HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/23/1996, 3 - TRACT 127-95 (COUNTY FILE # TR 2211): SUBDIVISION OF RECENTLY-ANNEXED AREA INTO 44 RESIDENTIAL LOTS, PLUS OPEN SPACE AND DETENTION BASIN LOTS, WESTERLY OF AND BETWEEN GOLDENROD LANE AND FULLER ROAD. council ?z3-��
j acEnba wpoin
CITY OF SAN LUIS O B 1 5 P 0
FROM: Arnold Jonas, Community Developm nt Direc r
Prepared By: Judith Lautner, Associate Planner �
SUBJECT: Tract 127-95 (County file# TR 2211): Su division of recently-annexed area
into 44 residential lots, plus open space and detention basin lots, westerly of
and between Goldenrod Lane and Fuller Road.
CAO RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a resolution approving the Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact, with
mitigation, and approving the tentative map, with conditions.
REPORT-IN-BRIEF
Tile site was annexed to the City on March 21 of this year. The applicants now want to subdivide
the site into 44 residential lots and several open space and drainage basin parcels.
Changes in the design.•The subdivision design differs from that submitted as a preliminary plan
with the annexation request last year. The proposal submitted with the annexation followed the
Edna Islay Specific Plan Secondary Planning Area circulation plan closely. However, the sewer
design had to be a compromise, because the annexation applicant only controlled this property.
As part of the subdivision design, the applicant proposes a modification to the street layout. The
change would create an additional street that connects Goldenrod to Fuller and allows permanent
gravity-flow sewers to be installed all the way out to Broad Street. The Planning Commission
found the revised street design consistent with the specific plan.
Creeks and open space: A creek passes through the center of the site, and another creates the
southerly boundary of the planning area. The central creek is shown within its own lot, with lot
lines at least 30' from the top of bank on either side. This creek is to be dedicated to the City,
as required by the specific plan.
The applicants are also offering the edge of the lower creek in dedication. The City's Natural
Resources Manager supports the offer, finding that the creek area could be expanded in the
future by additional annexations and that acceptance of the offer will provide protection of the
creek, consistent with Open Space Element policies.
Traffic on Poinsettia: The project is expected to increase traffic on Poinsettia. However, that
street was designed to be wider than other local streets and operates as a "local collector". The
Tract 127-95 (County file # TR 2211)
4380 Broad Street
Page 2
additional traffic is not expected to create significant problems for the neighborhood. Public
Works staff is recommending, to provide a degree of certainty for the neighborhood, that the
Council require that any future annexation that abuts Fuller Road or requires access to Poinsettia
be required to obtain rights to Fuller Road and to improve it for full public access, to create an
alternative entry to this area.
Turtles: The Planning Commission expressed concern that there had been Southwestern Pond
Turtles (a candidate species for "endangered" listing) found in the lower creek, and
recommended additional conditions similar to those imposed on the development east of the
railroad tracks, to inform residents of the need to protect turtle habitat.
The subdivision is consistent with the specific plan, includes generous creek improvement areas,
a detention basin and community garden, and should be approved.
DISCUSSION
Situation.
The triangular site was annexed to the city last year. It is within the Secondary Planning Area
of the Edna-Islay Specific Plan (FISP) area. Now the applicants want to develop the site with
44 residential lots. The Planning Commission reviewed the subdivision on May 8 and June 26,
1996, and recommended approval of the map to the City Council.
Data Summ_au
T
Address: 4380 Broad Street
Applicants: John French and R. W. Hertel Inc. `
Representative: John French
Zoning: Low-Density Residential, Specific Plan (R-1-SP)
General Plan: Low-Density Residential
Environmental status: Negative Declaration with mitigation recommended by the Director
on May 6, 1996 and reviewed by the Planning Commission on May
8, 1996.
Project action deadline: August 5, 1996
Site description
a
The site is vacant, comprised of two lots, which combine to form a triangular site. It is located
between the Pacific Coast Railroad right-of-way and Broad Street. The site is relatively flat,
crossed by a creek. Riparian vegetation and a stand of Eucalyptus trees make up the significant
plants on site. The site is adjacent to low-density residential development to the northeast, and
to vacant county land to the south and southwest.
Tract 127-95 (County file #TR 2211)
4380 Broad Street
Page 3
EjWect Description
The project is a subdivision consisting of
♦ 44 low-density residential lots
♦ the enlargement of an existing detention basin, including a community garden
♦ bicycle path along the creek top of bank(connecting with existing path)
EVALUATION
1. The use is appropriate. The General Plan Land Use Element (LUE), the Edna-Islay
Specific Plan(FISP), and the Zoning map all indicate that the site is to be used for low-
density residential purposes. The proposal is for 44 low-density residential lots, which
results in an overall density of under 4.5 units per acre (excluding streets), consistent
with the standards for the low-density residential land use designation (which allows up
to seven units per acre).
2. The circulation plan is a modification of the EISP plan. The circulation plan differs
in some respects from the EISP map. The following paragraphs explain why the changes
were made.
What the EISP shows:Figure 27 of the EISP(attached) shows the circulation plan for the
secondary planning area. A line has been drawn on the map to show the approximate
boundaries of the site and to point out the differences in the circulation.
Haw the proposal& ers: The proposal modifies the specific plan design by moving the
new street (street A in the plans) closer to the easterly property boundary, and by
creating a curve in it. The intersecting short street shown on the specific plan map, with
cull-de-sac at either end, is not proposed at all. Another attached sketch, offered by the
applicants, proposes an alternative street layout for the secondary planning area.
What annexation submittals showed: This design differs from the preliminary plans
submitted as a part of the annexation request for the site. That plan included only the
extension of Goldenrod Street, with the remainder to be developed when additional
property is annexed and developed in accordance with the specific plan.
Why the change. Review of schematic plans submitted with the annexation request
indicated that extension of sewer lines was a limiting factor. The logical place for sewer
lines to go is to Broad Street. However, to extend those sewer lines to Broad would have
required 1) installing a line from the new end of Goldenrod to Fuller, and under Fuller
2-3
Tract 127-95 (County file # TR 2211)
4380 Broad Street
Page 4
Road to Broad Street, or 2) passing through property to the west, owned by others, not
within a public std, but possibly where a public street may be in the future. City policy
requires that sewer lines be within public streets. These alternatives did not appear
workable.
To develop the extension of Goldenrod as shown in the specific plan, then, would require
a 'temporary" solution, and there is no way of knowing how long the solution would be
needed. The Utilities Division thus accepted a plan to install gravity sewer lines down
Goldenrod, plus a pump to pump it back up to Poinsettia Street. Although not an ideal
solution, the division felt it would be reasonably reliable for a long time.
The change elfminxes the prablem. The applicants chose to eliminate the pump solution
by adding a new street that would extend to Fuller Road and would provide a location for
the sewer and water lines to follow public streets all the way out to Broad Street.
3. Is it consistent? Topologically, the circulation plan is very similar to the EISP plan.
However, it raises some sticky issues.
FuAerRoad oversection. The primary issue is the intersection with Fuller Road. Fuller
Road is a 30'-wide private stmt, owned to the middle of the street by adjacent property
owners. It was never offered for dedication to the public. The applicants have access
rights to Fuller Road, and the City has emergency access rights over it as well. But the
applicants only own a 75' length, and only to the center of the street. Thus the plan calls
for road improvements as far as they can extend to the north, but there is no offer of
dedication on the northerly side.
City codes require that new streets in new subdivisions be improved to full width,
including sidewalk, curb, and gutter. At this time, the applicants have only their own side
of the stream to offer in dedication. They may improve the 15' on the other side (as shown
on the enlarged drawing of the Fuller Road intersection, attached), but they do not have
the right to dedicate it without permission from the property owner.
If this map is approved without a requirement to obtain the northerly section of Fuller
Road(plus additional right-of-way necessary for full public improvements), there could
be complications. There would be questions about who maintains that strip of half-street,
and who is liable for damages taking place on that side. Rather than allow the City to be
put into such a situation, the City Attorney recommends that the applicants attempt to
obtain the necessary right-of-way from the adjacent property owner. If attempts fail, then
the City would need to institute condemnation proceedings. All costs of such
proceedings, which can be considerable, would be borne by the applicants.
Tract 127-95 (County file # TR 2211)
4380 Broad Street
Page
The applicants are comfortable with this requirement, because they have contacted
adjacent property owners and are confident they can obtain the dedication offer without
necessitating City condemnation. The recommended conditions of approval include a
requirement for fill street dedication and right-of-way improvements as required by City
ordinances.
Long cul-de-sac. Another issue raised by the change to the circulation plan is the creation
of a long cube-sac. Goldenrod Lane, as shown on Figure 27A, attached, would end in
a cul-de-sac that is over 900' long. City regulations require that such dead-end streets be
no longer than 300' (those serving four or fewer dwellings may be 600'). Longer cull-de-
sac raise emergency access concerns in cases when the intersection is blocked.
The Fire Department says that with current regulations requiring all homes to have fire
sprinklers installed, fire is not a major concern for this area. It appears that an
emergency approach to the westerly end of a cul-de-sac may be possible from Broad
Street as well. As long as an adequate turnaround is provided at the end, the Fire
Department does not object to this design.
If the long cube-sac is determined to be undesirable, however, another street may be
installed as indicated on the specific plan map (dashed on Figure 27A). However, this
would necessitate a second creek crossing, undesirable from an environmental standpoint.
The changes to the circulation plan have been found by staff and the Planning
Commission to be consistent with the overall circulation pattern shown in the specific
plan. Numerous small changes to street layouts have taken place during the design and
development of the primary planning area, and specific plan amendments were not
required for those changes. Therefore staff did not require such an amendment request
in this case. However, if the Council disagrees with this interpretation, the applicants are
willing to make that application and the alternative street layout may be considered the
amendment request. A denial of such an amendment would require that the layout as
shown in Figure 27 must be followed, and therefore A Street must be eliminated from
the map.
The Planning Commission supports the street layout as submitted.
4. Significant utility lines run through the site. A high-pressure gas line runs through the
site, about ten feet offset from the northwesterly property line. The location of the line
was determined by survey recently, and has been found to be accurate. A 20'-wide
easement for this gas line exists parallel to the property line and on the adjoining lot.
Therefore, the gas line was not installed correctly within the easement.
3-�
Tract 127-95 (County file #TR 2211)
4380 Broad Street
Page 6
The gas company representative notes that this line is very dangerous and close to the
surface (from 42" - 48"). When leaks are detected, crews must get to the line
immediately and the line must remain relatively close to the surface for fast access. Gas
crews survey the line with "sniffers" once or twice a year and must have easy access to
it. Therefore, the gas company has stipulated that no fencing be placed within ten feet
of the line and that only limited grading be allowed over the line.
For these reasons, staff believes there should be a condition on lots 10, 12, and 13 stating
that fencing near the gas lice must not cross the line and must be located at least ten feet
to the east of the line. All of these lots are large enough to accommodate the shrinkage
such fencing would cause.
The gas company would lice to obtain another easement over the actual location of the
line. The property owner believes that he should be reimbursed for such an easement,
because it affects his ability to develop his property. However the easement is obtained,
it is safe to say that there will be one if the line is to remain where it is. It also seems
appropriate to provide additional notification to potential lot buyers that this is no
ordinary gas line. Such notice could be incorporated into the deeds or be a separate
recorded document.
The applicants would like to move the gas line into A Street to avoid the nuisances
associated with having an "untouchable" pathway at the rear of these lots. This solution
is agreeable to the gas company as well, because the line would be safer under a street,
but the two parties have not agreed on who would pay for the move. Because such
negotiations are not likely to be completed in the span of time available for acting on this
map, staff is suggesting a condition that addresses this gas line whether it stays or moves.
A major telephone cable runs through the property along the northeasterly property line
and then from north to south through the site. A 20'-wide easement over this line already
exists. All building must be kept away from this easement. No lots would be severely
affected by this easement if it were to remain. However, the applicants note that the
telephone company has abandoned use of this line and intend to install new fiber optic
Imes within streets in the near future instead. Therefore, the easement has been noted
as "to be abandoned". No action is required of the Council on this easement.
5. A creek bisects the site. A minor creek, intermittent, with vegetation primarily within
the creek banks, cuts through almost the center of the site. The Open Space Element
(OSE)calls for habitat buffer areas along the top of banks of all creeks. In practice, a 20'
setback from the top of bank or from the riparian vegetation (whichever is greater) is
normally required.
3-�
Tract 127-95 (County file #TR 2211)
4380 Broad Street
Page 7
The plans show a 30' setback from the top of bank to the rear or side lot lines. On lots
12, 14, 15, and 16, the lot lines are less than 20 feet from the some edges of riparian
vegetation. Nevertheless, it will be possible to assure that all buildings are set back the
required 20'. The proposed bicycle-pedestrian path is within the setback area, but not
near significant vegetation. Its location is consistent with other such paths already built
in the specific plan area. The Planning Commission specifically endorsed the setbacks
proposed.
Easement or ownership? The specific plan's provisions for the primary planning area
divide creeks in the specific plan area into two groups: 'creek preservation areas" and
"creek improvement areas". It is assumed that the requirements for development near
creeks in the secondary planning area would follow the same rules as development in the
primary ping area-
The creek running through the site is a "creek improvement area". The specific plan says
Creek improvement areas are designed to allow limited public use and typically
connect t housing areas with neighborhood parks. Additional landscaping to creek
bank areas and trail systems would also be developed. (p. 21)
The creek is shown within a separate lot(Lot B). This lot should also contain the setback
areas, to assure that one entity controls what is allowed in the creek area. The specific
plan says that
Creek improvement areas within the planning area will be owned by the City of
San Luis Obispo. They will be dedicated to the, city by the property
owner/subdivider consistent with the phasing plan spelled out in the last chapter
of this report. (p. 22)
Therefore the creek lot should be dedicated to the City. The bicycle path could be in a
separate easement, owned by the homeowners' association.
6. The detention basin includes a community garden. A combination detention basin and
community garden is proposed for an area including the location of an existing detention
basin. This basin and garden should be owned and maintained by the homeowners'
association, consistent with city policy and with the ownership of other detention basins
in the EISP area. The garden should be usable most of the year, and could be an asset
to this development. The recommended conditions ask the applicants to attempt to annex
this subdivision to the existing Conditions, Covenants, and Restrictions, and by that
means provide for the ownership and maintenance of common areas by the larger
association, which now controls all of the development on the "Edna" side. In that case,
the garden could be used by all residents in the homeowners' association.
3-7
Tract 127-95 (County file #TR 2211)
4380 Broad Street
Page 8
7. Trees are to be removed. Several large eucalyptus trees, on lots 39 through 41, are
proposed to be removed. The City Arborist does not object to the removal of this type
tree, but wants to be sure that the large walnut, which crosses the property line at the rear
of lots 36 and 37, and the sycamores, most of which are not on this site, do remain. There
is no proposal to remove any of these trees. The applicant notes that the variety of
eucalyptus is one that is not brittle and therefore it may be possible to retain some of these
trees. Staff is recommending that as many trees as possible be retained.
At the first Planning Commission hearing, the applicant agreed to replace removed trees
with natives at a one-to-one ratio. A condition has been included that makes this a
requirement
8. Open space lots. The applicant is offering Lots B, C, and D to the City for open space
purposes. Lots B and C enclose the creek running through the center of the site. The EISP
says that "creek preservation areas" are to be owned by the City. The specific plan
designates this creek as a preservation area. Therefore, the dedication of these creek lots
is consistent with the EISP (see discussion above, "a creek bisects the site").
Lot D encloses vegetation and part of a creek that runs along the southerly boundary of the
site. Rather than add the property to adjacent residential lots, the applicant has chosen to
keep it all in one large lot, for the benefit of the wildlife in that area, and to donate it to
the City.
The City's Natural Resources Manager endorses the offer. The Planning Commission
concurred with the Natural Resources Manager. When the property to the west is annexed
and developed there will be additional opportunities to obtain valuable portions of the same
creek, consistent with the goals of the Open Space Element.
9. Traffic is not expected to be a problem. Some neighbors of the project have voiced
concerns that the additional traffic from this development will create significant traffic
impacts on Poinsettia Street. Peak hours do see a fair amount of traffic on Poinsettia (early
morning and between four and six in the afternoon), but the street is designed to handle
much more than it currently does.
The environmental study includes estimates of the additional traffic. About 440 additional
trips are expected to be added to Poinsettia each day, above Fuller Road, and probably less
than half that below Fuller (the initial study says 470, based on 47 homes. The map has
been changed and now only 44 homes are proposed). Peak hours would generate about 44
trips per hour. We would expect to see about 30 of those trips using Fuller Road to A
Street, and the remainder continuing to Goldenrod. The initial study concludes that the
additional traffic would not have a significant impact on Poinsettia Street traffic.
3-0
Tract 127-95 (County file # TR 2211)
4380 Broad Street
Page 9
Poinsettia Street sees about 2,200 trips per day now, based on staff estimates. The
additional 440 will increase traffic by about twenty percent. The increase will be noticeable
but the total number of trips would still be under the 3,000 trips per day considered a
desirable limit on local collectors (Circulation Element: see initial study ER 127-95,
attached). The subdivision continues bike and pedestrian paths, which encourage
alternative transportation for short trips. The Marigold Shopping Center, proposed for the
northerly comer of Tank Farm Road and Broad Street, will be soon under construction.
A shopping center this close to the Edna-Islay area will be accessible for those on foot or
bicycles, which can mean a reduction in overall traffic in the area by some incremental
amount.
Ultimately, Fuller Road will be dedicated and improved all the way to Broad Street. The
specific plan does not designate a time period or phasing plan for this improvement.
Normally, each annexation and subdivision adjacent to the road would be expected to
include plans for improving Fuller Road to city standards. Once this road is available for
through traffic, it may take some of the load off Poinsettia, both from the subdivision
under consideration and from the remainder of the westerly Edna-Islay development.
However, according to the City's Traffic Division, the extension of Fuller Road at this
time is not necessary, based on current traffic on Poinsettia. It is possible that the
improvement of Fuller Road to Broad Street will also have the effect of encouraging traffic
to flow from future development on Fuller Road and from traffic on Broad Street into
Poinsettia Street, which may actually increase traffic on Poinsettia. In other words, the
improvement of Fuller Road for public access may not have the net effect of reducing
traffic on Poinsettia.
Public Works' position at this time is that Fuller Road should be dedicated and improved
as part of the next annexation that abuts it or necessitates additional travel on Poinsettia.
The Council may wish to make a minute motion endorsing this position.
10, Lots are larger, wider. While adjusting lots to accommodate creek lots and easements,
the applicant chose to widen the lots as well. The additional width (subdivision regulations
require a 50' minimum width for R-1 lots) will make the lots easier to develop and more
spacious than their neighbors to the north.
11. The Planning Commission modified a mitigation measure. The Planning Commission
found the proposed location of the bicycle-pedestrian path acceptable and consistent with
similar pathways in the remainder of the specific plan area, as noted above, under "a creek
bisects the site". Some portions of the path appear to be within the creek setback area.
9- 7
Tract 127-95 (County file #TR 2211)
4380 Broad Street
Page 10
Mitigation measure no. 5 says
5. Lots B and C on the tentative map shall include a minimum 20' buffer area beyond
the top ofbank or the edge of riparian vegetation, whichever is greater. This buffer
area shall be planted with native riparian plants appropriate for the type creek and
location, to the approval of the Communiry Development Director. The bicycle path
shall be located outside the buffer area.
The Commission, in its action on the request, specifically modified this mitigation measure
by eliminating the final sentence. The modified measure is included in the attached draft
resolution.
12. Turtles are a concern. As noted in the initial study, attached, Southwestern Pond Turtles
have been found in the lower creek. The land between the two creeks is considered
"potential upland turtle nesting area", according to a recent turtle study in the area
(enclosed). That study includes many suggestions for construction methods to prevent
danger to turtles and education of residents in the future. The Planning Commission
recommended additional conditions similar to mitigation measures included in the turtle
study, particularly for the education of residents. Such conditions have been included.
13. We will be looking for a street name. The new street in the subdivision is currently
designated "A" Street. Through the map process, a new name will be chosen. Staff will
ask the applicant to submit at least three street names for consideration. Council
members are welcome to suggest names they consider appropriate.
CONCURRENCES
Other department comments are included in the staff report, above.
FISCAL IlVIPACT
The development is not expected to have a significant fiscal impact on the City.
ALTERNATIVES
The Council may deny the subdivision, if it finds that it is inconsistent with the general plan.
The Council may approve the subdivision with modified findings or conditions.
The Council may continue action. If continued, agreement to the continuance should be obtained
from the applicants to assure compliance with State-mandated action deadlines.
3-/b
i
V
Tract 127-95 (County file # TR 221.1)
4380 Broad Street
ire 11
Attachments
draft resolutions
vicinity map
FISP Figure 27
alternative street layout (Figure 27A)
initial study completed for annexation
initial study 127=95, completed for this subdivision
minutes of May 8, 1.996 Planning Commission meeting
In packet-
revised.tract-map
turtle study (referred to in initial study)
archeological study (referred to in initial study)
RESOLUTION NO. (1996 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
APPROVING THE TENTATIVE MAP FOR TRACT 127-95,
SUBDIVIDING A 14-ACRE SITE INTO 44 RESIDENTIAL PARCELS
AND SEVERAL OPEN SPACE AND DRAINAGE LOTS,
ON A TRIANGULAR SITE EAST OF AND BETWEEN
FULLER ROAD AND GOLDENROD LANE
(Tract 127-95: County file#TR 2211)
WHEREAS,the Planning commission conducted public hearings on May 8 and June 26, 1996
and recommended approval of Tentative Tract Map 127-95; 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 the proposed subdivision is consistent with the
General Plan, the Edna-Islay Specific Plan, the Zoning Regulations, and other applicable City
ordinances; and
WHEREAS,the City Council has considered the draft Negative Declaration of environmental
impact with mitigation as prepared by staff and reviewed by the Planning Commission;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo
as follows:
SECTION 1. Findings. That this council makes the following findings:
1. The design of the tentative map and proposed improvements are consistent with the general
plan and the Edna-Islay Specific Plan.
2. The site is physically suited for the type and density of development allowed in the R-1-SP
zone.
3. The design of the subdivision and the proposed improvements are not likely to cause serious
health problems, substantial environmental damage or substantially and unavoidably injure
fish or wildlife or their habitat.
4. The design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict with easements
for access through, or use of property within, the proposed subdivision.
5. An initial study of environmental impacts was prepared by the Community Development
Department on May 6, 1996, that describes environmental impacts associated with the
�/2
Resolution no. (1996 Series)
Tract 127-95 (County file# Tr 2211)
Page 2
subdivision map. The Community Development Director, on May 6, 1996, reviewed the
environmental initial study and recommended a Negative Declaration, with mitigation, of
environmental impact. The initial study concludes that the project will not have a significant
adverse impact on the environment,and the City Council hereby adopts the Negative Declaration
with Mitigation and finds that the Negative Declaration with Mitigation reflects the independent
judgement of the City Council.
SECTION 2. The tentative map for Tract 127-95 (County File no. Tract 2211) is approved
subject to the following mitigation measures, conditions, and code requirements:
Environmental mitigation measures:
1. The project must include easements or land dedications for bikeways and walkways to provide
residents with a means to move about their neighborhood without automobiles.
2. The local transit authority (SLA Transit) must be contacted to assure adequacy of transit stops
in the area If another stop is needed to serve this development, the developer will be required
to install or fund a shelter or other needed improvement.
3. The bicycle path along the creek shall be designed in accordance with standards in the Bicycle
Transportation Plan.
4. The existing vegetation barrier shall be maintained along the top of bank of the southerly creek,
and a setback of at least 20' beyond that riparian edge shall be included in proposed lot D, to
provide adequate buffer area between habitat area and residential lots.(nore.shown on map.)
5. Lots B and C on the tentative map shall include a minimum 20' buffer area beyond the top of
bank or the edge of riparian vegetation,whichever is greater. This buffer area shall be planted
with native riparian plants appropriate for the type creek and location, to the approval of the
Community Development Director.
6. Potential owners of these lots will be informed of the existence of the high-pressure gas line
on the property by a recorded documents, written to the approval of the Community
Development Director. Signage shall be placed near the location of the gas line, to inform
anyone nearby of the danger, to the approval of Southern California Gas Co.
7. Eventually, a new gravity sewer will have to be constructed down Tank Farm Road, relieving
the lift station. The developer will be expected to contribute to the cost of this new sewer, to
the approval of the Utilities Director.
3-43
Resolution no. (1996 Series)
Tract 127-95 (County file#Tr 2211)
Page 3
Conditions:
Public Right-of-Way
1. Off-site dedication of property for public right-of-way purposes is required to facilitate full
street improvements for Fuller Road between the existing end of Fuller Rd. to the westerly
tract boundary. The subdivider shall exhaust all avenues available to acquire said right-of-way
dedication. If the subdivider cannot obtain the property as public right-of-way, the City
Council must lend the subdivider its powers of condemnation to acquire the off-site right-of-
way dedication,including any necessary slope and drainage easements, or be willing to waive
the condition. If condemnation is required,the subdivider shall pay all costs associated with
the off-site right-of-way acquisition, including attorney and court costs.
2. Vehicular access rights at the westerly end of Fuller Road shall be dedicated to the City.
3. The subdivider shall dedicate a 6' wide public utility easement and 10' wide street tree
easement along all public street frontages,to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and public
utility companies.
4. All streets shall be designed with the structural street sections using a TI=5.5.
Water,Sewer&Utilities
5. Sewer lift station charges, as determined by the Utilities Engineer, shall be paid prior to
recordation of the final map
6. The final grades and alignments of all public water,sewer and storm drains(including service
laterals and meters)are subject to change to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and Utilities
Engineer.
7. The City will participate in any line up-sizing of public water mains (increases above the size
required to provide fire flow or the City's 8"minimum, whichever is larger).
8. Lots 27 and 28 shall have individual sewer laterals extending to the public sewer main in
Goldenrod. The public sewer main shall not be extended into Lot 27.
9. The off-site gravity sewer main within Fuller Rd.. shall be located within a 15'wide public
sewer easement, to the satisfaction of the Utilities Dept and Public Works Dept. Any
additional costs associated with increases to the sewer main size,above and beyond what is
required, shall be reimbursed in accordance with City policies. The developer is entitled to
reimbursement for off-site sewerline improvements in accordance with the City's subdivision
regulations.
Resolution no. (1996 Series)
Tract 127-95 (County file#Tr 2211)
Page 4
10. The subdivider shall dedicate a 20'-wide easement over the existing Southern California Gas
Company's 16" High Pressure gas main or relocate the main into the public street right-of-way
within the subdivision. If the gas main is not relocated the easement shall be adjacent to and
contiguous with the southwesterly tract boundary, to the satisfaction of the Southern California
Gas Company ("gas company"). Said easement shall preclude fencing, grading, posts,
structures, new trees or shrubs within the easement area unless specific written permission
from the gas company has been received and a separate document that provides disclosure to
future property owners, satisfactory to the gas company and the Public Works Department, has
been executed and recorded with the County Recorder.
Grading&Drainage
11. The subdivider shall provide the City Engineer with a detailed hydraulic analysis which
indicates the effects of the proposed development on adjacent and downstream properties.
The analysis must address and identify-
The
dentifyThe existing public and private drainage facilities and creek capacities in order to provide
design criteria that meet City standards. The proposed development shall not create a
situation which increases flooding potential downstream.
The subdivider shall identify any areas within the project subject to inundation during a 100-yr
storm and process and complete a Federal Emergency Management Agency Letter of Map
Revision (LOMR)to include this property on the City's Flood Insurance Rate Man prior to
final acceptance of the development, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
12. Any lots subject to flooding during a 100-yr storm shall be graded to provide minimum pad
elevations at least 1 foot above the 100-yr storm elevation, to the satisfaction of the City
Engineer. The areas subject to flooding shall be noted on the final map.
13. All bridging,culverts and modifications to the existing creek channels must be in compliance
with the City's Flood Management Policy Book (specifically regarding clear spanning of
creeks, etc...)and approved by the City Engineer, Corp of Engineers and Fish&Game and
must meet City standards and policies.
14. Any necessary clearing of existing creek and drainage channels, including any tree pruning or
removals, and any necessary erosion repairs shall be done to the satisfaction of the City
Engineer, Corp of Engineers and the Dept. of Fish&Game.
15. All lots shall be graded to preclude cross-lot drainage,to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
Resolution no. (1996 Series)
Tract 127-95 (County file#Tr 2211)
Page 5
16. The modified detention basin-community garden is to be owned and maintained by the
homeowners' association in accordance with the Edna-Islay Specific Plan. Maintenance
reports must be submitted to the Public Works Department by the association yearly,at a time
and in a format acceptable to the Public Works Department.
Transportation
17. Bike path improvements shall be consistent with the Edna-Islay Specific Plan and the existing
bike path improvements for Tract 1750. The bike path shall be owned and maintained by the
Homeowners' Association.
Open Space and Trees
18. Lots B, C,and D shall be dedicated to the City for open space purposes.
19. Homes shall be designed for lots 39 through 40 that minimize the removal of existing trees on
these lots. Those trees that are removed must be replaced at a 1:1 ratio with native trees,
elsewhere on site to the approval of the Community Development Director.
Creeks and Turtles
20. A pre-construction clearance survey shall be conducted within the creek on site and within the
area between the two creeks.The survey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist prior to
ground disturbance to assure that turtles are not present within the construction zone. If turtles
are found,the turtles shall be moved out of the construction zone and placed in a safe,suitable
habitat within the lower creek
21. All residents should be discouraged from using invasive non-native plants in the landscaping
of area adjacent to natural areas, particularly along the creek
22. Riprap shall not be used within the creek unless permanently backfilled with soil or grouted.
Turtles may become trapped and perish in the spaces between the rocks. Where riprap is
backfilled with soil, the riprapped area shall be planted with native plants capable of
stabilizing the soil with dense root systems. Plants native to the project area that would be
appropriate include yarrow(Achfllea species),virgin bower(Clematis species),and California
blackberry(Rebus ursinus). The planted riprapped areas shall be maintained for a minimum
of five years to assure that storm flows have not removed the soil and to replant stabilizing
vegetation as needed. In the event that excessive erosion of the soil continues to occur,the
riprapped areas shall be grouted.
23. An educational brochure or other materials shall be provided to each of the households within
the development that will provide information regarding the correct procedures for protecting
—AV
Resolution no. (1996 Series)
Tract 127-95 (County file#Tr 2211)
Page 6
the turtles. (Such information should be reviewed by a qualified biologist for accuracy.)
Background information may be obtained from the Final Report of the Arbors at Islay Hill
Southwestern Pond Turtle Study,Hunt and Bowland,March 1995.
24. A specific contact person shall be designated, either a resident within the development or
someone within an appropriate governmental agency. The name and telephone number of the
contact person should be provided to all residents of the development, and included in the
educational information and on any signs regarding the turtle habitat. The contact person
should be encouraged to maintain records of turtle sightings, including the specific location
and circumstances of the sightings and explanation of what, if any,action was taken. Turtle
harassment must be reported to eh California Department of Fish and Game.
Miscellaneous
25. All boundary monuments, lot comers and centerline intersections,BC's,EC's,etc..., shall be
tied to the City's Horizontal Control Network At least two control points shall be used and
a tabulation of the coordinates shall be submitted with the final map or parcel map. All
coordinates submitted shall be based on the City coordinate system. A 3.5"diameter computer
floppy disk, containing the appropriate data compatible with AutoCAD(Digital Interchange
Format,DXF)for Geographic Information System(GIS)purposes,shall be submitted to the
City Engineer.
26. The final map,public improvement plans and specifications shall use the International System
of Units(metric system) if submitted after June 30, 1996. The English System of Units may
be used on the final map where necessary(e.g. -all record data shall be entered on the map in
the record units, metric translations should be in parenthesis), to the approval of the City
Engineer.
27. All development of this site shall be consistent with the Edna-Islay Specific Plan, except as
approved by the City Council.
28. All construction traffic shall be routed through Fuller Road, except when physically
impossible. Signs shall be installed at the present southerly terminus of Goldenrod and at the
westerly in-city terminus of Fuller Lane,saying "No construction traffic",to the approval of
the Public Works and Community Development Departments.
CODE REQUIREMENTS
EPA
1. General construction Activity Storm Water Permits are required for all storm water discharges
associated with a construction activity where clearing, grading and excavation results in land
2-17
Resolution no. (1996 Series)
Tract 127-95 (County file#Tr 2211)
Page 7
disturbance of five or more acres. Storm water discharges of less than five
Street name
2. A Street must be named as part of the final map approval process. The subdivider shall submit a
minimum of three street names for review by the Community Development Department, in
accordance with the Street Name and Address Regulations.
Upon motion of , seconded by , and
on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
the foregoing resolution was adopted this day of , 1996.
ATTEST:
City Clerk Mayor Allen Settle
APPROVED:
Ye rfney/f
RESOLUTION NO. (1996 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
DENYING THE TENTATIVE MAP FOR TRACT 127-95,
ON A TRIANGULAR SITE EAST OF AND BETWEEN
FULLER ROAD AND GOLDENROD LANE
(Tract 127-95: County file#TR 2211)
WHEREAS,the Planning commission conducted public hearings on May 8 and June 26, 1996 and
recommended approval of Tentative Tract Map 127-95;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 the proposed subdivision is not consistent with the General
Plan, the Edna-Islay Specific Plan, the Zoning Regulations, or other applicable City ordinances because
(COUNCIL STATE REASON);
follows:NOW, TBEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as
SECTION 1. Denial. The tentative tract map for Tract 127-95 is hereby denied.
Upon motion of seconded by and
on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
the foregoing resolution was adopted this day of 1996.
ATTEST:
City Clerk Mayor Allen Settle
APPROVED:
City Attorney
3/�
moo �T1A
SNAP
090
P
AIRPORT L.Li
0
F PQM
VICINITY MAP TR 127-95 NORTH
4380 BROAD
r
.•'�•��+i+ice++++i+ice+++' +�
��.++++4++++++�++1. +�++++� •�yY.�
. ++ ++++U�+•++++++++++++++�++++++++MVS++M V + .�+�
+ii++ieio+icnJ
+s++iii i+
iii++s :`++ i�++i+iiasoo �+�
+•+• sc�,.++t++•+•+t+t +•+•++tet•++.o+
ioil%-s+ice++�+ii+�j�++ ,
ow-
IN
OUJ
LU
uj
Qw �
a � �
r=
tF
Oma+
s �
s n
Sg`'LJR
tr
LLL
cc
LL CM
0 LU
Z.14 MMI
i
Fes/ >5 O
' O
/ ' Q J.
iLUC
W OC
2e Z
z
�Kg
� Q
- - ti
Z
P
I� 2
MY Of San IUiS OBISPO
INITIAL STUDY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
SITE LOCATION 4380 Broad Street L1�93
APPLICATIO
PROJECT DESCRIPTION Annexation and prezoning to R-1-SP of a 15-acre triangular site adjacent to the
city limits at the southerly end of Goldenrod Street.
APPLICANT Charles E. French
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
X NEGATIVE DECLARATION X MITIGATION INCLUDED
EXPANDED '19M0Wt9PuAK%date Planner ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REP GRE UIRl 4
PREPARED BY DATE
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR'S ACTION: DATE � /J I0LI--
SUMMARY OF INITIAL STUDY FINDINGS
1.DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT AND ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
IL POTENTIAL IMPACT REVIEW POSSIBLE ADVERSE EFFECTS
A. COMMUNITY PLANS AND GOALS ............. NONE*
B. POPULATION DISTRIBUTION AND GROWTH......................................... NONE*
C. LAND USE ...:................................................................... NONE*
0. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION .... ................................... ....'.. NONE*
E. PUBLIC SERVICES ................................................................ NONE*
F. UTILITIES........................................................................ NONE*
G. NOISE LEVELS ................................................................... NONE*
H. GEOLOGIC&SEISMIC HAZARDS&TOPOGRAPHIC MODIFICATIONS .................... NONE
I. AIR QUALITY AND WIND CONDITIONS............................................... NONE
J. SURFACE WATER FLOW AND QUALITY .............................................. NONE*
K. PLANT LIFE...................................................................... ... NONE* .
L. ANIMAL LIFE........................... .......................................... NONE*
M. ARCHAEOLOGICALIHISTORICAL ................................................... NONE*
N. AESTHETIC ....................................................................... NONE
O. ENERGY/RESOURCEUSE .......................................................... NONE*
P. OTHER .......................................................................... NONE*
111.STAFF RECOMMENDATION
NEGATIVE DECLARATION, WITH MITIGATION
'SEE ATTACHED REPORT
5&85
Environmental Initial Study
ER 110-93
4380 Broad Street
Goldenrod Annexation
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT AND ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The project is the annexation of a roughly triangular-shaped parcel
of approximately fifteen acres, adjacent to the existing city
limits on the northeast. The parcel, more particularly described
as lot 109 of the Suburban Tract, touches Fuller Road, a private
street that becomes public within the City Limits, and is about
1, 150 feet east of the Broad Street right-of-way.
The applicants propose to develop the property residentially, and
therefore request appropriate residential prezoning. Preliminary
plans show an extension of Goldenrod Lane and 39 single-family
lots. A part of the proposal is an offer •to develop seven
affordable housing units when Fuller Road is extended to Broad
Street.
The site is vacant, divided by a creek and bordered on the south by
another branch of the same. creek. Existing vegetation primarily
lies along these two intermittent waterways.
POTENTIAL IMPACTS
Community plans and goals
* Land use element.
Overall annexation Policy: The Land Use Element (LUE) says
(section 1. 12 .2) :
Annexation should be used as a growth management tool, both to
enable appropriate urban development and to protect open
space. Areas within the urban reserve line which are to be
developed with urban uses should be annexed before urban
development occurs. The City may annex an area long before
such development is to occur, and the City may annex areas
which are to remain permanently as open space. An area may be
annexed in phases, consistent with the city-approved specific
plan or development plan for the area. Phasing of annexation
and development will reflect topography, needed capital
facilities and funding, open space objectives, and existing
and proposed land uses and roads.
The site is within the Edna-Islay Specific Plan area. The
specific plan adopted for the area does not specify a
preferred approach to annexation of this area (see discussion
below, under "Edna-Islay Specific Plan") . Therefore, the LUE
3�y
ER 110-93
4380 Broad Street: Goldenrod annexation
Page 2
policies and programs prevail. Annexation of the site is
consistent with the above policy.
Availability of services• Section 1. 13 .4 of the LUE says that
development in an annexed area can only be approved "when
adequate City services can be provided for that development,
without reducing the level of services or increasing the cost
of services for existing development and for build-out within
the City Limits as Of July 1994, in accordance with the City-s
water management policies. " In other words, an area may be
annexed but will still not be able to be developed unless
adequate services are available. (See discussion under
"Utilities", below, for analysis of availability of water and
sewer services, and see "Energy or Resource Use" , below, for
discussion of water availability. ) According to the above
policies, annexation of the parcel may proceed but development
will be dependent on services being available without
affecting the service to residents within the July 1994 City
Limits.
Open space requirement- Section 1. 13 . 5 says:
Each annexation shall help secure permanent protection for
areas designated Open Space, and for the habitat types and
wildlife corridors within the annexation area that are
identified in policy 6.1 .1 . (Policy 6. 1. 1 says that various
types of land will be designated as open space, including
upland and valley sensitive habitats, prime agricultural
soils, greenbelt areas, and other areas not suited to urban
development. ) Standards are set for specific areas (not
including the Edna-Islay area) and for "other areas":
1 .13 .5.F. Other area properties, which are both along the
urban reserve line and on hillsides shall dedicate land or
easements for about four times the area to be developed.
The site does not fall within one of the specified areas, nor
does it lie "along the urban reserve line and on hillsides" .
Therefore only those areas, within the site itself, that are
designated Open Space are required to be secured as permanent
open space. The applicants propose to dedicate an easement
over the creek corridors on the site, consistent with
standards in the Edna-Islay Specific Plan. Therefore, this
requirement will be met.
* Edna-Islay Specific Plan (EISP)
The Edna-Islay Specific Plan serves as a refinement of General
Plan policies and sets development criteria for the 446-acre
area bounded by Orcutt Road on the east, Broad Street on the
ER 110-93
4380 Broad Street: Goldenrod annexation
Page 3
west, Industrial Way, •Orcutt Hill and the City Limits on the
north, and Islay Hill, the City Limits and a creek on the
south. Of the 446 acres, approximately 339 are within the
City Limits, 109 in the county.
The parcel lies in the county area, within the "secondary
planning area" . The specific plan says that the plans for
the secondary planning area are the City's official
recommendation to the County for what should happen in the
secondary planning area. The specific plan annexation policy
says: _
Adequate water supply will be assured by the city before this
area should be considered for annexation. Any future
annexation requests should be consistent with this specific
plan, the city's general plan, and subsequent growth
management programs.
Analysis-
These .two documents (LUE and EISP) define the City's policies and
goals for the area. The project meets all of the annexation
criteria, except that a water supply may not immediately be
available for development (see further discussion under "Energy or
resource use" , below) . The specific plan requirement that
"adequate water supply will be assured by the city before this area
should be considered. . . " appears to conflict with recently-adopted .
LUE policies, which allow annexations even when water is not
immediately available.
It appears that LUE policies were intended to apply citywide, and
not exclude the EISP secondary planning area. . Therefore, an
amendment to the specific plan has been initiated to change the
text to be consistent with the LUE. The amendment will be
processed concurrently with the annexation and prezoning requests.
If the specific plan amendment is passed, the inconsistency will be
eliminated. If the amendment is not passed, either 1) the
annexation request will be determined to be inconsistent with the
specific plan and denied, or 2) the specific plan language will be
determined to be consistent or ambiguous, and the annexation
request may be approved.
Conclusion: Not significant.
3-240
ER 110-93
4380 Broad Street: Goldenrod annexation
Page 4
Population distribution and growth
The LUE says that
1.11.2 Residential Growth Rate The City's housing supply shall
grow-no faster than one percent per year, averaged over a 36-month
period, excluding dwellings affordable to residents with very low
or low incomes as defined in the Housing Element.
The LUE anticipates the addition of 900 dwellings by 1997 over the
1992 ' total, or an average of 180 per year. These numbers would
meet the one-percent policy.
Population increase• The annexation proposal is to allow
construction of 46 homes, 39 of them low-density, and the remaining
7 presumably higher-density (and affordable) . According to the
1990 census, an average of 2 . 39 persons lives in each occupied
housing unit in the city. If all 46 units are occupied, then, a
total of 46 X 2 .39 persons = 109. 94 = 110 persons would be expected
to live in this annexed area. Assuming all 110 migrate to the city
to live here, this increase represents 110/43 , 704 (1993 population)
= 0.25% of the current population, or about 1/4 of the one-percent
population increase expected each year during the 1990's.
Population distribution• The new homes would be adjacent to
existing housing and in an area intended for residential use. The
type of homes would be similar to those already existing in the
area, and would be at similar densities. There would be no
significant change to the population patterns already existing.
Conclusion: Not significant. The project would not result in
significant changes to the city's population or its
distribution.
Land use
The site is currently vacant, and is designated "Low-Density
Residential" on the City's Land Use Element map. The Edna-Islay
Specific Plan governs the ultimate development of the area. The
map and text show an extension of Goldenrod in roughly the
configuration shown on the proposed subdivision map, and show the
entire area as low-density residential. The subdivision map
indicates low-density residential lots along the street extension,
and an explanatory letter from the applicant includes an offer to
build an additional seven low-cost housing units north of the
creek, when Fuller Road is extended to Broad Street.
Typically, lower-cost units are developed at a higher density than
"Low-Density Residential" (R-1) . If these seven units are a
higher-density apartment or condominium project, the specific plan
3-?7
ER 110-93
4380 Broad Street: Goldenrod annexation
Page 5
land use designation for that area would need to be changed to a
higher-density designation. Because the total number (seven) is
low, staff assumes these units may be developed at a medium-density
intensity.
Is medium-density residential development appropriate in this area?
The LUE says this about the proper locations for medium-density
development:
Medium-density development is appropriate as a transition from
low-density development to higher densities.
and
Medium-density residential development, allowing a maximum of
12 dwelling units per acre, shall be encouraged in close
proximity to neighborhood and community commercial and public
facilities, where utilities, circulation, and neighborhood
character can accommodate such development. Medium-density
projects should be designed to be compatible with neighboring
low-density development.
The medium-density area would be close to a commercial office
project and to the Marigold Center, a large neighborhood shopping
center approved for the northeast corner of Tank Farm Road and
Broad Street. Design review can assure compatibility with
neighboring low-density development. A change to Medium-density
residential, for a small part of the area, appears to be consistent
with these policies.
The Housing Element says
1.26.11 The Edna-Islay Specific Plan guides development of
446 acres in the southern portion of the city. Adopted in
1983, the plan includes only low- and medium-density housing.
About two-thirds of the area has been developed. By amending
the specific plan to include a mix of residential zoning that
approximates the mix of residential densities citywide,
additional housing units are possible in the Edna-Islay
specific planning area . The City should initiate amendments
to designate a portion of the specific planning area for
medium-high density housing.
This policy clearly supports a change to a higher-density
designation for some portions of the specific plan area.
Conclusion: Not significant. If the City Council supports
the provision of low-cost housing on the site, it should
initiate a general plan amendment and rezoning, as provided by
the Housing Element (possibly as part of a change affecting a
3��
ER 110-93
4380 Broad Street: Goldenrod annexation
Page 6
larger portion of the Edna-Islay area) . The low-cost housing
units have not been designed, and are not a part of proposed
near-future development, so it would be premature for the
applicant to secure such a land use change at this time.
Transportation and circulation
Street design: The proposal shows an extension of Goldenrod
through the site, with a stub street at the end. The parcel is a
small part of the entire secondary planning area of the Edna-Islay
Specific Plan, and therefore the .circulation pattern is not
complete. The plan will allow for further extension and
connections with future streets, but at this time is essentially a
long dead-end street.
The City's subdivision regulations require a maximum length of 300'
for such streets, where the number of dwellings on the street is
more than four. This length will allow reasonable access to homes
on the street by emergency personnel if the street is blocked at
the intersection. The proposed street extension is over 1, 000 feet
long, and provides access to 39 lots. If access to Goldenrod were
blocked at Poinsettia, all of these lots would be beyond the reach
of residents or emergency equipment.
To address this situation, the developers plan to provide a 201-
wide access road from Fuller Road to a stub driveway two lots from
the westerly end of Goldenrod. The emergency access road would
span the creek, and would presumably be removed when further
development renders it unnecessary.
The Fire Department says that an emergency ,access road is
desirable, but not required. If built, it should be 20' wide, and
the bridge over the creek needs to be adequate to support fire
equipment. Whether or not an emergency access road is built, a
turnaround is required near the proposed end of Goldenrod. Such a
turnaround could be created by the use of future lot sites, or some
other area not intended for development. There appears to be
adequate room for such a turnaround, and the developers are willing
to create one. If the emergency access road is not built, it would
still be possible, in serious emergencies, for equipment to reach
the end of Goldenrod from Fuller Road.
It is never desirable to create long dead-end streets, unless
future development will correct the problem. In this case, the
street will terminate at a new City Limit, which means that future
development on adjacent land may take place while that land is
still under county jurisdiction, and may not be consistent with the
EISP's circulation pattern. In reviewing this annexation request,
the City Council will have to determine if the provision of
additional homes in the city is worth the additional risk of
ER 110-93
9380 Broad Street: Goldenrod annexation
Page 7
creating a street that is not consistent with city standards, and
which may never be.
Conclusion: May be significant.
Recommended mitigation: The City Council must consider the
implications of approving a circulation pattern that may never
be completed as planned. To address this concern, the Council
should look at the following options:
* Approve the annexation, but do not allow development
until sufficient adjacent land is annexed as well.
* Approve an annexation of a larger area, including
adjacent land sufficient to complete the circulation
pattern in the EISP.
*
Approve the annexation, allowing development as proposed,
with a turnaround, finding that the risk of creating a
long no-access street is minimal in this location.
* Approve the annexation, with a condition that secondary
emergency access be provided as suggested by the
applicants.
*
Deny the annexation, finding that it is inconsistent with
City policies, specifically subdivision design standards.
Traffic levels: Traffic on Goldenrod and Poinsettia will increase
with the occupancy of homes on this street extension. If
alternative access is not provided through a looped street system,
then all traffic from this project will use Goldenrod, a local
street, and Poinsettia, a residential collector street.
Traffic levels are expected to increase by 372 trips per day, and
by 39 trips during peak evening hours, according to calculations
based on averages collected by the Institute of Traffic Engineers.
Saturday trips are expected to increase by 397 . No traffic counts
are available for Poinsettia Street, but counts for Tank Farm Road
indicate that the streets in this area are well under capacity.
The development of 39 lots would not increase the load
significantly.
The draft Circulation Element of the general plan recommends that
new residential areas be designed with the goal of limiting traffic
on local streets below 500-800 vehicles per day, and keeping levels
on residential collectors below 3 , 000 trips per day.
If no alternative access is provided for the new homes, Goldenrod
would be expected to carry up to 583 trips per day, and 622 per
3-30
ER 110-93
4380 Broad Street: Goldenrod annexation
Page 8
Saturday. Poinsettia, if it were to serve half of the homes on the
east side of the tracks, could be carrying as many as 3, 000
vehicles per day. However, as the remainder of the secondary
planning area is developed, Fuller Road will be developed as an
alternative access to Broad Street. This mid-point access should
take a significant number of trips away from Poinsettia.
Conclusion: Less than significant.
Public services
EmerQencv access According to the submitted plans, Goldenrod
would be extended to a length of about 11440 feet. There would be
no secondary access except for a 20'-wide emergency access road
that would cross the creek and join with Fuller Road. The Fuller
Road bridge has been strengthened to allow passage by fire engines.
The Fire Department requires a turnaround sufficient in size and
design for fire equipment, but does not require this emergency
access road. There is adequate room on the site for such a
turnaround, and the developers are willing to create one.
Conclusion: Less than significant. Fire code requirements
must be met and can be met.
Utilities
The site is outside the City Limits, and is not served by any city
services. Development within the City Limits will mean that water
and sewer lines will need to be extended, and the city's capacity
for these utilities must be assured.
Sewer. The nearest sewer connection is in Poinsettia Street at
Fuller Road. Gravity flow from the Goldenrod line to the
Poinsettia line would require bridging the creek at an elevation
above the creek flow line. Exposed pipes across creeks are
undesirable for aesthetic and maintenance reasons. A logical
ultimate connection is to the nearest manhole in Broad Street,
which appears to be at an elevation that can easily accommodate the
extension of a line in Goldenrod. However, this manhole is about
21000 feet away, and would require access through property not
owned by the applicants.
As noted in the project description, the area to be annexed is a
small portion of the secondary planning area. If the remaining
secondary planning area is annexed in the -future, then sewer lines
would be extended through the new streets to Broad Street. It is
therefore desirable to allow this type of connection to take place
in the future, while still providing adequate sewer service in the
interim, which may be indefinitely.
3 S/
ER 110-93
4380 Broad Street: Goldenrod annexation
Page 9
To achieve this result, the applicants are proposing to install a
gravity line from the existing end of Goldenrod to the new
termination point, provide a small lift station at the end of
Goldenrod and a force main back up. The applicants also propose to
install a transmitter that transmits to the City's existing
telemetry system so that any failure of the system will trigger an
alarm at the sewage treatment plant. The City's Utilities Engineer
approves the proposal for the short- and long-term, provided that
the applicants submit sufficient evidence, in the form of schematic
maps, to show that a gravity line from Goldenrod, through future
streets (shown on specific plan maps) :o Broad Street is feasible.
Conclusion: Not significant. Sewer service can be .provided
that meets City standards.
Water. Water connections can be made through an extension of the
Goldenrod water line, stubbed at the end. Availability of water to
serve the new homes is discussed under "Energy and resource use" ,
below.
Conclusion: Not significant.
Noise levels
The City's adopted and draft Noise Element policies, and common
practice, say that noise levels of 60 Ldn or less are "acceptable"
in residential areas. Higher noise levels need to be mitigated.
Airport noise. The site is about 1,700 feet (about . 32 mile) from
the San Luis Obispo airport. State law (SB 1453 - Chapter 438)
requires that initial studies of sites within two nautical miles
(2 . 3 miles) of a public use airport include a discussion of whether
the project will result in a safety hazard or noise problems for
residents or airport workers and users.
The proposed development will be residential, and should pose no
hazards for airport workers or users. Noise from the airport,
however, may pose a problem for the residents.
Projections of noise from operating the airport at capacity
(anticipated after the year 2010) , including the use of larger
planes, are included in the technical appendix to the draft Noise
Element, completed in 1991 (but not yet adopted) . These
projections indicate that the 60 CNEL (roughly equivalent to 60 Ld,)
noise contour is about 1, 500 feet from the site. Noise levels are
expected to be lower beyond that 1, 500 feet.
Conclusion: Noise levels from the airport will not be
significant.
3.3Z-
ER 110-93
4380 Broad Street: Goldenrod annexation
Page 10
Railroad. The site is about 500, from the Southern Pacific
Railroad tracks. The technical appendix in the draft Noise Element
projects that future trains, without horns, will create a 60 Ldo
average noise level 352 ' from the tracks. Trains with horns would
be expected to subject property 5251 from the tracks to noise
levels averaging 60 Ld,,. Therefore, a portion of lots nearest the
City Limit (proposed lots 32 , 33 , 37, and 38) may experience noise
levels between 60 and 65 Ld,,.
Conclusion: Less than significant. The higher noise levels
would affect a small portion of- four lots. The majority of
the lots would be subjected to acceptable noise levels.
Traffic noise. The site is about 1, 150 feet from Broad Street
(Highway 227) , a major noise source. The appendix to the draft
Noise Element projects that sites 292 feet from the center of Broad
Street, in this vicinity, will receive average noise exposures of
60 Ld„ from traffic in the future. Noise exposure at the site from
traffic on Broad would be considerably less than 60 Ld,,.
Conclusion: Not significant.
Cumulative noise impacts Noise contour maps in the technical
appendix of the draft Noise Element, based on future noise from all
three sources above, indicate that no part of the site will be
subjected to noise levels above 60 L,,,,. To understand this, it is
important to know that sound measuring techniques are complex.
Cumulative impacts from noise sources are not added linearly. The
addition of a noise source that is lower than the ambient noise
level usually has a minimal effect on the overall noise levels.
For example, if a site is exposed to two noise .sources, each of
which results in a level of 60 Ld,,, the two added together will
create a level of 63 Ld,,. Where one exposure is 50 and the other
60, the cumulative noise level is about 60. 4 Ld,. It is because of
the properties of sound waves that the three sources together do
not subject the site to levels above 60 Ld,,.
Conclusion: Not significant.
Surface water flow and quality
Plant and animal life
Two branches of an intermittent creek (tributaries of the East fork
of the San Luis Obispo Creek) form the northerly and southerly
boundaries of the proposed subdivision. The lower branch flows
along the southerly property line and the upper flows approximately
through the center of the site. The upper branch, according to the
Open Space Element, has a degraded corridor while the lower branch
has a good riparian corridor.
3-33
ER 110-93
4380 Broad Street: Goldenrod annexation
Page 11
The Open Space Element says that, in part to preserve and improve
the habitat for specialized plant and animal communities, creek
corridors and setback areas should be preserved through easements
or dedications, and that such easements should be required as a
condition of discretionary and development approvals. The element
further says that where creeks are to be restored, planting of
invasive, non-native plants should be prohibited, and trees should
not be removed except when determined appropriate by the .City
Arborist. (see Section 2B. ) The goal of the element is to maintain
creek buffer areas at least 20' wide along the tops of the banks of
creeks, and wider areas where significant riparian vegetation
extends beyond that width.
The proposal calls for locating single-family lots between the two
creek corridors. The majority of proposed lot lines are sited at
least 20' from the top of bank of the creek branches. Some lots
(61 15, 16, 17, 21, 22 , 23 , and 32) appear to have lot lines almost
touching creek banks. Very little significant riparian vegetation
exists within the proposed lot areas.
On those lots where the top of bank is closer than 20' to the lot
line, it would be possible, within zoning limitations, to build
homes closer than 20' to the top of bank, and it would be likely
that future lot owners would plant non-native vegetation within the
20' area. Such actions would not be consistent with Open Space
Element creek policies.
Conclusion: May be significant.
Recommended mitigation: The subdivision map must be designed
to incorporate adequate creek buffer areas, and provide for
restoration planting where necessary, consistent with goals
and policies in the Open Space Element.
Archeological or historical resources
The site is vacant and about fifteen acres in size. The City's
archeological guidelines say that an archeological surface survey
must be required in several instances, one of which is for requests
for annexations larger than one acre. Such a survey will determine
the probability of archeological resources on the site, and will
include recommended mitigation measures, if warranted. Mitigation
may affect the layout of future streets or locations for building,
but is not expected to eliminate all potential for future use.
Conclusion: May be significant. Discovery of archeological
resources may affect the timing and the design of subdivisions
on this property.
3-3�
ER 110-93
4380 Broad Street: Goldenrod annexation
Page 12
Recommended mitigation:
* A qualified archeologist shall be hired by the applicant
to conduct a surface survey of the site, to be completed
and submitted to the City along with the subdivision
application, in accordance with the City's archaeological
guidelines. These guidelines call for the archeologist
to be approved by the Community Development Director, and
state that the archaeologist must submit his or her
findings in a report format acceptable to the Director.
If surface survey results_ indicate that archeological
resources may exist, the project archeologist must
recommend, in a separate cover letter, specific
mitigation measures. These measures will be reviewed by
the Director, or referred to the Cultural Heritage
Committee for possible inclusion into the description of
the project.
Energy or resource use
The project is expected to use about 13 acre-feet of water per year
when occupied, assuming all 39 lots are created plus seven
additional low-cost dwellings. Since the site is vacant and not
irrigated, there is no water use presently. The new use, then,
represents a water use increase.
The City's Water Allocation Regulations allow new development only
when it does not affect the city's supply. This can happen only if
the new use replaces a similar use of a similar size, or if water
is provided by some other means to replace that used. One method,
allowed by the regulations, to obtain building permits is to
retrofit existing plumbing fixtures. The City allows a developer
to replace fixtures to save approximately twice as much water as
the new development is expected to use. When retrofitting is done,
the net effect on the city's water supplies should be beneficial.
The developer may use on-site wells for non-potable uses, if
approved by the City Council. Well use would reduce the amount of
water needed to below 13 acre-feet.
In essence, then, the annexation could be served by any of the
following methods:
a. City water supply, including reclaimed water (if new sources
are available) ;
b. Reduction of use of city water in existing development so that
there will be no net increase in long-term water usage
(retrofitting option) ;
ER 110-93
4380 Broad Street: Goldenrod annexation
Page 13
C. Use of private well water, but only temporarily, pending
availability of an approved addition to city water sources,
and only when it is demonstrated that the use of well water
will not diminish the city's municipal groundwater supply.
At this time, no new sources are available and will not be
available for several years (unless the developers provide a
private source) . Therefore, the first option is not open to this
project at this time.
The draft Urban Water Management Plan says that retrofitting
opportunities' (the second option) will be restricted for all minor
annexations, to a maximum of 33 acre-feet of expected water use.
This means that if applicants for other minor annexations retrofit
fixtures to provide 33 acre-feet of water for their developments,
then the applicants for this annexation will be required to secure
water through another source. Until an acceptable source is
secured, no development will be allowed.
A recently-approved minor annexation of property on South Higuera
Street (the "TK Annexation!') is expected to use between 15 and-20
acre-feet of water when developed. No other minor annexations are
currently under review. Therefore, .if 20 acre-feet are allocated
to the TK annexation, 13 acre-feet would remain available to the
Goldenrod annexation. It is likely, therefore, that water will be
available to this development if the developers retrofit sufficient
plumbing fixtures within the city.
The developers say that well water is a remote and unlikely
possibility at this location. It does not appear that sufficient
groundwater is available.
It is likely that the developers will be able to retrofit fixtures
in existing development to obtain a sufficient supply. If this
option is not available at the time of development, another source
will be required or the development will be unable to proceed. In
no case will the development be allowed to deplete existing
supplies. With the water regulations in force, development in the
annexed area will not have a detrimental effect on the available
supply.
Conclusion: Not significant.
Other impacts.
The annexation is not expected to have significant impacts on any
other aspect of the environment.
3.3G
ER 110-93
4380 Broad Street: Goldenrod annexation
Page 14
RECOMMENDATION
Grant a negative declaration of environmental impact, with the
following
Mitigation measures
O The City Council must consider the implications of approving
a circulation pattern that may never be completed as planned.
To address this concern, the Council should look at the
following options:
* Approve the annexation, but do not allow development
until sufficient adjacent land is annexed as well.
* Approve an annexation of a larger area, including
adjacent land sufficient to complete the circulation
pattern in the EISP.
* Approve the annexation, allowing development as proposed,
with a turnaround, finding that the risk of creating a
long no-access street is minimal in this location.
* Approve the annexation, with a condition that secondary
emergency access be provided as suggested by the
applicants.
* Denv the annexation, finding that it is inconsistent with
City policies, specifically subdivision design standards.
O The subdivision map must be designed to incorporate adequate
creek buffer areas and provide for restoration planting where
necessary, consistent with goals and policies in the Open
Space Element.
O A qualified archeologist shall be hired by the applicant to
conduct a surface survey of the site, to be completed and
submitted to the City along with the subdivision application,
in accordance with the City's archaeological guidelines.
These guidelines call for the archeologist to be approved by
the Community Development Director, and state that the
archaeologist must submit his or her findings in a report
format acceptable to the Director. If surface survey results
indicate that archeological resources may exist, the project
archeologist must recommend, in a separate cover letter,
specific mitigation measures. These measures will be reviewed
by the Director, or referred to the Cultural Heritage
Committee for possible inclusion into the description of the
project.
3-37
►►����n�►��►���►�III�IIlllllllll��°�°°1°��� 11
II
city of sAn tuis oBispo
990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249
INITIAL STUDY
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
ER 127-95
1 . Project Title: Goldenrod residential subdivision (County file number Tract 2211)
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:
4380 Broad Street
Assessor's Parcel Nos. 76-411-037 and 014
Lot 109 and portion of lot 106, Suburban Tract
5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address:
John French and R.W. Hertel, Inc.
500 Esplanade Drive, Suite 1160
Oxnard, CA 93030
6. General Plan Designation:
Low-Density Residential
/ The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services, programs and activities.
v� Telecommunications Device for the Deaf(805) 781.7410.
III
city of sAn luis owspoNEW
990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249
7. Zoning:
Low-Density Residential (R-1)
8. Description of the Project: The project is the division of the site into 47 residential
and four open space lots, on two streets. Goldenrod Lane would be extended from
its current southwesterly end, through lot 109, to terminate at the lot's westerly
boundary. A new street would intersect Goldenrod near its new terminus and
connect to Fuller Lane near its intersection with the Pacific Coast RailRoad right-of-
way. Two drainage basins are proposed, one of which would be an extension of an
existing basin.
An alternative subdivision design, submitted to address concerns raised by staff,
includes one large detention basin and community garden area. A bicycle path is
shown alongside the creek bank, connecting an existing path east of the site to A
Street.
A tributary of Islay creek cuts through the site, and a portion of another tributary
extends into the site from near the southerly lot line. These creek portions are
shown as separate lots, with easements extending 20' from the top of bank on
adjacent lots.
An existing 50'-wide access easement extends from the rear lot line of lot 24 of the
adjacent Tract 1360, Unit 3 (southeast of Goldenrod), along the northeasterly
boundary of the Tract 2211 site, to serve adjacent county property southeast of the
subdivision boundaries.
An amendment to the Edna-Islay Specific Plan may be needed, to address the
changes to the circulation plan.
9. Surrounding Land uses and Setting: The site is adjacent to low-density residential
development to the northeast, and essentially undeveloped county property to the
south and southeast. The triangular site is vacant, heavily vegetated in and near the
creeks, but otherwise not.
10. Other public agencies whose approval is required: Work within and over the creeks
will require approval by the State Department of Fish and Game (DFG).
rr� The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the @cabled in all of its services, programs and activities.
Telecommunications Device for the Deaf(805) 781-7410.
7 25
ER 127-95
4380 Broad Street
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 X Biological Resources Aesthetics
Population and Housing Energy and Mineral Cultural Resources
Resources
Geological Problems Hazards Recreation
Water Noise X Mandatory Findings of
Significance
X Air Quality Public Services
Transportation and X 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 MITIGATIVE NEGATIVE DECLARATION will
be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a 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.
3
3-�/D
ER 127-95
4380 Broad Street
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.
May 6, 1996
igna re - 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 (e. g. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone).
A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general
standards (e. g.the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific
screening analysis).
2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site,
cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational
impacts.
3) "Potentially Significant Impact' is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant.
If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR
is required.
4) "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation
measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less than Significant Impact."
The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect
to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section 17, "Earlier Analysis," may be cross-
referenced).
5) Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEOA.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.
4
;'- s/i
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Issues Unless Impact
ER 127-95 Mitigation
4380 Broad Street Incorporated
1. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:
a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? 1, 2, 3 X
General Plan Land Use, Zoning, Edna-/slay Specific plan map designations:
The site is designated "Low-Density Residential" on the City's General Plan Land Use Element (LUE) map and Low-Density
Residential with a Specific Plan overlay (R-1-SP) on the City's official Zone Map. The site is designated Low Density
residential in the Edna-Islay Specific Plan (EISP), which implements the LUE for a 1,000-acre site on the southeast edge
of the city. The proposal is for 47 low-density residential lots, which is consistent with these designations.
Edna-!slay Specific Plan circulation plan:
The site is within the "secondary planning area" of the EISP. The secondary planning area includes that area which is
between Broad Street and the "primary planning area", and which was outside the city limits at the time the specific plan
was adopted in 1982. Figure 27 of the specific plan shows the circulation plan for this area.
The circulation plan shows a street system that includes an extension of Goldenrod Street into the secondary planning
area, where it is intersected by a new street that extends to Fuller road and across it. Another street crosses the new one,
perpendicular to it, between Goldenrod and Fuller.
(he proposed circulation plan differs in that the intersection of Goldenrod with the new street occurs sooner, at a point
about 1,100 feet from the existing end of Goldenrod as opposed to about 1,500 feet as shown in the specific plan. The
new street then intersects with Fuller at a location closer to the PCRR, only about 250' from the Fuller Road intersection
with Poinsettia Street. There is no additional street shown, roughly parallel to Fuller and Goldenrod, as there is in the
specific plan.
Because the circulation plan is essentially a schematic design, based on aerial photographs and small-scale topographical
information, and because throughout the development of the primary planning area many minor changes to the circulation
plan were found to be consistent with the specific plan, the present street proposal can also be found to be consistent
with the specific plan. See discussion under"circulation", below, for an evaluation of the merits of the proposed layout.
b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies 21 X
adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project?
Work within or near the creeks will require approval by the DFG. Approval of DFG permits will assure that there are no
conflicts with any environmental policies adopted by that agency.
c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity! I I I I I X
The site is adjacent to low-density residential lots to the northeast, and to vacant land on the south and southwest sides.
The project will be compatible with existing development nearby.
d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impact to X
soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land
uses)?
ie land is not being used for agricultural operations.
5
3-yt-
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER 127-95 Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
4380 Broad Street Incorporated
e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an X
established community (including a low-income or
minority community)?
The project will extend an existing middle-class neighborhood.
2. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal:
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population 1,5,14 X
projections?
The 47 homes expected to be built on the site would house approximately 47 X 2.48 = 117 persons, if the homes are
occupied at the current average rate of 2.48 persons per dwelling. The LUE calls for an increase of housing supply of no
more than one percent per year. The project represents about one-fourth of the population increase for one year. As noted
in the previous environmental study (source 14), the population increase is consistent with general plan policies on growth
rates and phasing (policy 1.11.1 of the Land Use Element).
The LUE calls for development of all property within the Urban Reserve Line consistent with land use designations on the
LUE and Zoning maps, for an ultimate capacity of about 57,700 persons. The proposal is consistent with these goals.
b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or X
indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area or
major infrastructure? )
No major infrastructure improvements would be completed as a part of this project. The site is undeveloped but adjacent
to fully-developed property, so is an extension of existing development.
c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? X
No housing currently exists on the site. The project would increase the housing supply.
3. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving:
a) Fault rupture? 7 X
No active or potentially active faults are known to be present within the city or its immediate vicinity.
b) Seismic ground shaking? 1 6 1 X
The soils in this area are designated as having a "high seismic hazard" potential. This means that buildings in this area (as
well as much of the city) may be affected by ground movements. The San Andreas Fault is located about 40 miles
northeast of the site, and is expected to be the source of a major earthquake in the future. The Nacimiento Fault, about
13 miles southeast, is expected to have a negligible effect on the city. The Rinconada and Hosgri-San Simeon fault zones
also offer potential for future earthquakes. The Building Code requires that buildings be designed to withstand earthquakes
and other seismic activities to the extent that they remain standing, even if they are rendered useless. A soils report will
be required as part of the Building Permit submittal. Such report will recommend foundation and building design practices
that will reduce the hazards associated with alluvial soils. Building codes and soils report recommendations should reduce
risks to an acceptable level for this part of the country.
c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? 7 X
6
z-47
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER 127-95 Issues Unless Mitigation
Impact
4380 Broad Street Incorporated
The site is within zone"R" on the GP Seismic Safety Element (SSE) Seismic Zones map. According to the SSE, this means
that the soils have high potential for liquefaction since the groundwater level is less than 30 feet from the surface over
most of zone R. Construction on the site could therefore result in hazards from liquefaction in case of an earthquake. The
required soils report and recommendations, plus current building codes, should assure protection from the hazards of
liquefaction for persons using the new buildings.
d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? X
The site is several miles from the ocean, and therefore not likely tc be at risk from a tsunami. The volcanoes in this area
are all extinct. There are no large bodies of water nearby that might experience seiches, thereby creating danger by
flooding. There are no risks from these hazards.
e) Landslides or mudflows? 1 6 X
The soil types map in the Informational Map Atlas shows the site as type crA. The explanation of soil types in the atlas
says, among other things, that the landslide potential for this type is nil.
f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions 6 X
from excavation, grading or fill?
'he Informational Map Atlas denotes this site as having"slight" wind erosion potential and no water erosion potential. The
site is essentially flat and excavation would only be for the construction of foundations.
g) Subsidence of the land? I X
h) Expansive soils? 6,22 X
The soils are"moderately to highly" expansive, according to the soils report (source 22). However, undesirable effects of
such soils will be mitigated by use of building code requirements and soils report recommendations.
i) Unique geologic or physical features? 6 X
4. WATER. Would the proposal result in:
a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the X
rate and amount of surface runoff?
The construction of homes on this vacant site will increase runoff and alter drainage patterns, but not significantly. A
drainage basin is proposed for property adjacent to an existing basin. Lots will drain to the new streets. Thecreeks that
travel through the site will remain open and in a natural condition.
b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards X
such as flooding?
Ilrainage will be handled in accordance with City regulations, and therefore is not expected to create any flood hazards.
7
3-Vi/
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER 127-95 Issues Unless Impact
4380 Broad Street MitigationIncorporated
c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of X
surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen
or turbidity?
d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water X
body?
The new drainage basin, as well as the others in the vicinity, is a detention basin. Therefore, it will retain water only for
short periods, then slowly release it into the adjacent creek. Most of the year these basins will be empty.
e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water X
movements?
No changes to the creeks are proposed.
f) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through 6 X
direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of
an aquifer by cuts or excavations or through substantial
loss of groundwater recharge capability?
The groundwater will continue to be recharged through percolation. The soils have "slow permeability" in this area,
according to the map atlas. No significant change to the amount of ground water is expected to come from this
development.
g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? X
h) Impacts to groundwater quality? X
No change to groundwater quality is expected. Small amounts of fertilizer and plant chemicals will likely seep into the
soils, but the clay soils will prevent their traveling far down.
i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater -T X
otherwise available for public water supplies?
:] I
Groundwater in the area is not a good source for public water supplies. There are no plans to withdraw any of it for use
in this development.
5. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an g X
existing or projected air quality violation (Compliance with
APCD Environmental Guidelines)?
8
Issues and Supporting Information Sources sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER 127-95 Issues unless Impact
Mitigation
4380 Broad Street Incorporated
The project is expected to generate about 13 pounds of pollutants per day, according to APCD's Air Quality Handbook.
The handbook finds that any project with the potential to generate over 10 lbs per day has the potential to cause
significant air quality impacts.
Conclusion. May be significant.
Recommended mitigation:
♦ The project must include easements or land dedications for bikeways and walkways to provide residents with a means
to move about their neighborhood without automobiles.
♦ The local transit authority (SLO Transit) must be contacted to assure adequacy of transit stops in the area. If another
stop is needed to serve this development, the developer will be required to install or fund a shelter or other needed
improvement.
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? X
The residents of this development and nearby developments will be exposed to pollutants from automobile emissions. In
ther words, the residents themselves and their guests (plus some passing motorists) are expected to create the pollution
to which they are exposed. Mitigation measures mentioned under 5(a), above, are intended to encourage and assist
residents in making fewer automobile trips.
c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause X
any change in climate?
d) Create objectionable odors? X
6. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? 9 X
Short-term. Construction traffic can be annoying (loud and often dirty) and can cause additional wear on city streets.
The applicants propose requiring construction traffic to use Fuller Road. Adequate access for this purpose is available.
This plan will relieve the neighboring residential area of the need to continue to bear the impacts of this type traffic.
Management of construction traffic will be by the contractor. To assure that it is routed correctly, staff will
recommend that subdivision approval be with a condition that 1) all construction traffic be routed through this
segment of Fuller Road, except when physically impossible, and 2) signs be installed at the existing southerly end of
Goldenrod and at the in-city end of Fuller, saying "No construction traffic". Staff will work with the contractor and
monitor complaints to make sure that this traffic continues to use Fuller Road between the site and Broad Street.
9
3-y�
Issues and Supporting Information Sources sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER 127-95 Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
4380 Broad Street Incorporated
Medium-term: The project is expected to generate 470 vehicle trips per day, according to averages calculated by the
Institute of Traffic Engineers (The ITE estimates each single-family house generates about ten trips). It is expected that
half of the trips will be leaving the site and half coming to it. Some residents will exit the site easterly along Goldenrod
to Poinsettia, while others will travel in a west and northwesterly direction to Fuller Road and then to Poinsettia, and
will return the same way. Most drivers will then take Poinsettia to Tank Farm and go east or west from that
intersection.
Impacts on existing traffic, then, are anticipated to be the greatest on Poinsettia above Fuller Road. There are no
traffic counts available for Poinsettia Street, a residential collector. However, about 230 homes have primary logical
access to that part of Poinsettia that is south of Tank Farm Road. If each home generates ten trips per day, then that
portion of Poinsettia would be expected to be carrying about 2,300 trips per day currently.
According to the Circulation Element, the "desired maximum"traffic on residential collectors is 3,000 trips per day.
The project is expected to add about 470 trips to Poinsettia Street. The total traffic on this street would then be
2,300 + 470 = 2,770 trips per day, still under the desired 3,000-trip limit.
Once on Tank Farm, traffic from the project site is expected to head in different directions. Traffic counts on Tank
Farm are currently low for the capacity of the street. The additional traffic is not expected to be noticeable or to raise
traffic to significant levels.
Long-term: Ultimately, Fuller Road will provide access to this site and others in the secondary planning area. This
access should take most of the impact off Poinsettia. Subsequent annexations and subdivisions in the secondary
planning area will be analyzed for effects on traffic on Poinsettia. As the estimated number of trips starts to exceed
the maximum desirable for Poinsettia, requirements will be made for the acquisition of Fuller Road and its dedication
to the City.
Conclusion: Less than significant.
b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp curves 10,23, X
or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. 24
farm equipment)?
10
-issues and Supporting Information Sources sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER 127-95 Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
4380 Broad Street Incorporated
Fuller A Street intersection:
Fuller Road is a 30'-wide private street, created by map in 1906 and not offered for dedication as a public street at
that time. Because it is a private road, it is owned by adjacent property owners. Each property owner has rights of
access and rights to improve the road.
The intersection of "A" Street with Fuller Road (see attached map A) thus presents some design and maintenance
challenges. The applicant owns to the center of the street. The applicant will dedicate his half (15') of the street to
the City, plus additional right-of-way sufficient to install paving, curb, gutter, and sidewalk to City standards on that
side of the street. He has the right to improve the full private street width and to provide access along it. However,
the additional 15' road width is not adequate for the installation of a full City-standard street improvements on the
other side.
The City requires that new streets be installed fully at the time of subdivision improvements. Full street improvements
control drainage, contain pavement, control grades, and provide sidewalks for pedestrians. Therefore the City and the
applicant have the following options:
♦ Obtain sufficient right-of-way from the present property owners. Dedication of the remaining necessary right-of-
way will allow the developer to install complete improvements on both sides of the street. The property would be
dedicated to the County because it is outside the city limits, unless it is annexed.
♦ If the property owner won't dedicate the right-of-way, the City may use its powers of condemnation to obtain it.
This process may involve purchase of the right-of-way by the City, funded by the applicant. Improvements would
then be installed by the applicant. The street portion would still be under County jurisdiction, unless annexed.
♦ If the owner of the offsite property won't dedicate the right-of-way, the City may instead accept lesser
improvements. The street design would have to be adjusted to allow for an acceptable cross-section, with at least
a curb on the northerly side. The street section would then be under private ownership and a maintenance
agreement would need to be made with the City, probably requiring the homeowners' association to maintain this
portion or to pay the City to maintain it.
These options will be discussed with the Planning Commission and City Council during review of the map. If
dedication of the entire street section is made a condition of the map, and the off-site property owner chooses not to
dedicate, then the Council will have 120 days to decide whether to use its powers of eminent domain to obtain that
property. If the Council chooses not to use these powers, the condition must be deleted. (Subdivision Map Act, source
24)
If the property is not dedicated or condemned, the intersection would be partially private, partially public. Maintenance
could become a problem for the City and the residents.
Conclusion. Less than significant. The Commission and Council will be informed of the options possible during review
hearings on the map. The intersection will be required to meet state and local codes, and will therefore be safe and
maneuverable. Maintenance issues are not in themselves environmental effects.
11
�.40'8
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER 127-95 Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
4380 Broad Street Incorporated
Length of block.
The intersection is also only about 200' from the intersection of Poinsettia with Fuller. It appears that the majority of
exiting traffic from the new subdivision will take A Street to Fuller to Poinsettia. Therefore, this intersection could see
300 - 350 trips per day.
All of the streets in this area are designated "local streets" on the Circulation Element. According to the Subdivision
Regulations,
A. For culs-de-sac and residential minors, "T"or three-way intersections are preferable to four-way intersections. ON
these streets, intersections should be spaced at least one hundred fifty feet apart, measured from centerline to
centerline. - Section 16.36.060
Although a short street, it appears that this block meets the requirements of the subdivision regulations.
Conclusion. Not significant.
Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? X
Emergency access from Broad Street via Fuller Road is already available. The road is adequately improved and the existing
bridge adequately supported to support fire trucks.
The connection of Goldenrod with Fuller, and thus with Poinsettia, provides an alternative access to and from the
subdivision site, relieving pressure from Goldenrod alone and providing easy access to nearby residential areas and to the
nearby park.
d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? X
Each home will have parking provided in garages, to city standards. New streets will`be built to full City Standards and
will have parking on both sides, consistent with standard practice.
e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? X
F
with adopted policies supporting alternative 11X
ation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? _T
12
issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER 127-95 Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
4380 Broad Street Incorporated
The Bicycle Transportation Plan (source 11) , figure 1, calls for one new on-street bicycle path to extend from
Poinsettia Street down Fuller Road to Broad Street, and for another, off-street, recreational path to extend from an
existing creekside path east of the site through the project site and on over to connect with Fuller Road shortly before
it intersects with Broad Street.
The project design includes a bicycle path alongside the former railroad right-of -way, adjacent to existing residential
development. The alternative subdivision design shows a bicycle path in a different location: alongside the northerly
bank of the creek that cuts through the center of the site. The path would extend an existing path, east of the site, to
connect it with A Street.
The alternative design is consistent with the Bicycle Transportation Plan general design for a creekside recreational
path. The Bicycle Transportation Plan contains the following policy for development of such paths:
10. Bicycle paths along creeks should.,
• Be located outside setbacks required to protect creek banks and riparian vegetation. Access points to the creek
should be limited in number and avoid the removal of significant habitat or impacts on important fishery areas.
• Provide a landscape buffer of indigenous vegetation between the top of the creek bank and the path. The buffer
should ensure visual access to the creek while controlling the location of pedestrian/bicycle access.
• Avoid causing creek bank erosion, siltation of stream beds, or the removal of trees with trunk diameter of 12 inches
or greater.
• Be closed when flood hazards exist.
Conclusion.The plans appear to conflict with the Bicycle Transportation Plan policies. This conflict may be significant.
Recommended mitigation.
The bicycle path along the creek shall be designed in accordance with standards in the Bicycle Transportation Plan.
g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts (e.g. compatibility 3,4 X
with San Luis Obispo Co. Airport Land Use Plan)?
The Airport Land Use Plan (source 4) 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.
,ere are no navigable waters in the vicinity.
7. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in:
13
3-so
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER 127-95 Issues unless Impact
Mitigation
4380 Broad Street Incorporated
a) Negative effects on endangered, threatened or rare 12 X
species or their habitats (including but not limited to
plants, fish, insects, animals or birds)?
The creek running through the center of the site, and the lower fork of the same creek, which just touches the
southerly property line, are the primary habitat for wildlife on the site. Some of San Luis Obispo's creeks provide
habitat for the Southwestern Pond Turtle (Clemmys marmorata pallida), a species currently listed by the California
Department of Fish and Game as a Species of Special Concern, and a Category 2 candidate for federal listing as
endangered or threatened. The southerly creek has been determined to be "suitable habitat"for the Southwestern
Pond Turtle, according to the Southwestern Pond Turtle Study (source 12), and a portion of the property between the
two creeks is considered "potential upland turtle nesting area" by the same study. The upper creek was considered
"dry" and not suitable habitat for the turtle.
The subdivision design shows the bicycle lane within the setback area from the top of bank. No landscaping plans
have been submitted yet. At least two willows with trunks larger than 12" are proposed to be removed to make room
for a bridge over the creek and construction of the bicycle path.
The listing of this species in these categories means that state and federal wildlife protection agencies are monitoring
turtle populations and habitat status to determine whether further legal protection is warranted. No threatened or
endangered animals were observed on the site during this study.
If existing habitat is not protected adequately, the turtles may acquire status as threatened or endangered.
Development of housing near the southerly creek can have significant effects on the turtle population.
Conclusion: May be significant.
Recommended mitigation:
The existing vegetation barrier shall be maintained along the top of bank of the southerly creek, and a setback of at least
20' beyond that riparian edge shall be included in proposed lots C and D, to provide adequate buffer area between habitat
area and residential lots.
b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)? X
Heritage trees are the only type of locally-designated species recognized in San Luis Obispo. There are no heritage trees
on site.
c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak forest, X
coastal habitat, etc.)?
The riparian areas are natural communities, but have not been specifically recognized as locally-designated communities.
d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool? 2,12 X
14
3-s/
issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER 127-95 Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
4380 Broad Street Incorporated
The two creeks on-site provide riparian habitat. Development near creeks can degrade the quality of the habitat and cause
a reduction in the number of species or total numbers of animals able to use the habitat. The Open Space Element calls
for protection of creek corridors in part because
Creeks preserve and improve the community's quality of life by providing beauty, spawning grounds for fish, specialized
plant and animal communities, corridors for wildlife, and recreational opportunities.
Section B. Purpose.3, p. 20, OSE
The Creek Map (Figure 4, OSE) describes the northerly creek as
"Intermittent creek with degraded corridor, high encroachment, and more difficult to restore."
and the southerly creek as
"Intermittent creek with good riparian corridor'
These definitions are consistent with the Turtle study (source 12), which describes the northerly branch as a "dry creek",
not suitable habitat for turtles, and the southerly branch as "suitable turtle habitat" (Figure 4, turtle study).
avelopment that encroaches into or further degrades these creeks would have a detrimental effect on wildlife, including
the candidate species (Southwestern Pond Turtle). Protection for the sensitive creatures and other wildlife can best be
provided by an adequate buffer between the creek and development. The Open Space Element policies include:
E. Require public or private development to locate outside a creek corridor and creek setback area except in the following
cases: (1) no practicable alternative is available; (2) the proposed location is necessary to protect public health and
safety, (3) the location is necessary for the repair of roads, bridges, trails, or similar infrastructure; or (4) to allow
existing structures which become non-conforming by the implementation of this element to remodel or rebuild within
the footprint of the existing structure; (5) the location is necessary for the construction of new roads, bridges, trails,
or similar infrastructure where the Community Development Director determines the project has minimized
environmental impacts through project design and infrastructure placement.
- OSE Section B, Policies within the Urban Reserve Line and the City Limit Line, 1.E
An ordinance implementing the OSE's policies on creek setbacks is under review by the City Council at the time of the
writing of this report. That ordinance would require a 20' setbacks from the top of bank or riparian vegetation in this case,
because the creek is considered "encroached". Present practice is to require a 20' setback from the top of bank or the edge
of riparian vegetation, whichever is greater, for all creeks. There may be changes to the proposed ordinance before it is
passed, significantly affecting setback requirements. Setbacks should conform with the standards that were in place when
the map was determined to be complete. Therefore, a 20' setback should be required, in accordance with current practice.
Conclusion: May be significant.
Recommended mitigation:
Lot B on the tentative map shall include a minimum 20' buffer area beyond the top of bank or the edge of riparian
-getation, whichever is greater. This buffer area shall be planted with native riparian plants appropriate for the type creek
I location,to the approval of the Community Development Director. The bicycle path shall be located outside the buffer
area.
15
3-SZ
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER 127-95 Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
4380 Broad Street Incorporated
e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors?
X
Natural creeks constitute wildlife corridors. Protection afforded by the buffer areas recommended in 7 (a) and (d) above
should preserve these corridors.
8. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
f32.
Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? 13 X
e Energy Conservation Element says
The design of subdivisions will protect solar exposure to the greatest extent possible:
A. Within all new residential subdivisions, the longest dimension of each lot should b oriented within 30 degrees of
south, unless the subdivider demonstrates that for certain lots any one of the following applies;
1. The lots are large enough to allow suitable building orientation regardless of lot orientation;
2. Buildings will be constructed as part of the tract.development, and the buildings will be properly oriented, with
adequate solar exposure.
3. Topography makes variations from the prescribed orientation desirable to reduce grading or tree removal or to
take advantage of a setting which would favor greater reliance on early morning or late afternoon exposure.
4. Topographical conditions —such as steep northerly-facing slope or shading by the mass of a hill—make solar
energy use generally infeasible,
5. The size of the subdivision combined with the existing orientation of surrounding streets and lots preclude
desirable lot orientation.
The majority of the longer dimensions of lots in this subdivision are oriented 90 degrees of south. The reason for this
orientation is 1) it is consistent with the Edna-Islay Specific Plan; and 2) the street orientation avoids intrusion into the
creeks. The extension of Goldenrod is designed logically for the topographical conditions. The subdivision is to be built
out by the developer, and adequate solar exposure can be provided during the design process. The design is consistent
with the intent of this policy.
b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient X
manner?
There are no plans for unusual uses of non-renewable resources that would be wasteful or inefficient.
c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral X
resource that would be of future value to the region and
the residents of the State?
9. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve:
16
3 -5,3
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER 127-95 Issues unless Impact
Mitigation
4380 Broad Street Incorporated
a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous X
substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides,
chemicals or radiation)?
There is a high-pressure gas line roughly parallel to and about ten feet inside the southwesterly property line. The line is
about four feet below the surface, and is highly explosive. Any digging in the area could rupture the line, and could result
in an explosion, endangering lives and property. Lots 11, 13, 14, and 47 are affected.
Because of its nearness to the surface, the gas line could be ruptured during grading. Fencing over the line may prevent
access to it in emergencies.
Conclusion. May be significant.
Recommended mitigation.-
4
itigation.♦ No grading shall be allowed within ten feet of the high-pressure gas line on lots 11, 13, 14, and 47. No fencing shall
be placed over or across this line, or within ten feet of it.
Potential owners of these lots will be informed of the existence of this line on the property by a recorded documents,
written to the approval of the Community Development Director. Signage shall be placed near the location of the gas
line, to inform anyone nearby of the danger, to the approval of Southern California Gas Co.
b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or X
emergency evacuation plan?
c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health X
hazard?
d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health X
hazards?
e) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass X
or trees?
10. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increase in existing noise levels? 14,15, X
16
—'le addition of homes in this currently undeveloped area is not expected to increase noise levels beyond 55 Ldn, which
:onsidered "normally acceptable" by noise experts and in the current and draft Noise Elements.
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? 1 14 X
17
2-sy
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER 127-95 Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
4380 Broad Street Incorporated
Airport and traffic noise are the primary noise sources in this area. The analysis in the previous initial study (source 14)
shows that these noise sources are not expected to have a significant effect on the project.
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
The Fire Department says that access appears to be adequate as proposed. Mains and hydrants will be required to meet
City codes, and will therefore be adequate.
b) Police protection?
X
The Police Department expects to be able to serve the area adequately.
c) Schools? 17
X
The proposed subdivision will contain 47 single-family homes. In San Luis Obispo, according to census figures (source 17),
the average household size is 2.388 persons. If all 47 homes are occupied, the projected population of this subdivision
would be 47 X'2.388 = 112.24 = 112. Also according to census figures, approximately 13.8% of the city's population
is aged seventeen or younger. Therefore, we would expect to find 112 X 13.8% = 15.45 = 15 school-age children livinc
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 15+ 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.
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? 14,18, X
19
18
3-Sf
Issues and Supporting Information Sources sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant significant Impact
ER 127-95 Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
4380 Broad Street Incorporated
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.)
In addition, the City has restricted the total amount of water available to annexations to 33 acre-feet.
The project is expected to use
0.30 acre-feet/dwelling X 47 dwellings = 14.1 = 14 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 19) 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
'he 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.The City is committed (source 19)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.
d) Sewer or septic tanks? X
The Tank Farm sewer lift station is at capacity. The project will add to its burden.
Conclusion. May be significant.
Recommended mitigation:
Eventually,a new gravity sewer will have to be constructed down Tank Farm Road, relieving the lift station. The developer
will be expected to contribute to the cost of this new sewer, to the approval of the Utilities Director.
I Storm water drainage? X 7-1
19
3-SG
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER 127-95 Issues unless Impact
Mitigation
4380 Broad Street Incorporated
The construction of homes on the site will increase runoff from the area. The plans include an expansion of an existing
detention basin, to be sized according to City standards, to accommodate the additional runoff. The detention basin will
hold water from storms and release it at a rate that can be accommodated by the creek. The additional runoff, drained
in this manner, is not expected to create any adverse effects on the natural drainage system.
f) Solid waste disposal? X
g) Local or regional water supplies? X
See discussion under (c), above.
13. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? X
b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? X
c) Create light or glare? X
14. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a) Disturb paleontological resources? 20 X
The archeological study done of the site (source 20) concludes that the project site ".does not have significant potential
for historic era archaeological resources. No further heritage resource evaluation work is recommended as a part of the
planning process."
b) Disturb archaeological resources? 20 X
See note under (a) above.
c) Affect historical resources? 20 X
See note under (a) above.
d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which 20 X
would affect unique ethnic cultural values?
See note under (a) above.
e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the 2p X
potential impact area?
There are no existing religious or sacred uses within the area.
20
3-s 7
issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER 127-95 Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
4380 Broad Street Incorporated
15. RECREATION. Would the proposal:
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks X
or other recreational facilities)
The addition of 47 homes to this area will increase the impact on nearby parks, in particular French Park. Incrementally,
population increases lead to the need for additional parkland and improvements to existing parks. The increased park-in-lieu
fees that will be paid (by ordinance) to the City for each home ($3,180 per home at this time) in this subdivision will
provide adequate mitigation for the increased demand. No mitigation is needed.
b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? X
Off-street bicycle paths are a component of this subdivision. Provision of such paths will provide recreational opportunities
to the residents of this and nearby subdivisions. The project will, therefore, expand existing recreational opportunities by
a small amount.
16. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality 8,12, X
of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a 20
fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to
drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a
plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict
the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or
eliminate important examples of the major periods of
California history or prehistory?
See sections 5, 7, and 14 of this report, and included mitigation measures.
b) Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, X
to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals?
Short-term goals are the same as long-term goals.
c) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, 8 X
but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively
considerable" means that the incremental effects of a
project are considerable when viewed in connection with
the effects of the past projects, the effects of other current
projects, and the effects of probable future projects)
Virtually every development project produces air quality impacts, which, cumulatively, can be considerable. The Air
Pollution Control District (APCD) has developed guidelines for planning to reduce the impacts, and evaluates any proposals
that are expected to produce more than 10 pounds of pollutants per day. Mitigation measures recommended in section
above, are expected to reduce the levels of pollutants caused by this specific project and to provide an example for
ier projects to do the same.
21
3 s�
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER 127-95 Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
4380 Broad Street Incorporated
d) Does the project have environmental effects which will X
-cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either
directly or indirectly?
The project involves the construction of homes that will expand an existing residential neighborhood. No part of the porejct
is expected to'cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, directly or indirectly.
17. EARLIER ANALYSES.
Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEOA process, one or more effects have
been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration. Section 15063 (c) (3) (D). In this case a discussion
should identify the following items:
a) Earlier analysis used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review.
An initial study of environmental impact (City file no. ER 110-93) was completed on November 13, 1994, and a
Negative Declaration with Mitigation was adopted by the City Council, as amended, on March 21, 1995. This study is
available for review in the Community Development Department, City of San Luis Obispo.
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.
Population distribution and growth, Land use, Transportaion and circulation (analysis of an alternative road design was
done), Noise. No significant effects were noted in these areas. Therefore, no mitigation measures for those effects were
adopted.
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.
The mitigation measures in the earlier report addressed annexation options, creek buffer areas, and archaeology. The
annexation is complete. Creek buffer areas are discussed in this report and additional mitigation drafted to address
impacts. An archeologist conducted a study of the site and concluded that no significant resources are available on site.
Therefore, none of the mitigation measures from the earlier report were incorporated into the present report.
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).
22
issues and Supporting Information Sources sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER 127-95 Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
4380 Broad Street Incorporated
18. SOURCE REFERENCES
1 General Plan Land Use Element text, page 17, 18, and map, City of San Luis Obispo, August 1994
2 Zoning Regulations and map, 1995
3 Edna-Islay Specific Plan, Figure 27, City of San Luis Obispo, 1982
4 Airport Land Use Plan, Airport Land Use Commission, December 1973
5 1990 Census, Department of Finance, State of California, 1990
6 Informational Map Atlas, City of San Luis Obispo, 1975
7 Seismic Safety Element, pp. 26, 36, and map, City of San Luis Obispo, 1975
8 CEQA Air Quality Handbook, Air Pollution Control District, County of San Luis Obispo, August 1995
9 Trip Generation, Institute of Traffic Engineers, 198? plus addenda
10 General Plan Circulation Element
11 Bicycle Transportation Plan, pp 4 - 11, figures 1 & 2, City of San Luis Obispo, October 1993
12 Final Report: The Arbors at Islay Hill Southwestern Pond Turtle Study, Lawrence E. Hunt and Jacqueline L.
Bowland, March 1995
13 General Plan Energy Conservation Element, City of San Luis Obispo, 1982
14 Negative Declaration with Mitigation for the Goldenrod Annexation, City of San Luis Obispo, March 1995
15 General Plan Noise Element, ENVICOM for the City of San Luis Obispo, 1975
16 Draft General Plan Noise Element, Brown Buntin Associates, September 1991
17 1990 Census, California Department of Finance, 1990
18 Water Use Factors, City of San Luis Obispo, November 30, 1994
19 Water & Wastewater Management Element, City of San Luis Obispo, November 1994
20 Phase 1 Archaeological Survey of the Goldenrod Lane Annex Project, Thor Conway, Feb. 15, 1996
21 California Fish & Game Code Section 700 et seq.
22 Soils Engineering Report, Tract 2211, Terratech, Inc., Dec. 1995
23 Subdivision Regulations, City of San Luis Obispo, 1982, as amended 1993
24 Subdivision Map Act, Government Code, State of California, as amended January 1, 1996
23
3-4a
Issues and Supporting Information Sources sources Potentially Potentially Lees Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER 127-95 Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
4380 Broad Street Incorporated
19. MITIGATION MEASURES/MONITORING PROGRAM
1 Mitigation Measure:
The project must include easements or land dedications}or bikeways and walkways to provide residents with
a means to move about their neighborhood without automobiles.
Monitoring Program:
The final subdivision map will be reviewed for compliance with this condition. Field inspections will assure
that all improvements are completed.
2 Mitigation Measure
The local transit authority (SLO Transit) must be contacted to assure adequacy of transit stops in the area. If
another stop is needed to serve this development, the developer will be required to install or fund a shelter oL
other needed improvement.
Monitoring Program:
The Transit Manager will be consulted by staff prior to Commission and Council review of the tentative map,
to assure adequate access to transit is offered.
3 Mitigation Measure:
The bicycle path along the creek shall be designed in accordance with standards in the Bicycle Transportation
Plan.
Monitoring Program:
Improvement plans will be reviewed for consistency with the Bicycle Transportation Plan.
4 Mitigation Measure-
The
asure-The existing vegetation barrier shall be maintained along the top of bank of the southerly creek, and a setback
of at least 20' beyond that riparian edge shall be included in proposed lots C and D, to provide adequate
buffer area between habitat area and residential lots.
MonitoringProgram:
The final map and improvement plans will be reviewed for compliance with this measure.
24
3 G/
ER 127-95
4380 Broad Street
5 Mitigation Measure:
Lot B on the tentative map shall include a minimum 20' buffer area beyond the top of bank or the edge of
riparian vegetation, whichever is greater. This buffer area shall be planted with native riparian plants
appropriate for the type creek and location, to the approval of the Community Development Director. The
bicycle path shall be located outside the buffer area.
Monitoring Program:
Improvement plans will be reviewed for compliance with this measure.
6 Mitigation Measure:
No grading shall be allowed within ten feet of the high-pressure gas line on lots 11, 13, 14, and 47. No
fencing shall be placed over or across this line, or within ten feet of it.
Monitoring Program:
Improvement and building plans will be checked for compliance with this condition.
7 Mitigation Measure:
Potential owners of these lots will be informed of the existence of this line on the property by a recorded
documents, written to the approval of the Community Development Director. Signage shall be placed near the
location of the gas line, to inform anyone nearby of the danger, to the approval of Southern California Gas Co.
Monitoring Program:
Documents will be requested, reviewed, and recorded, by the Community Development Department, prior to
approval of the final map for the subdivision.
8 Mitigation Measure:
Eventually, a new gravity sewer will have to be constructed down Tank Farm Road, relieving the lift station.
The developer will be expected to contribute to the cost of this new sewer, to the approval of the Utilities
Director.
Monitoring Program:
The Public Works Director will determine the project's fair share of the cost of the new sewer and collect that
amount prior to final map approval.
.e 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 above mitigation measures before the
25
S-fez_
ER 127-95
4380.Broad Street
proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration is released for public review: .1 hereby agree to the mitigation measures and
monitoring program outlinedabove: - -
Applicant -- Date - - -- -- .
26
3-�3
N
\ O
¢ O
m ZO
r- � �
(0� I Z } z JQ1
mZ 01
LLI wN J
®®� \ �i r - Z 0 a
LL
W o o a
r^' M
Q z IL
V1 N
ll W u ¢ w Lo
1 Z
1 �' ~ -J
atm
z � < co
0.' d. F- N
N U Bim- I X n
W ^ n
CD W N
I w
3 T t�
o � �
JLLJ I LLI
I 0 �(�r
o a
a
ROPOSED CURB
PROPOS
3 � � I
OR
� U
ti w Iwy . Q
I : wx
mm
130' ROAD
�"` T
Applicant Acceptance of Mitigation Measures
Project: ER 127-95
4380 Broad Street
This agreement is entered into by and between the City of San Luis Obispo and John
French and R. W. Hertel, Inc. on the i 4 day of /9 9 6 , 1996.
The following measures are included in the project to mitigate potential adverse
environmental impacts. Please sign the original and return it to the Community
Development Department.
Mitigation Measures:
1. Mitigation Measure:
The project must include easements or land dedications for bikeways and walkways
to provide residents with a means to move about their neighborhood without
automobiles.
Monitoring Program:
The final subdivision map will be reviewed for compliance with this condition. Field
inspections will assure that all improvements are completed.
2 Mitigation Measure
The local transit authority (SLO Transit) must be contacted to assure adequacy of
transit stops in the area. If another stop is needed to serve this development, the
developer will be required to install or fund a shelter or other needed improvement.
Monitoring Program:
The Transit Manager will be consulted by staff prior to Commission and Council
review of the tentative map, to assure adequate access to transit is offered.
3 Mitigation Measure:
The bicycle path along the creek shall be designed in accordance with standards
in the Bicycle Transportation Plan.
Monitoring Program:
Improvement plans will be reviewed for consistency with the Bicycle Transportation
Plan.
3 6s'
ER 127-95
4380 Broad Street
Page 2
4 Mitigation Measure:
The existing vegetation barrier shall be maintained along the top of bank of the
southerly creek, and a setback of at least 20' beyond that riparian edge shall be
included in proposed lots C and D, to provide adequate buffer area between habitat
area and residential lots.
Monitoring Program:
The final map and improvement plans will be reviewed for compliance with this
measure.
5 Mitigation Measure:
Lot B on the tentative map shall include a minimum 20' buffer area beyond the top
of bank or the edge of riparian vegetation, whichever is greater. This buffer area
shall be planted with native riparian plants appropriate for the type creek and
location, to the approval of the Community Development Director. The bicycle path
shall be located outside the buffer area.
Monitoring Program:
Improvement plans will be reviewed for compliance with this measure.
6 Mitigation Measure:
No grading shall be allowed within ten feet of the high-pressure gas line on lots 11,
13, 14, and 47. No fencing shall be placed over or across this line, or within ten feet
Of it.
Monitoring Program:
Improvement and building plans will be checked for compliance with this condition.
7 Mitigation Measure:
Potential owners of these lots will be informed of the existence of this line on the
property by a recorded documents, written to the approval of the Community
Development Director. Signage shall be placed near the location of the gas line, to
inform anyone nearby of the danger, to the approval of Southern California Gas Co.
3-4�
ER 127-95
4380 Broad Street
Page 3
Monitoring Program:
Documents will be requested, reviewed, and recorded, by the Community
Development Department, prior to approval of the final map for the subdivision.
8 Mitigation Measure:
Eventually, a new gravity sewer will have to be constructed down Tank Farm Road,
relieving the lift station.-The developer will be expected to contribute to the cost of
this new sewer, to the approval of the Utilities Director.
Monitoring Program:
The Public Works Director will determine the project's fair share of the cost of the
new sewer and collect that amount prior to final map approval.
If the Community Development Director or hearing body determines that the above
mitigation measures are ineffective or physically infeasible, he may add, delete or modify
the mitigation to meet the intent of the original measures.
Please note that section 15070 (b) (1) of the California Administrative Code requires the
applicant to agree to the above mitigation measures before the proposed Mitigated
Negative Declaration is released for public review. This project will not be scheduled
for public review and hearing until this signed original is returned to the Community
Development Department.
�Rqdald Whise and o French
;- .mit
velopment a a r plicant
v
Fowler
plicant
I:erl1
3 -cJ
COUNCIL fTCDR Dlq i
RrCAO ❑ F 1 M ETIN AGENDA
I!rMOACAO ❑ FINPW CHIE ITEM #1 1
C'1'ATTORNEY ❑ PW DIR
[SCLERKlORIG ❑ POLICE CHF
❑ MGMT TEAM ❑ REC DIR
Resolution no. (1996 Series) , ❑ C READ FILE ❑ UTIL DIR
Tract 127-95 (County file#Tr 2211) ddd.�_
fr` ❑ PERS DIR
Page 6
25. All boundary monuments, lot comers and centerline intersections,BC's,EC's, etc..., shall be
tied to the City's Horizontal Control Network. At least two control points shall be used and
a tabulation of the coordinates shall be submitted with the final map or parcel map. All
coordinates submitted shall be based on the City coordinate system. A 3.5" diameter computer
floppy disk, containing the appropriate data compatible with AutoCAD(Digital Interchange.
Format,DXF)for Geographic Information System(GIS) purposes, shall be submitted to the
City Engineer.
26. The final map,public improvement plans and specifications shall use the International System
of Units(metric system)if . . The English System of Units may
be used on the final map where necessary(e.g. -all record data shall be entered on the map in
the record units, metric translations should be in parenthesis), to the approval of the City
Engineer.
27. All development of this site shall be consistent with the Edna-Islay Specific Plan, except as
approved by the City Council.
28. All construction traffic shall be routed through Fuller Road, except when physically .
impossible. Signs shall be installed at the present southerly terminus of Goldenrod and at the
westerly in-city terminus of Fuller Lane, saying "No construction traffic",to the approval of
the Public Works and Community Development Departments. .
CODE REQUIREMENTS
EPA
1. General construction Activity Storm Water Permits are required for all storm water discharges
associated with a construction activity where clearing, grading and excavation results in land
Storm water discharges of less than five':
Resolution no. (1996 Series)
Tract 127-95 (County file#Tr 2211)
Page 7.
(�!: +:.ti:4:'i.ii ii;n+::':'�'4:.)i::.'/i:^', ..A.irii".1:i:..::n::p)'::.:.i'v 2.):d:i.%2{f'.W. Y.n::Nn.y:.:a'lx.:?'ni:.i'niiA.•rc n
::...:'::: .. v:::::::,:..a:... .:.::.. ..:s.ii:.::. ... F.;1•:•:�::�viy{:�:.:{w:{c+y,:%G,y:�{n:n,.../::{C:{{;i's{n:n....:v,'ti^:w::i:.y:i•,i•,q:::.::+:
de.XIvelopnt°�fe�cl fot'tQ.#lae.satasfabn oteIt ar Spacxes shall l;e dterun by .
Street name
5. A Street must be named as part of the final map approval process. The subdivider shall submit a
minimum of three street names for review by the Community Development Department, in_
accordance with the Street Name and Address Regulations.
Upon motion of seconded by and
on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
the foregoing resolution was adopted this day of . 1996..
ATTEST:
City Clerk Mayor Allen Setfle
APPROVED:.
City Attorney,
P;.ING AGENDA �
bHi EZ11L ITEM #_V
Allen Settle, Mayor July 23, 1996
City of San Luis Obispo
990 Palm St.
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Dear Mayor Settle,
This letter is to comment on the proposed subdivision of Tract
127-95 which is to be heard before the Council on July 23, 1996
(Golden Rod Lane and Fuller Road) .
When the council accepted the annexation of this parcel last year
you conditioned the developer to address several issues prior to
bringing the project to you for subdivision. These issues
included working with adjacent landowners to develop a traffic
infrastructure that would reduce the impacts of increased traffic
on existing streets to the north , specifically Poinsettia. The
Council also had concerns .over drainage and sewer design. Mr.
French has come back to you now with a proposal the does not
fully meet your conditions.
The adjusted street layout reduces the proposed traffic flows on
Poinsettia above Fuller Street but will significantly impact
lower Poinsettia (between Fuller and Tank Farm) . While the city's
planner emphasizes that Poinsettia Street is designed as a
"local collector" the reality is that the street has evolved as .a
family neighborhood. Traffic increases will produce significant
adverse impacts from the project unless you are able to work
with the developer to reduce them.
The City and Mr. French have produced .a well developed
neighborhood in this area and the new proposal seems to extend
this partnership. However, the cumulative effects of increased
traffic may have reached a critical impact when combined with a
population concentration. (young families) that has evolved' here.
Planning standards need to recognize that the environment they
address is dynamic.
RECEIVED
Sincerely,
JUL 2 ? 1996
CITY CLERK
05("C--OU�N-Cf-ILmommEnE2f?'C3DD DIR ` Ben Parker 0111.;^0,CA
Id CAO ❑ FIN DIR 4423 Poinsettia St.
CAO ❑ FIRE CHIEF San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
La(ATTORNEY !OREC
W DIJR
I'CLERwMa OLIC
❑ MGMTTEAM D❑ C READ FILE TIL Iff ERS
MEETING AGENDA
DATE ITEM # William &.Diana Waycott
4608 Poinsettia Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
U.S.A.
Telephone: (805) 545-9696
Fax: (805) 545-9697
E-mail: 74037,1532@compuserve.com
18 July 1996
Ms. Kim Condon
Assistant City Clerk
City of San Luis Obispo
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Dear Ms. Condon:
The comment given below is directed at your notice for a public hearing which I received
in the mail last week concerning"Goldenrod Subdivision--4380 Broad Street". My wife
and I are owners of the residence at 4608 Poinsettia Street, on the northeast comer of
Poinsettia and Goldenrod.
My comment is that I oppose any development of the area between the existing
subdivision of Clover Creek and Broad Street, if the only access to the new subdivision is
via Goldenrod Street. There should be a second access required prior to city approval of
the new subdivision. If there are not two access points to the subdivision, it should not be
approved for construction.
Please contact me if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
W. Waycott
9-WUNCIL b-MD DIR
❑-$AO ❑ FIN DIR
❑_ICAO ❑ FIRE CHIEF
❑-ATTORNEY ❑ PW DIR
3-etERWORIG ❑ POUCE CHF
❑ MGMT TEAM ❑ REC DIR
❑ C R D ILE ❑ UTIL DIR
I]i
0 PERS DIA
Phase 1 Archaeological Survey Of
The Goldenrod Lane Annex Project,
San Luis Obispo, California
Prepared By: Thor Conway
Heritage Discoveries Inc.
763B Foothill Blvd., Suite #108
San Luis Obispo,CA 93405
(805) 545-0724
Prepared For: Mr. R.W. Hertel & Sons Inc.
do Mr. John French
P.O. Box 1796
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Feb. 15,1996
ii
Abstract
A Phase 1 archaeological surface survey of the Goldenrod Lane Annex project
located at the southern boundary of the City of San Luis Obispo produced negative
results for surface indications of archaeological remains. Historical background
research done as part of this study indicaeL� that the project area does not have
significant potential for historic era archaeological resources. No further heritage
resource evaluation work is recommended as part of the planning process.
Recommendations
No .archaeological sites were found during the, Phase 1 archaeological survey of
the Goldenrod Annex property. A literature search did not :reveal recorded sites
within or near the study area. Further 'archaeological studies are not:recommended.
w �
iv
Table Of Contents
Abstract.........
Recommendations..............................................................................................................iii
ProjectDescription.................................................................................................................1
StudyFindings........................................................................................................................1
Ethnography & History.........................................................................................................1
SourcesConsulted.................................................................................................................2
ArchaeologicalSite Records..........................................................................................2
Other Information Sources..................... .....................................................................2
FieldMethods.........................................................................................................................3
Bibliography.................................................................................................................... ...4
List Of Figures
Figure 1 Location of the study area in San Luis Obispo...............................................6
Figure 2 Location of the Goldenrod Lane Annex at the San Luis Obispo
citylimits...............................................................................................................7
Figure 3 Western part of the Goldenrod Lane Annex study area.
Scale1" = 100 feet.................................................................................................8
Figure 4 Eastern part of the Goldenrod Lane Annex study area.
Scale1" = 100 feet.................................................................................................9
1
Project Description
This report describes an archaeological surface survey of the Goldenrod Lane
Annex/R 110-93 located east of Broad Street at the southern edge of the City of San
Luis Obispo (Figure 1). As part of the planning process, an archaeological surface
survey was required for an area proposed as a new sub–division (Figure 2). Heritage
Discoveries Inc. was hired by Mr. R.W. Hertel & Sons Inc. to complete the surface
survey. Mr. John French provided plans and coordinated the project.
Study Findings
No archaeological sites were discovered during the surface survey of the
Goldenrod Lane Annex/R 110-93.
Ethnography & History
The entire San Luis Obispo area, including all of the project area, was home to
the Northern Chumash, or Obispeno, for over 9,000 years. Archaeologists have
established a detailed cultural chronology based upon excavations and site surveys
across the county (Greenwood, 1972; Gibson, 1979). Over 1,700 archaeological sites
have been recorded in San Luis Obispo County, although many of these heritage
resources have been destroyed or damaged by development.
The earliest recorded visit to an Obispeno village took place in 1595 when the
Spanish sailed into San Luis Obispo Bay under the command of Cermeno. He
anchored in front of the premiere village named Sepjato which was located at the
mouth of San Luis Obispo Creek on the hill now occupied by the San Luis Bay Inn.
The Spanish account noted that these Indians "... are fishermen and there is fish
and some shell–fish with which they sustain themselves"—a statement which
applied to the descendants of this village who resided at the San Luis Obispo
mission two hundred years later (Wagner, 1929: 161).
By the time of the Spanish expansion into California at the end of the 1700's,
Chief Buchon lived at Sepjato and held the status of a grand–chief leader of several
villages in the greater San Luis Obispo area from Avila to Pismo Beach to Morro
Bay.
The area that became the community San Luis Obispo re–entered the historic era
on September 1st, 1772 when the first mission was founded beside San Luis Obispo
2
Creek. This first mission within Chumash territory gradually expanded in size and
importance. In its first decade, some Obispeno Chumash were dissatisfied with the
mission and attempted to burn it down (Kocher, 1972). The influence of the mission
increased in the 1780's when Pedro Fages reported that the Indians at the San Luis
Obispo mission "...have readily adapted themselves to what it was sought to teach
them" (Englehardt, 1933: 39). Judging from the mission records listing the number
of Indians recruited by this mission, in 1803 most of the numerous Obispeno
Chumash groups had moved away from their traditional villages to the vicinity of
the mission (King, 1984: 14).
Despite being one of the main centers �of settlement and commerce near the
central coast of California, only limited archaeological studies have taken place in
San Luis Obispo. The rich history of San Luis Obispo has begun to emerge through
archaeological research in the past decade. Various cultural resource management
projects have documented prehistoric and early historic Chumash settlements
(Gibson, 1986), mission era settlement, the growth of the community in the late
1800's, and related heritage themes (Bertrando, 1994) and local heritage themes
including the mission era Chumash, Chinatown and the saloon era (Conway, 1995).
Sources Consulted
A search was made for pertinent background information relating to prehistoric
and historic land use in the project area.
Archaeological Site Records
An archaeological sites record search done at the Central Coast facility for the
California Archaeological Inventory at the University of California, Santa Barbara
showed that none of the study area had been subject to a previous archaeological
survey. No archaeological sites had been recorded within or close to the study area.
Other Information Sources
The growth and development of San Luis Obispo have been studied by
historians (Angel, 1883; Krieger, 1988). In addition, local histories concerning the
economic development of San Luis Obispo and the importance of local railways in
the expansion of the community and California were consulted (Nicholson, 1980).
The Sanborn Insurance maps also were reviewed, although direct coverage of the
study area was not available.
3
Field Methods
A detailed archaeological surface survey was made of the Goldenrod Lane Annex
property on February 14, 1996. A small stream crosses the property and a second
stream runs along the southern boundary. Both had moderate exposures of their
banks. The annex is generally level without notable landscape features. Loamy soils
cover the project area. The northwestern portion of the study area showed more
impacts from previous development including past mechanical clearing of
vegetation, some grading, and removal of soils. The eastern portion of the study
area had agricultural use in the past. In general, the project area is a uniform tract.
The archaeological surface survey was based upon an intensive walk—over of the
project area done at three meter intervals. All soil exposures, stream banks, and
ground disturbances were examined in detail for evidence of prehistoric or historic
land use. No archaeological resources were discovered during the survey. The entire
study area had moderate to low surface visibility due to grass and weed cover.
h J
4
Bibliography
Angel,Myron
1883 History Of San Luis Obispo county, California. Reprinted 1966 by
Howell-North Books Berkeley from the original Thompson & West. Oakland.
Bertrando, Ethan
1995 Cultural Resources Monitoring Of The Nipomo Street Bridge Replacement, San Luis
Obispo, California. Report for the City Of San Luis Obispo Engineering Department.
Bertrando& Bertrando Research Consultants. San Luis Obispo.
Best, Gerald
1964 Ships & Narrow Gauge Rails: The Story Of The Pacific Coast Company.
Howell-North Books. Berkeley.
Conway,Thor
1995 An Archaeological Investigation Of Historic San Luis Obispo, California (The Kozak
Parking Lot Project). Report to the City of San Luis Obispo Public Works Dept.
San Luis Obispo.
Engelhardt, Zephyrin
1933 Mission San Luis Obispo In The Valley Of The Bears. Franciscan Fathers Of California.
Santa Barbara.
Gibson,Robert
1979 Preliminary Inventory And Assessment Of Indian Cultural Resources At Lodge Hill,
Cambria, San Luis Obispo County, California. Report for the Cambria Water District
Project.
1986 Results Of Archaeological Monitoring & Limited Subsurface Testing For SLO-44,
Mustang II Project, San Luis Obispo, California. Report prepared for Mustang Village
and the City of San Luis Obispo'.
1993 Inventory Of Cultural Resources For The Water Reclamation Project. Report prepared
for the City Of San Luis Obispo.
5
Greenwood,Roberta
1972 9,000 Years Of Prehistory At Diablo Canyon, San Luis Obispo County, California. San
Luis Obispo County Archaeological Society,Occasional Paper#7. San Luis Obispo.
King, Chester
1984 Ethnohistoric Background. Appendix I in Archaeological Investigations On The San
Antonio Terrace, Vandenberg Air Force Base, California. Chambers Consultants &
Planners. Published by Coyote Press. Salinas.
Koher, Paul
1972 Mission San Luis Obispo de Tolosa—A Historical Sketch. Blake Printing. San Luis
Obispo.
Krieger, Daniel
1988 San Luis Obispo County—Looking Backward Into The Middle Kingdom. Windsor
Publications. Chatsworth.
Nicholson,Loren
1980 Rails Across The Ranchos. Valley Publishers. Fresno.
Wagner, Henry
1929 Spanish Voyages To The Northwest California Coast In The Sixteenth Century.
California Historical Society. San Francisco.
6
-saa' Uis Obispol
Trail Grave l '221' x," 35015
`�- • • • • • Rts Trailer ,��o' i _
`yn, Park =Pu mpmg /, ,/ \UI Park , 1, San Luis (Obispo -
X IrzcStation ,�i/ , \nL�jJ ;J l ro 3903
11��. ■i - - — - � \ '� Pok ` _ v
10
3M I lwmw �2C,
J 7
Study.. Area
7902
- COUNTY AIR 7 CJ \•:
_ Eagc Sano F.e ' -
Sch I _• rq� \ . � -r
_ I x\
mm
208
15
�---- �• �� y i EET
640000
r4---------- -------�--1�
Daveicpo t -
_ _
3 . �—� Gree
r' '/ • • 1900
.<. 37
24
Figure 1 Location of the study area in San Luis Obispo.
FA 1l,, 44
C '
je
rr
v `'J J �J � w� 1. •`'
� •=ems����. �'O/N
CT"Y Lv%tiT 1,
Study Area
C Lj
�• cLrJ�n�1,Gt^G�
0 FF.M 1000 %JUt
VICINITY MAP ANNX/R 110-93
GOLDENROD LANE
i
Figure 2 Location of the Goldenrod Lane Annex at the San Luis Obispo city Limits.
17
18
1: T�TT
20
21
\a, 1024& ` �a 1 `~�''. 22
�\ \ SF
`sem- .; ;�.�. �" 2S
\?• 6000
\ 1PSF
o;. 0 32,4 �^`O
�'\ \ �� SF ' .. 6081 ^ 60 0 �` \ ..�`:`•'` �' 2
\ C 10 WIOE
SO' SF,. SF fi0 0 4 7 \ ` i &ESS ESM'
I
\ 6�2�8C SF'•,,, \� „ x.65, PER 3592 OR
\ Study Area SF es -`
C%4
AN TRACELP
s 17 9SF8
:\� BASN EASEMENT,. 12 �• !
8400 SF NET \TO,
5000' Sr GROS G' '-10 2'
7393
SF 9� p1li
' \ -AGARN- _.�;::_; : .._.... .:• � •�pP p :�._':rte'_:_::.�r. ....._- .�-
OST
-
...:,
13
, : •._. .. A
� , , 7400 Sr i a o
JJ' - 15
_ \ 14 'r o� &-'" 1f900
5900;'sF� Study^ AreaFICEr 1
i Ta 00
39 PM 44
43
Figure 3 Western part of the Goldenrod Lane Annex study area. Scale 1" = 100 feet. The area
within the dark border lines was surveyed.
J^LL C7
`,�� ��,y,�, /4 Af. � � ,+r Lam• 1
r: .,, �,•,�`''� '* . ;`". ; Ili '•..e
Piz
do
CO it
r� �• ANN
�✓t Cn
d }70 ' ! 'le to 77 it
LO C
to Ln to
r i BLL
NIC+LD o
r i;
' !U F/ Oi�l'� V, o o to L� I ; 'r
a o o Cr)N V)
L
Cr
t / M �� ' �NN LF
COD
LO
{ 0 F_+ �', i r �9 �� �•, 104' L') tTtt}n`\w
qZ
UIj
F•• iND) ,\,.\ /, r� t\\, s� O lc O nN
....... Ir''i ` i�\l�,i w,nC) !n p OqD1y
lid`,% !'•. �1 n1' a `"-'-' ':f.r
'� .. -�'� ;j � ti's`• LLJ ''.
�--,'' ,•;., ' ; !'tib\,' eC :oo:,='�:• ::-�
UZ
�a(.7 .` ''I 4 !!. 1U� L-• �i'll' (/rl,.;'r' I:'; f-
m r q{
Uj
Co V) :") N
N rte/ r fI%, cJ 1 ''.�6•�V) I `".I
Figure 4 Eastern part of the Goldenrod Lane Annex study area. Scale 1" = 100 feet. The area
within the dark border lines was surveyed.