITIGATION Operational Phase Mitigation AQ-1(a) Energy Efficiency. The building energy efficiency rating shall be 10% above what is required by Title 24 requirements for all buildings within the Specific Plan Area. The following energy -conserving techniques shall be incorporated unless the applicant demonstrates their infeasibility to the satisfaction of City Planning and Building Department staff: increase walls and attic insulation beyond Title 24 requirements; orient buildings to maximize natural heating and cooling; plant shade trees along southern exposures of buildings to reduce summer cooling needs; use roof material with a solar reflectance value meeting the Environmental Protection Agency/Department of Energy Energy Star rating; build in energy efficient appliances; use low energy street lighting and traffic signals; use energy efficient interior lighting; use solar water heaters; and use double -paned windows. AQ-1(b) Transit. Bus turnouts and shelter improvements with direct pedestrian access shall be installed at all bus stops. AQ-1(c) Shade Trees. All parking lots shall include shade trees within the parking area. There shall be at least one shade tree for every six vehicle parking spaces. AQ-1(d) Telecommuting. All new homes within the Specific Plan area shall be constructed with internal wiring/cabling that allows telecommuting, teleconferencing, and telelearning to occur simultaneously in at least three locations in each home. AQ-1(e) Pathways. Where feasible, all cul-de-sacs and dead-end streets shall be links by pathways to encourage pedestrian and bicycle travel. • Monitoring Program: Compliance with operational phase mitigation measures will be reviewed with the subdivision plans and accompanying architectural review plans and ultimately shown on improvement plans and construction drawings. Construction Phase Miti ag tion Planning Commission Resolution No. MS/TR/ER 137-11 Page 4 AQ-3(a) Application of CBACT (Best Available Control Technology for construction related equipment). The following measures shall be implemented to reduce combustion emissions from construction equipment where a project will have an area of disturbance greater than 1 acre. • Specific Plan applicants shall submit for review by the Community Development Department and Air Pollution Control District (APCD) staff a grading plan showing the area to be disturbed and a description of construction equipment that will be used and pollution reduction measures that will be implemented. Upon confirmation by the Community Development Department and APCD, appropriate CBACT features shall be applied. The application of these features shall occur prior to Specific Plan construction. • Specific Plan applicants shall be required to ensure that all construction equipment and portable engines are properly maintained and tuned according to manufacturer's specifications. • Specific Plan applicants shall be required to ensure that off -road and portable diesel powered equipment, including but not limited to bulldozers, graders, cranes, loaders, scrapers, backhoes, generator sets, compressors, auxiliary power units, shall be fueled exclusively with CARB motor vehicle diesel fuel (non -taxed off -road diesel is acceptable). • Specific Plan applicants shall be required to install a diesel oxidation catalyst on each of the two pieces of equipment projected to generate the greatest emissions. Installations must be prepared according to manufacturer's specifications. AQ-3(b) Dust Control. The following measures shall be implemented to reduce PM10 emissions during all Specific Plan construction: • Reduce the amount of the disturbed area where possible. • Use water trucks or sprinkler systems in sufficient quantities to prevent airborne dust from leaving the site. Water shall be applied as soon as possible whenever wind speeds exceed 15 miles per hour. Reclaimed (nonpotable) water should be used whenever possible. • All dirt -stock -pile areas shall be sprayed daily as needed. • Permanent dust control measures shall be identified in the approved Specific Plan revegetation and landscape plans and implemented as soon as possible following completion of any soil disturbing activities. • Exposed ground areas that are planned to be reworked at dates greater than one month after initial grading shall be sown with a fast -germinating native grass seed and watered until vegetation is established. • All disturbed soil areas not subject to revegetation shall be stabilized using approved chemical soil binders, jute netting, or other methods approved in advance by the APCD. • All roadways, driveways, sidewalks, etc., to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible. In addition, building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used. • Vehicle speed for all construction vehicles shall not exceed 15 mph on any unpaved surface at the construction site. Planning Commission Resolution No. MS/TR/ER 137-11 Page 5 • All trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil or other loose materials shall be covered or shall maintain at least two feet of freeboard (minimum vertical distance between top of load and top of trailer) in accordance with CVC Section 23114. • Install wheel washers where vehicles enter and exit unpaved roads onto streets, or wash off trucks and equipment leaving the site. • Sweep streets at the end of each day if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent paved roads. Water sweepers with reclaimed water shall be used where feasible. AQ-3(c) Cover Stockpiled Soils. If importation, exportation, or stockpiling of fill material is involved, soil stockpiled for more than two days shall be covered, kept moist, or treated with soil binders to prevent dust generation. Trucks transporting material shall be tarped from the point of origin. AO-3(d) Dust Control Monitor. On all projects with an area of disturbance greater than 1 acre, the contractor or builder shall designate a person or persons to monitor the dust control program and to order increased watering as necessary to prevent transport of dust off -site. Their duties shall include holiday and weekend periods when work may not be in progress. • Monitoring Program: These conditions shall be noted on all project grading and building plans. The applicant will also be required to secure necessary permits from the Air Pollution Control Board (APCD) before the onset of grading or demolition activities including, but not limited to additional dust control measures, evaluation for Naturally Occurring Asbestos. The applicant shall present evidence of a plan for complying with these requirements prior to issuance of a grading or building permit from the City. The applicant shall provide the City with the name and telephone number of the person responsible for ensuring compliance with these requirements. The Building Inspector and Public Works Inspectors shall conduct field monitoring. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES MITIGATION B-3(a) Construction Requirements. Development under the Specific Plan shall abide by the requirements of the City Arborist for construction. Requirements shall include but not be limited to: the protection of trees with construction setbacks from trees; construction fencing around trees; grading limits around the base of trees as required; and a replacement plan for trees removed including replacement at a minimum 1:1 ratio. B-6(c) Educational Pet Brochure. Any development pursuant to the Specific Plan shall prepare a brochure that informs prospective homebuyers and Home Owners Association (HOA) members about the impacts associated with non- native animals, especially cats and dogs, to the project site; similarly, the brochure must inform potential homebuyers and all HOA members of the potential for coyotes to prey on domestic animals. Planning Commission Resolution No. MS/TR/ER 137-11 Page 6 B-6(c) Landscaping Plan Review. To ensure that project landscaping does not introduce invasive non-native plant and tree species to the region of the site, the final landscaping plan shall be reviewed and approved by a qualified biologist. The California Invasive Plant Council (Cal-IPC) maintains several lists of the most important invasive plants to avoid. The lists shall be used when creating a plant palette for landscaping to ensure that plants on the lists are not used. The following plants shall not be allowed as part of potential landscaping plans pursuant to development under the Specific Plan: • African sumac (Rhus lancea) • Australian saltbush (Atriplex semibaccata) • Black locust (Robinia pseudoacacia) • California pepper (Schinus molle) and Brazilian pepper (S. terebinthifolius) • Cape weed (Arctotheca calendula) • Cotoneaster (Cotoneaster pannosus), (C. lacteus) • Edible fig (Ficus carica) • Fountain grass (Pennisetum setaceum) • French broom (Genista monspessulana) • Ice plant, sea fig (Carpobrotus edulis) • Leafy spurge (Euphorbia esula) • Myoporum (Myoporum spp.) • Olive (Olea europaea) • Pampas grass (Cortaderia selloana), and Andean pampas grass (C. jubata) • Russian olive (Elaeagnus angusticifolia) • Scotch broom (Cytisus scoparius) and striated broom (C. striatus) • Spanish broom (Spartium junceum) • Tamarix, salt cedar (Tamarix chinensis), (T. gallica), (T. parviflora), (T. ramosissima) • Blue gum (Eucalyptus globulus) • Athel tamarisk (Tamarix aphylla) With the exception of poison oak, only those species listed in the Specific Plan's Suggested Plant List (Appendix D) shall not be planted anywhere on- site because they are invasive non-native plant species. Poison oak is a native plant species and could be used to deter human entrance to an area such as a mitigation/enhancement area. • Monitoring Program: Compliance with mitigation measures will be reviewed with landscaping plans as part of the architectural review submittal and ultimately shown on improvement plans and construction drawings. CULTURAL RESOURCES MITIGATION CR-1(d) Archaeological Resource Construction Monitoring. At the commencement of project construction, an orientation meeting shall be conducted by an archaeologist for construction workers associated with earth disturbing procedures. The orientation Planning Commission Resolution No. MS/TR/ER 137-11 Page 7 meeting shall describe the possibility of exposing unexpected archaeological resources and directions as to what steps are to be taken if such a find is encountered. An archaeologist shall monitor construction grading within 50 meters (164 feet) of the two isolated finds. In the event that prehistoric or historic archaeological resources are exposed during project construction, all earth disturbing work within 50 meters (164 feet) of the find must be temporarily suspended or redirected until an archaeologist has evaluated the nature and significance of the find. After the find has been appropriately mitigated (e.g., curation, preservation in place, etc.), work in the area may resume. The City should consider retaining a Chumash representative to monitor any field work associated with Native American cultural material. If human remains are exposed, State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 requires that no further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made the necessary findings as to origin and disposition pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. • Monitoring Program: Requirements for cultural resource mitigation shall be clearly noted on all plans for project grading and construction. NOISE MITIGATION N-1(a) Compliance with City Noise Ordinance. Construction hours and noise levels shall be compliant with the City Noise Ordinance [Municipal Code Chapter 9.12, Section 9.12.050(6)]. Methods to reduce construction noise can include, but are not limited to, the following: • Equipment Shielding. Stationary construction equipment that generates noise can be shielded with a barrier. • Diesel Equipment. All diesel equipment can be operated with closed engine doors and equipped with factory -recommended mufflers. • Electrical Power. Whenever feasible, electrical power can be used to run air compressors and similar power tools. • Sound Blankets. The use of sound blankets on noise generating equipment. • Monitoring Program: Requirements for construction noise mitigation shall be clearly noted on all plans for project grading and construction. Section 3. Recommendation. The Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council approval of application TR 137-11 (Tract No. 3044) with incorporation of the following conditions into the project: Planning Commission Resolution No. MS/TR/ER 137-11 Page 8 girPPtC 1. Off -site dedication of property for public right-of-way purposes is required to facilitate a through street and sewer main extension from the westerly tract boundary at Public Street "A" to the existing sewer and street easements along Bullock Lane. 2. The final map and improvement plans shall include the required right-of-way and all details of the required bus turnout to accommodate a future bus stop along Public Street "A" adjacent to Lot 17 per City Engineering Standards and the GASP. 3. Access rights shall be dedicated to the City along Orcutt Road except at approved driveway locations as shown on the tentative map. 4. The public improvement plans shall include complete details for the Orcutt Road access improvements including a center turn lane in accordance with the tentative map, GASP, City Engineering Standards, and the Cal Trans Highway Design Manual. The Orcutt Road plans and access way shall include all phases of construction including the ultimate abandonment of the public vehicle access. Off -site dedication of property for public right-of-way purposes may be required to facilitate the Orcutt Road improvements. The required center turn lane and transitions on Orcutt shall be constructed with the first phase of development. 5. The subdivider shall install public street lighting and all associated facilities including but not limited to conduits, sidewalk vaults, fusing, wiring, and lumenaires along all public streets including Orcutt Road per City Engineering Standards. The current interim standard for LED lighting is required within this subdivision. 6. Private street lighting shall be provided along the private streets per City Engineering Standards and/or as approved in conjunction with the final ARC approvals. 7. The final street sections shall be approved in conjunction with the review and approval of the final project drainage report. The private street sections show center crown, center v-gutter, and super -elevated designs. The final design shall consider drainage, transitions, and accessibility. 8. Future Public Street #3 (Sponza Drive) shall show and label the future centerline for reference. Unless otherwise approved, the street should be designed for a build -out width with a center crown. The final street section for Public Street #3 shall consider the final drainage strategy and may need to include an AC curb rather than a shoulder. Non-standard public street sections shall conform to a San Luis Obispo County rural road or Cal Trans standard to the approval of the City Engineer. 9. All future public streets shall conform to City Engineering Standards including curb, gutter, and sidewalk, driveway approaches, and curb ramps. Traffic calming improvements may be required at select locations within in the subdivision. Improvements may include bulb -outs, elevated sidewalks/speed tables, or alternate paving materials to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department and Fire Department. 10. Traffic calming improvements should be considered along public streets #2 and #3 and at the Planning Commission Resolution No, MS/TR/ER 137-11 Page 9 intersection of Public Street "A" and Public Street #3 (Sponza Drive) in accordance with the GASP. The calming device along Public Street #3 at Private Street #1 (Parc Atelier) could include an elevated sidewalk or other improvements directly related to the Class I bike path terminus. Deferral of any traffic calming improvements shall be approved by Public Works Department. If deferred, the developer shall provide a surety to cover the future construction of the improvements upon request of the city. 11. The proposed future Public Street "A", Public Street #2 (Monte Azure), and Public Street #3 (Sponza Drive) are temporarily landlocked and will not be accepted for public maintenance until such time that a continuous public street connection is provided within the GASP. A street condition report shall be prepared by the developer or HOA and shall include any required street maintenance or construction of traffic calming devices. Any required work shall be completed prior to acceptance of the street for public maintenance. The proposed public water and sewer mains located within these streets will be accepted for City maintenance upon acceptance of the initial subdivision improvements. 12. Street trees are required as a condition of development. Street trees shall generally be planted at the rate of one 15-gallon street tree for each 35 lineal feet of property frontage. Easements 13. The subdivider shall dedicate a 10' wide street tree easement and public utility easement (P.U.E.) across the frontage of each lot. Said easement shall be adjacent to and contiguous with all public right-of-way lines bordering each lot. 14. Any easements including but not limited to provisions for all public and private utilities, water, sewer, access, grading, drainage, slope banks, construction, common driveways, and maintenance of the same shall be shown on the final map and/or shall be recorded separately prior to map recordation if applicable. Said easements may be provided for in part or in total as blanket easements. 15. The final map and public improvement plan submittal shall clarify the intent and purpose for the proposed 15' access and utility easement across Lot 17. The map offer or separate easement document shall clarify whether the easement is for public or private purposes. The map offer should include reference to the dominant tenement for this easement. The plans shall clarify whether any utility connections or improvements for future connections are proposed. 16. The subdivider shall dedicate an easement for a public water system over all private streets or driveways, parking areas (including planters and raised medians) and common areas to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director and Utilities Engineer. The subdivider shall dedicate an easement for a public sewer system over the proposed future public streets. On & Off -Site Improvements 17. Improvement plans for the entire subdivision, including any off -site improvements shall be approved to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department, Utilities Department, and Fire Department prior to map recordation. Off -site improvements shall include the sewer main Planning Commission Resolution No. MS/TR/ER 137-11 Page 10 extension, off -site access roadway, the water main extension, and Orcutt Road improvements. 18. The improvement plans shall clearly show all existing structures, site improvements, utilities, water wells, septic tanks, leach fields, gas and wire services, etc. The plan shall include any pertinent off -site water well and private waste disposal systems that are located within regulated distances to the proposed drainage and utility improvements. The plan shall include the proposed disposition of the improvements and any proposed phasing of the removal and demolition. All structures and utilities affected by the proposed lot lines shall be removed and receive final inspection approvals prior to 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. Water, Sewer & Utilities 20. Separate utilities, including water, sewer, gas, electricity, telephone, and cable TV shall be served to each lot to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department and serving utility companies. All public and private sewer mains shall be shown on the public improvement plans and shall be constructed per City Engineering Standards unless a waiver or alternate standard is otherwise approved by the City. 21. Underground wiring is required for all new residences. The requirement for undergrounding shall be achieved with no net increase in the number of utility poles within the public right- of-way. 22. Final grades and alignments of all public and/or private water, sewer and storm drains shall be approved to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director and Utilities Department. The final location, configuration, and sizing of service laterals and meters shall be approved in conjunction with the review of the building plans, fire sprinkler plans, and/or public improvement plans. 23. Specialized street pavement in the area of public water mains may create maintenance/replacement concerns and additional costs. The final pavement sections shall be reviewed and approved in conjunction with the ARC approvals and public improvement plan review. A separate agreement may be required to clarify that the HOA will have final street maintenance responsibility in areas of specialized pavement where said pavement is damaged or removed in conjunction with public improvements or maintenance of said public water mains. 24. Recycled water main improvements (dry pipe) shall be installed per City Engineering Standards and to the satisfaction of the Utilities Department. The extent and limits of the recycled water main shall be approved by the Utilities Director prior to completing and submitting the public improvement plans to the Public Works Department. The main extension along future Public Roads #3 and #2 may not be necessary to serve the OASP Planning Commission Resolution No. MS/TR/ER 137-11 Page 11 zoned R-1 and R-2 areas. 25. A final sewer report (report) and supporting documentation for the OASP "adjusted" public sewer main location shall be approved by the Utilities Department prior to approval of the public improvement plans. 26. The final report shall discuss and present additional information and assumptions on the system elevations and grades that will allow other OASP parcels to utilize the proposed re- aligned public sewer main. The applicant shall submit an analysis of a backbone system that shows the elevations and grades that serve the adjacent parcels described in the study. The City will have the final discretion on the extent and limits of the study if additional properties could benefit from the proposed re -alignment. 27. The depth of the off -site and on -site sewer mains shall be approved to the satisfaction of the Utilities Director. The depth analysis shall consider the balance between the possible extent of the gravity sewer basin needed to serve the other OASP properties and the long-term public maintenance requirements related to sewer depth. 28. The final report shall include any additional vacant or underdeveloped properties with the OASP area and/or downstream properties that could affect the down -stream condition analysis to the satisfaction of the Utilities Department. The report shall be expanded to include the downstream impacts analysis and main replacement schedule and strategy from Capitolio to Broad Street. 29. A reimbursement request, if proposed, shall include all pertinent details and analysis in accordance with City and State codes and ordinances and shall be presented separately to the City Council. 30. The existing sewer main located within the UPRR right-of-way at the Bullock Lane/Capitolio crossing shall be upgraded/replaced from Bullock Lane to the manhole in Capitolio as a condition of development. The applicant and engineer of record shall coordinate a field meeting with Utilities Department staff prior to development of the plan and submittals to the respective agencies. 31. The developer shall submit an application and design for the sewer to the City and UPRR in conjunction with the first phase of development and initial public improvement plan submittal. The installation shall be completed and final inspection approvals granted prior to issuance of the building permit for the 301h residential unit. Grading & Drainage 32. The final grading and drainage plan and drainage report shall comply with all City Codes, Standards, and Ordinances. The final drainage report shall comply with the City Engineering Standards, Waterway Management Plan Drainage Design Manual, and Orcutt Area Specific Plan requirements, whichever pertinent sections are more restrictive. 33. The drainage report and public improvement plans shall include a comprehensive review of the existing historic upslope drainage tributary to and from this development. The historic Planning Commission Resolution No. MS/TR/ER 137-11 Page 12 and proposed run-on and run-off should consider the existing swales and berms located along the historically grazed fence lines and their relationship to the adjoining property lines. The project drainage analysis may require a detailed review of the sub -watersheds located within the tract boundary. 34. The proposed surface runoff and drainage from the detention basin(s) shall include a non - erosive outlet to an approved point of disposal. The outlet(s) design and location should replicate the historic drainage. Any off -site detention basin, temporary basin, or other drainage improvements shall be approved by the City. Any required or proposed off -site grading or drainage improvements shall be completed within recorded easements or under an appropriate license or other private agreement. 35. Tier 3 interim low impact development standards as described and shown on the preliminary plans shall be incorporated into the drainage report and final development plans. 36. The project soils engineer shall review the final grading and drainage plans and Low Impact Development (LID) improvements. The soils report shall include specific recommendations related to site development, utility, and building pad/foundation construction related to the proposed LID improvements. The project soils engineering report shall be referenced on the final map in accordance with the Subdivision Regulations and City Engineering Standards. 37. The final plans and drainage report shall show and note compliance with City Engineering Standard 1010.13 for spring or perched groundwater management and for water quality treatment of run-off from impervious streets, drive aisles, and parking areas. 38. A SWPPP is required in accordance with State and local regulations. A hard copy of the SWPPP shall be provided to the City in conjunction with the Public Improvement Plan submittal and subsequent building plan submittals. The WDID number shall be included by reference on all construction plans sets. An erosion control plan shall be included with the improvement plans and all building plan submittals for demolitions, grading, and new construction. 39. A Private Stormwater Conveyance Agreement shall be recorded prior to final inspection approvals for the proposed stormwater system improvements. A separate Operation and Maintenance Manual shall be provided in conjunction with the development plans. 40. A separate demolition permit will be required from the Building Division for the removal of the existing structures and related infrastructure. The building removals are subject to the Building Demolition Regulations including the additional notification and timing requirements for any structure over 50-years old. Fire 41. The project shall provide a minimum of two points of access to the subdivision from an existing public way wherever there are 30 or more housing units. Emergency Vehicle Access points will NOT be accepted in lieu of full access. Planning Commission Resolution No. MS/TR/ER 137-11 Page 13 42. When the public access from Orcutt Road to Private Road #4 is abandoned, a minimum of a 20- foot wide paved Fire Department emergency vehicle access/egress road shall be maintained in lieu of a Fire Code Standard turn -around. The Access Road shall have a 20- foot wide gate secured with a lock. The developer will be required to install a "KNOX BOX" that is keyed to both San Luis Obispo City Fire and San Luis Obispo County Fire keys. A permanent sign shall be placed on either side of the gate "FIRE ACCESS ROAD — DO NOT BLOCK". The access road shall be posted "NO PARKING -FIRE LANE" CVC 22500.1". A maintenance provision for this EVA shall be included in the CC&Rs and approved by the Fire Marshal. Once closed, the EVA shall not be considered one of the 2 required points of access for the subdivision. 43. All streets that are less than 28 feet in width shall be posted "No Parking — Fire Lane" on both sides. Streets less than 35 feet in width shall be posted on one side only. 44. The project shall provide water mains and city -standard fire hydrants to provide a minimum needed fire flow of 1500 GPM for 2 hours to within 300 feet of the exterior walls of all proposed structures. Fire hydrant spacing shall not exceed 500 feet. Homeowners' Association 45. Subdivider shall prepare conditions, covenants, and restrictions (CC&R's) to be approved by the City Attorney and Community Development Director prior to final map approval that establishes a "Master Homeowner's Association" (Master HOA). CC&R's shall contain the following provisions that pertain to all lots: a. All private improvements shall be owned and maintained by the individual property owners or the Homeowner's Association as applicable. Private improvements include but are not limited to streets, sidewalks, pedestrian and bike paths, sewer mains, drainage systems, detention basin(s), street lighting, landscape, landscape irrigation, common areas, & the plaza improvements. 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. No outdoor storage of boats, campers, motorhomes, or trailers nor long-term storage of inoperable vehicles. e. No outdoor storage by individual units except in designated storage areas. f. Provision of appropriate "no parking" signs and red -curbing along interior roadways as required by the City Fire Department. g. The responsibility for the placement of the trash and recycling containers at the street on collection days will be the responsibility of the property owner's association. The property owner's association shall coordinate with San Luis Garbage Company regarding Planning Commission Resolution No. MS/TR/ER 137-11 Page 14 the collection time and preferred location for the placement of trash and recycling containers to minimize the obstruction of project streets h. No change in city -required provisions of the CC&R's without prior City Council approval. i. Provision for all of the maintenance responsibilities outlined in various conditions. Planning Requirements 46. The proposed convenience store shall be limited in size to 4,500 square feet consistent with the City's Zoning regulations and the deli/coffee house component shall be small in scale and incidental to the main store use. 47. In order to be consistent with the requirements of the Orcutt Area Specific Plan and County Airport Land Use Plan, the property owner shall grant an avigation easement for the benefit and protection of the City of San Luis Obispo, the County of San Luis Obispo and the San Luis Obispo County Airport via an avigation easement document prior to the recordation of the final map. 48. All owners, potential purchasers, occupants (whether as owners or renters), and potential occupants (whether as owners or renters) shall receive full and accurate disclosure concerning the noise, safety, or overflight impacts associated with airport operations prior to entering any contractual obligation to purchase, lease, rent, or otherwise occupy any property or properties within the airport area. 49. Provisions for trash, recycle, and green waste containment, screening, and collection shall be approved to the satisfaction of the City and San Luis Obispo Garbage Company. The respective refuse storage area and on -site conveyance shall consider convenience, aesthetics, safety, and functionality. Ownership boundaries and/or easements shall be considered in the final design. Any common storage areas shall be maintained by the Homeowner's/Property Owner's Association and shall be included in the CCR's or other property maintenance agreement accordingly. The solid waste solutions shall be shown and noted on the submittal(s) for Architectural Review Commission (ARC) approvals. 50. In addition to building designs and landscaping plans for the different housing types proposed in the project, the Architectural Review Commission shall review and approve perimeter and common area landscaping, any proposed signage, site and building lighting, mailbox kiosks, and the park design and improvements. 51. The final determination regarding applicable impact fees and OASP fees shall be made with the City Council's review of the tract map including the specific affordable housing proposal. 52. 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. Planning Commission Resolution No. MS/TR/ER 137-11 Page 15 On motion by Commissioner the following roll call vote: AYES: Commrs. NOES: None REFRAIN: Commr. VACANCY: Two , seconded by Commissioner , and on The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 281h day of August 2013. Doug Davidson, Secretary Planning Commission GACD-PLANTRIM Wingate Development 137-1RResolutions 1 z z R-3-PD HM Attachment 2 3: 0 <n ORCUTT R-4-SP R-4-SP C/ p R-4-SP -2-S 0 R-2 -1-sp x GI p R-1-SP R-3-SP -sp VICINITY MAP File No. 137-11 3725 Orcutt s ` Attachment 3 W J r L n u y 3 1 l V rM K5 LL�a a 4 fro 0 h a�U f � gi bB Q �°m dr-. Attachment 4 �g� W W� OI u C,5 U2 Q Wu �R z ��_ "€om Zwon3 Voo F-o� Z oe ¢o rz 0 Z �/ _ a z Z z > a `0 O _ t� m r oN0 N zzm �¢O d a q G�4 S1Q' Z U r 4 � � N O rn o_ p�Y NSA ' Id m o n a m I n - � I 1>,ns-Wwxir .n _ r� 4 I�r tia J� f I I I As ��---- ePF _ I 1 I I � 1 R- I I I 1 i C.) d 9 i I � � I I r � I I r I 9 r I I i I I I r r r i I i I y r I ^ I N i � 3NVl I 3 - I - I I � I I. I d yyJ i•'��_ L € 1 I i z I I I I I r I s I r i--------------------'� At1�Y9s z a � d FFFSSS � � 5 �-- jl1i riOhp�I�`� z� b .Ilyy'5B5iw pvp tr)2A -11k� -Nba _ tie �o- riS GLLI 1 AL -- kl o O O 9 4- •06 C�J �1. 1 F— Sii + 9 ❑ Z l ry n t cc �r TT i 9 V I I I a �•� , Y S0.II •j —�� OVO210119f1d - 3MM2V 31N0W 1 ,� 8 ~ gym_ O� :I O,� O O� O'- O�i OM Ori OMm Oe I� i I 4 Z 99 9961 09101 , l � A_ on J ,n ory J lip� S o j pry ory pMm b y91O1� is 9HIl _ Z91o1 s f rs 1 yy I �69} Of AT r 0r ,0ro •04M 9'Ll, E91O1 y ,v G S —� gk1T931TWI4OiiV�a a3� Y S i 1oi1 �� . �— r � • Ar t ^� 9s wdt� 91o1l ^ � m m § m Js 991v 69101 1. 1ii z 1 !S G90y IN A DI . 4 o �lw n y _ g Ac S1911I _-- —133211j.V. 41 g. j f (Z N U Q J O I Q. Q WO Q U� H QJ N z mo ❑ U ,E4'If3 tlpl,LLtt71 I i - I i m I. i I I �I o I o f o I y I I o o I o 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 09101 Ij aslol 29101 0 0 0 > 0 0 0 0 M101 0 15 0 0 99101 - - --- F- <N LB lOI �I I BL 101 09101 F- rer� (n N z a 69101 LL 101 -r L6' b. 7 —D OL lOI I 9L 101 1 0 CK J N 41 1.0'1 L! ld] fLf01 alai YL 101 � r 7 — - � i t ..r -s-• B'i9Y o n a J .- a R a GG O B�CV Z -�$iwy� Z aO su�i.rc?.. Z ��$w ILLI lt�S'o ;�`� z�RS Gg� U� w 'gam CH g® � EL � p Q CL R �rl �NO J ��q FM a �y4 � Z U L �F $ o a _•-- �k�&�� �-�I� \. j ] c § 8 0 / § q $EX ) j } In } » -- %. k � ( w § Z O 2_ Z_ 4 m 8 10 10 10 1 a � � 4 F- ] � 12 � � 91-( , k 8 w � U , Z @__,_em.w-YZVl.___ 0 k U 19101 210 ! k ; ; -101 | | m % [ § 8 ( % « § _m E , . ONO §§§! \\99101 °w-mu_ az ea = 69101leLiol \\\\\ u 101 ] O + §§|/0 s ._, §\�731 !a§ � (k■ � �§�§(!{ ° uoj\�o0 \ ƒ -- ----------- ----- ------�.�2, �- - / 3--- - -__-_- -__d ] 22 fib] m$ eLn �_— �'rincvir aow — — >ti 0 Q fx LLI LLI N c O a Lu > !_ n n m a i 11 k j irk 1111 GKd.[IYRT1 :"K10f1d-ntrrsv 3lHw+ I o s o s j e m I (33NN13MN031VNNd) OVOH LM VZV1d NVINONon 1 09101 z 19101 o O p p D ZBlOI f9101 "101 5910, � 1 99101 ti 1i 1� bNO J 11) L J I I I j I J Lij L 1 OVON IM -113MIV OHVd L9101 99101 911ol S 99101- LL101 OL 101 9L101 11101 SL 101 idol 1 ZL 101 CL 101 1 H 0 Z V) Q a J Q D a w U Z O U I I I - `-------•------- a �m vO o M N Q Z cx Q F- v1 I � p w p c Q Ls w p O Q Ln w Ls Lij a p CL a n a m z a 4 (M GWM 31131H- 3WEEVaFNOn lE Y[ A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (33UH13NL0 31YNtld) OYON LM-YZYId NYINaNOYI 09101 2 49101 o s s o s Z9101 C910I 0 0 0 o 09101 0m Ul 0 9 o s o S s o 0 o s IS 0 59101 99101 (4NO31V }OYOH Iiki'83Pi31Y0NiH L9101 09101 BL 101 99101 OLIOI [L lOI �: s lL101 9L101 9)101 LOI 6L 101 j C FLIOI u I I ILLLLLU I P In v0 1, 0 In J U az LY Q �Ln 2 § . [ , ] � m § \ } § LLI 2 ' § ixd § k ! 2 \ ( � § \ - I � _.:00 M 3 a ` U � ! � � OL |) U |! 09101 0101 | ® | §a relol ¥ �§ k§ © 99101 _,_,mgraw_ )•7§\ _ _ t 89101 -lulol(k\�§ 2!|§§ ,� §§§\ ] § \�;;5{ —---------- �\ � �.�.�---------�- ----- �- -- �. —-----_� _ \ --- . 5 ; . 2\ e2 }f em 1 w i Q I.. �w N 3 N Cl f Q 5 c O J a ui t ? n cx a m Z a r � � 1 1 LL 0411 OrON Oi mi • 78RFr airmyt Z 1 Q 3 III J ' I Q I U Z _ ruanaaazssvadi ' ' .�rwnri�Wcm O 09101 U 19101 z91o, � 6 Co 10l r910, s91a1 99101 I 3 11 z i� ILT01i LMJ • Y1I1 11 L9101 # 99101 9L iol 4 aoR� oL 101 9L101 Q s o 0 {L10, SL lOI a° uiol iQ�oS PL lol I e o EL 101 ° o z� Q nnVUU R Q CL co /// 0U, M N ♦— az Ln aQ `l .-. rr Q W C Q in L11 to 0 0 lY Q Q O I-- W ix 0 d ; a s coD a _ Is3�o-u Mn IG evmx 6 WO J IA! VZTnd RVIIAMNOM 1=Lv7 � I IIIj _--•-�� _7 1 � �Ll_lJ X V) 0 Z TQ J a D a W U Z O c f M N f U -j QZ HLn omt awa onau -'aum gimn jA 9 x u A jA r 9 I-i flH�tL aPJUQ,:?-tYA3HO OYMI IM VZV Td NYMIIOVI - )avGuI"-IaMUY*HW loss ------------ Wes i z�n p Q o w p cOc ix Ey p O Ln a Lu oc Q r n w a a m a l _ Y � � W OML OVO117f11Nid - 3}it1ZY 3t11tl1'I !, a I i f44 � W � U WOU 3AM 30AI" 4aYOVJM-VZV1d NVIMM 5 Z e O [l 1 + La — lE.I oSO L7HD s1 }OV4H lAd-iunf 1fuavl I c ..ozoao. it I � C; r O M uuu°u°u°uu° o a �O M N U -j Q Z ex Q H � 0 v o a = �_ M = a n a a L1J - U Q c o a cx H N v cr w W Q a) ` H Z w w v o Z N N QF- N � w > n 11 *i 0 S v o- ° > ,c 1 L pi v 3 E u 75 ;zc c o c v o c c w .g'` c E o 'O m w L a „vo, u ,� w p v m p v 0 00 ,� pl W ``. OJ m 0 0 'E ° O :Q = as' .v v° c 0 0 v -o w u a-o`° m E w m c m w m o 0 L E, o o L., o .v c °' i w a w a$" a.°�'o°w u�0 000—nL°c>. �° c,2 m-O -"E=° 0 p1 0� 0 0° v °3 E o a o v v o p ° o N v E ° S] C o c c w O v « v N .� u v E 0 L L dal .0 O; , C O ° c o° y c m0 v Oc- o w o E r w .E v y p 3 0 s ° v m y E L 3 o v Q rn` o a «° v o 3 °� c cv w .2 co .c v u a o a°> m c M rn� > s v p v m u v v E c p; 0 'c oa° v u v Ts b o p w° o o E c� E v 3 c" oc :E 3 O o— v 3 — 0 •- -• ° o �C' 0 o c '> p y o a> rn.• q v o q U v v o 3 ao v v v° E 0 w v c v s w lw e a o o $°u o >uf a i a. o o .° Lv. v rn c v ° v v N n ° ' o rn M .o a _� .3 S w" v u> E ° '� 'o v ,ri °: ° L m �� v v o w w w E- L x v s o 0 " u u c\-or v 3�'�p`o vN ° c v m vim° av F4 a u r%i v o `�� w� 0 0 ° °' °`o o ,° i o .� o `o 0 o V > s .o r P m e o a " ° T L a _ co_ 0. o v 2 0 '" o - -o > o= o o y v v .°- m v m i °u U �° o �' 0 a E u E i. `m 0 y> 3 v> v o a� n E 0 a o v o o v° o rn� o N m v a a a o v .° we o v — L o ._ : o Q E ° ` L 0 '0 W v ,>i� m ou t v '- 'C " Q .y w o 3 0 « n v M y N- v o v p v >v " v c- o z 0 0 °- W L a m c S In M a N "> p N L .- ° N 3 O U 0 —° w p a j a ° a s ° s OI O O aLO• a v n C 1 v U O v C N c o a E -o ° 5 v °c ° v E c 3 a" v ° v o' v n L >o L-E w o o L o v, OOUL —��vp u�\�1�E oa °ci vo°oina oL .c c"_cL w$ a� u a" ° E o v° c' v c o c 3 0 v v a a� c .Lw E wa `w ° o-o v c c v w _" 0 o c .4 u „ `o O O v Q -n° o E o v°i c vni E .� o O p 3 o " av cv 0 ° ° o a� c ' c �'m od.� ° o�h .a`. OQ °: m cv.. E C v .fl u m O '> .° 'c " N c +. > O m 0" O1 ° v o S C N O O> O O a c M al C v o If) O 0 L N t a 2, .'. o a .c H .c u E 1= .2E o a o > N ° a v o 0 ,o E o H c v 3 d° p 0 0 v c 3 0 0 �', -' a p c -2 ti 'c o CJ v> v a o o 0 ai a c 0 c d s ,co_ avi o v —a° ° o Q v a o y c" c L+°-, o„ 0 0 L v u _27 _ O ., ,n v1 L a ._ s v O c c O t> O L °° .0 ° p O L a+ a t-2 3 0 v L O u0i E y >> M v 3> ., o— L 3 w E :: :� N~ ° °— L o v E- v v .v r F N ai v N Ew 0°v voNVuO> °? C. ° E v p aO c 6 o' —o vEuaOo a��vuwo"v E E ^° °y° oroc'cvw EN aQ oo a E v po o°uc p o OuynN rnu p o Eo cu ccv°0 -O o.�o a C. E vo a 0`-OO Q u- - 0 -Q o o S E aS 'Co 0O E w a0 a v 3 'p c v> a v u m 0~ E v v o E ._ a 0 0 c' m a° .� w° .c w o v c' O F v E L o> vni c ° 0 m 0 a�i c° U c_ �° c" c" u E Q E y o svc �.op c°0 o °c 0 c° vN OE O o c ~ 0E wo f _0o uEE ° o oo s >o-5 - o v 6- 0 > `a a.a r c U ° v ° c w o° u u a v a Q o a .3 U Q `oa v U a co o O o E c_ o cv co O a° n 0 i ° o U v o a a O1 m rn w v v E Q a ✓> c o :c E o c oLv. O O °° Qsv. c °' E c v v c ✓> M a ° y m v" v 1. O ° E o 0 0 `o co O p u T° v v �n o o = `��' .a" n o u n E v O n c 3 vJi m e o .L. o u u ° o 'o O o cv a � 3 1 o r, D u c' o" o m p� v" :_ o.- c v o o" a "- o o a� v E o a w s v a n ��.cr a o v v w' c E� 3° o v v c 5 — o�Lv. 'u v °�w G.�w ° R c pn vai oriU-2 c a ' a -0 2 O � O�u >O l a�va pp p u o N In ° - L ° o � Q O a a H a ."0-3= 0 ti °a v -O2` t o m o v m •— o o E v O 3 �° 0 v � E v a o v - m c s ° 2 u O 'o _ c.N L _ o L p O o o a "---0 E o u o° p O O u E o. v ... v O o ' > rnr p�= �" °; a cn 'E �� o ^Q v O > v uLTj w p° n N N O N o a a� N O 2J C1 O L N v O U �� a 0 (� m v rn a 0 c a �O o v o 0 o) B v o o v i a E- i c a a` o '° ° Q O 0 tO ° w v o« p v "'0 v O-E ,'n o o 0$ a z U in o a r 0 FE_' a rn C 0 cC a C C a �O 3 z a J d W V) J Q Q Lu U z �3 8, ORCUR ROAD y�} U_ o > o 0 o c v v J d a D o p 1O 3 c ° v n O J _ ° > w J o d 0 ~O E 2 ° a m C `o > 0 0 va 3AId0 3dnzV 1NOW p' ° a v p R a A N F R _ O O O p O O 0 p 3 o rn •o -o L° p co o y o o a v w o , u N y v a� L n 0 m v rn co u o 0 0 m E E E W u VZVld NVIdONOW ov 10l S WJ m `w o ,I . !7 cv101 � -M p W c o o a o R F Aig 99101 O S O 'tJJ O k A SI 0 0 0 0 0 0 o r d3lld31V OdVd roSO� -• - l` --� o c 0 o o o a p ev 101 re 1Dl 'fii 4y '= (&n] • c a T E c 3 0 0 ° a p v or loll I yn Wl nQ *•"' __, -a i s o -6 rn o u 101. u 101 Ft LGI 0 0 0 m a o m p 3 } -• p d ° ° p l c p o c o Jo wJ :� v o o" p o, L � 6 o a a o f E Qm m .o a o v m 9 c p v .E c p AVMOVOd dSVO - - ONnOdV-Ndn1 o ��, ylyH-3NO Sn9 - ----- - v a m v v a — -- o L ° a p o iU —— Z u d W u> N -gyp Q w s �.P 1 1 g Ho -" 6p,.-m Zap! {^d a' z �L-E z'a� ZFWy� 05 rU o,dNui z 1 1 1 1 ,• 1 1 � I I I 1 ' i . x �{ 1 , S i ------ _------- L; N pm H b � b qb ty b ryb eb _b h b• b b b b b b b b i R^m;, I RP oY • IAF �I �b Rb ob ob G „b rs �•' I ,five 01 AIn r r .P^ .Or^ p'{.r wlo, ry apT •I �[71 1 Y :RN BLS `��- 1 'J e 9 71e < ,1 nr 5 YYIi elm ruo, �^ Sm M1o, Iml fl +: I " Y s>< d 06 } LJJ Q m 7 J � � d �z a LJ Q vCE zo V) 0 Lu 0- 0 0 1 0 0 0 I 0 0 f _I_— (U a �L s OL �� a Q � • N U U) ) a. Go Ip U c i Z w CD I w J I m 1. 0 z z0 7/5� Om _ry LJJ c~ J Q m Q 1Y 0 Q ORCUTT ROAD I' 3AItl0 3tlf1ZV 1NOW y E L L 1 ' I 1 L IIIL ���. 1 "��333���IIII a a, 3; ViVld NVIdONOW $ Sol I a g edit ry `� ,. 1 I — — 2 lio I a rL;l : ll t1311O.LV 7t1VA IZ uo ao I f 3 r, .!w dae0 .61 E b 4 N .IW daa0.9Z U!W 6L72 J � f LL 3 3 w a J O (� Z 3 * F- -j 3 4 2 � q e � w 133 4 Z F q q 2 O � > � L q 2 O U (D 1= 2 2 Q � k § a / a E c E c $ § § a :� o u ._ > a / / / kk o 0 7 o u � a)' c » •- o § / .m � $ u � $ ) c 3 ) E E (o a$ �7 CD -0uc $ 2 % o \ u § E " o = § / w $ ? o!E &oUE ƒEE a- -'/ >1 = c o c m a » o o a) $ -C E.§ 2 c .- E o o o @ 0_ c x Q w .� [ � 'W 0 � c m » E k � $ >- § k / k \ \ § k -0 m W 2 — + \ / \ a % ƒ G \ 7 ( 2 -CO o a§ u aƒ 0 2r- 2 o$ UE / u �: c � o O C; @ o o& W o° c/ (D \ % •� .� $ 0 % � o § 0 W? W R§\° c o 3 / a - 2 a L U u a� 0-1 ,§ L 6- E -C I \ Q C c ® ! a) N '0 k § E a a Q $ a) § 7 % \ � & 0 0 % ) i K \¥' c 0 LZ C3 2 a a) a) E c a)c q 7 E° u b g ƒ / x E - ° ° % U U) E >/ K E 0 � : $ � CF) � § '� L D—u m c` a 'u � '� .o 0 a _ i k, $\ a) c -0G = o c o - �e o x: ƒ c �/.— L- 0, ��\ƒ/I0 7& c 2 b 0 0 0ƒ o$ v o% u 2 q« E-0 S c o 2In o± o o 02E� 0 ° — C3 00 u/ G ƒ[.E@t§(o - � -C g a a w 2§E� z§ a go UE: Q 2 w r• D r }- / } \) }) , )\ \}) �_-«.yry.2:l:,l=l�!»! `■) 2;S; 1-2 -2 ., x: !; Qi - � )�\ b _ \ \ a 5 � )/} } \ \ } )■!j ) i : , � ^)ƒ l\ \}i2 , ® ) ^ Z.2 m |! ® !!$| - :i;.!/|§/{$# �i=�� / ■�- - !! ! ) » �/� ; ! ) | |!! �§ |� }/kt)}\��� �/ 7 �z;f \� 2ƒ��■\§��/ 2f�°��|� 06 w CO Lu z J -a LLa oO Oz c� L11 = n L1J J z z Z Y W � � O n 0- • I � iD _ Z = a Z a ~ a0 W J � OJ � m N ❑ — � � 3 u p -LL OLL, Z E a Ir Z00 0O _H N A' J L► I N 3 O a W �o 0 = ❑ � � LL O W LL ° U Z ❑ : z 0 s.� O z o 2 ` v N w° J � LL a 0 a 0 Q 0 H h Z O Z > N Q w w 0 0p aN J > r a W > W 1 W O w � a Y a H m D 1 J a o 0 E ❑y a= o U > W r r — I -O N O ~ O Z a 0 > 0 ❑ U w w p U U 'O m F v n � a a Z o N � U O a w w a m i 06 w 0 U zz -a ary U z cn w Q zU Q w J J0 Q ry n H d LLL U z 0 QO Z _ _ -ram • - ORCUTT.- ROAD L� F, O W w � J w�. D a O J 8 Z 3 E j c Z E Q G E U m _ E o Z off' E n nnnn�,:i�>ii9 � o € G i E os E ` E G k o o E E __ U 3o$ E E Z E a E E a m E a n �° ° _ .� r ° W Eev�vo�__pp auo Qo`'cE2E.`os'o A W S=S�e��� E�faU a x?SS°��no ouiw�Eu°O� 1`.3 rBuA W w' V LU o F~- = 2 LU E3 0 O ma;-00g's o °m 810 1vo4m gz avo sa(.), W UVa�s °c° EE H 3 E r i m _4 's a 'c _o G U_ 3 c E u � Z a _ ° �' ; u' E „o aE E _ _ Lp` ° 3 o E o:- - —o' nnn v„n-v,r�rx' J an c 2 a° Nl)US 2�rsn�ain �ih D Z = p Q _ o =- ; m 8S m3 E w a cy ou �1 E ou ;072 m °u � v o=& = a ° Eg - >=ms=o_6.jE°�° vz E w 15 m E g s LU .S °'E n o and °__ _ _ Eo g ° °°o °° s OU J u F a o i`, o 0 4 E s E„ c o f .a .o .o j a o u o $E LL r° u o 0 0 v u= a° .� `v d a p s« ._ o •�'. o .`i >; c E a a a E — _n u :: m 'c Q o° n'y ===9����3fff E�ovnsonnnnnnnnana N 3aa°i�anann°o0a°O E 5 air ES gpi Es 3 E E3s„ i V E E — t? E. m o r o ]Y roE E ou° S o ` o Eo— vEo �v nn ° Ee _U_,J Eo os E E 2 E S�_ ww =mf2nau E uo Vav u uo o°oao uuu uu J U U U U UCI vi z'"oSS_d° ti�titij HLLI 3 - F- 3 zio 3 LU H > v - E LU J o Ems 30 -_ _r 3_ a o v72 o - - w a r� °�zo° LLI Z y o u Y ° _m E °v o u° n o— ' vE o = — - - ' ; ` .E - o - — E E �'� v — n S m E S ., q E m m E °' y_ o — _ > _u p _ _ ° E _ 0u o o— _ _ _ Z w o o ° E v E. aaa i .i�� i1`muuuUu�.w SU�e��°e�uf n°n 5 J. °n`OOff 3 r ��000d 1 U u u 0 0 0 U �n 12 FE Attachment 5 city of san tins osispo INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM For ER # 137-11 1. Project Title: Atelier Residential development plans including Vesting Tentative Map #3044 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of San Luis Obispo 919 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Pam Ricci, Senior Planner 805-781-7168 4. Project Location: 3725 Orcutt Road 5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Wingate Holdings LLC c/o Orton Engineers 1686 Ramona #F Grover Beach, CA 93433 6. General Plan Designation: Medium & Medium -High Density Residential 7. Zoning: Medium & Medium -High Density Residential with the Specific Plan overlay (R-2-SP & R-3-SP) 8. Description of the Project: The project proposes a variety of housing product types including, single family detached, duplex units, single-family attached row houses, loft style apartment units and apartment style senior housing units. 30% of the allowable density in the project is proposed affordable units and 42% of the allowable density in the project is proposed special needs senior housing. The affordable units are distributed throughout the development in a non -distinguishable manner and include affordable units in all residential product types proposed within the project. Affordable units will include homes for moderate, lower and very low-income non -senior and senior households. The R-3 portion of the site includes an expanded convenience store, an early education and care facility adjoining a public park all of which provide pedestrian oriented services and open space to the subject development and surrounding areas. Both convenience store and daycare uses are allowable in the R-3 zone. The project includes pedestrian ways, covered bicycle staging area, a bus turnout with covered staging area and traffic calming features to promote the pedestrian friendly environment envisioned by the OASP and the subject community. The approximately one -acre park, envisioned as the "hub" of the community, achieves multi-purpose/multi use functions including biological enhancement and drainage mitigation, play/turf area, open space, public art, seating areas, paths and plaza space for community events, thereby providing both active and passive recreation amenities for the future residents of the subdivision and the overall community as a whole. 9. Surrounding Land Uses and Settings: The project site consists of about 10 acres of grassland that has historically been used for grazing and suburban residential uses. Within VTM 4033, there are three detached single-family residences with access to Orcutt Road via a private roadway. The existing homes on the site, which are serviced by septic and well systems, along with the accessory structures will be demolished to accommodate development of VTM 4033. Immediately to the west of VTM 4033 are two R-3-SP zoned sites within the OASP that are currently used for suburban residential and intermittent grazing purposes. To the north and south of VTM 4033 properties immediately adjacent are zoned R-2-SP and are additionally located within the OASP and used for suburban residential and/or intermittent grazing purposes. To the east, a growing garden and low -density residential uses are located within the jurisdiction of the County of San Luis Obispo. 10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement.): Air Pollution Control District — grading permits �ii CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 2 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2010 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 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Population / Housing Agriculture Resources Hazards & Hazardous Materials Public Services Air Quality Hydrology / Water Quality Recreation Biological Resources Land Use / Planning Transportation / Traffic Cultural Resources Mineral Resources Utilities / Service Systems Geology / Soils Noise Mandatory Findings of Significance FISH AND GAME FEES The Department of Fish and Wildlife has reviewed the CEQA document and written no effect determination request and has determined that the project will not have a potential effect on fish, wildlife, or habitat (see attached determination). 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 Wildlife 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 Wildlife, Department of Housing and Community Development). The public review period shall not be less than 30 days (CEQA Guidelines 15073(a)], li i� CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 3 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2010 DETERMINATION tTo be completed by the Lead Agency): On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made, by or 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 --X-- 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. (,)-at� Signature Doug Davidson, Deputy Director S 2Z1i3 Date For: Derek Johnson Community Development Director �r CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 4 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2010 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 parentheses following each question. 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. 3. Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact' is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. 4. "Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With 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 19, "Earlier Analysis," as described in (5) below, 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)). 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 the 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 addressed site -specific conditions for the project. 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. 8. The explanation of each issue should identify: a) the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance qii CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 5 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2010 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact ER # 137-11 (VTM 3044; Atelier Issues with Mitigation Impact Incorporated 1. AESTHETICS. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? 1 --X-- 1 --X-- b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, open space, and historic buildings within a local or state scenic highway? l --X-- c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? 1,2 --X-- d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Evaluation a) The primary scenic value from within and around the subject site is the view to the east and south including Righetti Hill. The project site is situated within the relatively flat lower valley areas of the OASP. With the proposed scale and height of planned development and its distance from the main scenic corridors, the project will not create a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista. b) 1t is part of the main objective of the OASP EIR to protect natural habitats, including creeks, hills, wetlands, and corridors between these habitats. The subject site is currently used for low density residential uses and in the past has accommodated animal grazing. The site is mostly sloping grassland and does not contain any unique scenic resources that will be compromised or lost with development. Therefore, the impact is less than significant for this project. c) The existing visual character or quality of the site will change from semi -rural to an urbanized area pursuant to and consistent with the objectives of the OASP. The project is required to be consistent with the distribution of land uses and design standards stated in the OASP to ensure that the appearance of the development is acceptable and that no new buildings block scenic views. Therefore, the project as proposed is consistent with the OASP and in this regard is self -mitigating. Through conditions of approval the project will be further required to comply with City codes and standards some of which impact aesthetics. Ultimately the design will require the review and approval of the Architectural Review Commission (ARC) to ensure consistency with the City's Community Design Guidelines as well as the OASP. Regardless, the proposed development would contribute to the project wide effect on the aesthetic character of the site vicinity through alteration of view -sheds from Orcutt and Tank Farm Roads. The OASP EIR considered this a cumulative significant and unavoidable impact and considered and approved overriding considerations. d) The prior OASP EIR acknowledges that future development pursuant to the OASP will introduce new sources of light, glare and nighttime illumination, as is typical with residential and commercial development. However, the OASP EIR determined that such light and glare impacts can be mitigated to less than significant at the site specific project stage through compliance with lighting design standards set forth in the OASP and with other adopted standards as may be applicable by other City regulations. The new light source subject to mitigation will not adversely affect day or nighttime views in the urbanized area. Therefore impacts from new sources of light or glare will be less than significant with mitigation AES-3(a) as specified in the OASP EIR to be implemented through compliance with the OASP Community Design standard of Section 4- 16-Lighting and accompanying conditions of approval. Building and parking lot lighting for the project will also be reviewed and approved by the ARC in compliance with the aforementioned standards of the OASP and Chapter 17.23 of the City's Zoning Regulations (Night Sky Preservation Ordinance). 2. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of 1 Statewide Importance Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a --X-- Williamson Act contract? 1♦i/ CITY OF SAN Luis OBISPO 6 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2010 Issues, Discussion and ER # 137-11 (VTM 3044 Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Atelier Issues with Impact Mitigation Incorporated c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use? Evaluation --X-- a) Although the proposed project would permanently convert soils that have been defined by the City as prime agriculture lands, the value of the Orcutt Area's agricultural land resources, as measured by the LESA Model, is not considered significant. Therefore there is no impact. b) There is no agricultural zoning or Williamson Act Contract in effect on the subject site. c) The project site has not been actively farmed in decades, but rather has been used for grazing and low density residential. Therefore, this project will not result in any direct loss of productive farmland. Other lands in the vicinity of the project site are either already developed, or if within the Orcutt Area Specific Plan and in agricultural use, are slated by the Plan for eventual non-agricultural use whether this project proceeds or not. Therefore, this project has no direct correlation to any planned conversions of farmland to non-agricultural uses. The impacts of conversion of these lands to non-agricultural uses was evaluated both in the environmental documents for the City's Land Use and Circulation Elements and the OASP as significant, irreversible, adverse impacts that could not be mitigated and the necessary Statement of Overriding Considerations were adopted by Resolution No. 10154 (2010 Series) pursuant to CEQA. Nonetheless, policies of the Land Use Element were adopted to help compensate for, and thereby reduce the impacts from productivity lost as a result of the conversions to non-agricultural uses. This project complies with said policies by being consistent with approved land use designations for the site. Thus the impact is less than si nit'icant. 3. AIR QUALITY. Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the followinjuZdeterminations. Would the ro'ect: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air 1 --X-- quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an --X-- existing or projected air quality violation? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria _X-- pollutant for which the project region is non -attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of --X-- Evaluation a-e) According to the prior OASP EIR, project construction will generate short-term emissions of air pollutants. Construction -related emissions would primarily be dust (particulates) generated from soil disturbance and combustion emissions generated by construction equipment. Such dust generation was determined to be a potentially short-term significant impact on air quality that could exceed established state and federal thresholds for regional or local air quality or otherwise conflict with City and County air quality plans or programs. In addition, the project site is situated near existing residential units thereby potentially exposing sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. The OASP EIR also noted long-term ("operation") air quality impacts would result from on -going emissions generated by the project -related vehicular trips, as well as additional natural gas combustion for space and water heating and additional fuel combustion at power plants for electricity consumption. The OASP EIR concluded that implementation of the Plan, with mitigation measures AQ- 1(a), l(b), l(c), l(d), l(e), 1(f), 3(a, 3(b), 3(c) and 3 (d) would reduce the dependence on automobiles and improve energy efficiency decreasing emissions. �� CITY OF SAN Luis OBISPO 7 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2010 c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use? Evaluation --X-- a) Although the proposed project would permanently convert soils that have been defined by the City as prime agriculture lands, the value of the Orcutt Area's agricultural land resources, as measured by the LESA Model, is not considered significant. Therefore there is no impact. b) There is no agricultural zoning or Williamson Act Contract in effect on the subject site. c) The project site has not been actively farmed in decades, but rather has been used for grazing and low density residential. Therefore, this project will not result in any direct loss of productive farmland. Other lands in the vicinity of the project site are either already developed, or if within the Orcutt Area Specific Plan and in agricultural use, are slated by the Plan for eventual non-agricultural use whether this project proceeds or not. Therefore, this project has no direct correlation to any planned conversions of farmland to non-agricultural uses. The impacts of conversion of these lands to non-agricultural uses was evaluated both in the environmental documents for the City's Land Use and Circulation Elements and the OASP as significant, irreversible, adverse impacts that could not be mitigated and the necessary Statement of Overriding Considerations were adopted by Resolution No. 10154 (2010 Series) pursuant to CEQA. Nonetheless, policies of the Land Use Element were adopted to help compensate for, and thereby reduce the impacts from productivity lost as a result of the conversions to non-agricultural uses. This project complies with said policies by being consistent with approved land use designations for the site. Thus the impact is less than si nit'icant. 3. AIR QUALITY. Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the followinjuZdeterminations. Would the ro'ect: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air 1 --X-- quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an --X-- existing or projected air quality violation? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria _X-- pollutant for which the project region is non -attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of --X-- Evaluation a-e) According to the prior OASP EIR, project construction will generate short-term emissions of air pollutants. Construction -related emissions would primarily be dust (particulates) generated from soil disturbance and combustion emissions generated by construction equipment. Such dust generation was determined to be a potentially short-term significant impact on air quality that could exceed established state and federal thresholds for regional or local air quality or otherwise conflict with City and County air quality plans or programs. In addition, the project site is situated near existing residential units thereby potentially exposing sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. The OASP EIR also noted long-term ("operation") air quality impacts would result from on -going emissions generated by the project -related vehicular trips, as well as additional natural gas combustion for space and water heating and additional fuel combustion at power plants for electricity consumption. The OASP EIR concluded that implementation of the Plan, with mitigation measures AQ- 1(a), l(b), l(c), l(d), l(e), 1(f), 3(a, 3(b), 3(c) and 3 (d) would reduce the dependence on automobiles and improve energy efficiency decreasing emissions. �� CITY OF SAN Luis OBISPO 7 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2010 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Infoi ER # 137-11 (VTM 3044; Atelier) -mation Sources Sources Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Issues with Impact Mitigation Incor orated The proposed project is self -mitigating in these regards because the applicant has asserted commitment to compliance with the mitigation measures prescribed and has additionally provided non -car -centric design elements to encourage pedestrian circulation exceeding the requirements of the OASP. Additionally, the project has made further commitment to exceeding Title 24 requirements by 30% and approximately 40% of the power needs of the development are provided by solar assistance. This component of the applicant's project description/proposal together with conditions of approval assure mitigation measures set forth in the prior EIR are brought forward to this project. Thus, the project is self -mitigating and the impact is less than significant. 4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the ro'ect: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through 1 habitat modifications, modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? --X-- b) Have a substantial adverse effect, on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined defined in Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? --X-- d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? --X-- e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted habitat Conservation 3 --X-- Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional. or state habitat conservationplan? Evaluation a), b), f) The EIR prepared for the OASP conducted biological resource impact analyses and did not identify adverse impacts for the subject site which contains no riparian habitat, wetlands or sensitive habitats. c) There are no significant specimen or heritage trees on the property. Thus there is no impact from this project. d) The project site does not contain any waterways; therefore, there would not be any effect on fish species. Due to the relatively poor soils, simple vegetation type (non-native grassland), and general lack of vegetative diversity, the subject site does not have high habitat value for wildlife species. Therefore, it is not expected that the development would interfere substantially with the movement of any native wildlife species. e) The project will not result in the removal of heritage trees or adversely affect sensitive resources. Therefore, the development is consistent with City General Plan policies and the OASP. 5. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historic resource as defined in § 15064.5. b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5) c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? We --X-- II= CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2010 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact ER # 137-11 (VTM 3044; Atelier [slues with Mitigation Impact Incorporated d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of --X-- formal cemeteries? Evaluation (a-b) The OASP EIR included an on -site survey of the subject project area and no historic or archeological resources were identified. Development of the site will be subject to course of development and construction mitigation monitoring requirements contained in the OASP and OASP EIR to address any unknown subsurface resources which may be discovered during grading operation of the site. Thus, the project impact is less than significant. c-d) The project site is located in an area that does not contain any unique geological feature and possesses no known unique paleontological resources. The project area has been part of two general cultural resource field surveys. As a result of these field surveys, there are no known historical or archaeological resources that are associated with the project site. Therefore there is no impact. 6. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would theproject: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse 1 --X-- effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving: --X-- I. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the 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? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. --X-- II. Strong seismic ground shaking? --X-- III. Seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction? --X-- IV. Landslides? --X-- b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? --X-- c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on or off site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? 4, 11 --X-- d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 1802.3.2 of the California Building Code (2007), creating substantial risks to life or property? --X-- e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? Evaluation a)- d): The OASP EIR found that all the above -stated effects from implementation of both plans would be less than significant and therefore the OASP EIR conducted no further evaluations. There is no new evidence to suggest there would be any site - specific impacts that were not adequately anticipated or evaluated in the prior environmental documents. The preliminary grading plan proposes balanced cut and fill, minimizes the need for tall retaining walls, ad generally respects site contours, The final grading plan of the proposed subdivision will be in accordance with the Geotechnical Engineer's recommendations and the California Building Code adopted by the City and modified by City regulations. Thus, the project impact is less than significant. 7. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS. Would theproject: a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, 1 --X-- that may have a significant impact on the environment? 55 14 --X-- b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? Evaluation lii CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 9 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2010 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Issues with Impact ER # 137-11 (VTM 3044; Atelier Mitigation Incorporated In addition to the analysis regarding Air Quality impacts, the OASP EIR also included a discussion of strategies for reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and provided a project -specific emissions inventory. The City does not have specific adopted project thresholds for GHGs, but did recently adopt a Climate Action Plan (CAP), which like the aforementioned OASP EIR section on GHGs, provides guidance on project design and other sustainable practices to reduce emissions. The applicant completed a CAP compliance checklist which outlines the many design features of the project that constitute a qualified GHG reduction strategy. Therefore, the project is consistent with EIR guidance on reducing GHGs as well as the CAP; therefore, the impact is less than significant. 8. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the proiect: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment 1 through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment 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 hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one -quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of-lese-loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? Evaluation 6 --X-- a), b), d): The OASP EIR determined no hazardous materials, substances or waste exist on the subject site. Thus there is no impact. c) The project site is not located within a one -quarter mile of an existing or proposed school. Thus there is no impact. e) The project site is not located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. Thus, there is no impact. f) The project site is located in the vicinity of the San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport, and is subject to the County Airport Land Use Plan (ALUP). In its adoption of the GASP, the City Council found the OASP to be consistent with the ALUP, and ultimately received the endorsement of the Airport Land Use Commission. The OASP includes performance standards for avigation easements for tracts (3.5.2g) and real estate disclosures to potential owners and renters. The tract map approval includes these requirements as conditions of approval. Therefore, because the subject project and proposed uses and 1♦i� CITY OF SAN Luis OBISPO 10 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2010 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Issues with impact ER # 137-11 (VTM 3044; Atelier � Mitigation Incorporated densities are compliant with the OASP, and the project will be conditioned per the OASP performance standards; there is not a significant impact. g) The OASP project and its proposed circulation and land use plan has been reviewed by the Fire Marshal who has recommended conditions of approval which will assure compliance with adopted fire/emergency-related codes. The project as designed will not impair implementation of, or physically interfere with, the adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plans of the City. Thus there is no impact. h) The project site is not in an area identified as subject to wildland fire hazards. Thus there is no impact. 9. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would theproject: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge 1 X requirements? X b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g. the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? 7 X c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on or off site? 7, 12 X d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on or off site? 7 X e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? X f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on 8 --X-- a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? 8 --X-- h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? i) Expose people or structures to significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the --X-- failure of a levee or dam? Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? 3 --X-- Evaluation a) f) The project will not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. According to the prior OASP EIR, development associated with the project will require issuance of an NPDES general construction activity storm water permit by the Central Coast RWQCB. Completion of this project would ensure that construction -related discharges are limited or adequately accommodated by properly engineered infrastructure design. Thus, the impact is considered less than significant. Because ongoing use of the project area for residential and commercial uses would also increase the potential for discharge of chemicals, oils and fuels, and waste into projected waterways; the requirement for the implementation of Best Management Practices BMPs must be established to greatly reduce the potential for unwanted runoff. Therefore, implementation of the �� CITY OF SAN Luis OBISPO 11 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2010 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Issues with Impact ER # 137-11 (VTM 3044; Atelier Mitigation Incorporated BMPs on the project will reduce the impact to a less than significant level. b) The project will be served by the City's sewer and water systems and will not use or deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level. Thus, there is no impact. c), d), e) According to the prior OASP EIR, construction of the proposed project as part of the OASP would result in an increase of impervious surfaces that would cause the timing and amount of surface water runoff to increase. However, the project is subject to the revised City Storm Drain Master Plan/Waterway Management Plan that discusses the necessary improvements that would ensure adequate transmission and detention of storm water flow created by any new development and thus potential impacts resulting from increased development —related run-off was determined by the OASP EIR to be less than significant, and no mitigation required. To ensure that runoff levels will be equal to or less than existing levels, all storm water runoff will be contained in detention facilities and basins within the subdivision and drained at a rate not to exceed the 2-year undeveloped flow rate. The design, location, and maintenance of the detention facilities and basins will be subject to the approval of the City Engineer. Thus, the impact of the project is less than significant. g), h), i), j) The project does not place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) or other flood hazard delineation map or may impede or redirect water flows that will cause a flood hazard to surrounding areas. The subject site is not in a location where it would be susceptible to inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow. Thus there is no impact. 10. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the ro'ect: a) Physically divide an established community? 1 --X-' b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation 3 --X-- of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural --X-- community conservation plan? Evaluation a) The project will create a variety of new residential units in accordance with the OASP. Therefore, the project will not physically divide an established community because it is a logical and orderly extension of the planned land uses per the OASP and is compatible with established development within the surrounding area. Thus there is no impact. b) The project is planned and designed to coincide with the OASP land use designations on the site for Medium Density Residential and Medium -High Density Residential. The distribution of units across the site and the lot designs proposed with the subdivision are consistent with the applicable land use designations. The specific boundaries of the R-2SP and R-3SP zones will be determined by the subdivision submittal in conformance with the Specific Plan. Thus, there is no impact. c) The project site is not located within a habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan. Thus, there is no impact. (See related discussion above under Part 4. Biological Resources. 11. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource 1,5 that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally -important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? Evaluation --X-- --X-- ��i/ CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 12 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2010 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact ER # 137-11 (VTM 3044; Atelier [slues with Mitigation Impact Incorporated a-b) The project will not conflict with adopted energy conservation plans nor will it promote the use of non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner. The future development of the site must comply with the policies contained in the General Plan Energy Element that states: "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 project exceeds these requirements through inclusion of a 30% increase above Title 24 requirements for all structure, approximately 40% of the power needs being provided by solar assistance and incorporation of many "Cal Green" recommendations. A full overview of these features is provided in the project application. The project will also be subject to Architectural Review that will ensure consistency with City energy conservation goals, policies, and regulations. This impact is less than significant. c) There are no known mineral resources on the project site that would be of value to the region and the residents of the State. There is no impact. 12. NOISE. Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of 1,3 --X-- standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne --X-- vibration or groundborne noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the --X-- project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise --X-- levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan, or where 6 --X-- such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the __X__ project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? Evaluation a) According to the OASP EIR, the proposed project is located in an area zoned for residential land uses that are predicted to be exposed to traffic noise levels that exceed the Noise Element standard of 60 decibels (dB). This is particularly true for lots adjacent to Orcutt Road which functions as a major north -south arterial, connecting Johnson Avenue and Tank Farm Road and carries large volumes of traffic. Consequently, to reduce the effects of such traffic related noise to sensitive residential receptors, the OASP established goals, policies and programs to reduce noise exposure of new sensitive receptors within the Orcutt Area to meet City Standards. The Specific Plan includes a specific program to contribute to mitigating cumulative impacts. Implementation of the program must occur prior to home occupancy for development pursuant to the Specific Plan. Regardless, noise impacts were determined significant and unavoidable impact in the OASP EIR and corresponding Overriding Considerations were considered and approved. b) The project will not expose people to the generation of excessive ground -borne noise levels or vibrations. Thus, there is no impact. c) Site development will result in increases in ambient noise levels, but not to significant levels, since by operation of mitigation requirements set forth in a) above, noise increases that would affect ambient levels are to be reduced to thresholds determined to be acceptable in residential areas. Therefore, impacts to permanent ambient noise levels are less than significant. d) Project construction or other temporary or periodic noise generation may result in temporary increases (spikes) in ambient �ii CITY OF SAN Luis OBISPO 13 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2010 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Issues with Impact ER # 137-11 (VTM 3044; Atelier Mitigation Incorporated noise levels. Since there is no way to predict the origin or duration of these types of noise sources for this development, it can only be regulated if found to be a nuisance by the City's Noise Ordinance. The project by reference acknowledges that it will comply with Mitigation Measure N-1 (a) which references the City's Noise Ordinance in terms of construction hours and techniques to reduce noise levels. Thus, the impact is less than significant. e) The project is located in the vicinity of the San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport, and is subject to the County Airport Land Use Plan. According to the prior OASP EIR, the project is not within the 60 or 65 dBA-CNEL contour line. The OASP EIR and Plan finds the impact is adverse, but less than si niFicant. 13. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the rn'ect: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly I --X_ (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? --x-- b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating --X-- the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Evaluation: a) The added population growth caused by this project is within the General Plan's projection and will not result in population exceeding local and regional growth projections. Therefore, the impact of inducing substantial population growth to the planning area would be less than significant. b) c) The project site is currently contains three market rate month -to -month rented dwelling units. Tenants will be provided 90-day notice, in lieu of required 30-day notice, to assist in relocation. City of San Luis Obispo has sufficient rental housing stock available for relocation. Thus, there is no impact. 14. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: a) Fire protection? b) Police protection? --X-- C) Schools? 1.9 d) Parks? `-X-- e Other public facilities? Evaluation a), b), d), e) The OASP EIR determined that implementation and build out of the OASP will not result in any significant impacts related to any of the above -listed services due to the ability to offset service needs through the City's Development Impact Fee program established via the City General Plan and augmented by the development fee program in the OASP; therefore, the conclusion was that no further mitigation was necessary. Since the project has been designed consistent with the OASP, development will not result in any adverse impacts to these services. The project will not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of, or need for, new or physically altered government facilities, the construction of which might have the potential to cause significant environmental impacts. In accordance with the OASP, the project is subject to City and OASP established Development Impact Fees that are charged in conjunction with approval of development projects to offset costs associated with increases in demand of public services. Thus, the impact is less than significant. c) The State has the authority to collect fees at the time of building permits to offset the costs to finance school site acquisition and school construction, and said fees, when collected by local school districts, are deemed by State law to provide adequate mitigation for school facility requirements. Section 65955 of the Government Code prohibits the City from denying a I♦ii CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 14 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2010 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact ER # 137-11 VTM 3044; Atelier ( � Issues with Mitigation Impact Incorporated subdivision or collecting any fees beyond those required by the school district to mitigate effects associated with inadequate school facilities. Any increases in demand on school facilities caused by the project are considered to be mitigated by the district's collection of adopted fees at the time of building permit issuance for each residence and commercial building. Thus, there is no impact. 15. RECREATION. a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood or 1 --X-- regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? 1 --X-- b) Does the project -include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Evaluation: a) & b) The build -out of the project will add to the demand for parks and other recreational facilities. The OASP has anticipated this demand by designating certain sites within the Plan area for a "Neighborhood Park" for active recreational use and other areas for "Open Space" for more passive recreation/aesthetic amenities (e.g. walking or bicycling paths and trails) intended more for use by adjacent or nearby residents. Figure 2.4 in the OASP shows the overall Open Space and Parks Plan. This plan designates the option for local parkland dedication on the project site for consideration in meeting the park needs of the project. OASP Policy 2.3.4 states: "Provide property owners within the Orcutt Area that want to provide parkland on their properties an opportunity to do so through the subdivision review process. " Consistent with the aforementioned plan and policy, the applicant is proposing an approximately one -acre park in the western portion of the project site. The subdivision additionally proposes internal pedestrian paths and a bicycle staging area. Given that this is the first subdivision to move forward in the OASP, these features were incorporated to provide subdivision residents pedestrian oriented access to parkland and paths during build -out of the overall specific plan. With these on -site amenities, future residents are not dependent on build -out of other parcels for providing nearby park facilities. The OASP EIR determined that while build -out of the OASP will generate increased demand for recreational facilities, the impact is less than significant with the development of additional parks and open space per the GASP. Thus, the construction of the project will have a less than significant impact on parks or other recreational facilities. 16. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the project. a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy l --X-- establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non -motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit? b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, --X-- including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an — X increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding --X'- --X-' public transit, bicycle, or pedesirian facilities, or otherwise _A 1 CITY OF SAN Luis OBISPD 15 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2010 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact ER # 137-11 VTM 3044; Atelier Issues with Mitigation Impact Incorporated decrease the performance or safety of such facilities? Evaluation a), b) The subject project, as well as all other development that occurs in the future pursuant to the OASP and the City General Plan will increase traffic in the area. Based on the traffic study prepared for the Program EIR, development of the Orcutt Area is expected to add 628 Average Daily Trips (ADT) to Orcutt Road between Johnson Avenue and Tank Farm Road at build -out. Levels of service on Orcutt Road will not change and no additional through traffic lanes on Orcutt Road between Johnson and Tank Farm are anticipated, though an additional turn lane will be added. The Circulation Plan of the OASP (as well as the Circulation Element of the City General Plan) identifies the essential primary road system that will be needed to accommodate development within the plan area and surrounding growth areas of the City. The OASP EIR determined that the roadway plans of these planning documents are for the most part self -mitigating in that 1.) Roadway alignments, road extensions, and new intersections are designed and will be built in response to traffic projected at build -out and, 2.) Development projects in the OASP areas will also contribute their fair share either through adopted Traffic Impact Fees, OASP development impact fees, assessments or dedications to specified roadway improvements. In summary, the proposed project would add vehicular trips to streets that serve as entry/exit routes to the project site. These streets with the given improvements specified in the City's adopted planning documents and with the addition of new Transportation Demand Management (TDM) requirements will serve to accommodate the added vehicular traffic. Thus, the impact from this project is less than significant. c), d) The Orcutt Area Specific Plan will require that the project provides roadways that are designed and developed in accordance with adopted City standards thereby assuring predetermined standards necessary to limit safety hazards and provide adequate emergency access. Thus, there is no impact as result of the project. e) The project is subject to the City's parking requirements as it is outlined in the OASP for each land use. The project build - out is required to fulfill all necessary parking requirements. Thus, there is no impact. f) The project provides improvements to implement the City adopted policies to encourage alternative means of transportation. The project includes pedestrian paths, bicycle paths and staging area and a mass transit bus stop with covered seating. These path system, bicycle staging area and bus stop meet or exceed the requirements called for in the OASP. Thus, there is no impact. g) The OASP has already been found to not conflict with the San Luis Obispo County Airport Land Use Plan (ALUP). Therefore, as the subject project complies with the pertinent requirements of the OASP regarding allowed land uses and development densities and standards, the project is not in conflict with the ALUP. Thus, there is no impact from this prnjecl. 17. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would theProject: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable --X-- Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction or expansion of new water 1 --X-- or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water 1 drainage facilities facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project l --X-- from existing entitlements and resources, or are new and expanded entitlements needed? e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider 1, 10, --X-- lii CITY OF SAN Luis OBISPO 16 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2010 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact ER # 137-11 VTM 3044; Atelier ( � [sues with Mitigation Impact Incorporated which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? Evaluation a), b), c) The GASP EIR determined that implementation and build -out of the OASP will not result in any significant impacts related to delivery of domestic water, wastewater collection or treatment, or storm water drainage/retention and concluded that such impacts related to build -out of the OASP were less than significant and no mitigation was deemed necessary. The build -out under the OASP will be similar to that anticipated and projected in the City General Plan. The subject project proposes to provide all water, sewer, and storm drain facilities necessary to adequately serve the subject project, including distribution, collection and other infrastructure capacity as required by the OASP facility master plan and the City's Storm Drain Master Plan/Waterway Management Plan. There is no new evidence that the subject project, as intended by the OASP will result in any adverse impacts to these service systems nor exceed RWQCB wastewater treatment requirements. In addition to the on -site utility service infrastructure required with the development, the project is subject to City and OASP established Development Impact Fees that are charged in conjunction with approval of development projects to offset costs associated with off -site city-wide utility system impacts related to needed periodic maintenance and upgrades. Thus, there is no impact. d) Provisions in the City General Plan, specifically the Water and Wastewater Management Element, and OASP to insure that increased water use by new development will not cause inadequate water service to existing and future customers. This project is also subject to water impact fees which were adopted to ensure that new development pays its share of constructing additional infrastructure needed to support additional facilities. More specifically, the project is subject to the citywide water impact fees. Thus, compliance with the City and State standards and requirements will assure that impacts related to water supplies are less than significant. e) The City wastewater treatment plant and existing and proposed sewer lines in the vicinity and within the project site have sufficient capacity to serve the project site. The developer will be required to construct on -site sewer facilities according to the Uniform Plumbing Code standards. The project proposal includes an alternate connection to the wastewater collection system which is allowable within the OASP subject to specific criteria. The proposal for sewer service shows that the sewer main would extend down the south side of the project site then continue along the south side of the adjacent property to the west to Bullock Lane. This alignment parallels the "B" street main shown on the OASP Wastewater Plan (Figure 6.2) which is located on the south side of the adjacent property to the south of the project site. After submittal of a detailed sewer analysis and numerous meetings and consultations with City Utilities Department staff, the submitted proposal to provide sewer service for the project and possible connections for other nearby property owners was supported. The Community Development Director issued a letter approving a Specific Plan Adjustment approving the alternate alignment for the sewer line. The MASP defines an adjustment as "minor changes to specific features of the OASP that do not significantly alter the development type and still meet the intent of the Plan." The alternate sewer proposal meets the criteria for a Specific Plan Adjustment and does not result in any impacts to existing service. An added benefit of the sewer proposal is that a wastewater line in need of deferred maintenance will be replaced with the development of the project with installation of a new sleeve and line between Bullock Lane and Capitolio Way under the Southern Pacific Railroad. Impact fees are also collected when building permits are issued to pay for capacity at the City's Water Reclamation Facility. The fees are set to offset potential impacts associated with increases in demand and use by each new residential unit in the project. Thus, there is no impact. f) Solid waste collection within the City will be provided by a private operator under a City franchise and disposal is expected to continue at Cold Canyon Landfill until 2018. The project must be consistent with the City's Source Reduction and Recycling Element which requires that recycling facilities be accommodated on the project site and a solid waste reduction Hai CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 17 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2010 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact ER # 137-11 (VTM 3044; Atelier [slues with Mitigation Impact Incorporated plan for recycling discarded construction materials must be submitted with the building permit application. The project is also required by the ordinance to include facilities for recycling to reduce the waste stream generated by the project. Thus, there is no impact. g) The project will fully comply with existing federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste. Thus, there is no impact. 18. 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 histog or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but --X-- cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of the past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable futureprojects)? c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause --X-- substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? ��i� CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 18 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2010 19. EARLIER ANALYSES. Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration. Section 15063 (c) (3) (D). In this case a discussion should identify the following items: a Earlier analysis used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. In 2010 the City of San Luis Obispo certified an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Orcutt Area Specific Plan (OASP). The subject proposed VTM #3044 property lies within the boundaries of the OASP. Therefore, this prior OASP EIR evaluation considered impacts and mitigation related generally to potential development of the subject site and others pursuant to the GASP. The prior OASP EIR, certified by the City Council along with the adoption of the OASP on March 2, 2010, by Resolution No. 10154 (2010 Series), contained a variety of mitigation measures to be incorporated as discrete components of the OASP or as policies or development standards to be implemented through site -specific development proposals. Appendix C of the OASP list the require mitigation measures for projects. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) allows Lead Agencies (the City) to use the analysis of general matters contained in a broader EIR, such as for a general or specific plan, with later environmental documents incorporating by reference the general discussions from the broader EIR, and concentrating the initial study discussion solely on the issues specific to the later project. The environmental assessment approach is referred to as "tiering". The environmental analyses above for VTM #3044 take into account the environmental conclusions of the prior EIR as they are applicable to the proposed site -specific project. As such, mitigation measures adopted in the prior EIR that are applicable to the subject site -specific project, and therefore must be incorporated into the proposed project to effectively mitigate the prior identified impacts, are listed below. Many of the applicable mitigation measures required by provisions of the OASP have been incorporated by the applicant into the actual project subdivision design, making the project "self -mitigating" in these instances. The Orcutt Area Specific Plan and Final Program EIR is available for review at the City of San Luis Obispo Community Development Department, 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 and is also on the Ci 's website. 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 miti ation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site -specific conditions of the project. REQUIRED MITIGATION AND MONITORING PROGRAMS AIR QUALITY MITIGATION Operational Phase Mitigation AQ-1(a) Energy Efficiency. The building energy efficiency rating shall be 10% above what is required by Title 24 requirements for all buildings within the Specific Plan Area. The following energy - conserving techniques shall be incorporated unless the applicant demonstrates their infeasibility to the satisfaction of City Planning and Building Department staff: increase walls and attic insulation beyond Title 24 requirements; orient buildings to maximize natural heating and cooling; plant shade trees along southern exposures of buildings to reduce summer cooling needs; use roof material with a solar reflectance value meeting the Environmental Protection Agency/Department of Energy Energy Star rating; build in energy efficient appliances; use low energy street lighting and traffic signals; use energy efficient interior lighting; use solar water heaters; and use double -paned windows. AQ-1(b) Transit. Bus turnouts and shelter improvements with direct pedestrian access shall be installed at all 19 bus stops. AQ-1(c) Shade Trees. All parking lots shall include shade trees within the parking area. There shall be at least one shade tree for every six vehicle parking spaces. AQ-1(d) Telecommuting. All new homes within the Specific Plan area shall be constructed with internal wiring/cabling that allows telecommuting, teleconferencing, and telelearning to occur simultaneously in at least three locations in each home. AQ-1(e) Pathways. Where feasible, all cul-de-sacs and dead-end streets shall be links by pathways to encourage pedestrian and bicycle travel. • Monitoring Program: Compliance with operational phase mitigation measures will be reviewed with the subdivision plans and accompanying architectural review plans and ultimately shown on improvement plans and construction drawings. Construction Phase Miti ag tion AQ-3(a) Application of CBACT (Best Available Control Technology for construction related equipment). The following measures shall be implemented to reduce combustion emissions from construction equipment where a project will have an area of disturbance greater than 1 acre. • Specific Plan applicants shall submit for review by the Community Development Department and Air Pollution Control District (APCD) staff a grading plan showing the area to be disturbed and a description of construction equipment that will be used and pollution reduction measures that will be implemented. Upon confirmation by the Community Development Department and APCD, appropriate CBACT features shall be applied. The application of these features shall occur prior to Specific Plan construction. • Specific Plan applicants shall be required to ensure that all construction equipment and portable engines are properly maintained and tuned according to manufacturer's specifications. • Specific Plan applicants shall be required to ensure that off -road and portable diesel powered equipment, including but not limited to bulldozers, graders, cranes, loaders, scrapers, backhoes, generator sets, compressors, auxiliary power units, shall be fueled exclusively with CARB motor vehicle diesel fuel (non -taxed off -road diesel is acceptable). • Specific Plan applicants shall be required to install a diesel oxidation catalyst on each of the two pieces of equipment projected to generate the greatest emissions. Installations must be prepared according to manufacturer's specifications. AQ-3(b) Dust Control. The following measures shall be implemented to reduce PM10 emissions during all Specific Plan construction: • Reduce the amount of the disturbed area where possible. • Use water trucks or sprinkler systems in sufficient quantities to prevent airborne dust from leaving the site. Water shall be applied as soon as possible whenever wind speeds exceed 15 miles per hour. Reclaimed (nonpotable) water should be used whenever possible. • All dirt -stock -pile areas shall be sprayed daily as needed. • Permanent dust control measures shall be identified in the approved Specific Plan revegetation and landscape plans and implemented as soon as possible following completion of any soil disturbing activities. • Exposed ground areas that are planned to be reworked at dates greater than one month after initial 20 grading shall be sown with a fast -germinating native grass seed and watered until vegetation is established. • All disturbed soil areas not subject to revegetation shall be stabilized using approved chemical soil binders, jute netting, or other methods approved in advance by the APCD. • All roadways, driveways, sidewalks, etc., to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible. In addition, building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used. • Vehicle speed for all construction vehicles shall not exceed 15 mph on any unpaved surface at the construction site. • All trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil or other loose materials shall be covered or shall maintain at least two feet of freeboard (minimum vertical distance between top of load and top of trailer) in accordance with CVC Section 23114. • Install wheel washers where vehicles enter and exit unpaved roads onto streets, or wash off trucks and equipment leaving the site. • Sweep streets at the end of each day if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent paved roads. Water sweepers with reclaimed water shall be used where feasible. AQ-3(c) Cover Stockpiled Soils. If importation, exportation, or stockpiling of fill material is involved, soil stockpiled for more than two days shall be covered, kept moist, or treated with soil binders to prevent dust generation. Trucks transporting material shall be tarped from the point of origin. AQ-3(d) Dust Control Monitor. On all projects with an area of disturbance greater than 1 acre, the contractor or builder shall designate a person or persons to monitor the dust control program and to order increased watering as necessary to prevent transport of dust off -site. Their duties shall include holiday and weekend periods when work may not be in progress. • Monitoring Program: These conditions shall be noted on all project grading and building plans. The applicant will also be required to secure necessary permits from the Air Pollution Control Board (APCD) before the onset of grading or demolition activities including, but not limited to additional dust control measures, evaluation for Naturally Occurring Asbestos. The applicant shall present evidence of a plan for complying with these requirements prior to issuance of a grading or building permit from the City. The applicant shall provide the City with the name and telephone number of the person responsible for ensuring compliance with these requirements. The Building Inspector and Public Works Inspectors shall conduct field monitoring. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES MITIGATION B-3(a) Construction Requirements. Development under the Specific Plan shall abide by the requirements of the City Arborist for construction. Requirements shall include but not be limited to: the protection of trees with construction setbacks from trees; construction fencing around trees; grading limits around the base of trees as required; and a replacement plan for trees removed including replacement at a minimum 1:1 ratio. B-6(c) Educational Pet Brochure. Any development pursuant to the Specific Plan shall prepare a brochure that informs prospective homebuyers and Home Owners Association (HOA) members about the impacts associated with non- native animals, especially cats and dogs, to 21 the project site; similarly, the brochure must inform potential homebuyers and all HOA members of the potential for coyotes to prey on domestic animals. B-6(c) Landscaping Plan Review. To ensure that project landscaping does not introduce invasive non-native plant and tree species to the region of the site, the final landscaping plan shall be reviewed and approved by a qualified biologist. The California Invasive Plant Council (Cal- IPC) maintains several lists of the most important invasive plants to avoid. The lists shall be used when creating a plant palette for landscaping to ensure that plants on the lists are not used. The following plants shall not be allowed as part of potential landscaping plans pursuant to development under the Specific Plan: • African sumac (Rhus lancea) • Australian saltbush (Atriplex semibaccata) • Black locust (Robinia pseudoacacia) • California pepper (Schinus molle) and Brazilian pepper (S. terebinthifolius) • Cape weed (Arctotheca calendula) • Cotoneaster (Cotoneaster pannosus), (C. lacteus) • Edible fig (Ficus carica) • Fountain grass (Pennisetum setaceum) • French broom (Genista monspessulana) • Ice plant, sea fig (Carpobrotus edulis) • Leafy spurge (Euphorbia esula) • Myoporum (Myoporum spp.) • Olive (Olea europaea) • Pampas grass (Cortaderia selloana), and Andean pampas grass (C. jubata) • Russian olive (Elaeagnus angusticifolia) • Scotch broom (Cytisus scoparius) and striated broom (C. striatus) • Spanish broom (Spartium junceum) • Tamarix, salt cedar (Tamarix chinensis), (T. gallica), (T. parviflora), (T. ramosissima) • Blue gum (Eucalyptus globulus) • Athel tamarisk (Tamarix aphylla) With the exception of poison oak, only those species listed in the Specific Plan's Suggested Plant List (Appendix D) shall not be planted anywhere on- site because they are invasive non- native plant species. Poison oak is a native plant species and could be used to deter human entrance to an area such as a mitigation/enhancement area. • Monitoring Program: Compliance with mitigation measures will be reviewed with landscaping plans as part of the architectural review submittal and ultimately shown on improvement plans and construction drawings. CULTURAL RESOURCES MITIGATION CR-1(d) Archaeological Resource Construction Monitoring. At the commencement of project construction, an orientation meeting shall be conducted by an archaeologist for construction workers associated 22 with earth disturbing procedures. The orientation meeting shall describe the possibility of exposing unexpected archaeological resources and directions as to what steps are to be taken if such a find is encountered. An archaeologist shall monitor construction grading within 50 meters (164 feet) of the two isolated finds. In the event that prehistoric or historic archaeological resources are exposed during project construction, all earth disturbing work within 50 meters (164 feet) of the find must be temporarily suspended or redirected until an archaeologist has evaluated the nature and significance of the find. After the find has been appropriately mitigated (e.g., curation, preservation in place, etc.), work in the area may resume. The City should consider retaining a Chumash representative to monitor any field work associated with Native American cultural material. If human remains are exposed, State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 requires that no further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made the necessary findings as to origin and disposition pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. • Monitoring Program: Requirements for cultural resource mitigation shall be clearly noted on all plans for project grading and construction. NOISE MITIGATION N-1(a) Compliance with City Noise Ordinance. Construction hours and noise levels shall be compliant with the City Noise Ordinance [Municipal Code Chapter 9.12, Section 9.12.050(6)]. Methods to reduce construction noise can include, but are not limited to, the following: • Equipment Shielding. Stationary construction equipment that generates noise can be shielded with a barrier. • Diesel Equipment. All diesel equipment can be operated with closed engine doors and equipped with factory -recommended mufflers. • Electrical Power. Whenever feasible, electrical power can be used to run air compressors and similar power tools. • Sound Blankets. The use of sound blankets on noise generating equipment. • Monitoring Program: Requirements for construction noice mitigation shall be clearly noted on all plans for project grading and construction. 20. SOURCE REFERENCES. 1. Orcutt Area Spec iflc Plan Marcl3 2010 , and Final EIR December 2009) 2. City of SLO Zon ing Regulations IAu list 2012 3. City of SLO Unified General Plan 4. 2010 California Bu ildiiig Code includ ina Citv's 2010 Construction Code Amendments 5. City of SLO Climate Action Plan (August 2012) 6. Airport Land Use Plan amended May 2005 T City. Storm Drain Master Plan/Waterway Mafia ennent Plan 23 8. Federal Ernergency Management Agency FEMA) Flood Hazard BOLIndary or Flood Insurance Rate Ma FIRM 9. Section 65955 of the Government Code (State school fees) 10. Letter to Terrence Orton from Derek Johnson dated 6-6-13 11. Soils Engineering Report prepared by Geo5olutions; Inc. dated 1-16-13. 12. Preliminary drainage re art dated Januaa 2013 by Orton En ineerin *, Inc. 13. Sewerage Calculations dated January 2013 by Orton Engineering, Inc. 14. CAP compliance checklist for project Attachments: Attachment 1: Vicinity Map Attachment 2: Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 3044 (City File No. ER/TR 137-11) G:\CD-PLAN\PRICCI\Wingate Development 137-11\Environmental review 24 1 R-3-PD llis R-4-SPO r R-4-SP 1CI 111 p R-4-SP R-2 R W z 0 U) z Attachment I x 0 )I ........ -- M-diw -1-sp C p R-1-SP � F, U'v Ildi VICINITY MAP File No. 137-17 3725 Orcutt Er- Attachment 2 _ Q I 101 ¢� Z n o o� a a F FW-Qoo o� Zdo� �a ,g Z N << ILLUo S. W ;S- a5 N 1 0, z j a` m f " Q Q 1 il ❑ I 6.; ICL A M LLwin [S11 I I I O-o N3�T zzm Oval U a a z U cpi � O.�yt U �a� o I .� N�; � �� i i I� i _ H •r ill .• � J � � �_ i �o �FWQo xw m �1t Neu -¢m�oW m z W U¢ I.z< W 3o u Y� On Or Ori O� O�'j J Ori On Onc Oi i�i t�Ho ir���¢ W i6'orrcg ~ i��� w - SH M _o'�„_ W,I N i W 0n9r, - �Na W �seai itJlk � LLJ Uo ?� dI 99911 z9101 9 oFm : g� o-�� o�ar a"'�•�I_ O'o��� 'm Zl s. o a cP O _m_¢_� Ya.. W _�z8 N� o5 ' d 9914 MIDI �Nis4`i P'9F ,0+ AC DI iI �9 u `1::�pq'< 9o-ltll I oe d.. �•o� om �o ��' Yol d., o�>�m ��� _c� w ��' -el o e91o1 I c i 't .or I I m H z O ai o it y 69 a0" 69101 is ovo I N 1L 101 wss I �ij1 y 01101 �]TT -�-1 •`�� � 2fL 101 ps Le • .I.�'r n � lA W 1 _t —7 — ev x 1m , W I � of a z raw Vt. 0 —lam --" — —— I + 3 u3 ra ^I '7 M� —arm a.x» n d a U a C CID) Q M uj U�bla€SmZYM2 aS > `. A .r Attachment 6 City o f SAn tUIS OBISPO' Community Development Department • 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 May 9, 2013 Terence Orton 1686 Ramona Avenue, Suite F Grover Beach, CA 93433 SUBJECT: ARC 137-11: 3725 Orcutt Road Introduction to project design for a new residential development in the Orcutt Area Specific Plan Dear Mr. Orton: The Architectural Review Commission, at its meeting of May 6, 2013, continued consideration of the above -listed project to a date uncertain with the following direction: 1. Explore the possibility of adding a central pedestrian link between Mondrian Plaza and Mont Azure Drive. 2. Work with the adjacent property owners regarding the proposed locations of street and pedestrian linkages. 3. Provide building designs within the project that provide greater articulation and four-sided architecture. 4. Include information on future plans that address guest parking needs within the project. 5. Provide floor plans and elevations for the Atelier Building. 6. Recommend that a digital model of the project be provided to better understand the massing of structures and relationship to topography. If you have any questions, please contact me at (805) 781-7168, Sincerely, �'C cr Pam Ricci, CP Senior Planner cc: County of SLO Assessor's Office Nicholas Muick, ETAL P.O. Box 12302 San Luis Obispo, CA 93406 The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services, programs and activities. Telecommunications Device for the Deaf (805) 781-7410. ARC Minutes May 6, 2013 Page 3 2. 3725 Orcutt Road. ARC 137-11; Introduction to project design for a new residential development in the Orcutt Area Specific Plan; Terence Orton, applicant. (Pam Ricci) Pam Ricci, Senior Planner, presented the staff report, recommending continuance of the project to a date uncertain and providing preliminary comments to the applicant and staff regarding the overall project design. Vice -Chair McCovey-Good questioned how the site will be accessed from Orcutt. Ms. Ricci indicated that there is currently access to the site from Orcutt Road and that it will be maintained with early development phases until a third access point is created in the future. She noted that the long-term plan is for general vehicular access to Orcutt to be closed. Commr. Wynn questioned if the zero lot line is a requirement of subdivision. Ms. Ricci stated it was the applicant's choice. Terry Orton, Orton Engineering, provided a summary of plans highlighting access points, grading, and drainage. He stated the zero property line is intended to provide solar access and will protect adjacent property units. Eric Grunigan, applicant architect, provided an overview of the project including density, types of housing units, site amenities including a park and convenience store, streetscapes, material selections, and entry landscaping. Vice -Chair McCovey-Good questioned how the homes will avoid replication per lot. Mr. Grunigan stated that specific and varied designs will be fixed on certain lots. Commr. Wynn asked about the zero lot line choice and visitor parking. Mr. Orton indicated the one side of home not articulated will be less visible with the adjacent building placement. He also stated there will be parking at the park site and additional parking spread throughout the subdivision. Commr. Curtis asked about when the design of Atelier building would be submitted. Ms. Ricci indicated that it would be a later phase, but did not know the specific timing for its submittal. Commr. Curtis asked if there will be parking on any internal streets and how large vehicles will access the smaller streets. Mr. Orton stated the widest street is Mont Azure Drive which will have parking on the street. He also indicated the garbage company has signed off on the street access. Commr. Hopkins questioned the detail of building and color variation. Mr. Grunigan stated the proposed homes have various elevations, materials on facades, window openings, and placements. ARC Minutes May 6, 2013 Page 4 PUBLIC COMMENTS: Phillip Gray, San Luis Obispo, was pleased to see development start in Orcutt area; however, he noted concerns with the architectural design. He indicated the proposed plans ignore specific plan recommendations that home styles be bungalow or mission. David Gray, San Luis Obispo, expressed concerns with the contemporary architecture. John Evans, San Luis Obispo, spoke against the proposed architecture varying from specific plan style recommendations. He suggested a reduction in the massing and appropriate levels of ornamentation. He also stated that the neighboring properties would like to have the opportunity to discuss where the access points will be when the project is completed, as they will directly affect their properties. Dia Heard, San Luis Obispo, raised concerns with the traffic impact of this project as well as surrounding development. She also stated she is not in support of the proposed architecture. Patti Taylor, San Luis Obispo, was appreciative of the public comments and expressed that this meeting is a great start for this upcoming project. There were no further comments from the public. COMMISSION COMMENTS: Commissioners utilized the outline on Page 9 of the staff report and discussed three of the main topics. Pedestrian Linkages Commr. Wynn stated that the size and layout of the project did not warrant additional pedestrian linkages. Commr. Curtis stated that it would be useful to get a continuous pedestrian linkage through the center of the project. Commr. Ehdaie concurred with Commr. Curtis and would propose more than one to promote walkability. Vice -Chair McCovey-Good agreed with Commr. Curtis. Chairperson Duffy concurred with including an additional pedestrian linkage. Guest/shared Parking Vice -Chair McCovey-Good noted concern with the lack of parking for guests. ARC Minutes May 6, 2013 Page 5 Commr. Wynn concurred with Vice -Chair McCovey-Good. Commr. Curtis stated that guest parking should be provided throughout the subdivision. Building Design Commr. Hopkins agreed with the public comments regarding the proposed architectural styles and stated that the contemporary design does not appear to be consistent with the specific plan. Commr. Ehdaie concurred with Commr. Hopkins. She also stated the design is boxy and would like to see additional roofline articulation. Commr. Curtis stated the row houses seemed monotonous and that the overall appearance is the same even with the variations. Vice -Chair McCovey-Good appreciated the contemporary architecture, but was not in agreement that this design is a good fit for the site. She encouraged adjusting the homes on lots to allow for better four-sided architecture. Commr. Wynn concurred with Commr. Curtis indicating he doesn't feel the modernism is appropriate in this subdivision. He also agreed with the four-sided architecture comment. Chairperson Duffy stated that the contemporary architecture can be successful on this property and has potential if additional articulation is added. He also encouraged four- sided architecture and suggested that the applicant revisit the porch concept. There were no further comments made from the Commission. On a motion by Commr. W nn seconded by Commr. Curtis to continue the Proiect to a date uncertain with the following direction: 1. Explore the possibility of adding a central pedestrian link between Mondrian Plaza and Mont Azure Drive. 2. Work with the adjacent property owners regarding the proposed locations of street and pedestrian linkages. 3. Provide building designs within the project that provide greater articulation and four-sided architecture. 4. Include information on future plans that address guest parking needs within the rp oiect. 5. Provide floor plans and elevations for the Atelier Building. 6. Recommend that a digital model of the project be provided to better understand the massing of structures and relationship to topography. AYES: Commrs. Curtis, Ehdaie, Hopkins, Wynn, McCovey-Good, and Duffy ARC Minutes May 6, 2013 Page 6 NOES: None RECUSED: None ABSENT: Commr. Palazzo The motion passed on a 6:0 vote. COMMENT AND DISCUSSION: 3. Staff: a. Agenda Forecast — Pam Ricci provided a forecast for upcoming agendas. She noted that final design review of MindBody was scheduled for the next meeting on May 20th. Because Commissioners McCovey-Good and Wynn would need to recuse themselves because of potential conflicts of interest, and Commissioner Curtis would be on vacation, she emphasized that the remaining four commissioners would need to be present to have a quorum. 4. Commission: There were no specific communications to report. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 7:52 p.m. Respectfully submitted by, Dawn Rudder Recording Secretary Attachment 7 s ■ city of sAn luis oaspo Community Development Department • 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 June 6, 2013 Terrence Orton 1686 Ramona Avenue, Suite F Grover Beach, CA 93433 SUBJECT: Specific Plan Adjustment ER/TR 137-11 (3725 Orcutt Road) Dear Mr. Orton: Section 9.9 of the Orcutt Area Specific Plan (GASP) outlines the process to review a range of different levels of amendments to the standards and guidance provided in the plan. This section acknowledges that the OASP cannot anticipate every potential question that may arise and there may also be the desire to develop and construct some plan elements differently from the specific plan. This same section includes the following language: "Interpretations of existing policy in the Orcutt Area may be made by the Community Development Director from time to time to clarify the intent of a policy or standard and insure consistency in its implementation over time. " The project is the first development proposal to move forward through the City review process since the Orcutt Area was annexed to the City on November 16, 2011. As the first development in the OASP in the center of the planning area, the provision of street access and utilities has been carefully thought out and planned. The proposal for sewer service shows that the sewer main would extend down the south side of the project site then continue along the south side of your neighbor's property to the west to Bullock Lane. This alignment parallels the `B" street main shown on the OASP Wastewater Plan (Figure 6.2) which is located on the south side of the adjacent property to the south of your site. The proposed sewer alignment for the project is shown on the attached copy of Figure 6.2 for clarification. After submittal of a detailed sewer analysis and numerous meetings and consultations with City Utilities Department staff, the submitted proposal to provide sewer service for the project and possible connections for other nearby property owners was supported. OASP Section 9.9 includes a classification of minor amendments to the plan known as an "adjustment" to be approved along with the submittal of subdivision maps. The MASP defines an adjustment as "minor changes to specific features of the OASP that do not significantly alter the development type and still meet the intent of the Plan. " Our review has determined that the proposed sewer alignment for the project qualifies as an adjustment that the OASP which allows Community Development Director approval. This letter serves as approval of the proposed sewer alignment for the project and as an adjustment to the OASP, based on the following findings: INThe 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. Specific Plan Adjustment Letter Page 2 1. The proposed sewer alignment is clearly consistent with the relevant goals, policies, programs and standards of the OASP, specifically the overall goal that "public facilities are developed concurrently with each new phase in a rational and cost effective fashion." 2. Consistent with OASP Section 6.2, the proposal provides a flexible sewer alternative for the project, as well as other OASP properties, as it has been demonstrated through the submitted technical study that adequate capacity is available in existing sewer mains near the Orcutt Area. 3. The project includes the installation of a new sleeve and upsizing of the main under the railroad tracks near Bullock Lane which addresses any potential capacity impacts and benefits the City by replacing aging infrastructure. 4. This proposal does not affect the implementation of the OASP Conceptual Sewer Plan and provides a flexible alternative to consider for sewer service to other OASP properties. 5. Consistent with many policies and programs of the City's Housing Element, the proposal supports the development of a project that provides a sizable affordable component and includes a range of different housing types to appeal to households of varied income levels and needs. 6. The adjustment to accommodate the sewer alignment could be considered a concession or incentive to be approved for this affordable housing project without formal discretionary approval in accordance with State Planning Law Section 65915 0). This action to approve the adjustment to the OASP will be noted in staff reports prepared for the Planning Commission's consideration of the tentative tract map and the City Council's final action on the tract map. Please be in touch with Pam Ricci should you have any questions. Sincerely yours, 7-r'-ek IoZs�� Community Development Director CC; Carrie Mattingly, Utilities Director Daryl Grigsby, Public Works Director Pam Ricci, Senior Planner �. a I °' 0 vn DRAFT SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES July 24, 2013 CALL TO ORDER/PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL: Commissioners John Fowler, John Larson, Michael Multari, Charles Stevenson, 1 Position Vacant, and Vice -Chairperson Eric Meyer Absent: Chairperson Michael Draze Staff: Director Derek Johnson, Deputy Director Kim Murry, Senior Planner Phil Dunsmore, Traffic Operations Manager Jake Hudson, Natural Resources Manager Bob Hill, Assistant City Attorney Andrea Visveshwara, and Recording Secretary Diane Clement ACCEPTANCE OF THE AGENDA: The agenda was accepted as presented. MINUTES: Minutes of June 26, 2013, were approved as presented. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON NON -AGENDA ITEMS: Eugene Judd, SLO, presented a gift to Vice -Chair Meyer for his work with the City and for all he has done for Cal Poly. There were no further comments made from the public. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1. 276 Tank Farm Road. ER 92-08: Introduction and review of the Draft EIR for the Chevron Tank Farm remediation and development project: Chevron Corporation, applicant. (Phil Dunsmore) Phil Dunsmore, Senior Planner, presented the staff report, recommending the Commission receive a presentation and public testimony and provide feedback on the Chevron project Draft EIR. He noted that a letter from the Chamber of Commerce had been received and was distributed to the Commission just prior to the meeting. Commr. Multari clarified with staff that the development agreement is a part of the project. Commr. Multari asked if all open areas will be restored and whether non-native species in areas not proposed for remediation will be removed. Mr. Dunsmore noted that the project description does not include addressing areas of the site that are not proposed for remediation or development. Commr. Larson asked why no homes are planned in the project area. Draft Planning Commission Minutes July 24, 2013 Page 2 Mr. Dunsmore responded that the project area is in an airport safety zone. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Dan Sutton, San Luis Obispo, stated the project provides an opportunity for inclusion of recreation for youth. John Spatafore, San Luis Obispo, noted the opportunity for recreation, biking, and development of a commercial area that would attract light manufacturing. He stated that completion of Prado Road will improve emergency response times and provide better transportation flow. Doug Hoffman, San Luis Obispo, owner of a business at Tank Farm and Santa Fe, reconsidered his opposition to the roundabout, viewing it as one of several workable possibilities. He stated that the traffic flow all along Tank Farm Road should be considered as a whole. Dan Rivoire, Executive Director of the San Luis Bike Coalition, supports bike path development but stated that he does not think a class 1 and class 2 bike lane need to be parallel to each other on Tank Farm and that a protected class 2 would be preferred. Connectivity issues within the project and throughout the city need to be examined, especially the Broad Street/Tank Farm Road intersection and the roundabout. He said the Bike Coalition is concerned but supports going forward. Dave Garth, San Luis Obispo, expressed concern about the beneficial economic impact for the community and found nothing in the environmental impact report on that subject. He noted the opportunity to generate more head -of -household jobs. Ken Kienow, San Luis Obispo, supported bike lanes protected from traffic. He supports development of the project under City jurisdiction. Lea Brooks, San Luis Obispo, commended Chevron for taking on the project but expressed concern that the draft EIR is deficient. She noted the need to emphasize alternative modes of transportation and connectivity between Los Osos Valley Road and Broad Street for bicycles. She pointed out that there was no mention of how bicyclists will be affected by intersections and additional lanes on Tank Farm Road. She stated that the plan has a motor vehicle bias. Myron "Skip" Amerine, San Luis Obispo, supports bike lanes totally separated from traffic and addressing complete streets. He stated that adding lanes to Tank Farm will only cause higher speeds. He also expressed concern about concrete oil reservoir floors and soil that will be brought in. Eugene Jud, San Luis Obispo, was concerned about bike safety with the roundabout, and about the potential for creating a "little Los Angeles." He stated that Broad Street to the airport is a totally car -oriented route with no public transportation to the airport. He asked if bicycle parking is addressed in the draft EIR. Draft Planning Commission Minutes July 24, 2013 Page 3 Ty Safreno, owner of a property next to the project; was concerned about infrastructure needs vs wants. He requested the source of data presented in support of roundabouts. He stated that San Luis Obispo has an aging population that may not deal well with roundabouts which he described as being contradictory for traffic flow in an industrial area. He supports the development of a business park to cluster industrial businesses. Tim Walters, principal with RRM Design Group, stated that AASP identifies a signal as the ultimate solution with a roundabout only an interim solution. He noted that the AASP breakdown of costs indicated that signalization was less expensive by about one million dollars. He noted that bicyclists and pedestrians would be negatively impacted by a roundabout in this particular location. Ermina Karim, San Luis Obispo Chamber of Commerce, reaffirmed the Chamber's support for annexation because it is critical for this corridor to be a part of the City. She urged the City to enter into a suitable agreement with Chevron. Deborah Hoffman, co-owner of a business at Tank Farm Road and Santa Fe with her husband expressed concern with the roundabout the handling of traffic from Broad Street to South Higuera. She stated that calming traffic to 15 mph will result in gridlock. She noted a need for careful traffic study. She supported the proposed bike lanes but saw a need to address bicycle traffic moving north and south. Dawn Legg, San Luis Obispo, encouraged quick action for economic feasibility. Neal Havlik, former city employee who worked on open space, supported the project, and the deletion of the Unocal collector road. He stated that the open spaces make up a majority of the project but are not clearly dealt with in terms of dedication. He supported a conservation easement to preserve these open spaces. There were no further comments made from the public. COMMISSION COMMENTS: Commr. Stevenson expressed concern about the appropriateness of the roundabout and how it would work in this location. Commr. Multari was concerned about accurate project description (including the development agreement), in order to have a complete evaluation of potential environmental impacts, and noted that an addendum or supplement may be required later. He commended the draft EIR as a very good basis for the project. He stated there is a need to analyze different forms of transportation. He asked Senior Planner Dunsmore to elaborate on the presence of asbestos. Mr. Dunsmore stated there is a potential for naturally -occurring asbestos in serpentine rock on a hill in the project area, and mitigation is designed to minimize health risks. Draft Planning Commission Minutes July 24, 2013 Page 4 Commr. Fowler commended the project as part of the city. He expressed concern about well contamination if the project were to be developed in the county. He was also concerned about cultural impacts and the open space issue. Senior Planner Dunsmore stated that the goal is to have it become public open space. He noted that some areas need no remediation, but it would be appropriate to address the non-native invasive plant species. Director Derek Johnson stated that the final project EIR will be clear on this issue. Diane Kukol, Regional Water Quality Control Board, stated that it is highly unlikely that there would be any drawing down of oily material into the water supply. She stated that connection to the sewer line along Tank Farm Road for waste water disposal is dependent on annexation. Commr. Fowler stated that while there is no housing proposed, there is a nexus between job creation and housing. He agreed with the need for a buffer for bicyclists. He commended the draft EIR. Commr. Stevenson gave compliments to staff on an excellent draft EIR. He appreciated public comments about bike trails. Commr. Larson stated a need to revisit the wetlands issue about whether environmental impacts are Class 1 or 2. Bob Hill, Natural Resources Manager, stated that many state agencies will be involved in the future but the draft EIR comes first. Vice -Chair Meyer, in general, expressed support for the future positive outcomes. He pointed out that the draft EIR is inconsistent with the city bicycle plan and treats bicycling only as recreation. He noted that Class 1 bike paths are dealt with by Parks & Recreation while Public Works deals with Class 2 paths although, in San Luis Obispo, bicycle journeys often combine business and recreation. He stated protected bike lanes along Tank Farm should be a hybrid of Class 1 and 2. He stated there is a need to address how to get across Tank Farm Road at points between Broad and Higuera. He expressed concern about excess traffic capacity and excessive maintenance costs when the Buckley Road and Prado Road extensions are added to lane expansion on Tank Farm Road. He noted the need to consider all modes of transportation and ways for pedestrians and bicycles to cross Tank Farm Road. He supports the City's Bicycle Transportation Plan and indicated that Chevron's project will need some adjustment. Commr. Multari noted that the EIR process allows changes if the City makes findings that there are community values that outweigh impacts. He gave the example of the community deciding to not add lanes to Tank Farm Road and accepting the impact of heavier traffic. There were no further comments made from the Commission. Draft Planning Commission Minutes July 24, 2013 Page 5 2. City -Wide. GPI 15-12: Land Use and Circulation Elements Update: Study session to review and discuss Task Force recommended Land Use and Circulation alternatives for the Land Use and Circulation Elements update; City of San Luis Obispo - Community Development Dept., applicant (Kim Murry) Kim Murry, Deputy Director, presented the staff report, recommending the Commission review the land use and circulation alternatives endorsed for further evaluation by the Task Force for the Land Use and Circulation Elements Update and provide input and revisions as appropriate. Commissioners discussed how to handle Vice -Chair Meyer's need to be recused on one item concerning the Johnson/Broad area. On motion by Commr. Stevenson seconded by Commr. Larson that the item of Johnson/Broad area be taken as the last discussion item of the meeting. AYES: Commrs. Fowler, Larson, Multari, and Stevenson NOES: None RECUSED: Commr. Meyer ABSENT: Commr. Draze The motion passed on a 4-0 vote. Commr. Multari clarified the nature of alternatives. Deputy Director Murry stated that the Planning Commission's recommendations will receive high-level review and be presented to Council in October. The City Council will select a "preferred alternative" to the current general plan that will subsequently proceed through full environmental review. Slide 1 Foothill area: TF-LUCE recommendations include University Square transition from general retail to mixed use. Properties on the southeast side of Foothill are also included for mixed uses. Two sites owned by the Diocese of Monterey were not recommended for changes to their current land -use designations. The Old Pacheco School site was recommended by the TF-LUCE to consider for residential and park use. Circulation recommendations include consideration of realignment of Chorro, Broad, and Boysen as well as a separated bike and pedestrian connection across Santa Rosa Street. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON SLIDE 1 OF THE PRESENTATION: Sharon Whitney, resident of Pacheco School neighborhood, requested removing the old Pacheco School site from consideration and was opposed to medium to high -density residential development for that site. She would have supported an alternative for use of the site as a park. Ermina Karim, Chamber of Commerce, supported increasing building heights in the Santa Rosa/Foothill area and thought the area might be appropriate for a research park. Draft Planning Commission Minutes July 24, 2013 Page 6 She stated that the Santa Rosa corridor is a gateway to the City and is an appropriate location for tourism -supporting commercial uses. She spoke in favor of designating Chorro as the alternative bike route to downtown and new, medium -density apartments with a transition to low -density residential for the Old Pacheco School site. Geoff Straw, Director of San Luis Obispo RTA, cyclist, spoke in support of a pedestrian/bicycle over/underpass for Santa Rosa Street. He advocated considering all forms of transportation. Eugene Jud, San Luis Obispo, commended the work done by staff with some reservations. There were no further comments made from the public. COMMISSION COMMENTS ON SLIDE 1 OF THE PRESENTATION: Commr. Multari thought that B-4 was the most sensible and wanted the whole area considered for mixed use. He supports policy discussions about parking and height requirements. He was not in favor of a research park in this area. He noted that planning for the Pacheco School site may be impacted by Cal Poly's master plan. He stated that the shape and size of the park at this site should be flexible and that a policy discussion was needed. He supported TF-LUCE recommendations for potential land use and circulation changes in the area. Commr. Stevenson spoke about B-4 and expressed a desire to see flexibility in mixed use that could accommodate horizontal or other types of mixed use. He supported serving student needs in this area. He emphasized the importance of understanding the parks needs of the neighborhood around the Old Pacheco site. He expressed opposition to the Chamber position for this site. Commr. Multari stated that Cal Poly is considering building more housing with commercial businesses included across the street. He suggested that perhaps a policy decision, not a land use decision, is needed for the Old Pacheco site. Commr. Fowler commended the work done by the Land Use Committee. He supported the pedestrian/bicycle alternative and residential development for the Pacheco School site. Commr. Meyer expressed concern about losing school sites. He agreed that the shape of the park is only an approximation at this point. Deputy Director Murry stated that Cal Poly is planning a 1400-bed housing expansion on a campus parking lot across the street from the Old Pacheco site. She stated that the City is looking forward 20-35 years to anticipate future community needs, however, the school district may have more immediate needs even though they have yet to formulate plans for the property. Draft Planning Commission Minutes July 24, 2013 Page 7 On motion by Commr. Multari and seconded by Commr, Stevenson the Planning Commission supports the Task Force for the Land Use and Circulation Elements recommendations with consideration of the policy direction noted in the Commission's discussion. AYES: Commrs. Fowler, Larson, Meyer, Multari, and Stevenson NOES: None RECUSED: None ABSENT: Commr, Draze The motion passed on a 5-0 vote. Slide 2: Monterey/Downtown/Mid-Higuera Area Jake Hudson, Traffic Operations Manager, presented the circulation alternatives shown on slide 2. These involve exploring full or event -related closure of Broad and Monterey streets near Mission Plaza; potential freeway ramp closures in neighborhoods and expansion on interchange at US 101 and SR 1; location of the Transit Center on Higuera near Santa Rosa; conversion of Marsh and Higuera to two-way streets between Santa Rosa and Johnson; and re -alignment of Bianchi Lane to Pismo. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON SLIDE 2 OF THE PRESENTATION: David Kuykendall, San Luis Obispo, indicated that on Pismo and Buchon Streets, much of the traffic is cut -through and not local. He supports shifting traffic from residential area to arterial streets. He expressed concern about the Johnson Avenue Housing Project's traffic impacts to Johnson, Pismo, and Buchon and supports better utilization of Marsh Street. Bill Casella, San Luis Obispo, asked if there would be a right-hand turn lane on Higuera Street onto High Street. He supported two-way traffic on Higuera Street and Marsh Street. Eugene Jud, San Luis Obispo, stated he had mixed feelings about the process. He indicated the June workshop had a carnival atmosphere and that people didn't understand what they were voting on. Problems aren't defined and there hasn't been criteria listed for how to evaluate alternatives. He opposes one-way streets in residential areas, a large interchange, and feels that Higuera Street should be pedestrian only. COMMISSION COMMENTS ON SLIDE 2 OF THE PRESENTATION: Commr. Larson stated that it is convenient to have local ramps to get on and off freeways. Commr. Stevenson supported the alternatives with the caveat that he is not entirely in support of 7-3 — the larger closing of Monterey and Broad Streets. Draft Planning Commission Minutes July 24, 2013 Page 8 Commr. Multari noted advantages of reducing traffic on Broad Street near Mission Plaza. He stated that neighborhood on/off freeway ramps are inadequate but that he has concerns about creating one large freeway interchange. He noted that 7-3 has issues concerning access to businesses and to the parking structure. He supported a policy discussion of what type of closure may be appropriate for this area. Commr. Fowler stated that closing the off -ramp at Broad Street, is troubling as it is a direct route to the airport, the Mission, and Downtown. Commr. Meyer supported one-way traffic on Broad Street, diagonal parking, and closing the street for events, options that did not get into the TF-LUCE recommendation and were recommended by Ken Schwartz. On motion by Commr. Multari, and seconded by Commr. Stevenson, to forward the LUCE recommendations to the City Council but with a policy discussion about the nature and phasing of closure in 7-3 AYES: Commrs. Multari and Stevenson NOES: Commrs. Fowler, Larson, and Meyer RECUSED: None ABSENT: Commr. Draze The motion failed on a 2-3 vote. On motion by Commr. Multari and seconded by Commr. Fowler, the Plannin Commission supports the Task Force for the Land Use and Circulation Elements recommendations for alternatives 3-2 4-2 5-3. 6-2 and 8-3 without alternatives 7-2 and 7-3 . AYES: Commrs. Fowler, Larson, Meyer, Multari, and Stevenson NOES: None RECUSED: None ABSENT: Commr. Draze The motion passed on a 5-0 vote. On motion by Commr. Multari and seconded by Commr. Stevenson the Plannin Commission supports the Task Force for the Land Use and Circulation Elements recommendations for alternative 7-3 with _inclusion of policy discussion regarding desired outcomes and nature and phasing of treatment of the streets. AYES: Commrs. Fowler, Larson, Meyer, Multari, and Stevenson NOES: None RECUSED: None ABSENT: Commr. Draze The motion passed on a 5-0 vote. Draft Planning Commission Minutes July 24, 2013 Page 9 Slide 3: Monterey/Downtown/Mid-Higuera Area (continued) Jake Hudson, Traffic Operations Manager, presented the circulation alternatives for potential re -alignment of Madonna to form an intersection at Bridge Street across Higuera. Deputy Director Murry described the Task Force recommendations for policy discussions to address Upper Monterey, Downtown, and Mid-Higuera areas but that the Task Force did not recommend land use designation changes for these areas. She also explained the TF-LUCE recommendation to explore both Tourist Commercial and some form of Mixed use for the Caltrans site at Higuera and Madonna. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON SLIDE 3 OF THE PRESENTATION: There were no comments made from the public. COMMISSION COMMENTS ON SLIDE 3 OF THE PRESENTATION: Commr. Stevenson supports a large-scale conference center at the Cal Trans site. He indicated that the re -alignment of Madonna may be OK but that Mixed Use is probably not appropriate for this location. Commr. Meyer expressed a need to study the options of a conference center or commercial use. Commr. Fowler agreed with Commr. Stevenson and asked if the Chamber had any comments. Ermina Karim, Chamber of Commerce., stated that the Chamber has been an advocate for a conference center for a long time and agreed with the Task Force findings regarding mixed use. Commr. Larson stated that the intersection of Madonna Road and Higuera Street is awkward but does work. He added that this is a great location for a conference center but asked if realignment of Madonna Road would reduce the size of the Cal Trans property. He stated that use and circulation are linked closely. He thought the City could do without the realignment. Deputy Director Murry stated that the alignment concept was offered by a participant at the December workshop. She further noted that the Cal Trans site is 13 acres in size and that conference centers usually require approximately 4-6 acres. Commr. Multari agreed with Commr. Larson about the intersection and was inclined more to support H-3 but would like a policy discussion. On motion by Commr. Multari seconded by Commr. Stevenson the Planning Commission supports the Task Force for the Land Use and Circulation Elements recommendations for alternatives E F and GL and H-3 with a policy discussion that would address circulation options and the possibility of incorporating more public open space. Land uses to serve as gateway uses on the Caltrans site should include a conference center and other uses compatible with a conference center. Draft Planning Commission Minutes July 24, 2013 Page 10 AYES: Commrs. Fowler, Larson, Meyer, Multari, and Stevenson NOES: None RECUSED: None ABSENT: Commr. Draze The motion passed on a 5-0 vote. On motion by Commr. Stevensonr and seconded by Commr. Multari to continue to August 14. There were no further comments made from the Commission. AYES: Commrs. Fowler, Larson, Meyer, Multari, and Stevenson NOES: None RECUSED: None ABSENT: Commr. Draze The motion passed on a 5:0 vote. COMMENT AND DISCUSSION: 3. Staff a. Agenda Forecast — Deputy Director Murry highlighted the August 14t" and 28tn meetings to include the continued review of TF-LUCE recommended alternatives, an update to the Bicycle Transportation Plan, and a Tentative Parcel Map proposed for 323-353 Grand Ave. b. Deputy Director Murry stated that the City Council will consider vacancies on the Task Force on August 20t" and asked the Planning Commission to appoint a member in the event the Council opts to replace Commissioner Meyer as the Planning Commissioner on the Task Force. 4. Commission a. Commr. Multari agreed to serve on the TF-LUCE in the event the Council wishes to appoint a Commissioner to fill a Task Force vacancy. b. Commr. Meyer noted his resignation from the Planning Commission and his desire to continue serving on the TF-LUCE as a resident. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 9:57 p.m. Respectfully submitted by, Diane Clement Recording Secretary DRAFT SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES August 14, 2013 CALL TO ORDER/PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL: Commissioners, Michael Multari, Charles Stevenson, 1 Position Vacant, Vice -Chairperson John Larson, and Chairperson Michael Draze Absent: Commissioner John Fowler Staff: Community Development Director Derek Johnson, Deputy Community Development Directors Doug Davidson and Kim Murry, Assistant Planner Marcus Carloni, Traffic Operations Manager Jake Hudson, Deputy Director of Public Works Tim Bochum, Assistant City Attorney Andrea Visveshwara, and Recording Secretary Diane Clement ACCEPTANCE OF THE AGENDA: The agenda was accepted as presented. MINUTES: Approval/amendment of the minutes of July 24, 2013, was continued due to a lack of four members in attendance that were present on July 24, 2013. ELECTION: Commr. Larson was unanimously elected as Vice -Chairperson. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON NON -AGENDA ITEMS: There were no comments made from the public. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1. 323 Grand Avenue. MS/ER 25-13: Review of minor subdivision of 323 and 353 Grand Avenue to create four parcels with exceptions to the minimum lot depth and area requirement and adoption of a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact; R-1 zone; Ryan Petetit/John Belsher, applicants. (Marcus Carloni) Assistant City Attorney Andrea Visveshwara recused herself based on a conflict of interest. She stated that she has not had any communication with the Commission on this item. Marcus Carloni, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report, recommending adoption of the Draft Resolution, which grants final approval to the project, based on findings and subject to conditions which he outlined. Draft Planning Commission Minutes August 14, 2013 Page 2 PUBLIC COMMENTS: John Belsher, applicant, provided a PowerPoint presentation. Steve Delmartini, SLO, supported the project and infill development in general, praised the parking provided, and stated it would upgrade the neighborhood. There were no further comments made from the public. COMMISSION COMMENTS: Chair Draze was concerned about setbacks and the amount of parking. Commr. Stevenson noted that lots 2 and 3 adjoin a shallow drainage basin and wondered if this would be usable outdoor space. Commr. Larson discussed the project's density. Marcus Carloni, Assistant Planner, stated that, when a lot is substandard, the main issue is compatibility with the neighborhood. He noted there are many substandard R-1 lots in the area. Commr. Stevenson supported the project as a well -designed, efficient use of land. He expressed concern about the cost to the subdivider language in finding #6. Commr. Multari discussed the neighborhood density and lot sizes in terms of compatibility. He supported prohibiting secondary dwelling units. Commr. Larson supported this project over individual development of the lots due to better access and parking and the elimination of secondary dwelling units. Commr. Multari discussed the project's density and questioned the number of bedrooms that would be allowed if the lot sizes were proposed in the R-2 zone. Commr. Draze supported the project as a better option than three residences with five bedrooms and secondary dwelling units that might result in higher density. He stated that the project is consistent with a single-family neighborhood. Commr. Multari stated that this property is 1.5 blocks from Cal Poly and thus it is likely to be rented to students. He noted that the General Plan encourages student housing close to Cal Poly. Commr. Stevenson expressed concern with the unit size. Mr. Carloni, in response to a question about R-2 density, stated three -bedroom residences would be allowed per lot if the proposed lot sizes were in the R-2 zone. Draft Planning Commission Minutes August 14, 2013 Page 3 Commr. Larson commended the design of the project and stated that this development will be compatible with residences in this area. Commr. Multari expressed concern about vehicles backing out onto Grand Avenue and wanted the applicant to consider one driveway for the project. There were no further comments made from the Commission. On motion by Commr. Stevenson seconded by Vice -Chair Larson to approve the project per staff recommendation with the following modifications: 1. Modify finding #5 to read as follows "...standards codified in the Subdivision Regulations because the design will result in a more efficient use of the land, and the property..." 2. Add condition #5 which reads "Seconds Dwelling Units shall not be allowed." 3. Add condition #6 which reads "The Architectural Review Commission shall consider one driveway accessing all parcels on the project site resulting in elimination of backing out onto Grand Avenue." AYES: Commrs. Draze, Larson, Multari, and Stevenson NOES: None RECUSED: None ABSENT: Commr, Fowler The motion passed on a 4:0 vote. 2. City -Wide. GPI 15-12: Land Use and Circulation Elements Update: Continued review of Task Force -recommended alternatives to the Land Use Element update; City of San Luis Obispo — Community Development Dept., applicant. (Kim Murry) Kim Murry, Deputy Director, presented the staff report, recommending the Commission continue to review the land use and circulation alternatives endorsed for further evaluation by the Task Force for the Land Use and Circulation Elements Update and provide input and revisions as appropriate. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON SLIDE 4 OF THE PRESENTATION (MADONNA/LOVR AREA): Steve Devencenzi, SLOCOG, stated that the Prado Road interchange does impact SLOCOG. He can see justification for some regional funds for access to the airport via Prado Road to Broad. He noted that SLOCOG is currently conducting a mobility study in the county. He stated that closure of ramps and going to one access point for 101 will be very expensive and, rather than stating that ramps are to be closed, it may be preferable to plan a complete analysis of all the ramps, with the possibility that ramps in existence may be redesigned. He noted that going to one access point may require widening Santa Rosa. Draft Planning Commission Minutes August 14, 2013 Page 4 Jenna Smith, SLO, Executive Director of Central Coast Grown, noted that the general plan calls for preserving agricultural properties. Central Coast Grown supported retaining fifty percent of the Dalidio property as agricultural land. Brian Engleton, City Farm, supported option L-5 as it preserves fifty percent of the land as agricultural. He stated that the planned medium and high -density housing will serve the purpose of connecting people to their local food supply. He supported considering the impact on agricultural lands when planning new roads. Amy Sinsheimer, SLO, member of Central Coast Grown, supports L-5 over options that might preserve even more open space because the adjacent housing would connect residents to agriculture. She noted the need to optimally use the agricultural land. Rosemary Wilvert SLO, member of the City Farm group, emphasized the need for sustainable farmland in light of climate change. She noted that the land use plan and the master plan for the Calle Joaquin Preserve require that fifty percent be reserved for agriculture. She stated that the City Farm working group advocates extending Calle Joaquin to Dalidio Road but understands that either 15-3 or 15-2 will be passed and therefore prefers 15-3. Karen Newman, representative for the City Farm working group, opposed the extension of Froom Ranch Way because it would cut off access to City Farm. She stated that the extension of the Bob Jones Bike Trail would preserve access. She supported contiguous open spaces that would bring people to, not through, them. She stated that the extension of Calle Joaquin should be parallel to 101. Eugene Jud, SLO, suggested the Prado overpass be just a bicycle/pedestrian bridge. He noted the need for planning for people who will be 45 in 2035. He maintained that vehicular traffic is not growing in many locations and that fewer young people have driver licenses today. Peter Schwartz, SLO, Cal Poly physics professor, supported high -density housing and safety for bicycles and pedestrians. He supported a bicycle and pedestrian -only overpass for Prado Road. Grace Morgan, SLO, supported a bicycle/pedestrian-only overpass and making the city safe for bicycles and pedestrians. She stated that people will adjust to what is built. Shahram Shariati, SLO, former student, noted the need for more housing, especially affordable housing. He maintained that increases in traffic volume come from people being forced to live outside the city due to high prices. He stated that people are turning against transportation by car. Marshall Ochylski, representative of the developer who has the Dalidio property in escrow, supported mixed use with primary emphasis on residential, especially entry and workforce housing. He clarified the definition of preserving fifty percent of the land as meaning open space and/or agricultural. He supported the mitigation of that fifty Draft Planning Commission Minutes August 14, 2013 Page 5 percent with offsite property exchanges if there is an opportunity. He supported continued consideration of circulation options. Steve Delmartini, SLO, stated he does not know what entry and workforce housing actually means. He expressed concern about airport flight paths in relation to housing planned. Linda Sealy, SLO, noted that there will never be more class 1 soil on earth and thus there is a need to preserve this land for agriculture over building shopping malls or housing. She opposed the concept of off -site mitigation to meet the fifty percent requirement. Charlene Rosales, SLO Chamber of Commerce, supported the Prado Road interchange for current needs and future development. She stated the area is ideal for mixed use, medium and high -density housing, hospitality space, bicycle access, and parks. Erik Justesen, business owner, supported mixed use and a move away from large commercial. He noted that with a limited amount of space within the city limits, trying to set aside a sizeable amount of open space would be problematic. He stated that cross circulation, such as the extension of Calle Joaquin, etc., is needed to get to shopping. Eric Meyer, SLO, left his bicycle at the front of the Council Chamber as an exhibit. There were no further comments made from the public. COMMISSION COMMENTS ON SLIDE 4 OF THE PRESENTATION (MADONNA/LOVR AREA): Commr. Larson stated that the Prado interchange would serve an important east/west traffic flow function and facilitate moving traffic on and off 101. He noted that if this interchange is eliminated, there must be a demonstration of where that traffic will go and what impacts it will have. Commr. Stevenson expressed concern about how CalTrans would view a Prado Road overpass vs. an interchange and whether the city would be required to design a full interchange even if the City opted to pursue the overpass instead of the interchange. Deputy Director of Public Works Tim Bochum indicated that design of the facility is also impacted by underlying issues of access and space. He noted that grading for an overpass might result in flood waters on Hwy 101. Commr. Multari thanked Eugene Jud for his report. He noted that medium/high-density residential on the Dalidio property may not fit with the current Airport Land Use Plan. He stated the City should not be constrained by existing land use categories, but consider designations such as mixed -use plan 1 or 2, etc., with a focus on policy. He supported consideration of offsite mitigation of open space as part of the policy discussions. Draft Planning Commission Minutes August 14, 2013 Page 6 Commr. Draze agreed that the Commission should not get too detailed at the general plan level and that new designations may be helpful. He stated that he is hesitant to remove circulation options for the future whether car, bicycle, or pedestrian. Commr. Stevenson agreed that discussion of details needs to be at the policy level. Community Development Director Derek Johnson stated that the alternatives will be modeled and can be in the general plan for many years without immediate action. Commr. Draze noted that if an alternative -is not in the plan, then it is precluded from being implemented. Commr. Larson stated that modeling and understanding what deletion of the Prado interchange would mean is important and that east/west circulation is a regional issue. Commr. Draze supported the Task Force and Commission on residential development. He noted that in one or two generations, transportation preferences will change. There were no further comments made from the Commission. On motion by Commr. Multari and seconded by Commr. Stevenson the Planning Commission recommended to the City Council that the L5 area Dalidio be desi noted as a mixed -use planninq area with policies to evaluate the appropriate mix of uses including agricultural open space at fifty percent and a residential component that is consistent with applicable airport policies. The Commission further recommended that circulation connections between Los Osos Valley Road and Dalidio be evaluated. AYES: Commrs. Draze, Larson, Multari, and Stevenson NOES: None RECUSED: None ABSENT: Commr. Fowler The motion passed on a 4:0 vote. On motion by Commr. Multari and seconded by Commr. Stevenson, the Commission recommended to the Citv Council that both 15-2 and 15-3 (Prado overpass and interchange) alternatives be evaluated. AYES: Commrs. Draze, Larson, Multari, and Stevenson NOES: None RECUSED: None ABSENT: Commr. Fowler PUBLIC COMMENTS ON SLIDE 5 OF THE PRESENTATION (MADONNA/LOVR 2): Shahram Shariati, SLO, suggested that areas already developed but empty, such as the old New Frontiers site, be developed instead of open areas. Draft Planning Commission Minutes August 14, 2013 Page 7 There were no further comments made from the public. COMMISSION COMMENTS ON SLIDE 5 OF THE PRESENTATION: Commr. Draze stated that some portion of the Madonna property would be designated mixed use, to be decided at the policy level, but not the entire property. He noted that the hillsides are not being considered for active uses. He noted the need for a bicycle connection to Target and onto Froom Ranch. He questioned the inclusion of office space on K-3/the Sunset Drive-in to Prado area. There were no further comments made from the Commission. On motion by Commr. Multari, seconded by Commr. Stevenson the Planning Commission recommended to the City Council that Site 14 (Oceanaire connection to Froom Ranch) be enhanced for bike and pedestrian connections but that no vehicular connections be made; that K-3 (Sunset Drive-in to Prado Site) be designated for a mix of uses with policy direction to guide appropriate mix, that M-3 and M-4 Froom Ranch and LOVR be considered through policy discussion to support a non-residential buffer along roads but to consider Medium -High Density residential development and park at this location; that Task Force directional items for 0-3 Madonna be included in the Policy discussion but not require a Planned Development overlay; and that N-4 Calle Joaquin) be addressed through policies that will call out the appropriate mix of uses. AYES: Commrs. Draze, Larson, Multari, and Stevenson NOES: None RECUSED: None ABSENT: Commr. Fowler The motion passed on a 4:0 vote. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON SLIDE 6 OF THE PRESENTATION (SOUTH HIGUERA/ AIRPORT AREA): Stephen Peck, SLO, project manager for the Avila Ranch property, discussed their efforts to review the Buckley Road connection to Higuera. He indicated they are working with the County, the City, and Caltrans to determine connections for pedestrian and bike connections to the Octagon Barn and alignment of Buckley Road. Charlene Rosales, SLO Chamber of Commerce, stated that the Chamber is in agreement with LUCE Task Force recommendations. Steve Delmartini, SLO, stated that the Tank Farm/Broad area needs residential development and that Avila Ranch is a circulation nightmare that needs evaluating. Erik Justesen, business owner, indicated that Avila Ranch is isolated and connections to the retail sites to the north is important. He supports the Buckley connection to Higuera and stated that longer term, the City should look at options to expand outside of the current city limits — perhaps south of Buckley Road. Draft Planning Commission Minutes August 14, 2013 Page 8 Eugene Jud, SLO, supported the Buckley Road connection to LOVR. He stated that the Marigold Center/Broad/Tank Farm area could be much denser. He suggested a roundabout at Tank Farm and Broad and developing_ pedestrian connections above streets. Eric Meyer, SLO, indicated that the Avila Ranch concepts require Chevron's participation to connect the bike network to that area. He emphasized the need to improve pedestrian and bike circulation in the Tank Farm/Broad area. There were no further comments made from the public. On motion by Commr. Multari, and seconded by Commr Stevenson, the Planning Commission recommends the TF-LUCE recommendations for 17-2 (Vachel), 18-2 (north -south connection between Tank Farm and Buckley). 19-4 (Bypass and Buckley connection to Higuera), P-5 (Residential/open-space mix near Los Verde_ s condos), Q-2 (policy to review MASP density), R-3 mixed use at Broadjank Farm and S-3 Avila Ranch concept) as a planning area with policy direction that will quide future development. AYES: Commrs. Draze, Larson, Multari, and Stevenson NOES: None RECUSED: None ABSENT: Commr. Fowler The motion passed on a 4:0 vote PUBLIC COMMENTS ON SLIDE 7 (JOHNSON/BROAD AREA) OF THE PRESENTATION: Steve Delmartini, SLO, supported upzoning the area between Lawrence and Mitchell on the west side, previously changed from R-2 to R-1, R-2 again. He stated this area could accommodate secondary dwellings behind existing dwellings. Erik Justesen, business owner, supported the inclusion of the Broad Street plan. He noted a need to connect the east and west sides of the city. He stated that more railroad overcrossings were needed all the way to Orcutt Road but do not need to be vehicular. He supported slowing Broad Street traffic. Charlene Rosales, SLO Chamber of Commerce, supported including the Broad Street Area plan as part of the update. She stated that the Chamber is supportive of senior housing and facilities in the area behind General Hospital. Eugene Jud, SLO, commended the Broad Street plan and noted the need for more pedestrian bridges over the railroad tracks. He stated that Bishop Street is very steep, which makes it difficult to integrate with Santa Barbara Road with the Fire Department facility there. He stated that the neighborhood would probably not support it. There were no further comments made from the public. Draft Planning Commission Minutes August 14, 2013 Page 9 COMMISSION COMMENTS ON SLIDE 7 OF THE PRESENTATION: Commr. Stevenson supported keeping the railroad overpass at Orcutt due to concerns of rail activity. He agreed that Bishop Street connection is steep and getting over the railroad tracks and down would be difficult. He supported consideration of bikes and pedestrian crossings, but not vehicles. Commr. Draze supported keeping the Bishop Street connection in for consideration along with the railroad overpass. He stated that the Commission needs to recommend strongly that the City Council consider inclusion of the Broad Street plan. Commr. Larson agreed with Commr. Stevenson in supporting the Orcutt road overpass and predicted that more oil will be transported by train in the future. He agreed that the Broad Street plan should be looked at again. There were no further comments made from the Commission. On motion by Commr. Stevenson seconded by Commr. Larson the Plannin Commission recommended the Council include evaluation of the consequences of eliminating the Bishop Street bridge withdraw the alternative of eliminating the Orcutt Road overpass, provide policy direction for 1-3 area behind General Hospital),and strongly endorsed the inclusion of the Broad Street Area plan with changes to address removal of the McMiilanlDuncan area and provisions for non -conforming uses as part of the update. AYES: Commrs. Draze, Larson, Multari, and Stevenson NOES: None RECUSED: None ABSENT: Commr. Fowler The motion passed on a 4:0 vote. SLIDE 8 (PROPERTY OWNER REQUESTS RECEIVED): There were no comments made from the public. There were no comments made from the Commission. Planning Commission direction agreed with staff recommendation to develop policies to guide evaluation of individual up -zoning requests. COMMENT AND DISCUSSION: 3. Staff a. Agenda Forecast: Deput� Director Murry provided a forecast of items scheduled for the August 28 h and September 11th meetings. Draft Planning Commission Minutes August 14, 2013 Page 10 4. Commission a. Commr. Draze will miss the August 28, 2013, meeting. b. The City Council will be appointing new Commissioners on September 3, 2013. ADJOURMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 9:39 p.m. Respectfully submitted by, Diane Clement Recording Secretary