HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/23/1996, 2 - PD AND ANNEX 46-96: ANNEXATION AND PREZONING OF A 3.85-ACRE SITE ON THE EAST SIDE OF BROAD STREET, SOUTH OF TANK FARM ROAD (IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT TO THE STATE FARM OFFICE SITE). council °'� 7-23-1b
j acEnaa REpoat 'em'='- �.
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
FROM: Arnold Jonas, Community Development Direct
Prepared By: Judith Lautner, Associate Planner'
0 .
SUBJECT: PD and ANNEX 46-96: Annexation and prezomng of a 3.85-acre site on the east
side of Broad Street, south of Tank Farm Road (immediately adjacent to the State
Farm Office site).
CAO RECONMENDATION
1. Approve the Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact;
2. Pass to print an ordinance approving the prewmng to R-2-PD and C-S-S;
and
3. Adopt a resolution in support of the annexation,
as recommended by the Planning Commission.
DISCUSSION
Situation
The applicant owns 3.85 acres fronting on Broad Street (Highway 227), immediately to the south of
the State Farm property on the southeast corner of Broad and Tank Farm Road. He has a building
permit from the County and is in the process of constructing a drive-through convenience store on
the portion of his property nearest Broad Street. He wants to develop the remainder of the site with
a medium-density residential subdivision. Current County zoning would allow one residential site
per ten acres. To maximize the development potential of the site requires that it be annexed to the
city. Therefore, the applicant has requested annexation.
The first step in an annexation is the prewmng of the property: designating what city zones will
placed on the property if the annexation is successful. The applicant is requesting that the 0.7 acres
nearest Highway 227 be designated Service Commercial (C-S), and the remainder Medium-Density
Residential, with a Planned Development (R-2-PD), to allow some flexibility in the residential
design.
The commercial proposal is to prezone the commercial site to C-S. General Plan Land Use
Element (LUE) policies discourage retail stores, including convenience stores, in the C-S zone,
although the zoning regulations currently allow them with approval of an administrative use
ANNEX and PD 46-96
850 El Capitan Way
Page 2
permit. (Zoning regulations amendments are currently in process that would make the zoning
regulations consistent with the LUE.) The zoning regulations prohibit drive-through facilities.
Therefore, if the commercial project is accepted into the city, it will be non-conforming.
The prezoning request is consistent with the General Plan Land Use Element map and with the Edna-
Islay Specific Plan map. The site is within the "secondary planning area" of the Edna-Islay Specific
Plan. It is therefore subject to design requirements spelled out in the specific plan for this area. The
street design is consistent with the circulation plan in the specific plan.
The PI nWng Commission IAction
The Planning Commission report is attached, and contains an evaluation of the issues identifier)
by staff. The Planning Commission reviewed this request on June 26, 1996. The Commission
recommended approval with several conditions. Issues of greatest concern and the conditions
resulting from discussion of these issues are discussed below:
Density transfer.
The Planning Commission staff report discusses different ways to allow further development on
each of the residential lots. Not discussed in the report, because it initially seemed too complex
a process, is the potential for using the planned development overlay rezoning to allow a transfer
of development potential from the open space parcel to each of the residential lots. A closer
review of the regulations indicated that this is a technique specifically enabled by the planned
development rezoning process. Staff calculated the density that would be allowed on the open
space parcel (minus that within the creek banks) and determined that transferring this density to
the residential parcels would easily allow each of the parcels to contain up to 2.00 density units
(the equivalent of a three-bedroom house and a studio apartment, OR a four-bedroom house).
The Planning Commission endorsed the transfer of density from the more sensitive open space
parcel to the remaining residential parcels. This transfer is effected in the findings and conditions.
The drive-through convenience store.
The Commission liked the"neo-traditional"residential proposal but was concerned about annexing
the commercial property because the use would not conform to City regulations. The convenience
store use itself does not conform with LUE policies for Services and Manufacturing areas, and
the Planning Commission was particularly Concerned about the conflict with the City's prohibition
against drive-through facilities. To assure that the use eventually is made to conform, the
Commission recommended that the commercial property be prezoned Service Commercial, with
Special Considerations (C-S-S). The "Special Considerations" in this case deal with the eventual
abatement of the non-conforming use. Specifically, the zoning requires that the use be converted
to a conforming use in the event of a) any application for modifications to the building or use of
10% or more; b) a vacancy of six months or longer; or c) sale or long-term lease of the property.
ANNEX and PD 46-96
850 El Capitan Way
Page 3
The right-of way:
The proposal includes the dedication of right-of-way for a public street. El Capitan is currently
a private road, owned by the several owners of adjacent property. Staff recommended that the
annexation provide a 56' right-of-way, while the applicant initially proposed partial dedication in
fee and partial easement for a total of 53'.
The Commission was supportive of a narrower right-of-way because of the limited use expected
for this cul-de-sac and because narrow streets are supported in typical "neo-traditional" designs.
The Commission, however, supported the staff position that the entire right-of-way needs to be
dedicated in fee. If it is not, then the right-of-way would lie within two different jurisdictions,
which can complicate development and maintenance of the street. It is likely that the Local
Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo) would also reject a partial street annexation. The
Commission, therefore, recommended requiring a 53' right-of-way to be dedicated in fee. If
adjoining property owners do not agree to dedicate their portion of the road, then the applicant
would be expected to pay all costs involved in City condemnation of the property.
Annexation of additional land:
The applicant's property is immediately adjacent to the city limits to the north, but is separated
from the city limits to the east by about 60' (Refer to the "Annexation Area Map" on sheet 1 of
the plans for a clear view of the site and its relationship to the existing city limits). The 60' strip
between the applicant's property and the city limits is the old PCRR right-of-way. The portion of
the right-of-way adjacent to the site is not owned by the applicant (The PC report says the
property is owned by Southern California Gras. Our most recent information is that it is owned by
a private party, who also owns the property adjacent and to the west of it). If the site is annexed,
there would be a notch in the city limits line, unless a portion of the PCRR is annexed as well.
It makes logical sense to include the land in the "gap" in the annexation. An additional reason for
obtaining that land is that the Edna-Islay Specific Plan calls for development of a bicycle-
pedestrian path in that area, which would continue to Poinsettia Street. If the 60' strip is annexed
and permission obtained, the applicant could be required to install a path in that location as a
condition of approval of the residential subdivision.
The majority of the Planning Commission did not support requiring the applicant to obtain an
agreement from the PCRR property owner to include that segment in the annexation request
because Commissioners felt such a condition would be an unreasonable burden. Therefore, the
staff-recommended condition to include that property was eliminated.
CONCURRENCES
Concerns of other departments are discussed in the Planning Commission report and above.
2-3
ANNEX and PD 46-96
850 El Capitan Way
Page 4
FISCAL EMPACT
Annexation will result in additional tax revenues to the City, as well as additional costs in public
services. As the annexation proceeds through LAFCo, the Council will be asked to enter into a
tax revenue-sharing agreement with the County. The commercial component of the annexation is
likely to produce more revenue for the City than are the homes. On balance, however, this small
annexation is not expected to have a significant fiscal impact on the City.
ALTERNATIVES
The City Council may deny the prezoning and annexation request, upon finding it inconsistent
with the General Plan (Council state reason).
The Council may continue action. Direction should be given to the applicant and staff.
The Council may approve the prezoning and support the annexation, with additional or modified
conditions or special considerations.
Attachments
Draft ordinance and resolutions
Planning Commission report and attachments
Figure 27 from the Edna-Islay Specific Plan
ORDINANCE NO. (1996 SERIES)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
AMENDING THE ZONING REGULATIONS MAP TO DESIGNATE
1)A 3.15-ACRE SITE,ON THE EAST SIDE OF BROAD STREET,SOUTH OF
TANK FARM ROAD,MEDIUM-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL,WITH PLANNED
DEVELOPMENT AND SPECIFIC PLAN OVERLAYS(R 2-PD-SP�AND
2)A 0.7-ACRE SITE,IN THE SAME LOCATION,SERVICE COMMERCIAL,
WITH SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS AND SPECIFIC PLAN OVERLAYS(C-S-S-PD),
CONTINGENT UPON FINAL APPROVAL OF ANNEXATION OF THE SITE
(R 46-96)
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on June 26, 1996 and
recommended approval of amendments to the Zoning Regulations map;and
WHEREAS,the City Council conducted a public hearing on July 23, 1996 and has considered
testimony of other interested parties,the records of the Planning Commission hearing and action,and
the evaluation and recommendation of staff,and
WHEREAS,the City Council finds that map amendments are consistent with the General Plan
Land Use Element(LUE)map and teat, because a)Medium-Density Residential zoning is consistent
with the Medium-Density Residential land use designation on the LUE map and Service Commercial
zoning is consistent with the Services and Manufacturing land use designation on the LUE map,b)
prezoning and annexation of the site is consistent with LUE policies on annexation,and c)the land
use'designations are consistent with those indicated in the Edna-Islay Specific Plan for this part of the
"Secondary Planning Area" (Figure 27);and
WHEREAS,the City Council finds that the map amendments are consistent with the purposes
of the Zoning Regulations and other applicable City ordinances;and
WHEREAS,the City Council has considered the draft Negative Declination of environmental
impact as prepared by staff and reviewed by the Planning Commission;
BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. The City council finds "determines that the project's Negative Declaration
adequately addresses the potential significant environmental impacts of the proposed Zoning map
amendment,and reflects the independent judgement of the City Council. The Council hereby adopts
said Negative Declaration and incorporates the following mitigation measures into the project:
Mitigation Measures_
1. The access easement to the future bicycle-pedestrian path from El Capitan shall be
a minimum of fifteen feet wide, to accommodate an eight-foot-wide pathway for both
bicycles and pedestrians.
Ordinance no. (1996 Series)
R 46-96
850 El Capitan
Page 2
2. Noise reduction techniques shall be incorporated into the subdivision design to reduce
noise exposure to the two residences closest to Highway 227 to below 60 Ldn.
Techniques used shall be consistent with recommendations in the Noise Element and
Noise Guidelines.
SECTION 2. The Zoning map amendment R 46-96, designating the residentially-designated
site R-2-PD-SP as shown on the attached Exhibit A, is hereby approved, based on the following
findings:
Fines
1. The design provides facilities or amenities suited to a particular occupancy group,
specifically moderate-income families, which would not be feasible under
conventional zoning, because the narrow lots combined with simple small three-
bedroom homes allows room for large back yards and adequate living room for
children.
2. The planned development provides more affordable housing than would be possible
with conventional development, because the narrow lots allow potential to reach the
medium-density limits of the site, while the lot designs emulate low-density
development.
3. Features of the particular design achieve the intent of conventional standards for
privacy, usable open space, adequate parking, and compatibility with neighborhood
character, as well as or better than the standards themselves, because the "neo-
traditional" concepts included in the plan make the best use of the site, by use of rear
garages, front porches, and narrow lots, to foster a sense of community.
4. The planned development transfers allowable development, within the site, from
areas of greater environmental sensitivity to areas of less sensitivity by the creation
of an open space parcel over the creek area, to be dedicated to the City and thereby
protected from development.
5. A maximum density of two density units per residential lot is appropriate because the
density is transferred from the open space area to the less-sensitive residential lot
areas.
�-G
Ordinance no. (1996 Series)
R 46-96
850 El Capitan
Page 3
and subject to the following
Conditions:
Right-of-way:
1. The property to be annexed shall be of sufficient size to provide for a 53'-wide public
street right-of--way (El Capitan),If the applicant cannot obtain permission, from the
owners of some portions of the El Capitan road, to offer those properties as right-of--
way to the City, to include the road property in the annexation and to develop street
improvements within it, the City may choose to use its powers of condemnation to
obtain the property. In such a case, the applicant will be responsible for all costs of
acquisition, including legal and court fees.
Utilities:
2. All existing structures currently served by sewer septic systems may remain on said
systems until the septic system fails or the property is redeveloped. At that time, the
sewer systems will be required to be abandoned and existing and new structures
connected to the city's sewer system. Applicable sewer impact fees will be required
to be paid at that time.
3. Existing water wells may remain in use until the time of redevelopment. Upon
redevelopment, water well use shall comply with the City policies in effect at that
time. All new structures shall connect to the City's water system and shall be
required to pay all applicable water impact fees at that time.
Open space:
4. A 15'-wide minimum easement shall be provided, and an eight-food-wide pathway
constructed from the street through the open space parcel to connect to the railroad
right-of--way, adjacent to the east.
Density:
5. Density is hereby transferred from the open space parcel, minus the area between the
banks of the creek, to allow a maximum of 2.00 density units per residential lot.
Ordinance no. (1996 Series)
R 46-96
850 El Capitan
Page 4
Screening:
6. A minimum 10'-wide landscape screen shall be installed at the rear of lots adjacent
to the State Farm site to the north, to minimize effects of noise and glare from the
parking lot.
SEC11ON 3. The Zoning map amendment R 46-96, designating the commercially-designated
site C-S-S-SP as shown on the attached Exhibit A, is hereby approved, based on the following
findings:
Fines
1. The prezoning is consistent with the General Plan Land Use Element and Edna-Islay
Specific Plan maps, which call for medium-density residential and service
commercial zoning on the site, in the proportions and in the locations shown in the
submittal.
2. The Special Considerations zone, in this case, is intended to assure conformance with
the general plan and its implementing ordinances, consistent with the intent of the
Special Considerations zone, as described in Section 17.56.010 of the Municipal
Code.
and subject to the following
Special consideration-
1. The drive-through convenience store use does not conform with City regulations.
Those elements of it that are nonconforming, including the drive-through, must be
eliminated and made to conform with current zoning standards in the event of any of
the following:
a. Any significant change or modification to the use. For purposes of this
requirement, "significant" change means any remodeling of ten percent or
more of the building or any expansion of the building of ten percent or more.
b. Vacancy for six months or longer. If the building is unoccupied for at least
six months continuously.
C. Sale or lease. Any sale or any lease of over 35 years.
Ordinance no. (1996 Series)
R 46-96
850 El Capitan
Page 5
SECTION 4. A summary of this ordinance,together with the names of the Council Members
voting for and against,shall be published at least five(5) prior to its final passage, in the Telegram-
Tribune,a newspaper published and circulated in this City. This ordinance shall go into effect upon
final approval of annexation of the site by the Local Agency Formation Commission.
INTRODUCED AND PASSED TO PRINT by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo at
a meeting held on the day of on motion of
seconded by and on the
following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
City Clerk Mayor Allen Settle
APPROVED:
o
HOPKINS
\���5 �p�A do • '`
vMg1� r
FELICIA ,
tn
lk
?o R-2-PD- Q�Q
sP
. �J}P�jai\)rl
' a
R '
RERO
VOA'
9/,pAD
AIRPORT
N
O
FARM
VICINITY MAP R 46_96 NORTH
850 EL CAPIT A
AN
t-vu 1 tt1-r A �_/�
RESOLUTION NO. (1996 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF RECOMMENDATION
BY THE SAN LUIS OBISPO CITY COUNCIL
REQUESTING THE LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION TO
APPROVE THE EL CAPI TAN ANNEXATION
SLO COUNTY ANNEXATION#39
RESOLVED,by the City Council of San Luis Obispo,that:
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission and the City Council have held public hearings on the
proposed annexation of El Capitan Way and the property-immediately to the north;and
WHEREAS,the City Council on July 23, 1996, by Ordinance No. (1996 Series),approved
a Negative Declaration with Mitigation for the proposed annexation, pursuant to the California
Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15090; and
WHEREAS,on recommendation of the Planning Commission and as a result its deliberations,
the council has approved the amendment of the Zoning Map by prezoning the property for the annexation
(mown as the El Capitan Annexation;and_
WHEREAS,City Council approval is a prerequisite for the San Luis Obispo County Local Agency
Formation Commission to initiate formal annexation proceedings;
WHEREAS,the territory proposed to be annexed is inhabited, and a description of the boundaries
of the territory is set forth in Section 2;and
WHEREAS,this proposal is consistent with the sphere of influence of the affected city,
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE SAN LUIS OBISPO CITY COUNCIL AS
FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1.Findings.
.1. Annexation is appropriate since the site is contiguous to the city on its north side.
2. The site is a logical addition to the city because of its location and existing residential
development adjacent and nearby.
3. The proposed annexation will promote the health,safety, and welfare of persons living or
working in the vicinity of the annexation area
SECTION 2. Annexation Area Described. The El Capitan Annexation consists of that area,
including approximately four acres,on the east side of Broad Street,one lot south of Tank Farm Road, in
the City of San Luis Obispo,County of San Luis Obispo,being Assessor's Parcel Number 76-421-19,as
shown on the attached map,Exhibit"A"
Resolution No. (1996 Series)
Page 2
SECTION 3. Council Recommendation. The City Council recommends that the Local Agency
Formation Commission approve the proposed annexation subject to property owner compliance with city
requirements regarding environmental mitigation and public improvements as described in the project's
Negative Declaration with mitigation,in accordance with California Government Code Section 56844 gl.
SECTION 4.Implementation The City Clerk shall forward a copy of this resolution, General Plan
and prezoning actions,Negative Declaration, and all pertinent supporting documents to the Local Agency
Formation Commission.
NOW,THEREFORE,this Resolution of Recommendation is hereby adopted and approved by the
City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo.
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 1996.
Mayor Allen Settle
ATTEST:
City Clerk
APPROVED:
ty m
-!2-
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REF4T rrEnn u4
BY: Judith Lautner, Associate Planner MEETING DATE:
FROM: Ron Whisenand, Development R iew Manage
FILE NUMBERS: Annex and PD 46-96
PROJECT ADDRESS: 850 EI Capitan Way
SUBJECT: Annexation and prezoning of a 3.85-acre site on the east side of Broad Street, south of
Tank Farm Road (immediately adjacent to the State Farm Office site).
RECOMMENDATION -
Recommend approval of the annexation and prezoning to the City Council, with conditions.
BACKGROUND
Situation.
The applicant wants to develop the remainder of his property on Broad Street (a portion is currently
under construction) with a medium-density residential subdivision. To maximize the development
potential of the site, it needs to be annexed to the city. Therefore, the applicant has requested
annexation.
The first step in an annexation is the prezoning of the property: designating what city zones will
placed on the property if the annexation is successful. The applicant is requesting that the 0.7 acres
nearest Highway 227 be designated Service Commercial (C-S), and the remainder Medium-Density
Residential, with a Planned Development (R-2-PD), to allow some flexibility in the residential
design. The Commission's action will be a recommendation to the City Council on the prezoning and
the annexation.
Data Summary
Address: 850 El Capitan
Applicant/property owner: Kelly Gearhart
Representative: Andrew Merriam, Cannon Associates
Zoning: County Zoning Commercial Retail and Residential Single Family
General Plan: Service Commercial and Medium-Density Residential
Environmental status: Negative Declaration with Mitigation recommended by the Director
May 18, 1996; Final action on initial study to be taken by the City
Council.
Project action deadline: There are no State-mandated deadlines for legislative actions,
including annexations and prezonings.
Site description
ANNX and PD 46-96
850 EI Capitan
Page 2
The site is a trapezoidal essentially flat lot, long and fairly narrow. Eucalyptus trees toward the rear
of the site signal the presence of a small creek. There is little additional vegetation on the site. A
commercial building is presently under construction in the portion of the site nearest Highway 227.
An older house sits just beyond the commercial site. A dirt road (EI Capitan) runs along the
southerly property line.
The site is flanked by the State Farm Office and residential development to the north, various
service-type commercial uses and residences to the south, and railroad right-of-way and residential
development to the east.
Project Description
The project is the annexation and prezoning of the site to C-S (for the commercial property near
Broad Street) and R-2-PD (for the remainder). If annexed, the applicant intends to build thirteen
additional residences (retaining the existing house) on an improved El Capitan Way.
The Planned Development (PD) overlay zone is requested to allow:
• Lot depth-to-width ratio greater than 3:1
• Street yards less than 20'
The Planning Commission should determine:
• If the convenience store should be annexed to the city as is;
• If the City should accept the open space offer;
• If the adjacent PCRR right-of-way should be included in the annexation;
• If the lots should be adjusted to allow for construction of studios
EVALUATION
1. The prezoning is consistent with the General and Specific plans. The property is within
the Secondary Planning Area in the Edna-Islay Specific Plan (FISP). Figure 27 in the specific
plan (attached) shows a) a cul-de-sac in approximately the same location as the El Capitan
Way cul-de-sac would be, b) medium-density residential development north of the cul-de-sac,
as proposed, and c) service commercial property near Broad Street, as proposed. The
General Plan Land Use Element (LUE) map shows the same designations. Therefore the
ANNX and PD 46-96
850 El Capitan
Page 3
proposal for these two types of zoning and for the street cul-de-sac is consistent with these
documents.
2. The convenience store under construction is not consistent. On the other hand, the drive-
through convenience store currently under construction is inconsistent with the LUE policies
for area designated "Services and Manufacturing" and inconsistent with city zoning for the
C-S zone.
The LUE says:
3.5.1 Purpose The city should have sifficient land designated for Services and
Manufacturing to meet most demands of the city, and some demands of the region,for
activities such as wholesaling, building contractors, utility company yards, auto repair,
printing, bakeries, and retail sales of large items, bulk quantities, and items often stored
outdoors (vehicles, building marcrials, plants). Areas reserved for these uses may also
accommodate convenience restaurants and other activities primarily serving area workers.
3.5.2 Appropriate Uses The following .types of uses are appropriate in areas designated
Services and Manufacturing..._
A. Wholesaling, warehousing, and storage,-
B.
torage;B. Vehicle sales and rental;
C. Retail sales of products which require outdoor areas or large floor areas for
display and storage, such as warehouse stores, lumber and building materials
dealers, home improvement centers, fitrniture and appliances stores, and
plant nurseries;
D. Repair shops,printing services, laundries, animal hospitals, sporting goods
stores, auto parts stores, and some recreation facilities;
E. Light manufacturing, research and development, and laboratories.
F. Large offices, with no single tenant space less than 2,500 square feet..
The convenience store use is not consistent with these policies.
The Zoning Regulations allow such stores with approval of an Administrative Use Permit,
but amendments are in process to eliminate this provision. These regulations also say
e;2 WSJ
ANNX and PD 46-96
850 El Capitan
Page 4
.17.22.010 Uses allowed by zones
Drive-through facilities are not allowed in any zone.
The drive-through nature of the store is clearly not consistent with this provision.
If the property were annexed, the City would be accepting a non-conforming use. It is not
unusual, when large parcels are annexed, to find that some of the uses on the property do not
conform with City regulations and are therefore non-conforming. In this case, the store is
under construction and the applicant has been made aware that the use is not consistent with
city regulations and has chosen to go ahead with construction anyway.
Staff has identified the following alternatives for the Commission and Council to consider:
• Accept the use into the city as a legal non-conforming 4se. An acceptance of
an existing situation is not an endorsement of it.
• Require that the commercial parcel be a part of the planned development and
develop conditions limiting the use. For example, a condition might be
imposed to require that the store be converted to a non-drive-through facility
or even that the store be required to be changed to a use allowed in the
underlying zone. The applicant is expected to object to such a requirement
and may choose not to continue with the annexation at this time.
• Instead of a PD overlay, a "Special Considerations" (S) overlay zone might
be imposed on this parcel, with a requirement that any future use on the site
be consistent with the underlying zoning and that a change in use would
require elimination of the drive-through. Again, the applicant would probably
object and may not proceed with the annexation if such a requirement were
imposed on it.
• Annex the residential but not the commercial portion. Such an approach
would likely only delay the annexation of that parcel, complete with
nonconforming use.
Staff supports the first alternative, accepting the parcel as is. If the Commission feels
strongly about the implications of accepting this use into the City it should seriously consider
one of the other alternatives.
7-/l.
ANNX and PD 46-96
850 El Capitan
Page 5
3. There is a small open space dedication. The applicant wants to give the most easterly lot,
0.29 acres in area, to the City. The dedicated area would contain the significant trees on site
and a creek. The City's Natural Resources Manager supports the offer, because it will
provide a dedicated access to a planned trail in the railroad right-of-way area adjacent to this
lot, and because it would protect the eucalyptus grove and creek area (see memo from Neil
Havlik, attached). Staff notes that the environmental initial study recommends that the access
way opening from the cul-de-sac be a minimum of 15' wide, rather than the five feet
proposed. Staff's recommendation, then, is to accept the offer with a condition that the
access from EI Capitan be widened to 15'.
4. The annexation should include the right-of-way. An orderly and logical annexation would
include the railroad right-of--way adjacent to the east of this property, which stands between
the annexation lot and the present city limits line to the east. That lot, which extends farther
south, is currently owned by the Southern California Gas Company. The City may ask that
this additional area be annexed at the same time. There are no specific rules of annexation
(source: conversation with Paul Hood, June 1996) that would prevent such an annexation of
a portion of a lot. However, the process may be lengthened somewhat because of differing
requirements when more than one property owner is involved. ,
Staff supports annexing the additional property and requiring construction of a bicycle-
pedestrian trail within that area, consistent with the EISP (see figure 27, attached). If the
Local Agency Formation Committee (LAFCo) does not choose to approve annexation of that
piece of land, then this requirement would be voided. In any case, access to that area should
be provided through the proposed open space parcel, and the subdivider should make
required improvements to this path at the time of development.
5. The residential design has a lot going for it but a few issues to resolve. The applicant is
proposing to build simple single-story, modest, three-bedroom dwellings, each on its own
lot, with garages in the rear, accessed by concrete-strip driveways. The design and density
of seven+ units per acre is consistent with General Plan policies, which say:
2.4.6 Medium-Density Residential development should be primarily dwellings having
locations and forms that provide a sense of both individual identity and neighborhood
cohesion for the households occupying them, but in a more compact arrangement than
Low-Densiry Residential. Such dwellings are generally one- or two-story detached
buildings on small lots, or attached dwellings, with some private outdoor space for
each dwelling. ...
Length-to-width ratio: Each lot is narrow and deep, in fact has a length-to-width ratio
greater than 3:1. The subdivision regulations say
ANNX and PD 46-96
850 El Capitan
Page 6
15.35.2010 Depth-width relationship. Lots with a ratio of depth to width greater than three
shall not be permitted unless there is adequate assurance that deep lot subdivision will not
occur or that deep lot subdivision and subsequent development will be accomplished without
detriment to adjacent properties.
The size of the lots, especially the width, would not allow further subdivision, certainly not
deep-lot subdivision. The exception should be supported.
Neo-traditional dacign: The home designs are simple and modest in scale, contain porches
and three bedrooms. This configuration is desirable to first-time buyers or any buyers looking
to reduce housing costs. The porches also encourage greater neighborhood interaction, while
the rear garages allow the homes themselves to dominate the street appearance. The
subdivision design encapsulates many "neo-traditional" design concepts, including the rear
garages, driveway strips, relatively small homes.
Studios over garages: One additional aspect of neo-traditional design that should be
considered is the potential for adding units above the garages. Staff would like to see a way
to allow development of studio apartments over the garages in the future. Allowing additional
units can help make the dwellLngs more affordable and is consistenti with the intent of the
Medium-Density zone and of LUE goals for a compact city.
Each lot is approximately 6,165 square feet in area, and allows a density of
6,165/43,560 = 0.14 acre X 12 units per acre = 1.78 units per lot. Each three-bedroom
dwelling counts as 1.50 dwelling units. Therefore, the remaining density available on most
of these lots is 1.78 - 1.50 = 0.38 units. The smallest possible unit, a studio apartment,
counts as 0.50 units. Therefore, without a density bonus no additional units could be added
to each of these lots. To allow the opportunity for each homeowner to add a studio in the
future, one of the following changes could be made to the subdivision design:
• Slightly wider lots could be created, each 7,260 square feet or larger, but there would
be fewer of them.
0 A development configuring the lou differently could be created. For example, lots
could be larger (twice as large or larger) and could contain multiple dwelling units.
The applicant's statement indicates that such a configuration would not be desirable
because of the additional costs and paperwork often associated with such designs (see
attached statement).
• A density bonus could be considered. The projected sales prices for these homes falls
within the limits set in the City's Affordable Housing Standards for moderate-income
�-�g
ANNX and PD 46-96
850 El Capitan
Page 7
residents. To qualify for a density bonus, though, the applicant would have to enter
into an agreement with the City to maintain such affordable prices for a minimum
period of thirty years. (see Affordable Housing Standards Update, attached).
• The City's Second Residential Units regulations could be amended to allow second
units to be detached from the primary dwelling.
The planned development prezoning is based on a specific preliminary design. Some of the
above alternatives could be chosen and would not affect significantly the design of the
subdivision. In those cases it isn't necessary to choose an alternative at this time. If the
Planning Commission and Council support the later addition of studio apartments, staff can
work with the applicant on subdivision designs that are satisfactory to both, that would allow
for such additional units within the parameters set by the Council.
Driveway difficulties. Most of the concrete-strip driveways appear functional and acceptable.
Those on lots 13 and 14, however, may present some problems. Maneuvering on these
narrow strips, especially when backing out, may be difficult when faced with a curve and
long driveway. It may be desirable to widen these two driveways, at)east until the curve is
past. This issue can be raised and resolved at the time of subdivision`review.
6. Commercial area on site is screened from residential. The FISP says
Commercial-Residential Buffer Zone - Where housing is planned next to commercial or light
industrial areas within the city or county, the following things will be done to reduce
potential noise and visual problems. These standards are showrrin figure 16.
In- is Are2c
Standards
A landscaped and fenced buffer area or fenced-bermed buffer area, at least
10feet deep will be provided between commercial and residential land uses.
Ap licarion
Landscaped buffer areas will be located on residential land which adjoins
commercial/industrial areas.
Inctallarion
In medium-density housing areas, buffer areas will be created and
landscapingffencing installed when these areas are developed...
A row of screen planting is shown between the commercial site now under construction and
the nearest residence. This screening will satisfy the EISP requirement.
.z0
ANNX and PD 46-96
850 El Capitan
Page 8
But the office site to the north of this site is not screened. Offices are considered
"commercial development". Such screening should be provided along the rear property lines
of lots one through six. This will mean the garages will have to be set back farther from the
rear property line, but there is more than sufficient room for this change.
7. Street tree numbers are not quite up to the requirements. The applicant says that street
trees will be provided at the rate of one per lot. The City requires street trees at the rate of
one per 35 feet of frontage. About three extra trees will be required to be planted. The extra
trees should be planted on the larger lots.
8. EI Capitan is not quite wide enough and is part dedication, part easement. The applicant
proposes to dedicate 53' of right-of-way to the City in the form of a 28' land dedication on
one side and a 25' road easement on the southerly side. The City standards require 56' of
right-of--way. Because this is an annexation, the full 56' should be annexed at this time. Staff
recommends that the applicant be required to acquire the remaining land area in dedication
for road purposes from the adjacent property owners. If the full road dedication is not
offered, the City may use its powers of condemnation to acquire the property. The applicant
will be expected to pay full costs of its acquisition, including lawyer,and court costs.
The applicant will be expected to complete full road improvements at this time as well.
When property on the southerly side is annexed, reimbursement for improvements of that
side of the road may be sought from the owners.
9. Findings can be made. Specific findings are required to approve planned development
rezonings. Only one of six specific findings (see section 17.62.640) must be made. In this
case, it appears that findings 1, 3, and 4 can easily be made:
1. The design provides facilities or amenities suited to a particular occupancy group,
specifically moderate-income families, which would not be feasible under
conventional zoning, because the narrow lots combined with simple small three-
bedroom homes allows room for large back yards and adequate living room for
children.
3. The planned development provides more affordable housing than would be possible
with conventional development, because the narrow lots allow potential to reach the
medium-density limits of the site, while the lot designs emulate low-density
development.
4. Features of the particular design achieve the intent of conventional standards for
privacy, usable open space, adequate parking, and compatibility with neighborhood
character, as well as or better than the standards themselves, because the "neo-
ANNX and PD 46-96
850 El Capitan
Page 9
traditional"concepts included in the plan make the best use of the site, by use of rear
garages, front porches, and narrow lots, to foster a sense of community.
ALTERNATIVES
The Commission could recommend denial of the prezoning and annexation, if it finds that annexation
at this time is inappropriate and inconsistent with the general plan.
The Commission may continue discussion. Direction should be given to staff or the applicant.
OTHER DEPARTMENT COMMENTS
Comments from other departments are included in the evaluation, above, and within the
recommended PD conditions, below.
RECOMMENDATION
Recommend approval of the planned development rezoning and annexation,to the City Council,
based on the following
Findings:
1. The prezoning is consistent with the General Plan Land Use Element and Edna-Islay Specific
Plan maps, which call for medium-density residential and service commercial zoning on the
site, in the proportions and in the locations shown in the submittal.
2. The design provides facilities or amenities suited to a particular occupancy group,
specifically moderate-income families, which would not be feasible under conventional
zoning, because the narrow lots combined with simple small three-bedroom homes allows
room for large back yards and adequate living room for children.
3. The planned development provides more affordable housing than would be possible with
conventional development, because the narrow lots allow potential to reach the medium-
density limits of the site, while the lot designs emulate low-density development.
4. Features of the particular design achieve the intent of conventional standards for privacy,
usable open space, adequate parking, and compatibility with neighborhood character, as well
as or better than the standards themselves, because the "neo-traditional" concepts included
in the plan make the best use of the site, by use of rear garages, front porches, and narrow
lots, to foster a sense of community.
ANNX and PD 46-96
850 EI Capitan
Page 10
and subject to the following
Mitigation Measures:
1. The access to the future bicycle-pedestrian path from EI Capitan shall be a minimum of
fifteen feet wide, to accommodate a sufficiently-wide pathway for both bicycles and
pedestrians. (See also condition no. 5, below.)
2. Noise reduction techniques shall be incorporated into the subdivision design to reduce noise
exposure to the two residences closest to Highway 227 to below 60 Ldn. Techniques used
shall be consistent with recommendations in the Noise Element and Noise Guidelines.
and subject to the following
Conditions:
Right-of-way:
1. The property to be annexed shall-be of sufficient size to provide for a 56'-wide public street
right-of-way (El Capitan).
2. The annexation area shall include the adjoining segment of the old PCRR right-of-way,
which is designated in the Edna-Islay Specific Plan as a linear park area. The proposed
pedestrian access to the open space area shall be extended through the linear park to connect
with Poinsettia Street at the time of development, to provide convenient non-vehicular access
to French Park. If the applicant cannot obtain permission from the owner of the right-0f--way
to include that segment in the annexation and to develop a path within it, the City may choose
to use its powers of condemnation to obtain the property. In such a case, the applicant will
be responsible for all costs of acquisition, including legal and court fees.
Utilities:
3. All existing structures currently served by sewer septic systems may remain on said systems
until the septic system fails or the property is redeveloped. At that time, the sewer systems
will be required to be abandoned and existing and new structures connected to the city's
sewer system. Applicable sewer impact fees will be required to be paid at that time.
4. Existing water wells may remain in use until the time of redevelopment. Upon
redevelopment, water well use shall comply with the City policies in effect at that time. All
new structures shall connect to the City's water system and shall be required to pay all
applicable water impact fees at that time.
�.�3
ANNX and PD 46-96
850 El Capitan
Page 11
Open space:
5. A 15'-wide minimum pathway shall be constructed from the street through the open space
parcel to connect to the railroad right-0f--way, adjacent to the east. A bicycle-pedestrian path
shall be constructed within the right-of-way in accordance with Edna-Islay Specific Plan
standards.
Density: -
6. Lots shall be adjusted so that density on each lot is at least 2.00 units, allowing for
construction of a fourth bedroom or a studio apartment in the future.
Screening:
7. A minimum 10'-wide landscape screen shall be installed at the rear of lots adjacent to the
State Farm site to the north, to minimize effects of noise and glare from the parking lot.
Attached:
vicinity map w ''
reduced site plan
representative's statement and accompanying maps
memorandum from Neil Havlik, Natural Resources Manager
Affordable Housing Standards Update
environmental initial study
In packet:
Cultural Resources Survey and Impact Assessment for the Gearhart-EI Capitan Annexation
too
I�
Fy�O
HOPKINS
♦ o COQ FELJCW
♦ cn
l
/��
P�
FlERO �`
Vow
AIRPORT N
0
FPgM
VICINITY MAP R 46_96 NORTH
850 EL CAPITAN Aj
. | |
!
■ |2 |
■
2 0� $
■ � .
all'
�
-
�
• : 1 �
¥ | ■ _ � � �
� � � � � � � � � ■ k
w z
CO
«
- e *
w
| � 3
■ ' 2 / S' \ | | a| k
PQ / \
. �
cn w
d � o
PROJECT STATEMENT
El Capitan Annexation & Planned Development Rezone
Proposed Annexation
This application requests annexation of 3.85 acres of property on the north side of El Capitan
Way to the City of San Luis Obispo. Annexation is desired so that full City services can be
provided for residential development. The area to be annexed includes a commercial site
fronting on Broad Street and portions of adjacent properties which make up the southerly half of
El Capitan Way. Approximately 2.9 acres will be developed for residential use.
The current County zoning is CR(commercial retail) and RSF (residential single-family). The
applicant is requesting City zoning of C-S (commercial service) and R-2 (PD),in accordance
with the Edna-Islay Specific Plan and the 1994 update of the Land Use Element. (see Exhibit A)
There is currently an active County building permit for a drive-thm convenience store on the
commercial site. The commercial building is designed to be served by a private well and on-site
wastewater disposal system, as it is currently in the County. The one existing residence on site
has recently been remodeled and is occupied. This residence is also served by private well and
on-site disposal system. It is the applicant's intention to convert these uses to City water and
sewer service once the property is annexed to the City.
Development Schedule
Following annexation,the applicant intends to construct and sell single-family residences, on
individual subdivision lots. The applicant is prepared to apply for tentative tract map approval as
soon as possible after approval of annexation. If the tentative map can be approved by
September of this year, construction of homes can begin in spring of 1997.
Project Description
The project proposes a total of 14 homes on individual lots. All new units proposed are single-
story homes with 3 bedrooms and detached two-car garages sited behind the living unit. The
houses are designed with covered front porches, in keeping with a concept which supports the
neighborhood sense of community. Driveways to the garages at the rear are proposed to be
paired strips of concrete lending an old-fashioned flavor to the development. The existing 3-
bedroom residence on the property has been remodeled recently. A two-car garage will be
added at the rear of this house.
a2-o?7
EI Capitan Annexation&Planneu,ievelopment Rezone
Page 2
The following table summarizes the allowed and proposed development standards.
R-2 Requirements Proposed with PD Overlay
EParkling
Allowance 29 2-bedroom units, or 13 new 3-bedroom units
u. per acre 19 3-bedroom units 1 remodeled unit to remain
2 1/2 spaces per unit 2 garage spaces plus driveway length
ard 20' 10' to 24'
ards 5' minimum 5' minimum
Minimum Lot Size 6000 s.f. 5000 s.f.
Maximum Lot Coverage 50 % 35%
A total of 14 3-bedroom units are proposed for the site. This equates to 21 2-bedroom units and
a density of 7 units per acre compared to the maximum zoning density of 12 units per acre.
The applicant is offering 0.29 acres (12,600 s.f.)at the east end of the property for public open
space. This open space area provides setback protection for the creek as required in the Edna-
Islay Specific Plan. The prominent line of mature eucalyptus trees along the creek bank will be
preserved.
The open space area is directly adjacent to the old P.C.R.R. right-of-way whreh is designated as
linear park area in the Specific Plan. The open space dedication has been configured to connect
directly with the end of the El Capitan cul-de-sac. This provides the opportunity for continuous
public access in the future from El Capitan through to the linear park area and its connection to
Poinsettia Avenue to the north.
Design Objectives
The proposed project is intended to address the need for and marketability of moderate-priced
housing in City of San Luis Obispo. The applicant anticipates a selling price under$150,000
which targets the first-time buyer and is manageable for buyers with moderate income levels.
The primary objective of the project design is to keep costs low by maintaining simple styles of
ownership and construction in the R-2 zone while providing the privacy and usable yard space
typical of R-1 development. The basic subdivision design provides direct access to each unit
from the public street. Design alternatives requiring shared parking or access areas, and zero-lot
line (common wall) construction have been considered. However, these alternatives require legal
agreements or associations that limit the marketability of the homes. Common facilities require
shared maintenance which is often more cumbersome and costly for the homeowner.
While maintaining priorities for straight-forward, individual ownership,the following features
have been incorporated to create a livable neighborhood that will be pleasing to the public eye
and to homeowners.
95030130\projstmt.doc 3/8/96
El Capitan Annexation& Planneu vevelopment Rezone
Page 3
Streetscape
• Houses are setback at varied distances from the street to provide visual variety and to
interrupt direct lines of sight between neighboring homes.
• Street trees are provided, one per lot/house, and spaced at uneven intervals for variety.
Home & Yard Design
• Each house includes a covered front porch with a 10' x 10' usable area for outdoor
living.
• Garages are detached and sited behind the houses to eliminate the visual impact of
blank garage doors along the street.
• Garages adjacent to neighboring housing to the north are setback at varied distances
from the rear fence line.
• Driveways are one car wide at the street and proposed as concrete strip construction,
reducing paving and increasing planting at the front of the home.
• Front yard landscaping will be provided by the developer including low ground cover
or lawn along driveways.
• Fencing is provided along the rear and side lines of each lot. Fencing will not extend
into the front yards,beyond the houses, except as shown between Lot 14 and the
Open Space area.
• Extra lot depth provides adequate yard space for play, gardening,hobby or home
improvement work, with easy access to garage work space.
Parkin
• Parking for guests is plentiful in lengthy driveways of each home.
• Paired driveway ramps reduce the frequency of curb cuts, leaving adequate room for
on-street parking in front of each house.
Specific Plan Compliance
• Screen planting is provided between the commercial site and the adjacent house in
accordance with the Edna-Islay Specific Plan.
• Creek is protected by the setback area provided by the open space dedication.
Non-conforming Design Features
The design of the proposed development varies from City standards as follows:
1. Lot depth to width ratio exceeds 3 to 1. The underlying parcel size and configuration
offers little opportunity to create more conventionally proportioned lots without
courtyards, alleys or access easements. The applicant wants to provide single family
units, unencumbered by shared facilities, easements or costly homeowners
associations. We have therefore proposed direct access to all units from the public
950301.301proistmt.doe 3/8/96 -�9
El Capitan Annexation& Planneu L)evelopment Rezone
Page 4
street, El Capitan Way. The homes have been designed and sited to work
comfortably with narrower, deeper lots that provide adequate yard space typical of
standard R-1 or R-2 development.
2. Street vard setbacks less that 20 feet Houses on lots 10, 11, and 12 have front yard
depths less than the R-2 standard 20 feet. Front yard depths from 10 to 18 feet are
proposed to maintain adequate access to garages at the rear, and to maximize private
back yards. As these units are adjacent to the cul-de-sac, traffic is expected to be little
more than that generated by the immediate neighbors. Houses have been oriented to
provide the greatest front yard depth at the front porches.
Summary of Objectives /Findings for Planned Development
The proposed project takes advantage of R-2 density and planned development flexibility to
provide economical development and construction. These homes will fill a need for moderately
priced, R-1 style residences within the City. The emphasis on private yards and individual
ownership is especially suitable for family living.
The proposed project design addresses the required findings 1,2,3 4 and 6 for planned
development as follows:
1. The project targets moderate income families through economy and simplicity of design.
Three bedroom homes with private yards are featured to appeal to families with children.
2. While the project site is neither large enough, nor varied enough for major transfers of
development density,the proposed project does protect the creek through open space
dedication.
3. Simple, straight-forward design for ownership and construction combine with slightly higher
R-2 densities to provide more affordable housing than would be possible with conventional
development.
4. This project capitalizes on extra lot depth by locating garages behind the houses while
maintaining usable rear yard areas. Lengthy driveways should relieve on-street parking
loads typical of more dense neighborhoods. A dedicated open space connection has been
provided that creates a link between this neighborhood, the area-wide linear park and other
neighborhoods.
6. The PD flexibility in lot configuration allows for the access to and dedication of open space
which is a valuable addition adjacent to the linear park corridor provided in the Edna-Islay
Specific Plan.
95030 1. 3/8/96
-2- 30
.r .
jr
4.
+ tv:�::til• � :� � •" : / •i:}:.••• :. %'f.}
{•::. L ••}:•}:{:•;:•' ....}jai.•
:t:\1 :JJ.l:tip.,~•Y•�!•' � -/ ::•::••• �•••••'.•:•.••.• ••••�
c...•,, :. :1.., ,.•. ,,. ;. ••••••••••••••• « PROPOSED ANNEXATION
9114 me on
•••••••••••••••••••••• • �.p/ ��
•••••Gas
•••••••••••••••• •
•:•ti4L 1 a •••-..-•a e, ...
...•.........•.f•... ..•.
•••••••••••••••••••• ••• •••:• :• bJ
C ••••••••••••• ••••••••••• ••• •
••••••••••••••••••••••• ?tri
•••••••••••••••••••••• O • ••••••• }y,
• • •• •••••• •••••••• •••••••• .•-0i:
••••••••••••••• ••••• ••7••••.• .
does
a•�• •
•
memo•: • • ••
0.:one, 0
.:
LAND USE CATEGORIES
RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY
® COMMERCIAL RETAIL
SCALE NORTH
o a000� N
CURRENT ZONING — COUNTY
may' �r�nOl1 FEL CAPITAN ANNEXATION AREA
ASSOCIATES 4 -31
_�
.- :._-------
" I-$p s0
\ �\J CITI LIMITS
r R-2-S P
s
a QIP p `
2:1z SP C/o5
PROPOSED A
��. Via{ a R- 1-SP
ANNEXATION b
V V
•0.O \
°
?r
0
/ L°°r
LEGEND
R-1 LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
R-2 MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
C-N COMMERCIAL - NEIGHBORHOOD
SP SPECIFIC PLAN
PROPOSED COMMERCIAL (C-S)
>> PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL (R-2,PD)
liannon CURRENT ZONING - CITY
ASSOCIATES EL CAPITAN ANNEXATION AREA
a7.3
P
pPp
10
\\.• PROPOSED ANNEXATION
ENA
EAP
LEGEND .
Low denghy
Detached houses with yards: up to 7
dwellings per acre.
\\\\\\\\\\\ Mean denWty.
\\\\\\\\\\\ Small—lot houses or alloched dwellings
\\\\\\\\\\\ with yards: uv to 12 Iwo—bedroom
\\\\\\\\\\\
\\\\\\\\\\\ dwellings per acre.
Services end Mamdaftft
._ Business services• wholesaling and sales
of large items• and light manufacturing.
(Note: see policies for airport area.)
i
on GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATIONS
ASSOCIATES EDNA-ISLAY AREA ?-33
MEMO RUDDM
Date: June 21, 1996
To: Judy Lautner, Associate Planner
From: Neil Havlik, Natural Resources Manager
Subject: Review of Proposed 0.29 acre dedication at EI Capitan property
annexation
I have visited the site of this proposed dedication of land, and can recommend that the site
be accepted as a dedication to the City, as detailed below.
Description of the Site. This site consist of 0.29 acres of essentially flat terrain, covered
primarily by an open stand of eucalyptus trees of two species, blue gum (E. globulus) and
red gum (E. rostrata), with a sparse understory of forbs and annual grasses. The trees
constitute a local landmark and provide roosting and nesting habitat for birds, giving good
vertical separation from human activities. The site is also traversed by a small creek which
drains the Mine Hill area and lands to the northeast above Orcutt Road. The creek has
no woody riparian vegetation other than some eucalyptus trees; however, herbaceous
riparian vegetation is healthy and Consists of saltgrass (Distichlis) and rushes (Juncus).
This indicates the occurrence of subsurface saline or alkaline conditions, which may
account for the absense of willows. At the time of the visit the creek maintained a small
flow; it was the authors opinion that the flow would probably dry up during the course of
the summer.
Community Values Represented. The proposed dedication is adjacent to the old Pacific
Coast Railroad right-of-way, now utilized in this area for utility purposes (i.e., gas main),
and proposed as a pedestrian/bicycle trail in the Edna-Islay Specific Plan. Some of the
eucalyptus trees on the site are quite large and are visually important. The property would
provide a local connection into the trail system and would protect an additional reach of
the unnamed creek, which is in a protected corridor immediately upstream.
Recommendation. The proposed dedication would serve to protect the eucalyptus grove
and additional creek area, and would allow for connection of the subdivision to the planned
trail. It is therefore recommended that the City accept the offer subject to (1) minor tree
thinning and leveling of old dirt piles, and (2) placement of funds into a restricted account
to cover the cost of future construction a local bicycle/pedestrian connection from the
subdivision onto the main trail. These items are anticipated to cost between $5,000 and
$10,000. Alternatively, the developer could install the connection. It is anticipated that
cost of maintenance of the property would be very minor and connector trail maintenance
could be accomplished within the framework of maintenance of the main trail.
111111 I II �� I IIIIII�IIII
City of San Luis Obispo
AFFORDABLE HOUSING STANDARDS
June 1996
Purpose
These standards apply to all residential projects within the City. They set maximum rental
costs or sales prices based on income level and dwelling size and are used by developers,
citizens, housing groups, City staff and commissions;and housing agencies. The standards are
implemented by the Community Development Director. Besides defining the often
misunderstood term"affordable housing", the.standards promote the construction of housing
which meets residents' needs, and help explain the City's housing. requirements. For more
information about these standards, call Community Development at (805) 781-7170.
The City's Housing Element requires that a certain portion of new housing be sold or rented at
levels affordable to households of very-low, low, and moderate incomes. In addition, State
and local law allows residential density bonuses and certain other incentives in return for
developers agreeing to construct affordable housing, pursuant to Chapter 17.90 of the
Municipal Code. The City uses these standards to determine if housing projects are
"affordable" and qualify for density bonuses, incentives and other forms of housing
assistance.
How the Standards Are Determined
The standards prepared by the City's Community Development Department, and are updated
periodically to reflect income limits which are adjusted annually by the U.S. Department of
Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and published by the State Department of Housing
and Community Development (HCD) for each county, as shown in Table 1. By law, the
upper income limit for "very-low income" households is 50 percent of the median County
income; the upper limit for "lower income" households is 80 percent of the median County
income; and the upper limit for "moderate-income" households is 120 percent of the median
County income. At all income levels, the income limits for household sizes other than four
persons are calculated by multiplying the four-person income limit by the factor corresponding
to the number of persons in the household, and rounding to the nearest $50. HUD's
adjustment factors are as follows:
Number of persons: 1 2 3 . 4 5 6 7 8
Factor: .7 .8 .9 base 1.08 1.16 1.24 1.32
For example, the very-low income limit for a 5-person household is $21,650 X 1.08
$23,382, or $23,400.
2-3�
Affordable Housing Standards
Page 2
TABLE 1: 1996 ANNUAL INCOME LIMITS ($)
INCOME NUMBER OF PERSONS IN HOUSEHOLD
GROUP
1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8
VERY LOW 15,150 17,300 19,500 21,650 23,400 25,100 26,850 28,600
LOWER 24,250 27,700 31,200 34
;. :..:::..:. ::..:. ....:::... .. .650 37,400
10 .
40,200 42,950 45,700
IAN:. 30,300: 34:650 ;38 950 43,300 46,750 50,250 53,704;`> i7,I50
MODERATE 36,350 41,550 46,750 51,950 56,100 60,250 64,400 68,550
Families with more than eight persons. For all income groups, the income limits for
families larger than eight persons are determined as follows: For each person in excess of
eight, add eight percent of the four-person income limit to the eight-person income limit and
round the sum to the nearest $50. For example, the nine-person very-low income limit is
$30,350).
$30,350 (.08X $21,650 $1,732; $1,732 + 28,600 = $30,332; rounded to the nearest$50
_ .
Affordable Rent Limits -
The maximum monthly rents, including costs of utilities, to qualify as affordable housing are
listed in Table 2. The limits are based on a formulas set by state law' and shall be computed
as follows:
■ For very-low income households: Affordable monthly rents shall not exceed 30% of 50%
of the annual median County income divided by 12, and adjusted for household/unit size
(Health & Safety Code Sec. 50105).
■ For lower-income households: Affordable monthly rents shall not exceed 30% of 60% of
annual median County Income divided by 12, and adjusted for household/unit size (H&S Code
Sec. 50079.5).
■ For moderate-income households: Affordable monthly rents shall not exceed 35% of.
110% of the annual median County Income divided by 12, and adjusted for household/unit
size (H&S Code Sec. 50093).
For example, the monthly rent cost for a 2-bedroom dwelling affordable to a five-person,
lower-income household equals the median five-person household income divided by 12,
multiplied by .5, and that product multiplied by .3 ($46,750/12 =$3,896 X 5 X .3 = $584).
Affordable Housing Standards
Page 3
Affordable Sales Prices
The maximum initial sales prices for affordable new housing are based on a formula which
accounts for what a typical very-low income, low-income and moderate-income household can
afford to pay for housing, following HUD guidelines. Sales price limits are determined by
multiplying the annual income limit of the income group, adjusted for household size,
multiplied by 2.5 for very-low and lower income households, and by 3 for moderate income
households. For example, the maximum.initial sales price for a 2-bedroom dwelling would be
2.5 X $31,200 = $78,000 for a three-person, lower-income household; and 3 X $46,750 =
$140,250 for a three-person, moderate-income household. When the number of residents is
not known, the City's affordability standards assume the following household sizes
corresponding to the size of the proposed affordable dwellings, as defined in the Zoning
Regulations
■ Studio unit: use the income limit for a one-person household..
■ One-bedroom unit: use the income limit for a two-person household.
■ Two-bedroom unit: use the income limit for a three-person household.
■ Three-bedroom unit: use the averag of limits for four and five-pe, son households.
■ Four-bedroom unit: use the iacome limit for a six-person household. .
Determining Maximum Rent Cost or Initial Selling Price
Using Table 2, determine household income group and read across to find rent or sales price
under the dwelling size. For example, the maximum monthly rental cost of a 1-bedroom
dwelling affordable to a very-low income household is listed as $433.
TABLE 2: 1996 Rent/Sales Affordability Standards
INCOME DWELLING SIZE
GROUP TENURE
_ .
STUDIO 1-BDRM 2-BDRM 3-BDRM 4-BDRh1
VERY LOW MAxIIoiLtM MONTHLY
TRENT
MAXDAUM SALES $37,875 $43,250 $48,750 $56,313 $627,750
PRICE
LOWER MAXIMUM MONTHLY $455 $520 $584 $675 5754'.
RENT ,e
MAMMUM SALES $60,625 $69,250 $78,000 $90,063 $100,500
PRIcE
MODERATE $972i' $1,112; $1,zq $1:445 $1,612
MX=UM M0NTHLr
RENT
MAMMUM SALES $109,750 $124,650 $140,250 $162,075 $18.01750
PR CE J-Z
Affordable Housing Standards
Page 4
Maximum rent shall include a reasonable allowance for utilities paid directly by tenant (gas,
electricity, water, sewer, trash collection), but not cable TV or telephone. Sales prices may
exceed these amounts only if the City determines that the down payment, plus buyer's closing
costs and monthly payments (PITI) excluding utilities over the life of the financin
level . affordability equivalent to the maximum sales price financed at prevailing market a
terms.
Long-term Affordability -
Affordable rental housing units are maintained as affordable rentals through recorded
agreements between a property owner and the City, its Housing Authority, or another
government agency. These agreements shall specify: a) the maximum rents based on the
same formula which established initial rent levels as a condition of City approval; b) the term
for which rental units must remain affordable; and c) terms under which affordabilityis
maintained after sale or transfer of the property. Bnance, dwellingaffrdable
must remain affordable for a minimum of 30 years, oras otherwi a required by State law.
Affordable owner-occupied housing is maintained through an Affordable Housing Agreement
which typically is recorded as an encumbrance on the property, and secured by a recorded
deed of trust. The Agreement and deed of trust establish the move
diffeence between
initial purchase price and the initial appraised value as an "affordability loan° Payable to the e
City. The loan accrues interest at a rate to be set by the City when the agreement is executed,
amortized over 30 years or other mortgage term as allowed by the Lender. The monthly
Payments (principal plus interest) on the affordability loan are waived ag long as a City-
approved eligible owner continues to own and reside in the property as a principal residence.
Upon sale, transfer, gift or inheritance of the property, the City or its designated Housing
Authority, shall have first right of refusal to purchase theProperty
value. The consideration for the City's first right of refusal shall onsist of 1 perat its current cent of the
remaining affordable loan balance. The balance of the City's loan, after deducting the 1
first right of refusal cost, shall be credited toward the purchase price if the City or its
designated Housing Authority chooses to exercise its purchase option.
II
city of sAn luis oBispo
990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249
INITIAL STUDY
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
1. Project Title:
EI Capitan annexation and prezoning
2. Lead Agency Name and Address:
City of San Luis Obispo
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-
3. Contact Person and Phone Number:
Judith Lautner, Associate Planner
(805) 781-7166
4. Project Location:
850 EI Capitan
Portion Lot 103, SLO Suburban Tract
Assessor's Parcel Number 076-421-019
5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address:
Kelly Gearhart
6660 Navajoa
Atascadero, CA 93422
represented by:
Andrew Merriam
Cannon Associates
364 Pacific Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
6. General Plan Designation:
Medium-density Residential and Services and Manufacturing
V� The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the dlsabled in all of its services, programs and activities.
Telecommunications Device for the Deaf(805)781-7410.
x_ 34
I►►�►a�h��►��iii��►����II►Illlllllll�1°""��►iii
IIII
Cityo San l�uis OBISPO
990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249
7. Zoning:
No City zoning
County: Residential single family and Commercial retail
8. Description of the Project: _
The project is the prezoning and annexation of 3.85 acres to the city. The site is
adjacent to the city limits on the north, and is about 60' away from the city limits
on the east, separated by an abandoned Pacific Coast Railroad right-of-way.
The prezoning to R-2-PD includes a request for exceptions to normal lot standards.
The lots are narrower than normally required, and deeper (a greater than 3:1 ratio
of length to width) than normally allowed. The planned development rezoning
process allows exceptions to normal standards when the result is an innovative
design that could not reasonably achieved without the exceptions.
The request is to
annex the property to the city;
prezone it to:
Medium-Density Residential, with a Planned Development (R-2-PD) for the 2.9
acres farther from Broad Street, closer to the railroad right-of-way
Service Commercial (C-S) for the 0.7-acre portion fronting on Broad Street.
The commercial portion is currently being developed with a drive-through
convenience store, with permits from the County. The residential portion is to be
developed with 13 three-bedroom dwellings on individual lots, each about 45' X
137' (about 6,165 square feet). A 0.29-acre lot next to the railroad right-of-way,
containing many trees and a creek, is to be dedicated to the City for open space.
9. Surrounding Land uses and Setting:
The site is adjacent on the north to an office building for an insurance company
(State Farm), to multi-tenant commercial buildings on the south, and to the railroad
right-of-way and residential development to the east.
OThe City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the csabled in all of its services, programs and activities.
�� Telecommunications Device for the Deaf(805) 781-7410. ?^ ��
►����oh�����ii�►�►�►►I11lIIIIII II�1°°11°����
II
Acityof sAn tuis oBispo
990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249
The site is relatively flat, and contains several trees, most of which are clustered in
or near a creek that flows next to and under the railroad right-of-way.
10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g. permits, financing approval,
or participation agreement).
The Local Area Formation Commission wi+l act on the annexation.
The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services, programs and activities.
Il iVl Telprnmmimiratinnc n) vino fnr the nP.Af/AnFI 7At-72in
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project,
involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the
checklist on the following pages.
Land use and Planning Biological Resources Aesthetics
Population and Housing Energy and Mineral Cultural Resources
Resources
Geological Problems Hazards _ Recreation
Water X Noise Mandatory Findings of
Significance
Air Quality Public Services
X Transportation and Utilities and Service
Circulation Systems
DETERMINATION:
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and
a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there X
will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an
attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WITH MITIGATION
will be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least
one effect (1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal
standards, and (2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as
described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "Potentially Significant Impact" or "Potentially
Significant Unless Mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must
analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there
WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (1) have
been analyzed in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards and (2) have been avoided or
mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed
upon the proposed project.
4
x-112_
June 18, 1996
Si tune Date
Ronald Whisenand, Development Review Manager Arnold Jonas, Community Development Dir.
Printed Name For
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported
by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No
Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact
simply does not apply to projects like the one involved Le. g. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone).
A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general
standards(e. g.the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific
screening analysis).
2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site,
cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational
impacts.
3) "Potentially Significant Impact' is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant.
If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR
is required.
4) "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the i'Gicorporation of mitigation
measures has reduced an effect from sPotentially Significant Impact" to a "Less than Significant Impact."
The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect
to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section 17, "Earlier Analysis," may be cross-
referenced).
5) Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an
effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063 (c) (3) (D).
Earlier analyses are discussed in Section 17 at the end of the checklist.
6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for
potential impacts (e.g. general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside
document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is
substantiated. A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should
be cited in the discussion.
s �-�3
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Annexation and Rezoning 46.96 Significant Significant Significant Impact
850 EI Capitan Issues Unless Impact
Page 6 Mitigation
Incorporated
1. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:
a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? F7T
13
Mao Consistency.
Land use element: The General Plan Land Use Element map (LUE map) designates the site Medium-Density Residential
and Services and Manufacturing, in what appears to be the same configuration as the proposal. The proposed prezoning
is consistent with these designations.
Zoning:The zoning map does not include areas outside the city limits. The prezoning would provide a consistent zoning
designation if the property is annexed.
Edna-lslay Specific Plan. The site is identified as part of the "Secondary Planning Area" in the Edna-Islay Specific Plan
(EISP), a plan adopted by the City Council in 1982, which provides more detailed policies and design for a specific area
than are provided in the Land Use Element. The EISP designates the site as Medium-Density Residential and Service
Commercial, consistent with the proposed prezoning. The circulation design shown in the EISP matches the street desigr
proposed.
Open space element.-The Open Space Element requires developments to include buffer areas next to creeks, to protect
the riparian habitat. No specific width of buffer is required in the element, but the proposed creek ordinance, which would
implement this provision, and a long-standing policy (Administrative Creek Policy, source 14) in most cases call for 20'
setbacks from the top of bank or from the riparian vegetation, whichever is greater.
The proposal includes the creation of an open space lot containing the creek. All buildings are set back farther than 20'
from the top of bank, and all are at least 20' from the edge of the vegetation as well.
Conclusion:No impact. The project is consistent with Land use element, zoning, Open Space element, and EISP policies
and requirements.
Use Consistency:
The annexation request includes a project (immediately adjacent to Highway 227) that is currently under construction.
The applicant has received approval from the County for construction of a drive-through convenience store. If annexed,
this use would be inconsistent with a provision in the City's zoning regulations that prohibits drive-through facilities, and
may be inconsistent with the uses allowed in the Service Commercial zone:
Drive-through facilities:
Section 17.22.010 says (in part):
Drive-through facilities are not allowed in any zone.
The project under construction is a drive-through convenience store. This use is inconsistent with the above prohibition
6
.2—vc/
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Annexation and Rezoning 46-96 Significant Significant Significant Impact
650 M Capitan
Issues Unless Impact
Page 7 Mitigation
Incorporated
Convenience stores:
The Land Use Element says (section 3.5.1):
3.5.1 Purpose The City should have sufficient land designated for Services and Manufacturing to meet most
demands of the city, and some demands of the region, for activities such as wholesaling, building contractors,
utility company yards, auto repair, printing, bakeries, and retail sales of large items, bulk quantities, and items often
stored outdoors. (vehicles, building materials,plants). Areas reserved for these uses may also accommodate
convenience restaurants and other activities primarily serving area workers.
This policy has been interpreted to mean that convenience stores are not an appropriate use for the Services and
Manufacturing areas. Currently, however, the Zoning Regulations allow such stores with approval of an Administrative
Use Permit. Staff is in the process of amending the zoning regulations to eliminate this provision. If the City Council
adopts the amendment, thereby confirming that the general plan language means that convenience stores are an
inappropriate use for the zone, then the use itself will not conform with present regulations.
Conclusion. Less than significant impact. The City's Land Use Element calls for eventual annexation of the site, as
,ell as other sites in the city that would not conform with the uses allowed by the City's LUE. Acceptance of a non-
.fnforming use into the city as part of an annexation is not an unusual situation and does not set a precedent for
future actions.
b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies 4 FX
adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project?
The California Department of Fish and Game has jurisdiction over any work in the creek. No work is proposed or necessary.
No other agencies have concerns with this request.
c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? X
The site is adjacent to an office use to the north, and close to low-and medium-density residential to the east. A residence
already exists on the site (and is proposed to remain). Residential and office uses tend to be compatible with each other.
d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impact to X
soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land
uses)?
There are no agricultural uses nearby on this side of Broad Street. The nearest such uses are the grazing cattle on nearby
hills. The additional residences should not have any effect on these activities, nor should they be affected by them.
e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an X
established community (including a low-income or
minority community)?
7 Z—�L.Sor
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Annexation and Rezoning 46-96 Significant Significant Significant Impact
850 IS call Issues Unless Impact
Page 8 Mitigation
Incorporated
2. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal:
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population X
projections?
The project includes the construction of thirteen homes. An average of 2.48 persons live in each occupied residence in
the city, according to date from the 1990 census. If the project were occupied at this rate, then, about 13 X 2.48 =
32.24 = 32 persons would be expected tolive here. The LUE anticipates a population increase of about one percent, or
about 420 persons, per year during the 1990s. The project would thus account for about 32/420 = 7.6 = 8% of one
year's increase.
Conclusion. Not significant.
b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or X
indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area or
major infrastructure?
No significant new infrastructure is proposed. The project will not enable further development in the area.
c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? X
The existing house on the site is to remain. The proposed housing is expected to be affordable.
3. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving:
a) Fault rupture?
X
The nearest significant fault, the San Andreas, is about 40 miles away from the city. The other active faults in the area,
Nacimiento, Rinconada, and Hosgri, all lie outside the city limits and are expected to have a negligible effect on the city.
Under the Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zones Act, the State Geologist is required to delineate appropriately wide special
studies zones to encompass all potentially and recently-active fault traces deemed sufficiently active and well-defined as
to constitute a potential hazard to structures from surface faulting or fault creep. In San Luis Obispo County, the Special
Studies Zone is limited to a zone along the San Andreas fault. The edge of this study area touches the westerly city limits
line, near Los Osos Valley Road, but is present nowhere else in the city. No fault lines exist on the project site.
ffnotcommon
ground shaking? 5 X
s in an area of"high seismic hazards", according to the informational map atlas. Much of the southerly part of
nd portions of the remainder are in high or very-high seismic zones. This means that seismic ground shaking
arthquake is highly likely. Building codes require new structures to be built to resist such shaking or to remain
an earthquake, which should mitigate effects as much as possible. The site is not subject to any hazards that
mon in much of the city.
c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? X
d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? X
8
1—'((0
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Annexation and Rezoning 46-96 Significant Significant Significant Impact
850 El Capitan Issues Unless Impact
Page 9 Mitigation
Incorporated
e) Landslides or mudflows? 5 X
According to the map atlas (source 5), the property has "nil" landslide potential.
f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions X
from excavation, grading or fill? _
The site is relatively flat, except for the creek. Grading operations will be done in accordance with the City's grading
regulations and should not create any erosion or unstable soil difficulties.
g) Subsidence of the land?
X
h) Expansive soils? 5 X
The informational map atlas shows the soil as type "SnA", which is a soil type with "no limiting factors". The soil has
-evere shrink-swell potential, but construction on such soil is possible with the proper foundation. Soils reports will be
quired to be submitted as part of the building permit application, and recommendations in the reports must be followed
in the design. This process will assure that the soils present no problems in the near- or ldhg-term.
i) Unique geologic or physical features? X
4. WATER. Would the proposal result in:
a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the X
rate and amount of surface runoff?
All construction causes changes in drainage patterns, absorption rates, and the amount of surface runoff. However,
construction codes are required to be followed, and these codes will limit these impacts to less than significant.
b) Exposure of people or property to water-related hazards 7 X
such as flooding?
Much of the property appears to be in a flood plain (available flood insurance rate maps are at too small a scale to allow
exact determinations of the limits of flooding on this site). A hydrology study will be required at the time of subdivision
submittal, and buildings will be required to be built in accordance with the City's Flood Prevention Regulations. These
requirements will limit the exposure of people or property to water-related hazards or flooding.
C) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of X
surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen
or turbidity?
The creek on the site is proposed to be left in its natural state, and no discharge to it is planned.
_T
Zhanges in the amount of surface water in any water X
body?
9
Issues and Supporting Information Sources sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Annexation and Rezoning 46-96 Significant Significant Significant Impact
850 EI Capitan Issues Unless Impact
Page 10 Mitigation
Incorporated
There are no water bodies in the vicinity except the creek near the railroad. If the drainage from the development enters
the creek it will not be of sufficient volume to change the amount of surface water in the creek.
e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water X
movements?
No changes to the creek are proposed.
f) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through X
direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of
an aquifer by cuts or excavations or through substantial
loss of groundwater recharge capability?
No direct additions to or withdrawals from the groundwater are proposed at this time, in addition to withdrawals from
existing wells.
g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? X
rThereare
s to use groundwater are included.
cts to groundwater quality? X
dential development is not expected to have significant effects on water quality. '
tantial reduction in the amount of groundwater X
wise available for public water supplies?
e no public wells in the vicinity.
UALITY. Wouldthe proposal:
e any air quality standard or contribute to an 7X
ng or projected air quality violation (Compliance with
APCD Environmental Guidelines)?
The CEQA Air Quality Handbook (source 7) sets thresholds for air quality effect significance. The threshold is 10 lbs of
reactive organic gases, oxides of nitrogen, sulfur dioxide, or fine particulate matter per day. Such a threshold is reached
when 35 or more single homes are constructed. This project includes the construction of 13 homes, and therefore i s not
expected to contribute significantly to the degradation of the air quality.
b) Expose Sensitive receptors to pollutants? X
The project is residential and does not involve pollutant producers beyond the automobiles and some appliances common
in residences today. The exposure of residents to what is essentially their own pollutants is not expected to be significant.
-T
c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause X
any change in climate?
d) Create objectionable odors?
X
10
a-�
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Annexation and Rezoning 46-96 Issues Unless Impact
850 8 Capitan
Page 11 Mitigation
Incorporated
6. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? 8,9 X
The project, which consists of the thirteen new residences, is expected to generate 101 trips per day, or about 13 per
peak hour. All of the traffic will use EI Capitan and Broad Street. Cal Trans does not see a significant impact on traffic in
the area.
b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp curves X
or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g.
farm equipment))?
c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? X
Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? X
Each residence will have a two-car garage plus an-additional parking and backup area, consistent with requirements for
typical single-household residences.
e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? X
f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting altemative 3,10 X
transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Annexation and Rezoning 46-96 Significant Significant Significant Impact
850 E3 Capitan Issues Unless Impact
Page 12 Mitigation
Incorporated
Bicycle spaces: The City's Bicycle Transportation Plan (source 10) says that for dwellings in the Medium-Density
Residential zone, short- term bicycle spaces should be provided at the rate of five percent of the required automobile
spaces. In this case, the requirement would be 5% of two = 0.10 bicycle parking space per dwelling, or 0.10 X 13 =
1.3 short-term spaces for the development.
There is no practical location for this one short-term space unless it is located on the sidewalk, which does not appear
to be a logical location for a bicycle rack in a residential area.
Because the development consists of single-residence tots, similar to what is normally developed in the Low-Density
Residential (R-1) zone, it is more appropriate to require bicycle spaces in accordance with what would normally be required
in that zone. Because of the ample opportunities to store bicycles in single-residence developments, there is no specific
requirement for this zone. The garages are wider than normally required, and will easily accommodate storage of two or
more bicycles.
Conclusion. Not significant.
Bicycle paths: The Bicycle Transportation Plan also delineates where future bicycle paths should be constructed. There
is no plan for a bicycle path on this street.
The EISP (source 3) map shows a system of linear parks throughout the specific plan area.;The linear parks are intended
to provide a place for pedestrian and bicycle paths through the development, which offer an alternative to motor vehicle
transportation. Figure 27 in the specific plan shows one of these paths within what appears to be the railroad right-of-way
just east of the site. The project plans show access to this area by way of an open space parcel proposed to be granted
to the City. The access proposal is consistent with the City's goals to promote alternative transportation, but the width
of access at its narrowest (at the end of EI Capitan) is shown as only five feet. This width does not appear adequate to
support an acceptable pathway.
Conclusion. May be significant.
Recommended mitigation.
The access to the future bicycle-pedestrian path from EI Capitan shall be a minimum of fifteen feet wide, to accommodate
a sufficiently-wide pathway for both bicycles and pedestrians.
Public transit:The City's Transit Manager indicates that no bus turnouts are required in this vicinity.
Conclusion. Not significant.
g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts (e.g. compatibility 3,11
with San Luis Obispo Co. Airport Land Use Plan►? X
The Airport Land Use Plan (source 11) indicates that the site is in area 6, and "single family" residential uses are
"compatible" with the airport use in this area. A residential subdivision in this location is consistent with the Edna-Islay
Specific Plan (EISP), and the EISP (source 3) was reviewed by the Airport Land Use Commission and approved.
The nearest railroad is about 1,000 to the east. A residential area and park lie between the project site and the railroad
tracks, and sound walls have been constructed near the tracks. The railroad will have a minimal impact on the site.
12
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than qNoAnnexation and Rezoning 46-96 Significant Sign cant Significant
850 El Capitan Issues Unless Impact
Page 13 Mitigation
Incorporated
E7. BlfOLOGICALRESOURCES. Would the proposal affect:
hreatened or rare species or their habitats 12 X
not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals
There are no known endangered species in the vicinity, although some endangered or candidate species (Southwestern
Pond Turtle (Clemmys marmorata pallida), Red-legged Frog (Rana aurora draytonii), Pallid bat (Antrozous pallidus)) exist
or are suspected to exist in the general area, primarily near the creeks.
An investigation of Southwestern Pond turtles was done as a condition of approval of Tract 1750, a six-phase
development project on the east side of the railroad tracks directly east of the site. The study (source 12) concluded that
there are turtles in several of the creeks nearby, but the study did not investigate the specific creek on this site. The study
further noted the existence of Pallid bats in the culvert under Orcutt Road.
The valuable part of the site,from a wildlife habitat standpoint, is that area near the creek, which is encompassed in the
parcel at the easterly end of the site. This parcel contains the creek and most of the vegetation near it (primarily
eucalyptus trees), and is proposed to be dedicated to the City. This is the area most likely to contain listed or endangered
oecies, if any exist on the site. The proposal to dedicate the land to the City as open space is one way to protect the
jbitat. Buildings are set back at least 20'from the edge of the vegetation as well, consistentyvith City policies on creeks.
Conclusion. Not a significant impact.
b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)? X
There are no heritage trees on the site. No other species of plants or animals are "locally designated".
c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak forest, X
coastal habitat, etc.)?
d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool? X
There is a creek at the easterly edge of the site. The creek is to be provided its own lot, which is to be dedicated to the
City. Such dedication to the City or to some other entity charged with creek.protection is sufficient to retain the habitat
value of the creek area.
e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? X
See d), above.
13
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Annexation and Rezoning 46-96 Significant Significant Significant Impact
850 M Capitan Issues Unless Impact
Page 14 Mitigation
Incorporated
8. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? �q
X
The Energy Conservation Element policies encourage the use of techniques to minimize energy use. The project would
expand an already developed neighborhood in accordance with the EISP, which was reviewed for consistency with the
Energy Conservation Element. The specific design emphasizes the homes at the expense of the garages, which are located
at the rear of the lots. Home designs are simple and compact and flake efficient use of materials. Lots are oriented in.a
north-south direction because of the shape of the site and the existence of El Capitan Way. Even with this orientation,
though, it would be possible for residents to take advantage of solar heating panels on the gable-on-hip roofs facing the
street.
Conclusion. Less than significant. There are no conflicts with policies in the Energy Conservation Element.
b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient
manner? X
c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral
resource that would be of future value to the region and X
the residents of the State?
9. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve:
a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous
substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides, X
chemicals or radiation)?
b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan?
The project meets response requirements if built in accordance with City standards, amil
c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health
hazard?
d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health
hazards?
e) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable brush,
grass, or trees?
14
_ a sz
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Annexation and Rezoning 46-96 Significant Significant Significant Impact
850 8 Capitan Issues Unless Impact
Page 75 Mitigation
Incorporated
10. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increase in existing noise levels? X
Single homes do not usually add significantly to ambient noise levels. In this case, the homes are close to Broad Street
(Highway 227), which generates greater levels of noise than are normally generated by residential subdivisions.
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? 15
The Noise Element of the General Plan and its accompanying Noise Guidebook (source 15) say that a "generally acceptable
level of noise for residences is 60 decibels, average (60 Ldn). The guidebook estimates that at buildout, noise from
Highway 227 will be reduced to 60 Ldn at a distance of 292 feet from the center of the roadway. Residences set back
this far or farther from the highway will be exposed to "acceptable" noise levels.
The right-of-way for Highway 227 varies in this area. It is approximately 84' adjacent to the site. Therefore, a distance
of 292' will be 250' from the property line, or partway into the second residential parcel. Residence no. 1 and a portion
of no. 2 (the existing house) will be affected by levels higher than 60 Ldn, in fact levels that are, according to charts in
the noise guidelines, between 60 and 65 Ldn.
,ise levels between 60 and 70 Ldn are "normally unacceptable", according to the element.
The site is also within an area which may be affectedby airport noise. Figure 6 in the Noise Element shows projected noise
contours for the theoretical capacity of the airport. The site is beyond the 60 Ldn contour, and therefore is exposed to less
than 60 dB from airport operations. The incremental addition of noise from the airport to the noise from Highway 227 is
insignificant.
Conclusion.-May be significant. The first two homes are expected to be exposed to noise levels between 60 and 65 Ldn
Recommended mitigation:
Noise reduction techniques shall be incorporated into the subdivision design to reduce noise exposure to the two
residences closest to Highway 227 to below 60 Ldn. Techniques used shall be consistent with recommendations in the
Noise Element and Noise Guidelines.
11. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered
government services in any of the following areas:
a) Fire protection? X
A new fire hydrant will be required on Broad Street, and the public main in EI Capitan will be required to supply the
required fire-flow for the proposed development. All new structures will be required to have fire sprinklers. The public
distribution main on Broad Street appears adequate for the development.
Conclusion: No impact.
b) Police protection? X
15
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Annexation and Rezoning 46-96 Significant Significant Significant Impact
850 EI Capitan Issues Unless Impact
Page 16 Mitigation
Incorporated
c) Schools?
20 X
The proposed subdivision will contain 13 single homes. In San Luis Obispo, according to census figures (source 17),
the average household size is 2.48 persons. If all 13 homes are occupied, the projected population of this subdivision
would be 13 X 2.48 = 32. Also according to census figures, approximately 13.8% of the city's population is aged
seventeen or younger. Therefore, we would expect to find 32 X 13.8% = 4.45 = 4 school-age children living in this
subdivision. The number may actually be slightly higher because the EISP area tends to attract young families.
The school districts in this state are separate governing bodies with authority to collect fees to finance school
construction and parcel acquisition. Section 65995 of the Government Code prohibits the City from denying a
subdivision or collecting any fees beyond those required by the school district itself, to mitigate effects of inadequate
school facilities. Any effect that the additional 4+ children will have on school facilities will be mitigated in whole or
in part by the district's per-square-foot fees, charged at the time of building permit issuance for each home.
Conclusion. Less than significant.
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads?
X
e) Other governmental services?
X
12. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies, or
substantial alterations to the following utilities:
a) Power or natural gas?
X
b) Communications systems?
X
c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? 16
X
d) Sewer or septic tanks?
X
The City's wastewater treatment plant has adequate capacity to serve this development. However, the lift station that
will be serving the development is at capacity.
The sewer serving this development is tributary to the Tank Farm-Rockview lift station system. Lift station fees will be
charged. Any work done to increase capacity will offset lift station fees. Participation in a project to construct a gravity
sewer replacement to the lift statio system may be required in addition to or instead of the lift station fees.
Conclusion: Less than significant. The project will, by ordinance, be required to contribute to the costs of increasing
capacity at the lift station or in the cost of a new gravity sewer line.
e) Storm water drainage?
X
16
�-Sy
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Annexation and Rezoning 46-96 Significant Significant Significant Impact
850 FJ Capitan Issues Unless Impact
Page 17 Mitigation
Incorporated
The lots will be required to drain to the street or to some other acceptable drainage point. From here it may drain to the
creek on site. A hydrology study will be required to be submitted along with the tentative tract map, that reviews existing
drainage patterns, predicts future runoff, and makes recommendations to avoid any danger or damage to persons or
property.
ELocaConclusion:The additional runoff from thirteen homes is not expected11 11 to11 have a significant effect on storm water drainage.
l
disposal? _ - X
onal water supplies? X
The city's water supply is limited. Supplies available for new development are restricted and only available through
retrofitting. Currently, the City requires all development that will increase water use to obtain a water allocation. The most
reliable way to obtain such an allocation is to retrofit existing plumbing fixtures inside the city limits, with the goal of
saving twice as much water as the new development is likely to use. (See below for possible changes to these
requirements.)
,ddition, the City has restricted the total amount of water available to annexations to 33 acre-feet.
The project is expected to use I?
0.30 acre-feet/dwelling X 13 dwellings = 4 acre-feet of water. To obtain this water from the city's supplies, the developer
will have to retrofit existing plumbing fixtures. If other annexations use all of the 33 acre-feet available for annexations
prior to application by this developer for building permit, no water allocations will be issued and no homes will be built,
until additional resources are available or until the City Council determines that additional water will be made available for
annexations.
The City's Water&Wastewater Management Element(source 16)'projects the city's water needs at its ultimate build-out
of 56,000 people. The project site is included in the anticipated build-out, because it was in the Urban Reserve at the time
the element was adopted.
The City Council initiated changes to the Water & Wastewater Element on March 13, 1996, to increase that available to
annexations to approximately 260 acre-feet, which would likely accommodate the subdivision and any other annexations
to the city in the near future. The changes would also allow retrofitting at a 1:1 ratio rather than the 2:1 now required.
These changes have not yet been adopted, however. New water supplies are currently being sought through three
projects: Reuse of treated effluent, Salinas Reservoir expansion, and the Nacimiento water supply project. These three
sources are expected to yield 6,263 acre-feet/year, sufficient to serve this and other expansion projects up to the projected
city build-out, plus reserve. It is unlikely that any of these projects will go online before 2001, however.
Conclusion:Less than significant. The City is committed (source 16) to supplying adequate safe water for all inhabitants
at its ultimate build-out of 56,000 persons. Water may not be available immediately for the proposed project, but should
be by 2001. No mitigation needed.
1? AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
a, . .rfect a scenic vista or scenic highway? X
17
e?-Sf
[Annexation
=18
rting Information Sources sources Potential)
6-96 V Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant SignificantImpact
Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect?
X
c) Create light or glare?
X
14. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a) Disturb paleontological resources?
17
X
A cultural resources survey was made of the site. Nothing of value historically or prehistorically was found. Significant
disturbance of the soil and the fact that the site is in a floodplain led the survey author to conclude that it is highly unlikely
that any buried deposits will be found during construction of the project. No additional archaeological investigations were
recommended.
b) Disturb archaeological resources?
17
X
c) Affect historical resources?
17
X
d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which
would affect unique ethnic cultural values? 17
X
e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the
potential impact area? 17
X
15. RECREATION. Would the proposal:
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks 1 g
or other recreational facilities? X
---------------
The thirteen homes will add incrementally to the demand for parks and onal facilities. Park-in-lieu fees will
other recreatitill
be required to be paid to the City to help finance additional park space or the vicinity. These fees should be
sufficient to offset the effect of the additional demand. equipment
D) Affect existing recreational opportunities?
X
16. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
18
issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources a
entially Less Than No
Annexation and Rezoning 46-96 nificant Significant Impact850 Capitan ess Im aMPage 19 gationprporated
rt
Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality
f the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a X
sh or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to
rop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a
lant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict
he range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or
eliminate important examples of the major periods of
California history or prehistory? -
See sections 7 and 14 in this report.
b) Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term,
to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? X
Short- and long-term goals are the same.
c) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited,
but cumulatively considerable? X
('Cumulatively
-onsiderable" means that the incremental effects of a ,y
project are considerable when viewed in conneption with
the effects of the past projects, the effects of other current
projects, and the effects of probable future projects)
Incrementally, all development contributes to the degradation of air quality. The effects of development within the city's
Urban Reserve Line were analyzed in the Land Use and Circulation Elements Environmental Impact Report (source 19). The
analysis concluded that programs in the Circulation Element aimed at reducing emissions would result in a less than
significant impact cumulatively.
d) Does the project have environmental effects which will
cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either X
directly or indirectly?
The project is not expected to have significant adverse effects on human beings.
r17. EARLIER ANALYSES.
analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have
adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration. Section 15063 (c) (3) (D). In this case a discussion
d identify the following items:
rlier analysis used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review.
i
N lier analysis was used that was specifically related to this project.
19
.2-S7
b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately
analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed
by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
not applicable
C) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the mitigation
measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-
specific conditions of the project.
not applicable
Authority: Public Resources Code Sections 21083 and 21087.
Reference: Public Resources Code Sections 21080 (c), 21080.1, 21080.3, 21082.1, 21083, 21083.3, 21093, 321094,
21151; Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino, 202 Cal. App. 3d 296 (1988);Leonofff v. Monterey Board of Supervisors, 222
Cal. App. 3d 1337 (1990).
18. SOURCE REFERENCES
1 General Plan Land Use Element and map, City of San Luis Obispo, 1994
2 Zoning Regulations, City of San Luis Obispo, as amended 1995
3 Edna-Islay Specific Plan, City of San Luis Obispo, adopted 1982
4 California Fish & Game Code Section 700 et seq
5 Informational Map Atlas, City of San Luis Obispo, 1975 Mprole
6 Cityof San Luis Obispo Flood Prevention Regulations, DATE?
7 CEQA Air Quality Handbook, Air Pollution Control District, August 1998 Letter from Cannon Associates (Andrew Merriam) dated May 15, 1996lable inproject files in Community Development Department9 Letter from the State Department of Transportation dated May 23, 199
Community Development Department
10 Bicycle Transportation Plan, City of San Luis Obispo, Oct. 1993
11 Airport Land Use Plan, Airport Land Use Commission, County of San Luis Obispo, 1973
12 Final Report: The Arbors at Islay hill Southwestern Pond Turtle Study, Hunt and Bowland, March 1995
(available in the Community Development Department)
13 Open Space Element of the General Plan, City of San Luis Obispo, Jan. 1994
14 Energy Conservation Element of the General Plan, City of San Luis Obispo, April 1981, as amended 1982
15 Noise Element of the General Plan and Noise Guidebook, City of San Luis Obispo, May 1996
16 Water & Wastewater Management Element, City of San Luis Obispo, November 1994
17 Cultural Resources Survey and Impact Assessment for the Gearhart-EI Capitan Annexation, San Luis Obispo
County, California, Clay A. Singer, June 5, 1996
20
__
-2-5,f
18 Resolution no. 8373 (1994 Series), restructuring Park-in-Lieu fees, adopted by the City of San Luis Obispo,
November 22, 1994
19 Environmental Impact Report on the Land Use and Circulation Elements, Fugro-McClelland (West), Inc.,
adopted by the City of San Luis Obispo 1994
20 State Government Code section 65995, State of California
19. MITIGATION MEASURES/MONITORING PROGRAM
1 Mitigation Measure:
The access to the future bicycle-pedestrian path from EI Capitan shall be a minimum of fifteen feet wide, to
accommodate a sufficiently-wide pathway for both bicycles and pedestrians.
Monitoring Program:
The tentative subdivision map will be reviewed for compliance with this measure.
2 Mitigation Measure:
Noise reduction techniques shall be incorporated into the subdivision design to reduce noise exposure to the
two residences closest to Highway 227 to below 60 Ldn. Techniques used shall be consistent with
recommendations in the Noise Element and Noise Guidelines.
Monitorino Program:
The subdivision map will be reviewed for compliance with this requirement.
The above mitigation measures are included in the project to mitigate potential adverse environmental impacts. Section
15070(b)(1)of the California Administrative Code requires the applicant to agree to the atiove mitigation measures before the
proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration is released for public review. I hereby agree to the mitigation measures and
monitoring program outlined above.
Applicant Date
21
.07_57f
P4
ISI'♦�'•f��'�
I��♦♦♦�f'ff'.f♦.♦♦�=.y'f'yf♦'♦♦f'��� i
i
f S s f♦Of'••' ♦ ♦'yf'jf�♦�''j•'�y jam♦
♦ •
s9♦'0fyr!,.►�y0_00�y��•.f'�♦♦♦���♦♦mss
o
•
J
•
t =
i
r \