HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/28/1992, 1 - PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER CERTIFICATION OF THE REVISED ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR) PREPARED FOR THE STONERIDGE II ANNEXATION PROJECT. IIIII���IIIIVIIIIIIIIIIII r MEETING GATE:
►�►����►At cityo san �_ ..s oBispo
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT STEM NUMBER: /
FROM: Arnold B. Jonas, Community Development Director;
By: Pam Ricci, Associate Planner PR
SUBJECT:
Public hearing to consider certification of the revised Environmental
Impact Report (EIR) prepared for the Stoneridge II Annexation project.
CAO RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt the Draft Resolution certifying the EIR based on findings.
DISCUSSION
Situation/Previous Review
On August 8, 1990, a public hearing was held before the Planning
Commission to discuss the draft EIR during the required public review
period. The testimony taken at that meeting, along with the written
comments received from residents of the nearby neighborhoods and local
and state public agencies, have been incorporated into the document as
Appendix F.
The revised draft EIR, a compilation of the public review draft EIR and
responses to comments, was reviewed by the Commission on March 13 , 1991.
The EIR was continued at that meeting to allow city and consultant staff
the opportunity to make revisions to the document to address the concerns
raised by the Commission and the public at that meeting. Noteworthy
additions to the document made in response were more detailed studies on
wetlands, wildlife and traffic.
Another revised version of the EIR responding to the March 13 , 1991
comments was reviewed by the Planning Commission on February 12, 1992 .
A hearing on the revised draft is not required by CEQA, but was scheduled
to allow the Commission and public a final opportunity to provide input
before the document was forwarded to the Council. The current document
includes some changes to clarify issues and respond to concerns raised
at the hearing. A list of the more significant comments made at the
February 12, 1992 meeting by the Planning Commission and public along
with staff's responses is attached to this report.
The City Council must review and consider the information contained in
the revised EIR to determine whether it is complete and in compliance
with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) ; this review process
is known in CEQA as certification. The EIR needs to be certified before
an action to approve the project can be made.
The EIR has been discussed at three Planning Commission hearings. The
comments of both the Commission and public have been reviewed and
considered by City and consultant staffs and changes have been made to
the document in response. In compliance with the city's environmental
regulations, the final environmental determination (certification) for
this project is made by the City Council. The certified version of the
document is known as the final EIR, and must be adopted by the Council
wa�1��1111�I�'i U city o� san l ; oBispo
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Stoneridge II EIR
Page 2
prior to . action on the project.
Data Summary
i
Address: 500 Stoneridge Drive
Applicant: John King
Representative: Erik Justesen, RRM Design Group
General Plan: Interim Conservation Open Space and Conservation Open
Space
Project Action Deadline: Not subject to certification requirements. I
I
Site Description
- i
The moderately sloping area is rocky and contains a variety of grasses i
and forbs. Several large eucalyptus trees are located south and
southeast of proposed Lot # 35. Some small utility buildings including
a windmill and two historic cisterns exist on the site.
The proposed annexation area is located directly to the west of the
mostly developed Stoneridge I tract. The older Lawrence Drive
neighborhood is located directly to the north of proposed Lots 1-19 .
i
Proiect Description
The applicant wants to build 65 single-family residential units on the
property. Lots 1-51 would be individually developed with custom homes
approved through architectural review and consistent with adopted design
guidelines. Lots 52-65 are proposed as fee-simple condominium units with
common walls and are situated along a private drive. Specific plans for
the development of the condominium units would be approved by the
Architectural Review Commission.
In order to develop. the property as discussed above, the following
entitlements have been requested:
I
1. A General Plan Amendment to change the designation on the Land
Use Element Map for the developable portion of the site below the
325 ' elevation from Interim Conservation Open Space to Low
Density Residential .
2 . A General Plan Amendment to the Land Use Element Map to modify
the development limit line (DLL) to coincide with the 325 '
elevation throughout the property. Currently the line is
coincidental with this elevation across the site except for a
small portion of it in the very northwest corner where it is
defined as an imaginary extension of Meadow Street.
3 . The Prezoning of the area below the 325 ' elevation as R-1-PD and
the area above the 325 ' elevation as C/OS-40.
4 . The Annexation of the entire 60-acre parcel to the City of San
Luis Obispo as a "minor annexation" area as defined in the Land
�������►n►il(�IllllflllP�' I�nllll city of san t osispo
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Page 3
DISCUSSION
Review of the document has been delayed several months because of changes
that needed to be made to respond to new information, and amendments to
the original contract that were needed to authorize the additional work
of Dr. Hanson (wetlands and wildlife) and Penfield and Smith (expanded
traffic analysis) . Both City staff and consultant staff have made a long
and concerted effort to revise the document to address all the issues
that have been raised during the review of the Draft EIRs.
This agenda item has been scheduled as a public hearing solely to
consider the adequacy the EIR, rather than a hearing on the project as
well. City Council and public testimony at this meeting should be
focussed on the completeness of the revised EIR and its suitability for
certification, rather than the particular merits of the project itself. i
At the January 29, 1992 Commission meeting, a letter and presentation
outline was presented to staff by Phil Ashley. The letter and outline
discusses Mr Ashley's remaining concerns with the biological resources
section of the EIR. Mr. Ashley's letter and outline are attached, as
well as a memo from staff that responds to the three primary concerns he
raises.
Staff has also prepared two errata sheets, which could be incorporated
into the EIR, to clarify the mitigation measures included in Section
4 . 1.41 Neighborhood Compatibility, and Section 4. 2 .41 Visual
Quality/Aesthetics. The mitigation measures included in these sections
are especially important to the residents of Lawrence Drive and have been
extensively discussed and reviewed. Because the applicant has agreed to
single-story development for the northern tier of lots that back up to
Lawrence Drive and the issue has been such an important one, staff
prepared the errata sheets for the Planning Commission and City Council
to see how this change to the project description could affect mitigation
measures.
ALTERNATIVES
1. Continue review of the EIR with direction to staff if further changes
to the document are necessary.
Attachments: Draft Resolution
Vicinity Map
P.C. Minutes of 3-13-91 and 2-12-92
Follow-up to 2-12-92 Planning Commission meeting
Outline identifying changes to EIR
CEQA Guidelines definition of adequate EIR
Phil Ashley's presentation and letter dated 1-29-92
Staff response to Mr. Ashley
Errata sheets
-3
RESOLUTION NO. (1992 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
CERTIFYING THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR) FOR THE
STONERIDGE II SUBDIVISION AND ANNEXATION PROJECT
LOCATED AT 500 STONERIDGE DRIVE
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission and the City Council have
held public hearings on this EIR in accordance with the California
Government Code; and
WHEREAS, the EIR comes to the City Council after extensive
review and with the comments of the Planning Commission and
concerned public; and
WHEREAS, the potential environmental impacts of the project
have been evaluated in accordance with the California Environmental
Quality Act and the City's Environmental Guidelines.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council resolves as follows:
SECTION 1. Environmental Determination. The City Council
hereby certifies that the Final Environmental Impact Report for the
Stoneridge II Subdivision and Annexation Project adequately
identifies the project's potentially significant impacts,
alternatives to the proposed action, and recommended mitigation
measures.
SECTION 2 . Findings.
1. The mitigation measures contained in the EIR will
adequately mitigate adverse environmental impacts of the
project.
2. The project is consistent with other elements and
policies of the General Plan.
Resolution No. (1992 Series)
Page 2
On motion of ,seconded
by and on-the following
roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this day of,
1992.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
Resolution No. (1992 Series)
Page 3
APPROVED:
City Administrative Officer
xA
ty tto ey
Community Deveo ent Director
�STGNERIDGE if GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
STONERIDGE ONE*
ZZ
p.a\.1
C trmCt L 373 0....a W Flonh�0� .• a`Ea ..
•��B ar1a1 L •- Z vee w•.u,rw sep < '\ ir.a\. �. G'A
e.�� ' v `o SOUTH STREET•\ ' i �y,� -f Sc+��
m c �4.
Br' St. . y .i�?-�r o°ED•E°e `• i 1 .!\ i L
W COrTd �-
4 S o • £ c J �a � �Sce. t• .
S� 1 Glil Q• do \\.•'Y Su GJe A
:' _ �je' •Fad ow..
✓ Tl• �. S•••NYSf•IlL T
T!L•w•ence 1rw 9 f �. e I
f
ti� a o RCUrr a
K S E i ,• °c :•• sw
Prado
325 ELEVATION Y2
E
PROPOSED NEW CITY LIMI LINE
VICINITY MAP
AREA TO BE CHANGED FROM "INTERIM CONSERVATION/OPEN
SPACE" TO "RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY" (10.2 ACRES)
AREA TO REMAIN "CONSERVATION/OPEN SPACE" (49.8 ACRES)
- i-7
!UTES - CITY PLANNING COM ,SION
City of San Luis Obispo . California
February 12 . 1992
PRESENT: Commrs . Reith Gurnee . Barry Karleskint , Janet Kourakis . Fred
Peterson . Richard Schmidt , Dodie Williams . and Chairman
Gilbert Hoffman.
ABSENT: None .
OTHERS
PRESENT: Terry Sanville . Principal Planner : Pam Ricci . Associate
Planner : John Rawles , Traffic Engineer : Stephen Orosz .
Consulting Traffic Engineer . Penfield & Smith : Cindy
Clemens . Assistant City Attorney : and Diane Wright .
Recording Secretary .
PUBLIC
C04MENT: Laura Rice . 1175 Pismo Street , said there were many people
present who were here to speak to Item 2 . and asked that the
Commission modify the agenda to hear _item 2 first .
Chairman Hoffman said that Item 1 was continued from the
last meeting as the first item on the agenda for this
meeting .
The minutes of the regular meeting of October 9 . 1991 were approved as
submitted and the minutes of the regular meeting of November . 13 . 1991
were approved as amended .
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Item I . Environmental Impact Report . Review and comment on final
EIR for Stoneridge II subdivision and annexation project . a
proposed 60-acre annexation and residential subdivision on
12 . 2 acres . to develop 65 residential units at 500
Stoneridge Drive . ( Continued from November 28 . 1990 .
January 16 . 1991 . `larch 13 . 1991 . and January 29 , 19°2 )
--------------------------------------I------------------------------
Commr . Gurnee stepped down due to a conflict of interest .
Pam Ricci presented the staff report and said that the Commission was
being asked to comment on the revised EIR and not evaluate the project
itself . She explained that the major additions and changes in the EIR
since the Commission reviewed the document on *larch 13 . 1991 . were
evaluations on the impacts of the development on drainage . wildlife .
wetland areas . traffic . and schools . She indicated that recent
letters had been received from Phil Ashley outlining his remaining
concerns with the _Biological Resources Section of the EIR ; and Richard
Stevens . a resident of Lawrence Drive who listed a variety of concerns
including the adequacy of the photographs in the visual impacts
section . She announced that Steve Orosz of Penfield & Smith : John
Rawles . San Luis Obispo Traffic Engineer : and Dr . Michael Hanson . a
professor at Cal Poly . were in attendance and available to answer
questions .
Commr . Kourakis expressed concern that the description of mitigation
measures in the Errata sheets was in conflict with mitigations listed
in the document . D
�� O
P . C . Minutes
February 12 , 15x2
Page 2
Pam Ricci said the Errata sheets were written to clarify mitigation
measures" in light of the applicant ' s agreement to limit development of
the lots that back up to Lawrence Drive to single-story since the
publication of the draft EIR . -
Commr . Schmidt- felt that allowing a height of 20 feet for a 1 -story
home was excessive .
Pam Ricci explained that 20 feet was the maximum height from the
current ground elevation and would make construction options such as
vaulted ceilings possible . Sh& said that some neighbors had suggested
a height limit of 15 feet,IV°tTaf1round level to the highest point of
the building, not based onlaYarlodral grade . She said an admin.istrat iv_-
use permit would be required for any proposed building between 15 and
20 feet . This process would allow neighbors the opportunity to atte-:d
a public hearing and express their concerns .
Chairman Hoffman opened the public hearing . He said that public
comments should be directed to the adequacy of the EIR . rather than
the project itself .
Erik Justesen of RRM Design Group , 3025 South Higuera Street .
applicant ' s representative . indicated that the proposal had been
continued for a long period of time . He asked the Commission to ^ake
comments on the EIR and forward it to the City Council for
certification . . He believed the EIR was adequate and covered all t e
issues sufficiently . He said the applicant had agreed to limiting
homes to 1-story as stated in the Errata sheets .
Commr . Kourakis questioned why the environmental consultant was not at
this meeting . She asked whether the environmental c•onsuitant had c3l,e
I
o the same conclusion as Dr . Hanson regarding protection of hillside
seeps .
Erik Justesen said the environmental consultant did contact and
coordinate w•it.h the Department of Fish & Game . He said Fish & Game
found the seeps in the project to be of value and to be sustaining
some wildlife . but did not require the wetland to be retained at iT. S
present location . He explained that Fish and Game felt the proposal
to relocate the wetland habitat to another area would minimize the
development ' s effect on wildlife .
Commr . Kourakis expressed concern about water drainage damaging the
property of current residents on Lawrence Drive . She said rain water
currently sheets off Lawrence Drive into residents ' yards .
Erik Justesen said this development would help to correct that problem
as an underground drainage system would alter water flow . He said
tr,at drainage would be collected in an inlet then piped underground tr-
connect with the Meadow Park drainage system .
Commr . Kourakis suggested that a description of the proposed drainage
system be included in the EIR .
P . C . Minutes
February 12 . 1992
Page 3
Commr . Williams asked if this water would be directed to the current
drainage swale behind the last home in Stoneridge I .
Erik Justesen said drainage at Stoneridge I travels toward Broad
Street , but Stoneridge II drainage would traver in a drainage swale
under Lawrence Drive to Meadow Park . He further explained that Jerry
Kenny said the city would pay for the cost of the oversizing of the
new culvert beyond the cost for a culvert to' only serve Stoneride II .
Commr . Williams asked Erik Justes_en if he would be willing to
stockpile the current wetland topsoil and move it to the new site .
Erik Justesen said it was not appropriate for him to comment on that
proposal at this time . but he was willing to work with the Department
of Fish & Game .
Mike Hanson . 203 Madonna Road . said he made an error in his document .
He said references made to " seeps 4 and 5" should be corrected to
seeps " 3 and 4" . He said he found an alternative site , with the help
of Jim Lidberg of Fish and Game . near Rockview Park that might be
adequate if it is determined there is enough water there to sustain
wildlife .
Commr . Schmidt referenced comments made by Dr . Chipping regarding a
suitable source of water for the new wetland area from hillside
springs . He expressed concern that it had not been determined if
sufficient water existed at the alternative wetland site .
Gary Williams . 555 Lawrence Drive . expressed concern about the visual
impacts of the project and believed the photos in the EIR were in
error . He felt the construction height limit should be limited to 15
feet and the Errata sheets changed to state that requirement . He
expressed concern t::at allowing height exceptions up to 20 fee: with
an administrative use permit did not allow neighboring residents the
same opportunity to voice concerns as a Planning Commission hearing .
He requested that no decks above 8 feet be allowed and that the
.neighbors be allowed to participate when the Architectural Review
Commission considers factors such as window sizes and decks : He said
he was not as concerned about traffic as he had been- in the past
because the Villa Rosa development would be putting in a stop light .
Ted Bull , 523 Lawrence Drive , said he had water problems in his home .
He felt the development would worsen that problem and said he felt
helpless to protest this development . In answer to a. question by
Commr . Hoffman . Mr . Bull said he was asking the Commission to consider
the visual impacts of Stoneridge II . In answer to a question by
Commr . Kourakis . Mr . Bull said on Monday water in an 18-inch duct at
the rear of his property overflowed into his home near the
intersection of Lawrence Drive and Tenbrook .
Roy Hanff . 569 Lawrence Drive , requested that the height limit for
homes on the northern tier of lots backing up to Lawrence Drive be 15
feet . He said he does not have much faith in administrative use
permits . and he requested that increasing the height limit to 20 feet
not be allowed . He asked that decks facing current homes not be
F . C . uinutes
February 12 . 1992
Page 4
allowed. He expressed concern that storm drains were not properly
addressed in the EIR. He said the City agreed to maintain the storm
drains for Stoneridge I . but the city does not take care of the
drains . In answer to a question by Commr . kourakis . Roy Hanff said he
was concerned that property owners in the new development would plant
tall trees that would kill his fruit trees because they would block
the sun .
Lawrence Wright . 515 Lawrence Drive , said he was totally opposed to
this project . He said he realized he could not stop progress . and
would be agreeable to a 15-foot height limit that was measured from
the existing natural grade . not measured from fill . He felt Section
4 . 8 . 3 should be a required mitigation measure . not just a recommended
measure because of dust during construction. He said on page 3 of the
Addendum to the Botanical Study . Dr . Holland found that there was no
suitable site to relocate the hillside seeps . Hefelt the drainage
system should be constructed before any building permits were issued .
Phil Ashley . 1586 Lacita Court . said he was not opposed to
recommending that the EIR be referred to the City Council if his major
three concerns were addressed . He referenced the additional plant and
animal species he felt needed to be added to the EIR that were
outlined in his letter . He asked for long term monitoring of the
seeps . In terms of development of the replacement wetland . he
recommended a specific water supply be listed , the new wetland be
built before the old one is destroyed . a design concept be included .
and soil stockpiling be addressed . He felt that the EIR needed to
acknowledge that there is a cumulative significant impact on ground
squirrel habitat . He explained Dr . Hanson did not have maps for the
other side of the hill because he was not required to assess the other
side of the hill .
Erik Justesen . applicant . felt it was appropriate to rely on the
Department of Fish & Game for direction because they are experts . He
agreed with Mr . Ashley that a permanent water source needed to be
identified for the replacement wetland . and that this would be
coordinated with Fish & Game at a later date . He said Mr . Ashley ' s
comments about a cumulative impact on the environment were creative in
nature . He said he was opposed to linking mitigation with another
project that has not been submitted for public review .
Commr . Hoffman closed the public hearing .
Commr . Schmidt felt the Commission ' s job was to assess the adequacy of
the document fulfilling the requirements of the California
Environmental Quality Act and to identify all concerns . He expressed
concern that the following issues needed to be addressed : effects of
a street connection to Meadow Street : a follow-up on a suggestion by
Dana Lilley of the County Planning Department that the EIR consultant
look at ways to slow the runoff of water ; a statement on Page 4-1 thz
the County classifies this area as a sensitive resource area but it
not mentioned why ; the appropriateness of tall trees shown on the
figure on page 4-12 because of view and sunlight impacts for
residences below : the figures referred to on page 4-21 not accurate1v
showing what the project will look like : the text added on visual
P . C . Minutes
February 12 . 1992
Page 5
impacts on page 4-35 should be changed to state that rooftops and
building envelopes will protrude from the hillside : that the statement
"and makes no effort to blend in with the hillside and therefore
conflicts with the city ' s hillside development standards" needed to be
added to the last sentence in that section : the tree list on page 4-
32 was not appropriate ; on page 4-83 a statement in the final
paragraph reading " the diversity of wildlife is quite low" be dropped :
the first statement on page 4-88 that wintering raptors use the area
farther away from current residences shows there are cumulative
impacts on wildlife ; the statement that there will be no significant
impact on wildlife on 4-91 is inconsistent with the list of identified
wildlife and impacts : mitigation for the loss of wetland mentioned on
page 4-92 is not tied to redeveloping the wetlands on sit- : and that
the environmentally superior alternative ' s status for mitigation
measures on 6-3 be clarified . He found the discussion of mitigation
measures to be confusing . He suggested a comprehensive list of
mitigations be included .
Pam Ricci explained that one of the reasons the County classified the
area as a sensitive resource area was because of scenic serpentine
out-croppings .
Commr . Williams expressed concern about homes near the 325-foot line
being adequately served by fire protection as shown on Page 1 -5 . Table
1-1 . She felt `1r . Justesen adequately addressed her concerns about
drainage . She felt a height limitation of 15 feet should be required .
She pointed out that `ir . Ashley ' s letter referred to animals that
probably used the site . but were not seen on the site . She felt the
EIR was generally adequate .
Commr . sarieskint said his concerns were the same concerns he had t;e
last time the draft EIR was reviewed . He expressed concern about : the
inaccuracy of photographs to show the visual impacts of the
development : the project relying on the traffic signal for Villa Rosa
to solve traffic problems : page 4-40 , Section 4 . 2-4 stating no more
than 33 percent of the second floor will be on the second story
without stating reasons why ; that mitigation measures are
contradictory ; and few alternatives are discussed .
Commr . Kourakis said she was ready to send the EIR on to the City
Council because she did not believe the charges asked for by the
Commission would be done if it was continued . She agreed with the
comments of Commrs_ . Schmidt and barleskint . She expressed concern
that Dr . Hanson ' s report needed to be corrected . She felt staff ' s
Errata statements for single story development should be substituted
for mitigation measures with a discussion that the 15 foot height
limit be measured from the existing grade , not after fill is brought
in . She felt the drainage problems were not adequately addressed in
the EIR, and asked that the document detail the explanation giver. by
`1r . Justesen . She felt the hillside seeps needed to be shown on a
map . She felt that the diagram on Page 4-12 showing shading should
show the houses on Lawrence Drive . She suggested a mitigation measure
to require the planting to be at the rear of the Lawrence Drive lots
so those residents could control the planting .
p 12.
P . C . Minutes
February 12 , 1992
Page 6
Commr . Peterson agreed that the measures in Table 1-1 and throughout
the document seemed to be conflicting . He felt the issues mentioned
in the EIR adequately addressed drainage . He agreed that a new
wetland should be created before the old wetland is destroyed as
discussed on Page 4-92 . He asked that roof runoff be discussed . He
felt -the grading discussed in 4-105 should be required and not just
recommended . He said he agreed with a height limit of 15 feet and
could support sending the EIR on to the City Council .
Commr . Kourakis recommended a summary document of mitigation measures
to eliminate confusion.
Commr . Schmidt expressed concern that the summary mitigations
conflicted with the mitigations in the text .
Commr . Hoffman agreed with Commr . Kcurakis about detailed descriptions
of mitigation measures and recommended that it be completed before the
EIR is considered by the City Council . He said the houses on Lawrence
Drive need to be shown on the shading map . Mr . Justesen ' s explanation
of drainage mitigation needed to be in the document . the screening
planting should be on the neighboring Lawrence Drive lots and pine
trees should be eliminated from the plant list . He said he could
support forwarding the EIR to the City Council if the Commission ' s and
the public ' s comments were incorporated into the document .
Commr . Hoffman moved to recommend the final EIR for Stoneridge II be
forwarded to the City Council along w : th the Commission ' s and •zublic ' s
comments .
Commr . Peterson seconded the motion.
VOTING : AYES - Commrs . Hoffman . Peterson . Karleskint . Kcurakis .
Schmidt , and Williams .
NOES - None .
ABSENT - Commr . Gurnee .
The motion passed .
Commr . Gurnee left the meeting due to illness .
-------------------------------------------------—-----------------
Item 4 . Use Permit A105-91 . Appeal of Hearing Officer ' s action
denying a request to allow razor wire on top of wall and
chain link fence ; R-2-S zone : Crystal Springs Water Company .
applicants/appellants . (Continued from December 11 and
December 18 . 1991 )
--------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Item S . Rezoning CR1538 . Consideration of amending the zoning
regulations by adding a mixed-use overlay zone . ( Continued
. from December 11 and December 18 . 1991 .
--------------------------------------------------------------------
N3
MIN?ETES - CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
City of San Luis Obispo, California
March 13, 1991 Regular Meeting
PRESENT: Commrs . Keith Gurnee, Barry Karleskint, Janet
Kourakis , Fred Peterson, Richard Schmidt, Dodie
Williams, and Chairman Gilbert Hoffman .
OTHERS
PRESENT: Arnold Jonas , Community Development Director ;
Pam Ricci, Associate Planner ; and Diane Wright,
Recording Secretary.
ACCEPTANCE
OF AGENDA: Item 5 and Item 6 had been withdrawn from the
agenda by the applicants .
The Commission agreed not to act on Item 2 because
its application had not been deemed complete .
The Commission agreed to handle Item 4 first, because
staff recommended it be continued .
---------------------------------------- -----------------------
Item 4 . Use Permit U 50'7 : Request tt allow an outdoor
storage yard and comvos•ting ite; 25 Prado Road;
PF zone; City of San Luis 0 ispo, applicant .
------------------------------------- --------------------------
Commr . Gurnee moved to continue Ite 4 to March 27, 1991 .
Commr . Peterson seconded the motio .
VOTING: AYES - Commrs . Gurnee, Peterson, Karleskint,
Kourakis, Schmi t, Williams and Hoffman .
NOES - None .
ABSENT - None .
The motion passed .
PUBLIC
COMMENT: There were no publ ' c comments .
MINUTES : The minutes of th February 19, February 26, and
March 5, 1991 sp tial meeting were approved as
submitted .
----------------------------------------------------------------
Item 1 . Environmental Impact Report . Review and comment
on final EIR for Stoneridge II subdivision and
annexation project, a proposed 60-acre annexation
and residential subdivision on 10 . 2 acres, to
P .C. Minutes
March 13, 1991
Page 2 .
develop 65 residential units at 500 Stoneridge
Drive . ( Continued from November 28, 1990 and
January 16, 1991 )
----------------------------------------------------------------
Commr . Gurnee stepped down due to a conflict of interest .
Pam Ricci presented the staff report and said the Commission had
two options regarding the EIR; to continue action as recommended
in the staff report or to recommend certification to the City
Council . She requested that if the Commission recommends
certification, it should advise staff about any changes that need
to be made to certify the document . She gave the Commission a
letter staff received from Richard Carrico, the Cultural
Resources Manager from ERCE, a more legible copy of a table
listing lot sizes for the applicant ' s revised site plan, and a
revised Table 6-1, the site plan for the environmentally superior
alternative .
Commr . Kourakis noted that it is difficult to separate a proposed
plan from an EIR because several of the EIR ' s mitigation measures
are based on specifics of the plan . She asked staff to verify
that the Commission is not committing itself to the plan by
certifvinq the EIR, and that the public would be able to speak
.against the pian after the EIR is certified .
Pam Ricci explained that the mitigation measures contained in the
EIR are based on the pro4ect that was submitted . whin t,ie
project is reviewed , plans need to be modified to be consistent
with the EIR . She indicated that if the planned development is
approved, a finding that the oroject will not result In
significant impacts on the environment needs to be made
referencing the EI.R.
Commr . Kourakis asked if when mitigations are dependent on a
future study, such as the possibility of flooding' adjacent
studies, the results of the study would take the place of the
mitigation measure .
Pan Ricci said drainage Improvement details would normally be
reviewed at the tentative tract map stage of a project .
Chairman Hoffman opened the public hearing .
Erik Justesen, 3026 South Higuera, applicant ' s representative,
explained that the Stoneridge II project has not exceeded the
allowable density provided for an R-1-PD zone . He said he
opposed the project being limited to 59 lots instead of the
proposed 60 lots because the project has ,met the 5 findings
necessary to receive a 25 percent density bonus which would allow
over 70 lots on the project . He pointed out that the project
provides for city acquisition of 50 acres of the South Street
hills as dedicated open space . He added the requested density
bonus findings for Stoneridge II are the same findings that were
P .C. Minute,
March 13, 1991
Page 3 .
made for Stoneridge I . He asked for clarification of the
mitigations on page 4-12 that were not initiated by the
applicant, and questioned if the architectural review mentioned
on page 4-36 referred to formal review by the Architectural
Review Commission of each lot, or a more informal review by a
staff member, design professional, and neighborhood
representatives . He preferred the latter . He opposed
mitigations for wetlands because he said there is no evidence
wetlands exist on the site; only hillside seeps .
Commr . Kourakis asked how the 25-foot height of the 2-story
buildings is calculated .
Erik Justesen said it would be the measurement of any wall from
bottom to top, and would not be calculated by the city zoning
regulations method of averaging the grade of land under the
building and allowing a 25-foot building height beyond average
grade .
Commr . Hoffman said the dedication of open space is a requirement
of the city' s minor annexation policies and i-ie did not understand
how meeting this requirement entitled the applicant to a density
bonus .
Erik Justesen said even though it is required, the city will
still benefit from the dedication .
in answer to a question of Commr _ Schmidt about the cisterns,
Justesen replied that because one of the cisterns is in the
middle of the proposed project, the proposal is to make a similar
structure at the intersection of Blue Rock and Stoneridge Drive .
He said the older of the two cisterns would be remain on 'the
hill .
Phil Ashley, 1586 La Cita Court, said he believed the EIR is
inadequate because a more extensive wildlife study should be
done . He did not feel that a 3-hour survev done on the property
finding 12 birds and 1 ground squirrel was an adequate wildlife
study. He said two springs on the property were flowing during
the drought before the rains started, proving there is a wetland
on the property and he believed mitigation for any disturbance to
or loss of wetland was needed . He added he did not oppose the
project because it -provides homes near places of employment on
small lots that are relatively affordable .
In answer to a question of Commr . Kourakis about what would
constitute a proper wildlife study, Phil Ashley said he would
like to see several day and night observations, and to have
animal tracks analyzed . He said his main concern was
animals on the hill using the wetlands for a water source
and that more study of this relationship in the EIR was needed .
`/ (40
P . C. Minutes
March 13, 1991
Page 4 .
Commr Kourakis asked for a response to the consultant ' s opinion
that there would be too much human activity and the corridor for
wildlife would be too small to maintain.
Phil Ashley felt the wetland corridor could be maintained with
proper protection and interpretive signs . He added street lights
would discourage animals from using the wetland at night .
Commr . Peterson noted that Appendix C in the EIP, dated December
29, 1989 notes 15 different species and 45 different animals
being observed at the site and asked Phil Ashley if he had
reviewed that species list .
Phil Ashley said he may have miscounted, but he thought he
remembered there being only 12 different species listed . He said
the study was still not sufficient because ' .1t did not list any
reptiles or amphibians . He believed what is important is what
kinds of animals are out there, not necessarily the number of
individual animals .
Commr . Schmidt commented that he was impressed that the spring on
the hill still had water during the drought . He asked if the
wetlands are preserved , could they be used as a Dark by the
public .
Phil Ashley felt allowing people to use the - etlands would
endancer the animals now living there .
Gary Williams , 555 Lawrence Drive referring to Section 4-35 of
the EIR, said the landscaping done for Stoneridge I was
Inadequate and neighbors would like to see additional landscaping
required for phase II . He said Section 4-85 which states that
traffic would not have a significant impact is not correct and
felt the additional traffic' should be addressed . He also
expressed concern about the visual impact to neighbors on.
Lawrence Drive if a height limit of 25 feet as stated in Section
4-31 is allowed . He said he agreed with the suggestion that
residents on Lawrence Drive be part of an architectural review
committee reviewing development of individual lots .
In answer to a question of Commr . Williams , Gary Williams said he
did not think it was necessary to have each individual house in
the second phase formally reviewed by the Architectural Review
Commission . He believed a more informal review with neighborhood
representation could establish guidelines to insure that privacy
and overlook concerns were addressed .
Ann Patton, 550 Bluerock Court, expressed concern about how
traffic would exit from Stoneridge Drive onto Broad Street
because of existing and future high traffic levels . she was also
concerned about through traffic from Cobblestone Drive emptying
onto Bluerock Court which is a cul-de-sac . she also questioned
allowing 50 new water users, even with retrofitting mitigation
during a period of water shortage .
P .C. Minutes
March 15, 1991
Page 5 .
Richard Stevens , 309 Lawrence Drive , said the visual impact
graphics are inaccurate and understate the project . He questioned
the traffic counts in Appendix D. He conducted two half-hour
counts of cars going into and out of Lawrence Drive and
Stoneridge Drive on mid-morning and mid-afternoon weekdays . His
counts were 100 percent over the documented EIR counts both
times . He felt this project would increase the problem of
flooding near Meadow Park on South Higuera . He said property
owner Mike Spangler is currently suing the city because of the
flooding, and this project would add to this area ' s flooding
problems .
Roy Hanff , .559 Lawrence , agreed that the traffic study was not
accurate . He reminded the Commission that a rezoning application
near Broad and Orcutt was recently approved by the city to allow
100 houses to be constructed on .a 6 . 5-acre lot which would add to
the traffic problems on Broad Street . He questioned the schools
analysis in the EIR . He felt a figure of 1 . 5 children per home
should be used in analyzing impacts . He added he would like the
houses restricted to 16 feet in height to retain the Lawrence
Drive neighbors ' privacy and to protect their views of the
hillside . He requested the Commission not certify the EIR .
Commr . Schmidt, asked Roy Hanff what .he would like the EIR to
address concerning the neighbors ' view.
Roy Hanff said ".-he height limit should be restricted as
mentioned .
Commr . Hoffman asked Roy Hanff is he could give the Commission a
copy of his concerns in writing . Roy Hanff said he would hand it
in after he translated it .
Erik Justesen said he has been meeting with the neighbors to
address their concerns and he would like to submit a revision of
the site plan to the EIR consultant . . He said he understands the
importance of wetlands , but feels it would not be possible to
maintain a high quality wetlands in the middle of this project .
He said he preferred to work with the city in preserving a
wetland habitat elsewhere in the city.
Chairman Hoffman closed the public hearing .
Commr . Schmidt felt the for neighbors ' hillside view concerns
should be looked into further . He said the traffic problem was •a
mess, but felt the EIR studied it adequately. He expressed
concern over using the retrofit program as a "mitigation" for the
water impacts of the project and felt the EIR lacked detail about
this issue . He agreed with Mr . Ashley about the wildlife study
being inadequate, and felt a more thorough wildlife study which
analyzes the importance of the wetlands was needed . He said he
would like to see the lower cistern preserved rather than
allowing it to be torn down and a new similar structure built
elsewhere on the site .
P . C. Minutes
March 13 , 1991
Page 6
Commr . Williams believed the wildlife issue was significant . She
said she lives in the area and has possums in her yard regularly
and recently saw an eagle flying above the hill . She expressed
concern about the use of the retrofit program as mitigation,
traffic impacts , and building height limitations . She said she
wasn ' t ready to send the item on to Council .
Commr . Karleskint said he agreed with Commrs . Schmidt and
Williams . He said more traffic study was needed . He felt the
visual figures, although accurate, were misleading because they
make the project appear to be smaller than it is . He said the
EIR was thorough as far as pointing out problems, but the
mitigation measures needed more attention .
Commr . Peterson asked for a better definition of a wetland to
decide if the springs on this property were truly qualifying
wetlands . He said he supported not allowing 2-story homes on
Lawrence Drive . He believed traffic had been addressed
adequately.
Commr . Kourakis asked staff and the environmental consultant
what an adecuate wildlife study involved .
Karyn D . Smith, Environmental Analyst , explained she was not the
biologist for this study, but that she was familiar with the
study process and content . She said there is not a set or
specific amount of time a biologist stays at a site to conduct a
wildlife study. She said she would prefer a biologist provide a
definition of a wildlife study and suggested contacting Mr .
Holland.
Commr . Kourakis asked _.ta£f how traffic counts were determined .
Karyn D . Smith said the traffic counts were based on Cal Trans
traffic counts from 1988, the most recent traffic counts
available .
Commr . Kourakis questioned if Meadow Park could handle additional
water from Stoneridge II when a flooding problem already exists
in that area . She believed a more thorough wildlife study was
needed, and questioned the efficiency of retrofitting because of
recent figures calculated by Morro Bay showing the water savings
were not what was projected . She also requested height
limitations be defined in the EIR as actual height , not height
above average grade .
Commr . Schmidt was concerned that retrofitting was the only
mitigation measure being considered for water use impacts .
Commr . Kourakis felt it needed to be determined if the wetlands
on the site were natural or were created by seeps from
man-made water systems as suggested by the consultant .
P .C. Minutes
March 13, 1991
Paqe 7 .
Karyn D. Smith said the Department of Fish and came makes the
final determination of what constitutes a wetland . She said she
believes the Department of Fish and Game has determined those
seeps on this site are wetlands .
Commr . Hoffman said he agreed with the other commissioners that
consideration of the EIR should be continued to allow staff to
address the commissioners ' concerns . He felt that traffic counts
from 1988 should be updated . He wanted to see mechanisms that
would make the center turn lane safer included in the traffic
section of the EIR .
Commr . Schmidt suggested the possibility of an exit off Meadow
Street so that all the Stoneridge Drive traffic would not be
emptying onto Broad Street .
Commr . Karleskint moved to continue the item to a future date
uncertain, for staff to address the concerns and comments raised .
Commr . Williams seconded the motion .
VOTING: AYES - Commrs . Karleskint, Williams, Kourakis,
Peterson, Schmidt, and Hoffman .
NOES - None .
ABSENT - Commr . Gurnee .
The motion passed .
----------------------------------------------------------------
Item 3 . Tract 2059 . Consideration of a tentative map
creating a 5-unit airspace office condominium
conversion; 862 Meinecke Avenue; 0-PD zone;
Arnold Volny, subdivider.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pam Ricci presented the staff report and recommended approval of
the tract to the City Council based on findings and conditions .
Commr . Kourakis said she supported the proposal and that there is
probably no need for a long presentation .
Chairman Hoffman opened the public hearing .
Michael Hodge, 1320 Nipomo Street, applicant ' s representative,
said he agrees to the conditions and would answer any questions .
Jenine Barasch, 2602 E1 Cerrido, said she was in favor of the
proposal being approved because the owners are wonderful
neighbors .
Chairman Hoffman closed the public hearing .
.16)
P .C. Minutes
March 15, 1991
Page S .
Commr . Gurnee moved to approve the request with the recommended
conditions and findings .
Commr . Karleskint seconded the motion.
VOTING: AYES - Commrs . Gurnee, Karleskint, Kourakis, Peterson,
Schmidt, Williams and Hoffman .
NOES - None .
ABSENT - None .
The motion Dassed .
COMMENT AND DISCUSSION
Arnold Jonas said staff is in the process of working on the
budget and has included items the Commission requested . The list
of desired budget items is now. with the Administrative Committee
and will go on to the City Manager to make recommendations to the
City Council .
Arnold Jonas said he would clarify Commr . Gurnee ' s questions
about the economic study.
The meeting adjourned at 9 : 95 p .m. to a special meeting of March
19, 1991 at 9 : 00 p .m.
Respectfully submitted,
Diane Wright
Recording Secretary
STONERIDGE II EIR
Follow-up from 2-12-92 Planning Commission Meeting
Project Description
1. Subject: Sensitive Resource Area Designation
Comment: Richard Schmidt questioned why the property was designated a
Sensitive Resource Area by the County.
Response: Sentence was added to P. 4-1 to explain the Sensitive Resource Area
designation.
Neighborhood Compatibility
1. Subject: Building height restrictions for northern tier of lots.
Comment: Most of the Planning Commission and several of the neighbors
indicated that there should be a 15-foot height limitation for the homes
proposed along the northern tier of lots backing up to Lawrence Drive.
It was suggested by most of those who spoke that the administrative
review process for building heights between 15' and 20' referenced in
Errata sheet should be eliminated.
Response: If supported by the City Council, the Errata sheet could be amended
to eliminate the exception process, setting a maximum building height
of 15'.
2. Subject: Rear decks for northern tier of lots.
Comment: Gary Williams, 555 Lawrence Drive, suggested that rear decks over 8
feet high be prohibited.
Response: With the proposed change to single-story development for the northern
tier of lots, the additional mitigations recommended regarding decks
and massing are no longer relevant. The Errata sheet to Section 4.1.4
has been amended to prohibit decks over 8 feet high as suggested.
3. ubje • Tree Planting between Stoneridge II and Lawrence Drive Properties
Comment: Roy Hanff, 569 Lawrence Drive, and Richard Schmidt expressed
concerns with skyline tree planting between properties and solar access.
Response: The idea behind the proposed landscaped treatment between the
northern tier of lots in the Stoneridge II project and the Lawrence
Drive lots was to allow for both screening and solar access. The open,
skyline trees would allow for solar access, as well as soften views of
the Stoneridge 11 project when viewed from Lawrence Drive. The
Stoneridge 11 EIR Follow-up
Page 2
medium and large shrub planting would provide a denser screen at
lower levels to provide privacy while residents on either side were
using their yards. The details of shrub and tree planting to assure that
these goals are met can be worked out with project review.
4. Subject: Measuring Building Height
Comment: Lawrence Wright,515 Lawrence Drive,questioned whether the building
height of 15 feet for houses built adjacent to Lawrence Drive would
be measured from natural grade. This raised the issue as to whether
the proposed fill of some lots would significantly affect overall building
height. There was concern expressed with how natural grade would
be determined after subdivision grading.
Response: A plan is attached which shows the lots along the northern tier of the
subdivision where fill is proposed. Based on information supplied by
the applicant, the maximum height of fill will be 3 feet. Therefore, the
proposed fill operation will not result in the excessive padding of lots.
It is staff s opinion that building height practically can only be
measured from finish subdivision grade which occurs as part of
subdivision improvements prior to individual sale of lots.
5. Subject: Off-site Tree Planting for Screening between Stoneridge II and
Lawrence Drive Lots
Comment: Janet Kourakis suggested that it may be preferred to install plant
screening between lots at the rear of the Lawrence Drive lots so that
those residents could control planting.
Response: A concern with the Stoneridge I project was the piecemeal approach
to landscape screening between lots. With Stoneridge I, planting was
deferred until individual development of lots. This resulted in a
confusing and uneven installation of landscape screening.
Staff feels that landscape screening needs to be installed as a
subdivision improvement to prevent the problems encountered with
Stoneridge I. Lawrence Drive neighbors always have the option of
planting at the rear of their lots if they desire additional screening.
6. Subject: Figure 4.1-4, Solar Shading and Planting Diagram (Page 4-12)
Comment: Gilbert Hoffman indicated that the footprints of Lawrence Drive
houses should be added to the solar shading drawing.
Response: Figure 4.14 was updated to show Lawrence Drive footprints.
i-a3
Stoneridge 11 EIR Follow-up
Page 3
7. Subject: Table 4.2-1, Recommended Native Plants (Page 4-42)
Comment: Gilbert Hoffman suggested that pine trees be eliminated from the
recommended plant lists.
Response: A letter is attached from RRM which describes some conceptual plant
lists as guidelines for more specific planting*schemes to be included in
the design guidelines that would be approved with the project. The
plant list in the EIR was also intended to provide some guidelines to
planting, not be all inclusive.
Visual Quality
1. Subject: Photographs Showing Visual Impacts of Project Development (Figures
4.2-1 - 4.2-7 and 4.2-9 and 4.2-10)
Comment: Gary Williams, 555 Lawrence Drive, Richard Schmidt, and Barry
Karlesldnt all mentioned concerns with the accuracy of the photographs
illustrating the visual impacts of the development and referenced in a
letter submitted by Richard Stephens dated 2-2-92.
Response: The photographs were corrected to better show the full extent of
development.
2. Subject: Architectural Review Process for Stoneridge II
Comment: Gary Williams, 555 Lawrence Drive, suggested that residents from
Lawrence Drive participate in the architectural review process that
evaluates plans for homes in Phase II.
Response: Staff feels that this is a good suggestion. One approach would be to
have a private architectural review process prior to submission of plans
to the city. The composition of the committee and details of the
process could be described in the design guidelines adopted with the
project development plan. Members of the Lawrence Drive
neighborhood could serve on this committee providing for their
additional input in the review process.
Drainage and Surface Hydrology
1. Subject: Drainage Improvements
Comment: Lawrence Wright,515 Lawrence Drive,felt that drainage improvements
should be installed prior to any construction of homes.
Response: Prior to final map approval, the proposed drainage improvements
Stoneridge II EIR Follow-up
Page 4
would need to be installed. Lots could not be individually sold until
the final map is approved by the City.
2. Subject: Drainage Improvements
Comment: Janet Kourakis asked that a description of the proposed drainage
improvements be added.
Response: Paragraphs were added to Page 4-65 about project drainage facilities
to drainage text (before Spangler discussion).
3. Subject: Heavy Metals in Runoff
Comment: At various hearings, there seemed to be confusion about why the heavy
metals generated by the project had a cumulatively significant impact
on bay water quality. City staff s position is that while it is a factor,
it should not be called out as a significant impact that the council
would need to make a finding of overriding considerations for when
the project is reviewed. If this extreme rationale was carried out
throughout the document,then the project would result in cumulatively
significant impacts in almost every environmental issue area.
Response: The summary table at the beginning of the document was changed to
eliminate the finding of a cumulatively significant impact. Page 4-66
of the text was modified to indicate that the amount of heavy metals
generated by this project is too small to have a significant impact on
bay water quality.
Water Resources
1. Subject: Reclaimed Water Mitigation
Comment: Glen Matteson suggested that the third mitigation on Page 4-76 be
changed because it would be difficult to get.approval from the Health
Department to install a system which provided for use of reclaimed
water in individual houses.
Response: The mitigation was changed to provide for use of reclaimed water or
utilize on-site water sources to irrigate Rockview Park.
Biological Resources
1. Subject: Wetland Study
Comment: Dr. Hanson indicated that seeps were incorrectly numbered in his
report (seeps 3 & 4 should read 4 & 5). Janet Kourakis indicated
/'ate
Stoneridge II EIR Follow-up
Page 5
that a map plotting the locations of the seeps needed to accompany
Dr. Hanson's report.
Response: The numbers of the seeps were corrected in the text of Dr. Hanson's
report and.a map showing the locations of the seeps added.
2. Subje • Wetlands/Wildlife
Comment: Phil Ashley continued to maintain that a more specific wetland plan
needed to be part of mitigation contained in the EIR and that there
would be a significant cumulative impact on wildlife because of the loss
of ground squirrel habitat.
Response: See attached memo from staff prepared for the 2-12-92 Planning
Commission meeting. Also a new paragraph was added to the text
giving general performance standards for development of new wetland
areas.
3. Subject: Wildlife (Animal Diversity)
Comment: Richard Smith disagreed with the statement on Page 4-84 that "animal
species diversity is quite low."
Response: This was a statement made by Dr. Hanson in his report. The intent
of the statement was diversity was relatively low in comparison with
richer habitat areas.
4. Subject: Wetlands
Comment: Richard Schmidt asked that clarification be added to the wetland
mitigation measure on Page 4-93 that new wetlands areas be created
on the project site.
Response: Text was modified to stipulate that new wetlands be on-site.
5. Subject: Wetlands
Comment: Fred Peterson asked that the text specify that new wetland areas be
created before existing ones were eliminated.
Response: New paragraph added to the text giving general performance standards
for development of new wetland areas.
Transportation
1. Subject: Street Connection to the North
-aro
Stoneridge II EIR Follow-up
Page 6
Comment: Richard Schmidt questioned why the EIR did not discuss the possibility
of a street connection from Stoneridge II north to Lawrence Drive.
Response: Two separate evaluations of project impacts on traffic and circulation
were conducted by subconsultants Penfield and Smith. Both studies
concluded that the project would not result in significant impacts on
traffic. Given the findings of the traffic subconsultant, it was
determined that further analysis of alternative circulation strategies was
not needed in the EIR since it was not determined that a significant
environmental impact existed. However,the Planning Commission and
City Council could direct staff to further analyze a street connection
to the north as part of review of the project if it was felt to be an issue.
During review of Stoneridge I, there was some discussion of the
suggested northerly street connection, but it was not well-received by
the neighborhood to the north. This street connection is not proposed
by the developer and is not shown on submitted tentative subdivision
plans. Since most of the lots to the north of the Stoneridge II project
are already developed, one of the major obstacles to developing the
street connection is finding a suitable location for it. Condemnation
of private property to acquire street right-of-way is not usually viewed
as a desirable alternative.
Based on initial evaluation of the idea by City staff, it seems that the
only potential location for such a street would be at the west end of
Lawrence Drive where some undeveloped property exists. The
problem is that much of the undeveloped area is designated as open
space on the land use element map and its steep slope makes it less
suitable for street purposes.
Air Quality
1. Subject. Construction Mitigation Measures
Comment: Lawrence Wright, 525 Lawrence Drive, questioned why the mitigation
measures on Page 4-106 were recommended, rather than required.
Response: The reason that the measures are recommended, rather than required,
are because the impact is considered insignificant. Restrictions on
construction operations is a typical condition of tract maps.
Listing of Mitigations
1. Subject: Mitigation Measures
1�
y�
IG J
•401
PRO
42
AM
I
Stoneridge H EIR Follow-up
Page 7
Comments: Janet Kourakis wanted to see a comprehensive summary of mitigation
measures.
Response: A copy of the mitigation monitoring program is attached which includes
a listing of the required mitigation measures included in the EIR.
Attached: Cut & Fill Analysis
Letter from RRM dated 3-19-92/Landscaping Lists
Mitigation Monitoring Program
Memorandum from staff describing changes dated 1-20-92 (NOTE: some of
the page numbers have changed because of later revisions)
Outline/letter from Phil Ashley
Staffs response to Phil Ashley's Letter dated 2-5-92
Errata Sheets
NIS
z
m p z m
z m "
mrm
ao O
G C
m m
m
mm ao
m
x I O)m z�
r p zm
n - on <_
Z o m N N C_
�w CA m
N � i
N
mn
I N N
---1 mI + N
N VV
N
\
I\� c a
I
I I oa
I � Z
n
I zm
I I < m
I I M '<
I I m m
m
I ik�
I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I
I I �
I I z
I I n
I I m
I �
n m
D
35'
r
m
II
N
O
O
_ /30
R R M D E S I G 1 G R 0 U P
March 19, 1992
Ms. Pam Ricci-
Planning Department
City of San Luis Obispo
990 Palm St.
San Luis Obispo, CA 93408
RE: Stoneridge II EIR Information
Dear Pam:
Enclosed please find a map depicting the hillside seeps as described by Dr. Hansen in his
wildlife report. I met with Dr. Hansen last week and verified the locations and numbered
these so that this map now corresponds with his report.
Additionally, I have enclosed a preliminary list of plant material which would be suitable
for the Stoneridge II Development. This lists expanded for four areas somewhat upon the list provided
by ERCE and includes plant ma
1. The streetscapes and front yards: This contains both trees, evergreen and deciduous
and a list of suitable shrubs and groundcover.
2. Entry areas and accent plantings: This contains, again, trees and shrubs suitable for
focus planting on individual lots and focal areas within the neighborhoods, such as
around the cistern, the entry to the attached products and even the entry to the
Development at Broad Street
3. Transition to the hillside open space: These plant material would be suitable to use
within the lot area behind residences backing up to the hillside. No planting would
occur above the 325 elevation. These'plant species include trees and shrubs and
groundcovers which are supportive of the visual character of the hillside.
4. Transition to the Lawrence Drive Neighborhood: These list both skyline trees and
screening trees suitable for location between the Stoneridge II and Lawrence Drive
lou as well as shrubs and groundcovers which will help to screen short distance
views into the backyards while allowing long-distance-views to other view sheds.
Ms. Pam Ricci
Page 2
March 199 1992
A note of caution: this plant material list is not meant to be all inclusive, nor exclusive
of other plant materials that may be suitable, but rather to give some guidelines for the
EIR. The pallet is not composed purely of native plant material, as that would limit the
possibilities drastically, but rather plant material that is all considered to be drought
tolerant and compatible with indigenous species.
I hope this material and the previously submitted grading study and revised solar shading
study, will be help strengthening the EIR.
If you have questions at all, pleas o not hesitat call me.
Sinc y,
ESIGN GROUP
1
P. sen,
ice Pr ident
Planning Division
Enclosures
cc: Mr. Branch
Mr. J King
a/ej-stnrj.eir
l�3�
STREEfSCAPE/FRONT YARD
Botanical Name Common Name
Trees
Jacaranda mimosifolia Jacaranda
Magnolia grandiflora Southern Magnolia
Olea europaea Olive
Prunus cerasifera `T.C.' Flowering Plum
Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak
Cupressus sempervirens Italian Cypress
Shrubs & Groundcover
Agapanthus orientalis Lily of the Nile
Artemesia schmidtiana Angel's Hair
Ceanothus spp. Ceanothus
Cistus spp. Rockrose
Cotoneaster spp. Cotoneaster
Dietes vegeta Fort-night Lily
Erica Carnea Heather
Escallonia spp. Escallonia
Euonymus fortunei Euonymus
Festuca ovina glauca Blue Fescue
Grevillea Noelli NCN
Helictotrichon sempervirens Blue Oat Grass
Lantana spp. Trailing Lantana
Miscanthus sinensis Zebra Grass
Myoporum parvifolium Myoporum
Nandina domestics Heavenly Bamboo
Nerium oleander Oleander
Pennisetum setaceum Fountain grass
Phormium tenax Flax
Pit tosporum tobira Tobira -
Pittosporum undulatum Victorian Box
Punica Granatum Pomegranate
Rhaphiolepis indica India Hawthorn
Rosmarinus officinalis Rosemary
Salvia spp. Sage
Sollya heterophylla Australian Bluebell
Tulbaghia violacea Society Garlic
Viburnum spp. Viburnum
Vinca spp. Periwinkle
ACCENT/ENTRY AREAS
Botanical Name Common Name
Trees
Albizia julibrissin Silk Tree
Gleditsia triacanthos Honey Locust
Magnolia grandiflora Southern Magnolia
Olea europaea Olive
Phoenix canariensis Canary Island Date Palm
Pyrus spp. Pear
Schinus nolle California Pepper Tree
Washingtonia Robusta Mexican Fan Palm
Coccos plumosa Queen Plam
Shrubs and Groundcover
Acanthus mollis Bear's Breech
Agapanthus orientalis Lily of the Nile
Agave spp. Agave
Aspidistra elatoir Cast Iron Plant
Bougainvillea Bouginvillea
Centaurea cineraria Dusty Miller
Dietes vegeta Fort-night Lily
Distictis buccinatoria Blood Red Trumpet Vine
Echium fastuosum Pride of Madeira
Eriobotrya deflexa Loquat
Festuca ovina glauca Blue Fescue
Hemerocallis spp. Day Lily
Lavandula angustifolia Lavender
L monium perezii Sea Lavender
Pelargonium peltatum Ivy Geranium
Sollya heterophylla Australian Bluebell
Strelitzia spp. Bird of Paradise
Trachelosperum jasminoides Star Jasmine
Wisteria spp. Wisteria
Xylosma congestum Xylosma
TRANSMON TO HILLSIDE OPEN SPACE(BELOW 325-Fr. ELEVATION
Botanical Name Common Name
Trees -
Acacia spp. Acacia
Lyonothamnus flonbundus Catalina Ironwood
Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak
Shrubs and Groundcover
Arctostaphylos spp. Manzanita
Baccharis pilularis Coyote Brush
Ceanothus spp. Ceanothus
Cistus spp. Rockrose
Heteromeles arbutifolia Toyon
Myporum parvifolium Myporum
Rhus integrifolia Lemonade Berry
Salvia spp. Sage
Rosmarinus officinalis Rosemary
Artemesia schmidtiana Angel's Hair
/-3$
TRANSITION TO LAWRENCE DRIVE NEIGHBORHOOD
Botanical Name Common Name
Screen Trees
Acacia spp. Acacia
Lyonothamnus floribundus Catalina Ironwood
Pittosporum undulatum Victorian box
Prunus lyonii Catalina Cherry
Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak
Quercus Suber Cork Oak
Skyline Trees
Alnus rhombifolia White Alder
Populus nigra italica Italian Poplar
Cupressus sempervirens Italian Cypress
Eucalyptus citriodora Lemon-Scented Gum
Shrubs and Groundcovers
Arctostaphylos spp: Manzanita
Baccharis pilularis Coyote Brush
Callistemon citrinus Lemon Bottlebrush
Ceanothus spp. Ceanothus
Cistus salvifolius Rockrose
Cotoneaster spp. Cotoneaster
Dodoneae Viscosa Hopseed Bush
Euonymus fortunei Euonyrrius
Eucalyptus spp. Eucalyptus
Grevillia noellh - Grevillia
Heteromeles arbutifolia Toyon
Lantana spp. Trailing Lantana
Lonicera spp. Honeysuckle
Myoporum parvifolium Myoporum
c/mm-stone.plt
/-3b
MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
IN ACCORDANCE WITH AB 3180
STONERIDGE II SUBDIVISION
AND ANNEXATION PROJECT
Prepared For.
City of San Luis Obispo
Community Development Department
P.O. Box 8100
San Luis Obispo, CA 93403-8100
(805) 549-7180
Prepared By:
ERC Environmental &Energy Services Co.
510 State Street _
Suite B
Santa Barbara, CA 93101
(805) 962-0992
January 1992
MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
STONERIDGE II PROJECT
This Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program,hereinafter referred to as Program, is
prepared for the City of San Luis Obispo for the Stoneridge II project to comply with
AB 3180, which requires public agencies to adopt such programs to ensure effective
implementation of mitigation measures.
This is a comprehensive monitoring program capable of being implemented immediately
upon approval of the project However, the program is a dynamic one in that it can
potentially undergo changes as additional conditions of approval are placed on the project
after the development plan is approved and throughout the project approval process. Also,
additional changes will be made to this program as specific information with regards to the
monitoring efforts are provided
This program will serve a dual purpose of verifying completion of the mitigation measures
for the proposed project and generating information on the effectiveness of the mitigation
measures to guide future decisions. The Program includes:
• Monitoring team qualifications
• Specific monitoring activities
• Reporting system
• Criteria for evaluating the success of the mitigation measures
The Environmental Impact Report (EIR) addresses the potential environmental effects
associated with the Stoneridge a project in the City of San Luis Obispo. The Stoneridge II
project consists of 65 single-family residential units located in the northeastern 10.2 acres
of a 60-acre site. The remaining 49.8 acres is an open space dedication. The EIR
environmental analysis, which is incorporated herein as reference, has been focused on
11 issues which were determined to be potentially significant by the City of San Luis
Obispo. The environmental analysis concluded that the issue area discussed would avoid
significant and potentially significant impacts through implementation of recommended
mitigation measures should the proposed project be implemented. The issue areas are:
Neighborhood Compatibility, Visual Quality/Aesthetics, Geology and Seismic Hazards,
1
!-3�
Drainage/Surface Hydrology, Nater Supply, Biological Resources, Transportation, Air
Quality,Public Services,Parks and Recreation,and Archaeological Resources.
AB 3180 requires monitoring of only those impacts identified as significant or potentially
addresses the recommended-mitigation measures for
significant; and therefore this Program Visual Quality/Aesthetics,.Geology
the following impacts: Neighborhood Compatibility,
and Seismic Hazards,Drainage/Surface Hydrology,Water Supply, Biological Resources,
Public Services, Parks and Recreation, and Archaeological Resources. Transportation and
Air Quality were determined,based on the conclusions of the environmental analysis, not
to have significant or potentially significant impacts; and therefore, these issues do not
require monitoring and reporting-
identified
monitoring team should b'--identified once the mitigation measures have been adopted as
the San Luis Obispo City Council Managing the team would be
conditions of approval by The monitoring
the responsibility of a Mitigation Compliance Coordinator (MCC).
activities will be accomplished by Environmental Monitors (EMs), Environmental
Specialists(ESS), and the MCC. While specific qualifications should be determined by the
City of San Luis Obispo,the monitoring team should possess the following capabilities:
• Interpersonal, decision-making, and management skills with demonstrated
experience in working under trying field circumstances;
• Knowledge of and appreciation for the general environmental attributes and
special features found in the project area;
• Knowledge of the types of environmental impacts associated with construction
of cost-effective mitigation options, and
• Excellent communication skills.
The responsibilities of the MCC throughout the monitoring effort include the following: -
• Overall implementation and management of the monitoring program
• Quality control of the site-development monitoring team.
• Administration and preparation of daily logs,status reports,compliance reports
and the final construction monitoring report
• Liaison between the-City of San Luis Obispo,the applicant and the applicant's
contractors.
2
1-31
• Monitoring of onsite,day-today construction activities, including the direction
Of EMs and ESS in the understanding of all permit conditions, site-specific
project requirements, construction schedules and environmental quality control
effort.
• d compliance with all appropriate permit
Ensure contractor knowledge of an
conditions.
• Review of all construction impact mitigations .and, if need be, propose
additional mitigation.
• Have the authority to require correction of activities observed that violate project
environmental conditions or that represent unsafe or dangerous conditions.
• Maintain prompt and regular communication with the onsite EMs, ESs, and
construction personnel responsible for contractoi performance and permit
compliance.
Tine primary role of the Environmental Monitors is to serve as an extension of the MCC in
performing the quality control functions at the construction sites. Their responsibilities and
functions are to:
• Maintain a working knowledge of the project permit conditions, contract
documents, construction schedules and progress, and any special mitigation
requirements for his or her assigned construction area;
Assist the MCC and construction contractors in coordinating with City of San
Luis Obispo compliance activities;
Observe construction activities for compliance with the City of San Luis Obispo
• permit conditions; and
• Provide frequent verbal briefings to the MCC and construction personnel and
assist the MCC as necessary in preparing status reports.
The primary role of the Environmental Specialists is to provide expertise when
environmentally sensitive issues occur throughout the development phases of project
implementation, and to provide direction for mitigation.
3
Prior to any project implementation activities, a pre-construction meeting should take place
between all the agencies and individuals involved to initiate the program and establish the
responsibility and authority of the participants. Mitigation Measures which need to be
defined in greater detail will be addressed prior to any project plan approvals in follow-up
meetings designed to discuss specific monitoring efforts.
Construction activities within the project area will be scheduled each week by Wednesday
applicant's contractors
for the following week. At the weekly scheduling meeting, the
would distribute a "Three-Week Schedule" handout which will identify construction
activities, equipment and areas to be worked in for up to three Weeks in advance; however,
the primary focus would be on scheduling the following week's activities. Attenders at the
meeting would generally include the EMs and/or ESs, various City personnel and the
MCC. By attendance at the meeting and the reference to the work schedule, the MCC will
identify where work is to occur and the commitment of monitoring necessary.
An effective reporting Y
rtin system must be established prior to any monitoring efforts. All
parties involved must have a clear understanding of the mitigation measures as adopted and
these mitigations must be distributed to the participants of the monitoring effort. Those that
would have a complete list of all the mitigation measures adopted by the City would include
the City of San Luis Obispo, the MCC and the construction crew supervisor. The MCC
would distribute to each Environmental Specialist and Environmental Monitor a specific list
of mitigation measures that pertain to his or her monitoring tasks and the appropriate time
frame that these mitigations are anticipated to be implemented. In addition to the list of
mitigations, the monitors will have Mitigation Monitoring Reports (MMRs} with each
mitigation written out on the top of the form. Below the stated mitigation measure, the
form will have a series of questions addressing the effectiveness of the mitigation measure.
The monitors shall complete the MMR and file it with the MCC following their monitoring
activity. The MCC will then include the conclusions of these MMR into an interim and
final comprehensive construction report to be submitted to the City of San Luis Obispo.
This report will describe the major accomplishments of the Program, summarize problems
encountered in achieving the goals of the program, evaluate solutions developed to
overcome problems and provide a list of recommendations for future monitoring programs-
In addition, each EM and/or ES will be required to fill out and submit a daily log report to
the MCC. The daily log report will be used to record and account for the monitoring
activities. Weekly/monthly status reports, as determined appropriate, will be generated
from the daily logs and compliance reports and will include supplemental material (i.e.,
4
memoranda, telephone logs,letters). This type of feedback is essential for the City of San
Luis Obispo to confirm the implementation and effectiveness of the mitigation measures
imposed on the project
There are generally three separate categories of non-compliance associated with the adopted
conditions of approval:
• Non-compliance requiring an immediate halt to a specific task or piece of
equipment
• Infraction that initiates an immediate corrective action. No work or task delay.
• Infraction that does not warrant immediate corrective action and results in no
work or task delay.
In all three cases, the MCC would notify the applicant's contractors and the City of San
Luis Obispo, and an MMR would be filed with the MCC on a.daily basis.
There are a number of options the City of San Luis Obispo may use to enforce this
Program should non-compliance continue. Some methods commonly used by other lead
agencies include: "Stop work" orders; fines and penalties (civil); restitution; permit
revocations; citations; and injunctions. It is essential that all parties involved in the
Program understand the authority and responsibility of the onsite monitors.
The following text includes a summary of the project impacts, a list of all the associated
mitigation measures and the monitoring efforts necessary to ensure that the measures are
properly implemented. All the mitigation measures identified in the Extended Initial Study
are anticipated to be translated into conditions of project approval. In addition, once the
project has been approved and prior to its implementation,the mitigation measures shall be
further detailed during pre-grading meetings between the monitors, City of San Luis -
Obispo, and the contraction supervisor.
NEIGHBORHOOD COMPATIBILITY
Development of the proposed project would infringe upon the privacy and solar access of
Lawrence Drive neighbors, exceed city density standards by 6 dwelling units unless the
5
project is approved as a Planned Development, and create potential drainage problems for
Lawrence Drive neighbors-
1 Applicant-proposed restrictions on setbacks and second-story development shall be
implemented. These include rear yard setbacks of 25 feet, street yard setbacks of
10 to 15 feet, and second-story development for lots 1-18 of not more than one
third of the building floor area-
2. Tree screening shall occur along the rear lot lines of lots 1-18. Trees shall consist
of tall,open skyline trees and medium to large shrubs a maximum of 15 feet high.
3. The following design restrictions shall be implemented: 1)Decks more than eight
ground level must be set back at least 50 feet from the north
feet above the natural
property line, 2) massing of development must be such that no part of a building
ithin 30 and 50 feet of
over 15 and 20 feet above the natural ground level may be wportion of a structure
the north property line, respectively, and 3)no second-story Po
may extend across more than 50 percent of a lot's width, or 30 feet, whichever is
less.
4. A subsurface storm drainage system shall be constructed which runs from
Lawrence Drive to Meadow Creek.
Monitoring
Stoneridge II developers shall collaborate with the city to establish a final project design
which incorporates
min
shall
measures 1,3 and 4.
A qualified landscape
architect the City of San Luis Obispo, The
shall be responsible for implementing measure 2; selection
of qualified personnel shall be subject to approval by
species recommendation and planting specifications shall be incorporated into the final
project design prior to any subdivision map recordation.
6
VISUAL QUALITY/AESTHETICS
Development of the project site would be visually incompatible writh the existing visual
setting and negatively impact the viewshed of adjacent Lawrence Drive neighbors.
ueation
5. The applicant-proposed restriction on floor area shall be implemented. No more
than 33 percent of the floor area would be on the second story. The majority of the
second story floor space would be massed towards the street frontage of the lot.
6. Architectural review shall be required of hillside lots and lots bacldng Lawrence
Drive prior to issuance of building permits.
7. Extensive retaining or foundation walls,columns,or large structures visible from a
distance shall be avoided wherever feasible.
8. The exterior surfaces of structures shall be painted with soft earth tones.
9. project lighting shall be kept to a minimum, and tall lighting fixtures should be
hooded and angled toward the proposed project and away from surrounding areas.
10. A plant palette,including native species, shall be required.
N14niI4.t� -
Mitigation measure 5 shall be ensured by the city during review of final project design.
Mitigation measure 6 shall be required by the City of San Luis Obispo.
Mitigation measures 7 through 9 shall be subject to review by the architectural commission
and incorporated prior to final development plan approval.
7
Measure 10 shall be reviewed by a qualified landscape architect. After appropriate plant
species are approved, the landscape architect will monitor the planting of such species.
GEOLOGY AND SEISNIIc HAZARDS
J pacts
Based on the geological data available, potential geologic concerns on the site include
gravity-induced landsliding, ground acCeleration, expansion, erosion, reactive soils, and
asbestos exposure.
adatim
11. A detailed geotechnical investigation shall be completed prior to commencement of
construction. Recommendations from this study and the slope stability study shall
be incorporated into final project design.
12. During grading and disturbance of the serpentine rocks and soils on the Stoneridge
site, measurements must be taken (in conformance with OSHA standards) to
determine the presence or absence of asbestos fibres in the air, and potential worker
exposure to such emissions. If asbestos is detected, a health and safety program
should be initiated and should include providing personal protective equipment to
workers and a worker education program on the potential hazards of asbestos
exposure. In addition, airborne asbestos (and fugitive dust) emissions can be
reduced through the use of water sprays and work restrictions during windy
periods-
Mitigation measure 11 shall be required prior to approval of the Tentative Subdivision Map.
Monitoring shall assure the implementation of recommendations stated in the geotechnical
report.
Implementation of mitigation measure 12 shall occur through the sampling of soils by a
person knowledgeable in proper soils and sampling techniques. The sample shall be taken
to a certified analytical laboratory capable of testing for the presence of asbestos. If the
8
presence is confirmed, air sampling measurements shall be taken as needed during active
constriction. If the level is determined to exceed OSHA standards, a hazardous materials
specialist shall be employed to administer a worker education and safety program. In
addition,the increase of dust suppression activities shall be monitored by an environmental
monitor.
DRAINAGE/SURFACE HYDROLOGY
Impacts
The proposed project would result in grading and the construction of impervious surfaces.
These changes would increase the quantity of surface runoff by approximately 25 percent
Mitigation
13. All grading shall take place during the dry season between May and November.
14. The applicant-proposed new storm drain system shall be constructed.
Measures 13 and 14 shall be explicitly stated in the final development plan prior to city
approvaL Construction of the storm drain system shall be periodically monitored by a
geotechnical consultant-
WATER
onsultantNATER SUPPLY
The proposed development will increase demand on city water supplies by 21.9 acre feet
per year. Since the city's use of water currently exceeds safe annual yield, meeting
additional water demands adversely impacts the supply and represents a significant increase
in water demand.
9
�3ASS>?4I1
15. Require the Stoneridge 11 developers to retrofit at a 2:1 ratio in another part of the
city so the development can be built without increasing water demand. The water
conserved through retrofitting should be equal to twice the expected wager use of
the proposed development This can be, achieved by installing new water-saving
plumbing fixtures (toilets, showerheads, and faucet figures) to replace older
fixtures that use more water.
16. Water conservation measures shall be included in the Stoneridge H development
plan. Water-conservation fixtures (low-flow showerheads, 1.5 gallon toilets) and
landscaping (drought-tolerant plant species, drip irrigation systems) shall be
employed wherever possible.
17. The applicant shall provide for use of reclaimed water, or utilize existing on-site
sources of water,to irrigate Rockview Park
Monitcdnng
Mitigation measure 15 shall be implemented prior to approval of final project design. The
city shall collaborate with the applicant in selecting the most effective method of achieving a
2:1 retrofit of water-conservation devices.
NEtigation measure 16 shall be subject to review and implementation by both the city and a
qualified landscape architect The city shall ensure incorporation of interior water-saving
devices (low-flow showerheads and 1.5 gallon toilets) and follow the landscape architect's
recommendations in approving a landscaping plan for the development. These
conservation measures shall be incorporated into final project design to the satisfaction of
the city. Landscaping measures will require field monitoring by the landscape architect to
ensure proper implementation and success of the drought-tolerant landscaping.
Environmental monitors will ensure implementation of the interior conscrvation measures.
Mitigation measure 17 shall be ensured by the city through verification of incorporation into
final project design.
10 —�7
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Activities associated with construction, such as vehicular traffic and storage of construction
materials, may impact sensitive resources in the valley needlegrass grassland area.
Potential impacts to sensitive plant species may occur due to increased recreational use of
the proposed open space area: Development of lots 9, 10, and 11 would adversely impact
.15 acres of wetlands created by natural seeps. Raptors may be impacted if eucalyptus
trees are trimmed.
Mitization
18. Fences and signs shall be placed along the eastern property line and the 325-foot
elevation contour line of Cheapskate Hill prior to construction activity so as to
prevent vehicular traffic from entering and consequently adversely impacting these
sensitive species and the entire serpentine endemic community. No construction
personnel, equipment, or refuse shall enter or be placed at any time beyond the
boundaries of the eastern property line and the 325-foot elevation contour line of
Cheapskate Hill.
19. The preliminary development plan shall be modified to limit the southern
boundaries of all hillside units (lots 19 through 22 and 24 through 33) so that they
extend only to the 325-foot contour line. Building envelopes within the 325-foot
boundary will be approved with the tract map. The area above the 325-foot contour
line should be fenced and dedicated as a biological open space easement. The
biological open space easement will contain the standard City open space easement
restrictions with the addition of a restriction prohibiting any uses-which alter the
natural condition of the easement area,including cattle grating.
20. Educational and interpretive signs pertaining to any sensitive species onsite and the
valley needlegrass grassland offsite, written by a qualified biologist, approved by
the department of community development, and paid for by the applicant, shall be
posted along the 325-foot elevation contour line, the trails of Cheapskate Hill, and
the eastern property line.
11 uQ
�� 0
21. Loss of wetlands shall be mitigated through re-creation of new wetland areas or
enhancement of existing degraded wetland areas to the satisfaction of California
Department of Fish and Game•
22. No trimming or removal of onsite eucalyptus trees shall occur.
Monitoring
Mitigation measures 18, 19, and 20 shall be assured by the city,prior to approval of tract
map. Measures 19 and 20 shall be implemented by a qualified biologist. Measure 20 will
require joint city and field monitoring, as photodocumentation of said signs shall be
provided to the city, whereas the posting of the signs, within a time period determined by
the city after commencement of construction, shall be monitored by EMs.
Mitigation measure 21 shall be monitored through the development of a wetlands mitigation
plan by a biologist experienced in revegetation planning and familiar with the ecological
conditions in the area. The plan will be submitted as part of a Streambed Alteration
Agreement with the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) under State Code
1603. Jim Lidberg, CDFG wildlife Biologist, believes that wetland concerns for this
project can best be resolved by enhancing and improving the existing wetland in and
around the cattle trough, and creating new wetlands in this same area. Once implemented,
the mitigation area will be monitored by a qualified biologist for at least three years to
ensure its success.
Mitigation measure 22 will require field monitoring and shall be monitored by EMs.
PUBLIC SERVICES
SCHOOLS
The Stoneridge H project is expected to generate an additional 18 students to the San Luis
Coastal Unified School District. This would impact both the elementary and junior high
schools which serve the site as they are currently over capacity.
12
23. Payment of Developers Fees, as rewired by law.
M
No monitoring is required.
FIRE PROTECTION
The project would contribute an incremental reduction in the Fire Department's response
time. Fire access to the hillside units may be impeded' Water service to hillside slopes is
limited and greater flow is required.
24. (recommended) The applicant should financially contribute to the installation of a
signal controller at the Broad StreeVSouth Street intersection.
25. Incorporate 10 foot unfenced access easement between lots 24 and 25 and an
access point at lot 35. Maintain clearing of fire access routes during construction.
26. Assess fire flow necessities to determine flow requirements for onsite sprinklers•
To ensure mitigation measure 24,the city shall specify the amount of payment and receive
-said payment prior to occupancy of any Stoneridge II units.
To ensure mitigation measure 25, the city shall incorporate the access easement into final
al. EMs shall monitor the maintenance of fire access routes
project design prior to approv
during construction.
13
To ensure mitigation measure 26, the city shall require a fire flow assessment and
incorporate it necessary sprinkler systems into the final project design prior to approval.
PARKS AND RECREATION
According to city park standards, the proposed project would intensify the current deficit of
district parks. Since the 49.8 acre open space dedication probably cannot be classified as a
district park,the parkland deficit would remain.
LCl>a�B.Qn
27. The applicant shall contribute to one of the city's capital programs, as outlined in
the parks and recreation element. Examples of such programs include in-lieu fees
and contribution to a construction tax fund.
Monitoring
No monitoring is required.
ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES
TITS Cts
Direct impacts would occur to one of the onsite historic water cisterns, as extension of
Stoneridge Drive would necessitate destruction of the cistern. Potentially significant
impacts to surface remnants of foundations, structures, privies, trash deposits, and other
cultural features associated with the Gingg home site and slaughterhouse may occur during
land disturbance associated with construction. _
Mrigadon
28. A.historic architecnnaVengineering record(HAflR) shall be drawn up for the cistern
lost as a result of the proposed development. The HAER study shall comply with
14
State of California standards and be filed with the local historical society,
archaeological society, and library.
To implement mitigation measure 28, a qualified archaeologist sldlled in historical
documentation shall be employed to write the HAER.
It is recommended that a qualified historic archaeologist monitor all initial grading and soil
disruption. In the event that subsurface artifacts or features are encountered, the
archaeologist should have the authority to temporarily halt or divert grading operations and
assess the integrity, context, and significance of the resources. If the resources are
determined to be significant, a plan should be devised for the excavation,recordation, and
analysis of the materials through a data recovery program-
15
I-sa
�illl��ll SII I„I���jIII����IIII�i�I+I�iilll�i 11 ilii citysAn illS OBISPOSII
MENUMM�F
990 Palm Street/Post Office Box 8100 • San Luis Obispo, CA 93403.8100
January 20, 1992 _
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: PP, Pam Ricci, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: Revised Draft EIR for the Stoneridge II Annexation Project
Attached is the revised draft EIR for the Stoneridge II Annexation project. The Planning
Commission last reviewed the draft EIR on March 13, 1991. The EIR was continued to
allow city and consultant staff to make revisions to address the concerns raised by the
commission and the public at that meeting.
Revisions to the teat of the EIR that have been made since the review of the public review
draft are indicated by underlining. Since the Commission has reviewed another version of
the document since the public review draft, there are sections of underlining in the attached
EIR that were also in the last version of the document. The newest changes (made since
the 3-13-91 Commission review) are outlined in the paragraphs below.
At the March hearing, Phil Ashley, a Stoneridge I property owner, brought up concerns with
the adequacy of the wetlands discussion and wildlife analysis included in the EIR. In
response, staff contracted with Dr. Michael Hanson of Cal Poly to prepare two additional
studies to provide a more comprehensive analysis of these issues (updated Biological
resources Section of document and studies included in whole as appendices). In addition,
a new traffic analysis was conducted by traffic subconsultants Penfield and Smith and other
changes have been made to various sections of the document including aesthetics, drainage,
water supply and public services (schools).
Specific references to the sections of the document where changes to the text were made
or new information was inserted are identified below:
Section 4.2. Visual Ouality/Aesthetics
Figures 42-3 through 4.2-10;
Pages 4-22, 4-24 - 4-26, 4-29, 4-31 The photos were updated to show the development
graphically superimposed. Previously only arrows
were included to show the general range of
development.
/-53
Stoneridge II EIR
Page 2
Section 4.4 Drainage/Surface Hydrology
Pages 4-62, 4-65 Discussion was added regarding impacts of project
drainage on areas to the north (Meadow Park,
Higuera Street).
Section 4.5. Water Supply
Page 4-76, third mitigation measure Mitigation measure added to plumb subdivision
to accommodate future greywater system.
Section 4.6. Biological Resources
Pages 4-77 (center paragraph), 4-78 Text changes incorporating information from Dr.
Hanson's more comprehensive wildlife studies.
(first paragraph, first sentence of
paragraph #2), 4-83, 4-88 (paragraphs
1 & 2), 4-90, 4-91 (paragraphs 1 & 3),
and Table 4.6-1 on pages 4-84 to 4-86
Section 4.7. Transportation
Pages 4-95 (paragraph 3), 4-96 & 4-98 Discussion of side street delays and potential
impacts associated with Broad Street median
project and Villa Rosa traffic signal.
Section 4.9. Public Services (Schools)
Page 4-110 and Table 4.9-1, Page 4-111 School District changed position regarding
significance of impacts directly attributable to
project Felt that Measure A along with
developer's fees would mitigate impacts to schools
to a level of insignificance. Student generation
rates and totals updated.
Other Changes
Appendix C was expanded to include the two wildlife studies prepared by Dr. Hanson.
Appendix G, letter from Department of Fish and Game regarding wetland mitigation, and
Appendix H, additional traffic analysis from Penfield & Smith, were added.
Ouestions/Comments
Please call me at 781-7168 if there are any questions I might answer in advance of the
public hearing scheduled for January 29, 1992.
that every EIR must be certified as adequate before a proposed
project may be approved. The EIR hearing procedures provide the
public forum to -debate the-merits of the project and the adequacy
of the environmental documentation.
The Guidelines define "an adeauatel' EIR as:
(one) with a sufficient degree of analysis to
provide decisionmakers with information which
enables them to make a decision which
intelligently takes account of environmental
consequences. An evaluation of the
-- environmental. effects of a proposed project
need not be exhaustive, but the sufficiency of
an EIR is to be reviewed in the light of what
is reasonablv feasible. Disagreement among
experts does not make an EIR inadequate, but
the EIR should summarize the main points of
disagreement among the experts. The courts.
have looked not for perfection but for
adequacy, completeness, and a good faith effort
at full disclosure. (Emphasis added) .
(Guidelines Sec. 15151) .
Reasonable minds ave, an will continue, to di _ on whether the
EIR, for any large project, provides sufficient information to
"intelligently" assess anticipated environmental consequences. In
the case of Santa Clara County, it certainly failed to predict the
potentially poisonous nature of electronics manufacturing.
Another often debated issue is the efficacy of the proposed
mitigation measures and whether environmentally superior
alternatives are "reasonably feasible" . -It is, therefore, often
very difficult to determine with certainty whether any EIR is
legally "adequate" . It is understandable that decisionmakers want
a puncture proof EIR. Although is quite possible to deliver an EIR
which will withstand judicial scrutiny it is virtually impossible
10
�1 1 L 1�5t(1. � M` P12FSF 7-fl�tol� 4z?
�qz
SI.D G� TY PPwA tZ 6�Mm L55140/V t4EPrP IJ6or-bl
/2q/V,Z� z PM, .5-rots E.At b6F-- c I 9-JF—v ISS
-.-�J.-LY.1.1��-JL•r+�!-�LV��.L1��1.- I�i�� ' G �L7.1/.G��'J_ ---- ._..- -------
-La•--T�t�1L�9K�,.f..1..__1�U�4,UF�.._1��.2_GC�.�G,b1.�_FE��,c�.�11�b�Tub1�
----__-.
)64AIA-U&4- 1S-5_T-P�FEEI �22MrE � 115�501�91.-C,-b_F7:5 -CI.Tr
-
PLFE STI Cb`� IT?40J _---.-----.-- ----- .----\
ITL. Db}In,o>v5 -
KtZM Al-
Tr�ti
,2`lvtl.nGflrr�1� F� 76
F•ok PRC1 F!C%?ZbEFRZ-
�L)s —Pr;;.v;
f�•�--���v�.D� col�9�f,�u�(.s `�MP�I�DRIh1�cr1��1�
GSC {'ROV! D� A-
(,SSE_ a IJ nti�T���ati u��TL�►��i_T�.i�.�'�ST�B,�"���
„ nFTi aA an P: Dt�iT<
C sr6AJIF)CAt jTADVE ��Pt�c
_. . ...►.__.�ron5�2r1Y� .�_ LaSs7.S.r-ol��� ��
!.L 1 R�L...tIT�T�.`�(�►12 }f>�,c�1c�l�/'�MMftl..-1°
��� - -- - -- R•7:i-fW-)<,...FEAPL6-1-9•5H61j J+, HA 1C IV,�131 fJ2--
1rSAA,8)1 4.
D�T)-f �Y b1sPl .r_ _.
To_ b0--tZ56- OF amu.) 1,2, H/4 617-A r _..
a . Sr>4r vc Ju1" o� �r D)106 C21v51D5*77oA5s PEA Cfq)6,
PcSS ESS AG,Azfj F� 41ZK. to l2
P(WDECT
AP� a,� � ra Nom,- 5TH -(crfx.Vic, L
b. GUETIA� M c 7116A770/U6
1ljw 1 SS 161J TD /A7
F�
_ -- �- - - • _ � _ - iirl. ..� ice._,.n �i � �� �Y1 /�A rA llYnr
ii �1 / .• / I I I / / � > r
J
r
/ , r
i'
,c. ,C,Gzt d Svc ' -,
Jtgccao 1� . ��...�►' -,fie .AC-A
1-61
/ � � - � . . � / - Iii . .•
/a �� /ii .�i1 / .. 111 • • :.
I
1 / ' OF
a f • • //
I�� � -- � f� � ♦ ! 9 / � it
' . W. 1
J f
s
I� ` I I / 1 ,/ ♦ t r
I
r �
1 /
i "
� / � .� / s;tel . i / / / �• � r � �
Q _
/ /' . . sal r � / � r � / ' •
i
/, � /. � . � . �, - x.11 .� :• �.
i
� f
r �
�Aru 11114W.6,9M
a / s � I � � I r • � 1 �' A /
RKWAO
i
I
i
I �
I
r
I� . / '_ �.L.ii . iii � � l 1 �� �>. • / i//i
i
� 'i -ii 1 'i f. `• /, !� GN .Ili .� ; I • � i �i s i . ,� / /
I I
r
Na I wt\ g�a,•
F•sch `
ur+o °° ' �•• 1 t j Prospect
Ira ----- -_- (� _ � (( I water b•7�
nk
Ise Jy,
ei
. `• I
Canyon
ST L , C my ark
NAMCMA CAP
ETA D 1 S ik
ea... a inti as71 rk
----_ e•
TankVater•
1 o •. ' b( : e ' I
Tank 27i ze o �Q 0
I a
'Rad Sts t•=
�(KS -TV) " / . t aoo
' % `? X251/
., - i. 4y I
so
Sch ra
� 1� •el ,
O •� i
1 ' t17 a6 •BO 1VT
LIO
�" I ;� '1�� �►. {• ma
'•• I ' /e! r ace. so ` ,
�.• 14 o Hill Y y • :,o \ ,o:
36
y sovrw lar PROJECT SITE a ;.'l•J:: +
sae • �• ` 7J ,: ... -,� 7.
`"'• i railer
at SirolrimeT,ll t i. •-• i
�C . Radio Tower `� a Sch ®% _Z• . 'r .
120 •I °(KATY)' `'<' ler' ��;j i;:.•i •`!•
" s.; water.
r •: 6 r. Tank ' soEJrwwO°o •a-
o
�r 1 j• •• ` G Ro: .
t
Cu
01 i r• Trader
0am 221 1 park ••,
r '\ — e '
Ra •�-6 I \•
•Drive•in �� ..� `\ ,.i' Com,
D Well t Theat4c k , ::k.. ` . .•%
-- - :� w'
e ............
a ! ® Sewlhe • C N
Well • 'Disposal m
a O e�0 0 2000
wellO ; •�.\' Chor1,•�an�'M�e bre�uet-: Gre•el.1 its E
r
SOURCE:San lois Obi 7.5'Cu Ie• 1965 ----- F I G U R E
ERG Stonerldge It Project Site as Depicted on the
Environmental San Luis Obispo U.S.G .S7S Quadrangle 4. 1- 1
and Energy
Services Co.
4-2 (O
��►���III IIIIIiI�I'illll'III I�IIIII I II I
�IJ�I III City o SM WIS OBISN
990 Palm Street/Post Office Box 8100 • San Luis Obispo, CA 93403.8100
February 5, 1992
FROM: City and Consultant Staffs
Pam Ricci, Associate Planner
Karyn D. Smith, Project Manager, Ogden Environmental Services
TO: Planning Commission
SUBJECT: Phil Ashley's Letter of 1-29-92
After reviewing Mr. Ashley's letter with project technical experts, Dr. Michael Hanson,
Certified Wildlife Biologist, and Jerre Stallcup, Senior Biologist, Ogden Environmental
Services, staff prepared the following response. The letter indicates three primary concerns:
1. Expansion of Species List
Mr. Ashley indicates that he saw species at the site which were not observed by the
subconsultants, Dr. V.L Holland and Dr. Hanson, in their field work. These species
include the Brewers springflower,Palmer's spineflower, long-tail weasel, raccoon, deer mice,
California moles, and opossum The addition of these species would not alter the findings
and impact determinations of the plant life and wildlife discussions included in Section 4.6,
Biological Resources, but Mr. Ashley does ask that the additional species be incorporated
into the document.
Dr. Hanson questioned the long-tail weasel being on-site and emphasized that the raccoon
and opossum probably do most of their foraging and eating in residential areas. Regarding
deer mice, Dr. Hanson set up 10 traps and all were empty.
If the Commission chooses to, they could suggest as part of their comments to the City
Council that Mr. Ashley's observances be incorporated into the EIR.
2. Wetland Monitoring_Stwifications
Mr. Ashley's comments on this topic are well taken and similar criteria will eventually be
incorporated into a specific wetland development proposal reviewed at later stages of the
project. The City will coordinate the review of the specific wetland development plan with
the Department of Fish and Game, the permitting agency in this case. The level of detail
of Mr. Ashley's wetland development criteria is not necessary at the EIR stage and should
be addressed to the California Department.of Fish and Game.
3. Significant Impacts Due to Displacement of Ground Squirrels
Dr. Hanson does not feel that the displacement of ground squirrels would present a
significant impact to raptors. He indicated that the principal squirrel habitat exists on the
hillside above proposed development; raptors which may feed on the squirrels hunt more
on the Margarita side of the ridge. Therefore, displacement would be of a minor nature
and would not represent a significant impact to wildlife resources.
Errata to Section 4.1.4
Over the course of the EIR review, the applicant has also agreed that all of the lots that
back up to Lawrence Drive (Lots 1-18 on the original site plan used evaluated in the EIR)
will be developed with single-story homes. For clarification, single-story would not exceed
an absolute building height of 15 feet, meaning that it would be-measured as the highest
point of the building at any one point, rather than an elevation above average natural
grade. Height exceptions to allow a building height of a maximum of 20 feet, measured
again as an absolute height, may be approved through an administrative use permit process.
Therefore, many of the original mitigations related to building height and massing would
be superseded by the following mitigation measure:
■ Lots 1-18 shall be limited to single-story development. A maximum building height
of 15 feet will be allowed. Building height shall be measured as the highest point
= of the building above natural grade, rather than an elevation above average natural
grade as outlined in the city's zoning regulations. A maximum building height of 20
feet may be allowed with the approval of an administrative use permit.
Implementation of the mitigation measure described above necessitates revisions to the
existing mitigation measures in Section 4.1.4; therefore, in conjunction with the previous
mitigation measure, the following revised mitigation measures would reduce the impacts to
neighborhood compatibility to a level of insignificance:
■ The rear lot setbacks for Lots 1-18 shall be 25 feet.
■ The applicant shall install tree screening along the rear of Lots 1-18 to insure further
protection of privacy for residents of Lawrence Drive at the time of installation of
subdivision improvements. Tree screening shall include a mix of tall, open skyline
trees and medium to large shrubs a maximum of 15 feet high.
■ The following design restrictions shall be implemented:
1.) Decks more than eight feet above natural ground level shall be prohibited;
and
2.) Massing of development must be such that no part of a building over 15 and
20 feet above the natural ground level may be within 30 and 50 feet of the.
north property line, respectively.
■ A subsurface storm drainage system shall be constructed that runs from Lawrence
Drive to Meadow Creek.
Errata to Section 4.2.4
In addition, the second mitigation included in Section 4.2.4 on page 4-40 listed below would
be superseded:
■ No more than 33 percent of the floor area would be on the second story. The
majority of the second story would be massed toward the street frontage of the lot.
The third mitigation listed in Section 4.2.4 on page 4-40 would be modified to eliminate the
references to second story development from the second sentence as shown below:
■ Architectural review of sensitive lots (the hillside lou and lots backing up to
Lawrence Drive) will be required prior to issuance of building permits for these lots.
This review shall consider the size mid extent of secondnatoxy development as meii
as—the placement of backyard' windows and decks in relation to the adjacent
Lawrence Drive units. For hillside lots, architectural review shall consider structure
elevations on a lot-to-lot basis.
1-70