HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/17/1999, 4 - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING ON THE SUBDIVISION OF A 14.66 ACRE SITE INTO 46 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOTS AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF FULLER ROAD AND BROAD STREET (TR/ER 166-98; R.W. HERTEL & SONS, APPLICANT) counat
Alac En as Report 4
C I T Y O F SAN LU IS O B 1 S P 0
FROM: Arnold Jonas, Community Development Director
O
Prepared By: Peggy Mandeville, Associate Planner '� /
SUBJECT: CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING ON THE SUBDIVISION OF A 14.66
ACRE SITE INTO 46 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOTS AT
THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF FULLER ROAD AND BROAD
STREET(TR/ER 166-98; R.W. Hertel & Sons, applicant)
CAO RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a resolution approving the Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact, with
mitigation, and approving the tentative map, with conditions.
DISCUSSION
Situation
The Fuller Road annexation area was added to the City in February of this year. It is within the
Secondary Planning Area of the Edna-Islay Specific Plan (EISP) area. R.W. Hertel and Sons,
Inc. have submitted an application to subdivide a portion of the annexation area into 48
residential lots. On June 15, 1999 Council reviewed the subdivision request and continued the
item until this date with direction to the applicant. In response to Council direction, the
applicant has redesigned the subdivision (see Attachment 6) to eliminate the need for Council
approval of subdivision and setback exceptions.
Data Summary
Address: SE comer Fuller Road and Broad Street (behind existing service
commercial center)
Applicant: R. W. Hertel & Sons, Inc.
Representative: RRM Design Group
Zoning: Low-Density Residential, Specific Plan (R-1-SP)
General Plan: Low-Density Residential
Environmental status:Negative Declaration with mitigation measures recommended by the
Community Development Director on March 27, 1999.
Action deadline: September 1, 1999
Site description
The site is relatively flat, with two tributaries of Islay Creek running through the site from the
east to the northwest. A large serpentine rock outcropping is located in the southeastern corner
of the property. Vegetation on the site consists primarily of weedy grasses and forbs, with
4-1
Council Agenda Report—Hertel Subdivision
Page 2
several trees at the edge of the site and along the creek. Existing development on the northern
portion of the property includes a golf driving range. Surrounding land uses include single
family residential to the north and east and service commercial to the south and west.
Project Description
The current request is to subdivide the 14.66 acre parcel into 46 residential lots. The parcels
range in size from 558 sm (6,004 s.f.) to 1048 sm (11,276 s.f.). Components of the
subdivision include site grading and the installation of public improvements including one
vehicular bridge on Fuller Road, two detention basins, one bike path and one pedestrian bridge
crossing the creek that bisects the site. The project also involves the dedication of the creek
and setback areas to the City for the purpose of managing and protecting the existing seasonal
creeks on the property.
EVALUATION
The current subdivision design is consistent with the City's General Plan, Zoning Regulations,
and the Edna-Islay Specific Plan. As required by the General Plan, the proposed subdivision
has been integrated into the existing neighborhood and the property's creek areas have been
preserved. Additionally, the subdivision provides for the extension of an existing off-street
bikepath which is called for in the Edna-Islay Specific Plan. The attached draft resolution of
approval contains specific findings for approval of the tentative map.
Council Direction/Discussion from June 15, 1999 Meeting
Pursuant to Council direction, a number of changes have been made to the project design as
well as the staff recommended conditions of approval. Additionally, two new conditions are
recommended by staff to further improve the quality of life in this residential neighborhood.
These changes and recommendations are as follows:
1. Creek Protection. Mitigation Measure 9 has been revised to identify the protection of the
creek corridor as the purpose for requiring snow fencing to mark the edge of grading.
2. Easements. Condition 6 has been revised to note that the utility and street tree easements
overlay.
3. Homeowners Association. Condition 21 has been revised to require the creation of a
homeowners association if the subdivision is not annexed to the neighboring Santa Lucia
Homeowners Association.
4. Pedestrian Accessway. Condition 33 has been revised to include ARC review of the
design and fencing of the accessway from the pedestrian bridge to Goldenrod Lane.
5. Pedestrian Bridge. Condition 35 has been revised to include the requirement that the
pedestrian bridge be elevated above the creek to City standards.
4-2
Council Agenda Report—Hertel Subdivision
Page 3
6. Sidewalk to Broad Street. Condition 36 has been added requiring the sidewalk on the
south side of Fuller Road to be extended to Broad Street.
7. Fuller Road/Broad Street Intersection Improvements. Condition 37 has been added
requiring Caltrans review and approval of public improvements at this intersection. Since
the City Council hearing on this item, staff has received a letter (see Attachment 7) from
Caltrans stating that it is highly unlikely that signalization of this intersection will occur in
the forseeable future. More likely improvements could include widening the Fuller Road
approach to Route 227 and installing deceleration and acceleration lanes on Route 227.
The feasibility and need for such improvements should be investigated by City staff prior to
the City requesting Caltrans approval.
8. Lot Line Adjustment. The tentative map has been revised to show the centerline of the
creek as the property line separating the residential and commercial portions of the site.
9. Subdivision and Setback Exceptions. The tentative map has been revised eliminating
three lots that required setback exceptions, realigning Goldenrod Lane and adjusting some
lot lines so no subdivisions exceptions are necessary. As part of the redesign, the
Goldenrod Lane cul-de-sac has been extended approximately 43 meters (140 feet) and the
lot design at the end of the cul-de-sac reconfigured to add one more lot to the north side of
Goldenrod Lane. The resulting design is that of a 46-lot subdivision.
10. Single Loaded Street Design. As redesigned, much of Goldenrod Lane is a single loaded
street (houses only on one side). Staff recommends that within this area the street be
reduced in width by eight feet eliminating parking on the undeveloped portion of the street
(see Condition 38). It is staff's opinion that parking on both sides is not needed at the end
of a single loaded cul-de-sac and the reduced appearance of the roadway will slow
automobile'traffic and extend views of the open space.
11.Traffic Calming Measures. At the June 1, 1999 Council meeting, several nearby
residents stated their concerns about motorists traveling at.high rates of speed down Fuller
Road once it has been improved to City standards. To address these concerns, staff
recommends that the applicant work with staff to incorporate traffic calming measures (ie.
bulbouts) into the Fuller Road design(see Condition 39).
Environmental.Review
The initial study prepared for this project identifies eleven mitigation measures that have been
added to the project to mitigate potentially significant environmental impacts. The most notable
of these mitigation measures include mitigation for the loss of a small number Congdon's
tarplants and protection of the southwestern pond turtle. A copy of the initial study is.attached
to this report for Council review.
4-3
Council Agenda Report.—Hertel Subdivision
Page 4
CONCURRENCES
Other department comments have been incorporated into the staff report.
FISCAL IMPACT
Fiscal impacts will be limited to costs to maintain the public improvements and creek area
(recommended for City ownership). The detention basins, bikepath, and pedestrian .bridge are
proposed to be owned and maintained by the homeowners association.
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 on this item if additional information is needed. Direction
should be given to staff and the applicant.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Draft Resolution of Approval
2. Draft.Resolution of Denial
3. Environmental Initial Study for TR 166-98
4. Staff report from the June 15; 1999 City Council meeting
:5. Minutes of the-June 15, 1999 City Council meeting
6. Small scale project plans
7. Letter from Caltrans dated July 12, 1999
8. Vicinity map
Separate plans have been provided to the City Council and are available for review at the City
Clerk's Office.
Pmandevi\COTR 166=98#2,Hertel.doc
c
4-4
RESOLUTION NO. (1999 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
APPROVING THE VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT 166-98, SUBDIVIDING A 14.66-
ACRE SITE INTO 46 RESIDENTIAL PARCELS AND OTHER OPEN SPACE AND
DETENTION BASIN LOTS AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF FULLER ROAD AND
BROAD STREET (TR 166-98, County File No. 2289)
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on April 14, 1999
and recommended approval of Vesting Tentative Tract Map TR 166-98; and
WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing on June 15 and August 17,
1999 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.
BE IT RESOLVED,by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. The City Council finds and determines that the project's Mitigated
Negative Declaration adequately addresses the potential significant environmental impacts of the
proposed project, and reflects the independent judgement of the City Council. The Council
hereby adopts said Mitigated Negative Declaration and incorporates the following mitigation
measures into the project:
1. A detailed soils engineering report shall to be submitted as part of the grading and building
permit applications. The soils report shall include: data regarding the nature, distribution
and strength of the existing soils, conclusions and recommendations for grading procedures
including such recommendations to ensure that there are no impacts to the creek, and design
criteria for corrective measures,when necessary. Grading and building must be designed and
performed in compliance with the soils engineering report.
2. The subdivider shall provide the Director of Public Works with a detailed hydraulic analysis
which indicates how the project drainage facilities will be developed to meet City standards
that ensure the proposed development will not significantly impact adjacent and downstream
properties.
The analysis must address and identify:
The 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.
4-5
Resolution No. (1999 Series)
Page 2
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 Map prior to
final acceptance of the development;to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works. 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 Director
of Public Works. The areas subject to flooding shall be noted on the final map.
3. The property owner shall grant an avigation easement to.the County of San Luis Obispo via
an avigation easement document prepared by the County.
4. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall mitigate the loss of Congdon's
tarplant habitat through a transplanting program approved by the Natural Resources Manager
or by participation in a City initiated program to maintain plants (transplanted by seed from
the adjoining Goldenrod Annexation site) and experiment with habitat management
techniques at the City's Wastewater Treatment Plant.
5. A pre-construction clearance survey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist prior to
ground disturbance to assure that Western Pond turtles are not present within the construction
zone. If turtles are found, the turtles shall be removed out of the construction zone and
placed in a safe, suitable habitat within the lower creek..
6. An educational brochure or other materialsshall be provided to each of the households within
the development that will provide information regarding the correct procedures for protecting
the Western Pond turtles. Background information may be obtained from the Final Report of
the Arbors at Islay Hill Southwestern Pond Turtle Study, Hunt and Bowland,March 1995.
7. A specific contact person shall be designated, either a resident within the development or
someone with an appropriate 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 turtlesightings, including the specific location and
circumstances of the sightings and explanation of what, if any, action was taken. Turtle
harassment must be reported to the California Department of Fish and Game.
8. All residents should be discouraged from using invasive non-native plants in the landscaping
areas adjacent to the creeks.
9. To ensure protection of the creek corridor, prior to the issuance of a grading permit the
applicant shall mark the edge of grading with snow fencing to the"satisfaction of the Natural
Resources Manager.
4-6
Resolution No. (1999 Series)
Page 3
10. Site development shall include a solid waste recycling plan for recycling discarded building
materials such as concrete, drywall, wood and metals from the construction site. The plans
must be submitted for approval by the Community Development Director prior to building
permit issuance.
11. The final project shall be designed to include interior and exterior recycling.
12. All graded surfaces shall be wetted, protected or contained in such a manner as to prevent
dust or spill upon any adjoining property or street. The following measures shall constitute
the project's dust management plan and shall remain in effect during all phases of project
construction:
a. Regular wetting of roads and graded areas (at least twice daily with complete
coverage of all active areas);
b. Increasing frequency of watering whenever winds exceed 15 m.p.h.;
c. Cessation of grading activities during periods of winds over 25 m.p.h;
d. Direct application of water on material being excavated and/or transported on-site or
off-site;
e. Watering material stockpiles;
f. Periodic wash-downs or mechanical street sweeping of streets in the vicinity of the
site; and
g. Non-potable water is to be used in all construction and dust-control work.
SECTION 2. Findings. That this Council, after consideration of the Vesting Tentative
Tract Map TR 166-98 and the Planning Commission's recommendations, staff
recommendations,public testimony, and reports thereof, 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 which call for single family residential development
and circulation connections (Fuller Road, the pedestrian bridge and creekside bike path) in
this area.
2. The site is physically suited for the type/density of development allowed in the R-1-SP zone.
3. As conditioned, 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. An initial study of environmental impacts was prepared by the Community Development
Department on March 27, 1999, describing potential environmental impacts associated with
the subdivision of the property. The initial study concludes that with mitigation measures,
the project will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment
4-7
Resolution No. (1999 Series)
Page 4
SECTION 3. Approval. The request for approval of Vesting Tentative Tract Map for
TR 166-98 (Tract 2289) is approved subject to the following conditions and code requirements:
(Tentative Map Conditions)
1. Off-site dedication of property for public right of way purposes is required to facilitate full
street improvements for Fuller Road. The subdivider shall exhaust all avenues available to
acquire said public R/W dedication. If the subdivider cannot obtain the property as public
R/W, the City Council shall lend the subdivider its powers for condemnation to acquire the
off-site R/W dedication, including any necessary slope and drainage easements. If
condemnation is required, the subdivider shall pay all costs associated with the off-site R/W
acquisition(including attorneys and court costs).
2. The subdivider shall design and install (at its ultimate location)a new bridge over Lower Fork
Creek on Fuller Road. The new bridge shall provide a City standard sidewalk,curb and gutter
on each side and four 6" conduit sleeves (two on each side) in addition to that which is
necessary for gas electric,telephone and cable TV,to the satisfaction of the Director of Public
Works. If requested by the subdivider,a reimbursement agreement can be created that requires
adjacent developments to pay a pro-rata share of the actual bridge costs.
3. The design of the emergency vehicle turn-around on Goldenrod Lane shall be acceptable to the
Fire Chief,Community Development Director and Director of Public Works.
4. If the properties fronting on Broad Street remain within the tract boundaries, vehicular access
rights along Broad Street shall be dedicated to the City, except at existing driveways.
5. Vehicular access rights on Fuller Road shall be dedicated to the City.
6. The subdivider shall dedicate a 2m wide public utility easement across the frontage of each
lot. The subdivider shall also dedicate a 3m wide street tree easement across the frontage of
each lot. The overlapping easements shall be adjacent to and contiguous with all public right
of way lines bordering each lot.
7. The subdivider shall install street lighting and all associated facilities (conduits, sidewalk
vaults, fusing, wiring, luminaries, etc.) per City standards and to the satisfaction of the
Director of Public Works. The design of said lighting systems shall be coordinated by the
developer between the City and PG&E so as to minimize the amount of City owned conduit
and wiring system,to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works.
8. All internal streets shall be designed with 17m of R/W, 11 m curb to curb and a 3m parkway
on each side. The structural street sections shall be designed using a TI=7.0.
9. Sewer lift station charges shall be paid prior to recordation of the final map as determined by
the Utilities Engineer.
4-8
Resolution No. (1999 Series)
Page 5
10. The final grades and alignments of all public water, sewer and storm drains (including
service laterals, meters, fire hydrants, etc.) are subject to change to the satisfaction of the
Director of Public Works and Utilities Engineer.
11. 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).
12. A gravity sewer system shall be designed and constructed to serve this development that will
connect to an existing manhole in Broad St. (State Hwy. 227) at El Capitan or other location
determined by the Utilities Director that will be compatible with the master sewer plan for
the Airport Annexation Area. Creek crossings shall include properly designed sewer siphons
and/or culverted crossings, subject to approval by the respective jurisdictional agencies.
An alternative design may be allowed, at the discretion of the Utilities Director. Use of the
County Airport lift station in Fiero Lane would be allowed only if it is determined to be in an
appropriate location and needed to serve this area of the City (within the Urban Reserve
Line). This would be subject to acceptable modifications to the existing agreement between
the County and the City that would transfer ownership of the lift station and force main to the
City to serve the tributary area. Any required retrofitting and/or refurbishment of the existing
lift station and force main to serve this tract and other tributary areas, as determined by the
Utilities Director, and preservation of the capacity allocated to the County to serve the
County Airport per the existing agreement, shall be incorporated into the project plans. If an
acceptable modification to the existing agreement between the City and the County cannot be
reached, a new lift station may be required at a location agreeable to the Utilities Director.
The Utilities Director reserves the right to decide which of the above alternatives is the most
beneficial and feasible to serve this general area, based on the final Airport Annexation Area
Sewage Master Plan.
The subdivider shall be entitled to reimbursement for any excess costs associated with any
over-sizing of sewer mains, retrofitting of the existing County sewer lift station and force
main or a new lift station, where such greater capacity is required by the City, in accordance
with City regulations.
13. All bridging, culverts and modifications to the existing creek channels shall be in compliance
with the City's Flood Management Policy Book (specifically regarding clear spanning of
creeks, etc.) and approved by the Director of Public Works, 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
Director of Public Works, Natural Resources Manager, Corp. of Engineers and the Dept. of
Fish& Game.
4-9
Resolution No. (1999 Series)
Page 6
15. All lots shall be graded to preclude cross lot drainage, to the satisfaction of the Director of
Public Works.
16. The final plans shall show a bike path connection between the western end of"A" St. and the
creek side bike path. A curb ramp(with bollards)shall-be installed to facilitate this connection.
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 and pedestrian bridge shall be
owned and maintained by the Home Owners Association:
18. 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 Director of Public Works.
The final map, public improvement plans and specifications shall use the International
System of Units (metric system). 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 Director of Public Works.
19. All development of this site shall be consistent with the Edna-Islay Specific Plan, except as
approved by the City Council.
20. Manholes shall be shown on improvement plans in lieu of clean outs.
21. The subdivision shall be annexed to the Santa Lucia Homeowners Association. If
annexation is not supported by a majority of the Santa Lucia Homeowners Association, the
developer shall create a homeowners association for this subdivision.
22-. The applicant shall process a lot line adjustment separating the residential portion of the
subdivision from the existing commercial area. The property line separating these two areas
shall be-approximately the centerline of the creek.
23. The creek areas shall be delineated as separate lots and shall be dedicated to the City with
appropriate access,as determined.by the Director of Public Works.
24. All detention basins and related improvements shall be located within lots separate from the
creek lot and shall be owned and maintained by the Homeowners Association.
i
25. The proposed detention basins shall be graded in such a way as to look.natural, rather than
manufactured. The applicant shall make every effort to design the basins so they do not
4-10
Resolution No. (1999 Series)
Page 7
require fencing. If fencing is necessary, the fencing design shall be approved by the
Community Development Director and/or Architectural Review Commission.
26. Access to the northern basin should be from Fuller Road. Access to the southern basin
should be from Goldenrod Lane, to the satisfaction of the Natural Resources Manager and
Public Works Director.
27. Access road and Fire Department turnaround surface material shall be grasscrete or similar
material approved by the Director of Public Works, the Community Development Director,
Fire Chief and Natural Resources Manager.
28. Lots 41; 42; 43, and 44 shall be accessed via a private common driveway with appropriate
easement and maintenance agreement.
29.
e�ieeptiea_fer-jet
30..To the maximum extent feasible, all construction traffic shall be routed from Broad Street
via-Fuller Road.
31. The tentative map shows-drainage improvements extending off-site into the creek on the
adjacent property located to the.south. The drainage system for this development shall be
contained within the limits of the subdivision boundaries.
32. The existing London-Plane Tree located in the vicinity of Lot 28 shall be located on project.
development plans and preserved as a site amenity.
33. As a part of the architectural review process, the Architectural Review Commission shall
review the project's proposed fencing, pedestrian bridge, bikepath(including accessway from
pedestrian bridge to Goldenrod Lane) and streetscape design. Fencing on Fuller Road and
Larkspur Street shall not be located or designed in such a way that the development appears
to turn its back to the street. In addition, fencing at these locations shall include operable
gates to allow for property owner maintenance of these-areas.
34. The developer shall disclose to potential purchasers of lots that the neighboring property is
zoned Service-Commercial (C-S) and provide potential purchasers with a list of C=S allowed
uses.
35..The subdivider shall provide a pedestrian bridge (and connecting pathways) crossing Middle
Fork Creek,to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director,.Natural Resources Manager, and
Community Development Director. The bridge shall be elevated above the creek consistent
with City standards.
36. The sidewalk on the south side of Fuller Road shall be extended to Broad Street.
4-11
Resolution No. (1999 Series)
Page 8
37. Caltrans shall review and approve any proposed improvements to the intersection of Broad
Street and Fuller Road.
38. On-street parking shall be eliminated on the south side of Goldenrod Lane west of the Fire
Department tum-around where housing on the south side of the street is no longer proposed.
39. The applicant shall work with City staff to incorporate traffic calming measures (ie.
bulbouts) into the Fuller Road design at the intersections of Larkspur Street and "A" Street.
(Code Requirements)
1. Architectural review is required for the design and location of the new homes and fencing in
the subdivision.
2. As required by the City's Creek Setback Ordinance, no structures (except approved property
line fencing with an open design) shall be placed within 20 feet from top of bank of edge of
riparian vegetation, whichever is greater.
3. 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 disturbance of five or more acres. Storm water discharges of less than five
acres, but which is part of a larger common plan of development or sale, also require a
permit. Permits are required until the construction is complete. To be covered by a General
Construction Activity Permit, the owner(s) of land where construction activity occurs must
submit a completed "Notice of Intent" (NOI) form, with the appropriate fee, to the State
Water Board.
4. Complete street improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the most current City
regulations, Standard Engineering Details and Standard Specifications (6' wide integral curb,
gutter sidewalk & driveway tamps, full street pavement, signing, striping, street lighting,
barricades, etc.).
5. Street trees shall be planted in accordance with City Standards and Policies at the time of
development of each lot, to the satisfaction of the City Arborist. Species shall be Cape
Chestnut, Honey Locust, New Zealand Christmas Tree, and Coast Live Oak
6. The applicant shall pay park-in lieu fees consistent with SLO Municipal Code Section
16.40.080.
7. Streets 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.
4-12
i
Resolution No. (1999 Series)
Page 9
Upon motion of , seconded by
and on.the following roll call vote:
AYES
NOES:
ABSENT:
the foregoing resolution was adopted this day. of_._ _. _, 1999.
Mayor Allen Settle
ATTEST
Lee Price, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM-
ffrey G.J City Att . ey
4-13
RESOLUTION NO. (1999 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
DENYING THE VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP FOR A 46-LOT RESIDENTIAL
SUBDIVISION AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF FULLER ROAD AND BROAD
STREET
(TR/ER 166-98,Tract 2289)
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on April 14, 1999 and
recommended approval of the Vesting Tentative Tract Map TR 166-98;and
WHEREAS,the City Council conducted a public hearing on June 15 and August 17, 1999
and has considered testimony of interested parties,the records of the Planning Commission hearing
and action,and the project evaluation and recommendations of staff;and
WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the draft Mitigated Negative Declaration of
environmental impact as prepared by staff and reviewed by the Planning Commission;
BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. Findings. That this Council,after consideration of Vesting Tentative Tract
Map TR 166-98, the Planning Commissions recommendations, staff recommendations, public
testimony,and reports thereof,makes the following findings:
(Council to insert findings here)
SECTION 2. Denial. The request for approval of Vesting Tentative Tract Map TR 166-98
is hereby denied.
On motion of seconded by and on
the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this day of 21999.
Mayor Allen Settle
4-14
Resolution No. (1999 Series)
Page 2
ATTEST:
City Clerk Lee Price
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Attorney Je orgense
i
4=15
Attachment 3
INITIAL STUDY ER 166-98
Environmental Checklist
Tract 2289
Fuller Road Subdivision
1. Project Title: Fuller Road residential subdivision (Tract 2289)
2. Lead Agency Name and Address:
City-of San Luis Obispo
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249
3. Contact Person and Phone Number:
Peggy Mandeville, Associate Planner
(805) 781-7175
4. Project Location:
SE comer Fuller Road and Broad Street
Edna Islay Secondary Planning Area
5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Representative:
R. W. Hertel and Son's Inc. RRM Design Group
75 South Higuera Street 3701 South Higuera St.
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
6. General Plan Designation:
Low Density Residential and Services and Manufacturing
7. Zoning:
Pre-zoned Low Density Residential with a Specific Plan Overlay (R-1-SP) and Service
Commercial (GS).
8. Project Description:
The project is a request to subdivide a 16.5 acre parcel into one commercial lot on Broad
Street and 49 residential lots behind the commercial lot for the development of a
residential subdivision. The residential parcels range in size from 566 sm (6,090 sq.ft). to
905 sm (9,738 sq.ft). Other components of the subdivision include site grading and the
installation of public improvements(including three streets, two detention basins and one
bicycle path). The project also involves the dedication of the creek and setback areas for
the purpose of managing and protecting an existing seasonal creek at the property's
southerly and easterly boundaries. See Section 9 (Entitlements) for specific actions
requested of the City of San Luis Obispo.
4-16
Two tributaries of Islay Creek run through the site from the east to the northwest. The
creek channels and banks will be on separate lots. Adequate area exists to provide a 20
foot wide no build easement from the top of the creekbank.
The site is relatively flat, until about 10 feet from the creek, when it site slopes towards
the bottom of the creek. The soil underlying the site is primarily clay and with minor
areas of loam. A large serpentine rock outcropping is located in the southeastern
comer of the property. Vegetation on the site consists primarily of weedy grasses and
forbs, with a several trees at the edges of the site and along the creek. The existing
conditions of biological resources (flora and fauna) are discussed in the biological
survey conducted by Celeste Wilson in May of 1998 and by Jacqueline Bowland in
December 1998.
9. Surrounding Land uses and Setting:
The property's General Plan designation is Services and Manufacturing and Low
Density Residential. The property is zoned R-1-SP, C-S, and C/OS (see attlached
Exhibit A).
The site is bordered on the north by Fuller Road, on the east by Larkspur Street, on the
south by a seasonal stream, and on the west by Broad Street. Surrounding land uses
include single family residential to the north and east and service commercial to the
south and west.
10. Project Entitlements Requested:
a) Environmental review
b) Vesting tentative tract map
c) Architectural review
11 . Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g. permits, financing approval,
or participation agreement):
Work within and over the creeks will require approval by the State Department of
Fish and Game (DFG).
4-17
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
X Geological Problems Hazards Recreation
X Water Noise X Mandatory Findings
of Significance
Air Quality Public Services - 'f'
��" ��' �i�'Y.=•L+= nt.. _fit)
• is `r
X Transportation and X Utilities and Service 3
Circulation Systems ,„ „ ,
The project has potential to impact fish and wildlife resources and shall be subject to the payment
X of Fish and Game fees pursuant to Section 711.4 of the California Fish and Game Code.
DETERMINATION:
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
1 find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there
will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on a
attached sheets have been added to the project. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be X
prepared.
I find that the proposed project May have a significant effect on the environment, and a
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at leas
one effect (1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable lega
standards, and (2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis a
described on attached sheets, if the effect is a"Potentially Significant Impact" or is "Potentially
Significant Unless Mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must
analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed
1 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 o
mitigated pursuant to that earlier. EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed
upon the proposed project.
4-18
Prepared March 27, 1999
Sign re Date
Ronald Whisenand, Development Review Manager for Arnold Jonas; Community Development Dir.
Printed Name -
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
1. A brief explanation is required for all .answers except "No impact" answers that are adequately
supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the analysis in each section. A"No
Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact
simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e,g. the project falls outside a fault rupture
zone). A "No impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as
well as general standards (e.g. the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on
a project-specific screening analysis).
2. All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site,
cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational
impacts.
3. "Potentially Significant Impact' is. appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is
significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination
is made, an EIR is required.
4. "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation
measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less than Significant
Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they
reduce the effect to a less than significant level. (mitigation measures from Section 17, "Earlier
Analysis," may be cross-referenced).
5:. Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an
effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063 (c) (3)
(D). 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.
4-19
Fuller Road Subdivision, Tract - s9 Sources Pote. y Potentially Less Than No
R.W. Hertel and Sons Inc. Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER 166 98 Issues Unless Impact
mitigation
Page 5 Incorporated
1. LAND USE AND PLANNING - Would the proposal:
a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? 1 X
b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies 1,2,3
adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? X
c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? 1, 2 X
d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impact
to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible X
land uses?
e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an
established community (including a low-income or X
minority community)?
General Plan Consistency:
Land use element: The General Plan Land Use Element map (LUE map) designates the site Low Density
Residential and Services and Manufacturing. The proposed subdivision is consistent with these designations.
Zoning: In May of 1998, the City Council adopted an ordinance pre-zoning the site R-1-SP, C-S and C/OS. The
proposed subdivision is consistent with these designations.
Edna4slay Specific Plan (EISP): The site is identified as part of the Secondary Planning Area in the Edna-Islay
Specific Plan (source 3)which was adopted by the City Council in 1982. The EISP provides more detailed policies
and design for this area. The EISP designates the site as Low-Density Residential, Service Commercial and
Conservation Open Space. The circulation design shown in the EISP is consistent with the street design
proposed. As proposed, the project is consistent with the Edna Islay Specific Plan.
Open Space Element: The Open Space Element requires developments to include buffer areas next to creeks, to
protect the riparian habitat. The project is required to provide a 20' setback from the top of bank or from the
riparian vegetation, whichever is greater. The project is providing a minimum of 20 feet between the proposed
dwelling units and the top of creek bank/edge of riparian vegetation and therefore is consistent with the City's
Open Space Element and Creek Setback Ordinance.
Department of Fish and Game (DFG) review: 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.
Conclusion: Not significant as the project is consistent with Land Use Element, Zoning Ordinance, Open Space
Element, and EISP policies and requirements.
2. POPULATION AND HOUSING -Would the proposal:
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local
population projections? 4 X
b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or.
indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area X
or major infrastructure?
c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable
housing? X
The project is a subdivision which if approved will allow the construction of 49 single family dwellings. According
to 1997 California Department of Finance(CDF)estimates, there was an average of 2.3 persons per occupied
household in the City. If the project were occupied at this rate, about 113 persons would live on the property. This
4-20
Fuller Road Subdivision, Tract . a9 Sources Potet. , Potentially I=Th No
R.W. Hertel and Sons Inc. Significant Significant Significant Impact
Issues Unless Impact
ER 166-98 mitigation
Page 6 1 Incorporazed
additional population and housing is consistent with the approved phasing plan for Edna Islay, within the General
Plan's projection, and has been addressed in the EIRs on the Edna-Islay Specific Plan and 1994 Land Use
Element Update.
Conclusion:Not significant
3. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving:
a) Fault rupture? 5 X
b) Seismic ground shaking? 6 X
c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? 6 X
d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? 6 X
e) Landslides or mudflows? 6 X
f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil
conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? X
g) Subsidence of the land? 10 X
h) Expansive soils? 10 X
i) Unique geologic or physical features? X
Seismic Hazards
There are no known fault lines on site or in the immediate vicinity. However, the City of San Luis Obispo is in
Seismic Zone 4, a seismically active region of California and strong ground shaking should be expected during
the Irfe of proposed structures. Structures must be designed in compliance with seismic design criteria established
in the Uniform Building Code.
The site lies in an area identified by the Seismic Safety Element of the General Plan as being in the"F",
Franciscan Formation, zone which has a high landslide risk. As defined in the Seismic Safety Element, "the
Franciscan Formation is composed of incompetent material of complex structure". The evaluation included in the
element qualifies its applicability by noting that it is based on natural conditions and does not account for changes
in stability that may accompany development
Soils
The soil underlying the site is classified as Cropley Clay (127). This soil type has slow permeability and slow
surface runoff with a slight hazard of water erosion. This soil-type is easily compacted. Foundations and footings
should be designed for high shrink-swell potential and low strength (source 5).
In December of 1996, a soils report, for adjoining tract 2248, was completed by Mid-Coast Geotechnical, Inc.
(MCG): The purpose of the soils test was to determine the geotechnical properties of the surface and sub-surface
soils in order to provide recommendations for general site grading and to design suitable foundations for tract
2248. The MCG soils report concluded that the adjoining property was suitable to support residential
development Although test samples were not taken at the project site, both properties have the same soil type
with similar characteristics according to the informational map atlas.
While the site is generally suitable for development,with proper grading and foundation designs, a soils report will
be required to be submitted as part of the subdivision, grading and building permit applications,and
recommendations in the reports must be followed in the final project design. Grading operations will be done in
accordance with the City's grading regulations and should not create any erosion or unstable soil difficulties. This
process will assure that the soils present no problems in the near-or long-term.
The following mitigation measure is recommended to insure that soils impacts are insignificant
4-21
Fuller Road Subdivision, Tract � :S Sources Potet. , Potentially Cess Than No
R.W. Hertel and Sons Inc. Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER 166-98 Issues Unless Impact
mitigation
Page 7 Incorporated
Mitigation Measure:
1. A detailed soils engineering report shall to be submitted, as approved, as part of the grading and building
permit applications. The soils report shall include: data regarding the nature, distribution and strength of the
existing soils, conclusions and recommendations for grading procedures including recommendations to
ensure that there are no impacts to the creek, and design criteria for corrective measures,when necessary.
Grading and building must be designed and performed in compliance with the soils engineering report.
Conclusion:Less than significant with mitigation.
4. WATER. Would the proposal result in:
a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the
rate and amount of surface runoff? X
b) Exposure of people or property to water related
hazards such as flooding? 7 X
c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of
surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved X
oxygen or turbidity?
d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water
body? X
e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of
water movements? X
f) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either
through direct additions or withdrawals, or through X
interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or
through substantial loss of groundwater recharge
capability?
.g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? X
h) Impacts to groundwater quality? X
i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater
otherwise available for public water supplies? X
Drainage:
The project will increase the amount of impervious surfaces on the site, and has the potential to alter absorption
rates or drainage patterns in the area. Two drainage basins are proposed to capture the additional runoff. The
basins will retain water for short periods of time,then slowly release it into the adjacent creek. Most of the year,
the basins will be empty.
According to project plans,the creek will be left in its natural state, and no discharge to it is planned. According to
the applicant, the project will be designed so only the back yard runoff drains toward the creeks. Project plans do
not show how storm water will be conveyed to the basin. The development must be designed so as not to
increase flooding downstream. The project is also required to be designed to meet City grading and drainage
standards.
Flooding
Much of the property appears to be in a flood plain (available flood insurance rate maps are at too small a scale to
allow exact determinations of the limits of flooding on this site). Compliance with the City's Flood Damage and
Prevention Regulations will mitigate flooding impacts to a less than significant level.
4-22
Fuller Road Subdivision, Tract �_.,9 Sources Poter,. Potentially Less Than No
R.W. Hertel and Sons Inc. Significant Significant Significant Impact
Issues Unless Impact
ER 166-98 mitigation
Page 8 Incorporated
Mitigation:
2. The subdivider shall provide the Director of Public Works 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 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 Map prior to final acceptance of the development, to the
satisfaction of the Director of Public Works.
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 Director of Public Works. The areas subject
to flooding shall be noted on the final map.
Conclusion:Less than significant with mitigation.
5. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an
existing or projected air quality violation (Compliance 8 X
with APCD Environmental Guidelines)?
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants X
c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause
any change in climate? X
d) . Create objectionable odors? X
Short-term Impacts
During project construction,there will be increased levels of fugitive dust associated with construction and grading
activities, as well as construction emissions associated with heavy duty construction equipment Compliance with
the dust management practices contained in Municipal Code Section 15.04.040 X. (Sec. 7004(b))will adequately
mitigate short-term impacts. No further mitigation is necessary.
Long-Term Impacts
San Luis Obispo County is a non-attainment area for the State ozone and PM,c(fine particulate matter 10 microns
or less in diameter)air quality standards. State law requires that emissions of non-attainment pollutants and their
precursors be reduced by at least 5%per year until the standards are attained. The 1995 Clean Air Plan (CAP)
for San Luis Obispo County was developed and adopted by the Air Pollution Control District(APCD)to meet that
requirement The CAP is a comprehensive planning document designed to reduce emissions from traditional
industrial and commercial sources, as well as from motor vehicle use. Land Use Element Policy 1.18.2 states that
the City will help the APCD implement the Clean Air Plan.
The project size is above the threshold contained in the APCD's"CEQA Air Quality Handbook"for generating
significant amounts of emissions and therefore has the potential to cause significant air quality impacts. As a part
of the subdivision proposal the applicant is proposing to continue an existing off-street bikepath that will connect
existing neighborhoods as well as provide a connection to the City's Broad Street bike lane.
Conclusion: Less than significant with mitigation.
4-23
Fuller Road Subdivision, Tract j9 sources Porn. ; Potentially I ess Than No
R.W. Hertel and Sons Inc. significant Significant Significant Impact
Issues Unless Impact
ER 166-98 mitigation
Page 9 Incorporated
6. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? 9 X
b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp
curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible x
uses (e.g. farm equipment))?
c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby
uses? x
d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? x
e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? x
f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative
transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? x
g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts (e.g. 12 x
compatibility with San Luis Obispo Co. Airport Land
Use Plan)
Short Term
Construction traffic has the ability to cause impacts (noise and dust)to neighboring properties. Construction traffic
will be required to use Fuller Road to Broad Street to reduce these impacts.
Long Term
According to the Trip Generation manual published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers(ITE), single family
dwellings generate about 10 average daily trips (ADT)and 1 p.m. peak hour trips(PHT). Using these trip
generation estimates, the residential project would generate about 490 ADT and 49 PHT.
The project will incrementally contribute to an increase in traffic on Fuller Road (presently unimproved) and Broad
Streets and reduce traffic on Poinsettia. Fuller Road is a local street that will be constructed with full street
improvements as a part of this development In the City's General Plan (Circulation Element), Broad Street is
classified as a Residential Arterial in the City and a Highway/Regional route in the County. The City's Traffic
Engineer concludes that these streets can adequately accommodate the project's anticipated vehicle trips without
creating a significant change in the current Level of Service(LOS)for Broad Street.
Airport Land Use Plan
The project site is located in Area 5 of the Airport Land Use Plan (ALUP). According to the ALUP, the project
could, with conditions, be made a compatible land use. The following mitigation measure will ensure that the
project will not conflict with the San Luis Obispo County Airport. It should be noted that the EISP was reviewed
and found to be consistent with the ALUC.
Mitigation:
3. The property owner shall grant an avigation easement to the County of San Luis Obispo and provide the City
with a copy of the recorded document
Conclusion:No impacts with mitigation.
7. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the.proposal affect:
a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats x
(including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, 20
animals or birds)?
b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)? 20 x
c) Locally designated natural communities.(e.g. oak
forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? 20 x
d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool? 20 x
4-24
Fuller Road Subdivision, Tract — .f9 Sources Potei. y Potentially Less Than No
R.W. Hertel and Sons Inc. Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER 166-98 sues mit Imess pact
g ion
Page 10 Incorporated
e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? 20 X
The EISP designates seasonal creeks as waterway protection areas in which existing vegetation &wildlife should
be protected and pedestrian traffic buffered from creek banks_ Additionally, the City's Creek Setback Ordinance
establishes minimum setback requirements from creeks. The project is required to comply with these regulations.
In April 1998, Bowland and Associates conducted a biological survey of the subject site. The consulting biologist
noted that the wildlife use of the site is expected to be limited to cosmopolitan species accustomed to human
activity. The creeks however are intermittent drainages, which provide habitat for southwestern pond turtles and
numerous species of birds and other wildlife. To ensure that the southwestern pond turtle is not negatively
impacted by the proposed development, a pre-construction clearance survey shall be conducted and an
educational brochure provided to each household in the subdivision.
In December 1998, Bowland and Associates conducted a second biological survey specifically searching for a
sensitive plant known as the Congdon's tarplant. The survey identified a small number of individuals(less than 50)
of a species considered to be rare by the California Native Plant Society (CNPS). This species, known as
Congdon's tarplant occurs in several areas around San Luis Obispo, including the subject site. The plant can be
found on the margins of wetlands, or in disturbed ground in suitable soil conditions. It is in the latter situation that
the plant has been found on the subject site. It is reasonable to expect that it could be found elsewhere on the site
if those areas were to be disked or plowed.
City policies direct that the loss of habitat for species considered rare by CNPS be mitigated. This mitigation can
be in the form of a transplanting effort, or by participation in a mitigation effort being conducted jointly by several
parties. It is recommended that the project sponsors contribute to a current City effort to establish a viable
population of Congdon's tarplant at the fields south of the City Water Reclamation facility. This contribution can be
in the form of a cash payment to the City of San Luis Obispo, the proceeds of which would be restricted to use in
that effort.
Mitigation:
• 4. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall mitigate the loss of Congdon's tarplant habitat by
either a City approved transplanting effort or participation in a City approved or initiated mitigation effort being
conducted by other parties.
5. A pre-construction clearance 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
removed out of the construction zone and placed in a safe, suitable habitat within the lower creek.
6. 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 the turtles.
Background information may be obtained from the Final Report of the Arbors at Islay Hill Southwestern Pond
Turtle Study, Hunt and Bowland, March 1995.
7. A specific contact person shall be designated, either a resident within the development or someone with an
appropriate 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 the California Department of Fish and Game.
8. All residents should be discouraged from using invasive non-native plants in the landscaping areas adjacent to
the creek/hparian areas.
4-25
Fuller Road Subdivision, Tract _ s9 Sources Pote. y Potentially Less Than I No
R.W. Hertel and Sons Inc. Significant Significant Significant Impazt
Issues Unless Impact
ER 166-98 mitigation
Page 11 Incorporated
9. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall mark the edge of grading with snow fencing to the
satisfaction of the Natural Resources Manager.
Conclusion: Less than significant with mitigation.
8. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES: Would the proposal:
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? 11 x
b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and
inefficient manner? 11 x
c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral
resource that would be of future value to the region X
and the residents of the State?
The Energy Conservation Element policies encourage the use of techniques to minimize energy use. The project
would expand an already-developed neighborhood in accordance with the EISP, which was reviewed for
consistency with the Energy Conservation Element Lots are primarily oriented in a north-south direction because
of the shape of the site and the location of existing creeks.
Conclusion:No Impacts.
9. HAZARDS_ . Would the proposal involve:
a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous
substances (including, but not limited to: oil, X
pesticides, chemicals or radiation)?
b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan
or emergency evacuation plan? X
c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health
hazard? X
d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential
health hazards? X
e) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable brush,
grass or trees? X
The City Fire Department finds the existing road and fire services adequate for fire protection. The project site
also meets response requirements if built in accordance with City standards. Fire hydrants will be required.
Conclusion:No impacts.
10. NOISE., Would the proposal result in:
a) Increase in existing noise levels? 13 X
b) Exposure of people to "unacceptable" noise levels as
defined by the San Luis Obispo General Plan Noise 13 X
Element?
Roadway Noise
The Noise Element of the General Plan and its accompanying Noise Guidebook (source 13) say that a generally
acceptable level of noise for residences is 60 decibels, average (60Ldn). The guidebook estimates that at buildout,
noise from Highway 227 will be reduced to 60 Ldn at a distance of 292 feet from the center of the roadway.
Residences set back this far or farther from the highway will be exposed to acceptable noise levels.
The project homes are more than 300 feet from the centerline of Broad Street Therefore, future project residents
would not be exposed to noise generated by automobiles.
Airport Noise
The site is also within an area which may be affected by airport noise. Figure 6 in the Noise Element shows
projected noise contours for the theoretical capacity of the airport The site is beyond the 60 Ldn contour, and
4-26
Fuller Road Subdivision, Tract _ s9 Sources Pote. y Potentially LSSnan No
R.W. Hertel and Sons Inc. significant Significant Significant Impact
Issues Unless Impact
ER 166-98 mitigation
Page 12 Incorporated
therefore is exposed to less than 60 dB from airport operations.
Conclusion: Less than significant impacts from airport and roadway noise.
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
b) Police protection? X
c) Schools? X
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? X
e) Other governmental services? X
The proposed subdivision will contain 49 single-family homes. In San Luis Obispo, according to CDF estimates,
the average household size is 2.3 persons. If all 49 homes are occupied, the projected population of this
subdivision would be 49 X 2.3 = 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 13.88% = 15 school-age
children living in this subdivision. The number may actually be slightly higher because the EISP area tends to
attract young families.
The school districts in this state are separate governing bodies with authority to collect fees to finance school
construction and parcel acquisition. Section 65995 of the Government Code prohibits the City from denying a
subdivision or collecting any fees beyond those required by the school district itself,to mitigate effects of
inadequate school facilities. Any effect that the additional 15+ children will have on school facilities will be mitigated
in whole or in part by the districts per-square-foot fees, charged at the time of building permit issuance for each
home.
Conclusion:Less than significant.
12. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. 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) Power or natural gas? X
b) Communications systems? X
c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution
facilities? 14 X
d) Sewer or septic tanks? X
e) Storm water drainage? X
f) Solid waste disposal? 16 X
g) Local or regional water supplies? X
Water Treatment & Distribution Facilities
This project has been reviewed by Utilities Department staff. Comments note that the project is subject to
water impact fees which were adopted to ensure that new development pays its fair share of the cost of
constructing the water supply,treatment and distribution facilities that will be necessary to service it.
Water Supplies
The City has adopted Water Allocation Regulations to insure that increased water use by new development
and land use changes do not jeopardize adequate water service to current and new customers. Section
17.89.030 of the regulations states that a water allocation shall be required to: "obtain a connection to the
city water system for a structure or facility not previously connected; change the use of land or buildings,
whether or not a construction permit is also required; obtain a construction permit." The City has 400 acre-
feet of water available through retrofitting to allocate to the development of post-1994 annexations.
4-27
Fuller Road Subdivision, Tract .. 9 Sources Pout. , Potentially Less Than xo
R.W. Hertel and Sons Inc. Significant Significant Significant impact
Issues Unless Impact
ER 166-98 mitigation
Page 13 Incorporated
The project is expected to use 0.30 acre-feet/dwelling X 49 dwellings = 14.7 acre-feet of water, and
incrementally contribute to water demand. To receive an allocation, the property owner will need to provide
water offsets through retrofitting the plumbing of existing structures to save twice as much water annually
as the project's projected demand, or otherwise satisfy the requirements of the water allocation regulations
through an approved method. Compliance with the provisions of the Water Allocation Regulations and the
water impact fee program is adequate to mitigate the effects of increased water demand.
The City's Water & Wastewater Management Element 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 Urba
Reserve at the time the element was adopted.
Sewer/Wastewater
The City's wastewater treatment plant has adequate capacity to serve this development. However, the lift
station that will be serving the development is at capacity. There is the potential to modify the Tank Farm
Lift Station or provide some other mitigation to provide reliable service until areawide improvements
anticipated pursuant to the Airport Area Specific Plan are constructed. Lift station fees will be charged
Any work done to increase capacity will offset lift station fees. Participation in a project to construct
gravity sewer replacement to the lift station system may be required in addition to or instead of the lift
station fees. The project will, by ordinance, be required to contribute to the costs of increasing capacity a
the lift station or in the cost of a new gravity sewer line. These requirements are adequate to mitigate the
effects of increased wastewater generation resulting from this development.
Storm Water Drainage
The construction of a residential subdivision on the site will increase runoff from the area. The plans includ
the construction of one or two detention basins, to be sized according to City standards, to accommodat
the additional runoff. The basins will hold water from storms and release it at a rate that can b
accommodated by the creeks. The additional runoff, drained in this manner, is not expected to create an
adverse effects on the natural drainage system.
Solid Waste
Background research for the Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (AB939) shows that Californians
dispose of roughly 2,500 pounds of waste per month. Over 90% of this waste goes to landfills, posing a
threat to groundwater, air quality, landfill capacity and public health. Cold Canyon landfill is projected to
reach its capacity by 2018. The Act requires each city and county in California to reduce the flow of
materials to landfills by 50% (from 1990 levels) by 2000. To help reduce the waste stream generated by
this project, consistent with the City's Source Reduction and Recycling Element, recycling facilities must be
accommodated on the project site and a solid waste reduction plan for recycling discarded construction
materials submitted with the building permit application. The project should include facilities for both interior
and exterior recycling to reduce the waste stream generated by the project consistent with the Source
Reduction and Recycling Element.
Mitigation Measure:
10. Site development shall include a solid waste recycling plan for recycling discarded building materials
such as concrete, drywall, wood and metals from the construction site. The plans must be submitted
for approval by the Community Development Director prior to building permit issuance.
11. The final project shall be designed to include interior and exterior recycling.
Conclusion: Less than significant with mitigation.
4-28
Fuller Road Subdivision, Tract �_.19 Sources Potei. ..y PotentiallyLess Than No
R.W. Hertel and Sons Inc. Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER 166-98 Issues Unless Impact
mitigation
Page 14 Incorporated
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
The aesthetic concerns associated with site development will be addressed with the Architectural Review
Commission's final review of plans. No further mitigation is required.
Conclusion: No impacts.
14. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a) Disturb paleontological resources? 19 X
b) Disturb archaeological resources? 17,19 X
c) Affect historical resources? 17,19 X
d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which
would affect unique ethnic cultural values? X
e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the
potential impact area? X
The City's Archaeological Resources Preservation Guidelines requires an Archaeological Resources Inventory
(ARI) of the site because it is more than one acre in size and contains a seasonal creek.
In January of 1999, a Phase 1 Archaeological Survey was performed on the site. The survey did not find
any evidence of either prehistoric or early historic archeological remains on the property. The survey also
concludes that since no archaeological materials or features were found, and no buried material or deposit
are believed to exist within the area, the proposed project is not expected to have any effect on known o
suspected cultural resources. Based on these findings, no additional archaeological work is recommende
prior to construction.
Conclusion. No Impact
15. RECREATION. Would the proposal:
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional
parks or other recreational facilities? X
.b) Affect existing.recreational opportunities? X
The 49 homes will add incrementally to the demand for parks and other recreational facilities. Park-in-lie
fees will be required to be paid to the City to help finance additional park space or equipment in the vicinity,
These fees should be sufficient to offset the effect of the additional demand.
Conclusion: No impacts.
16. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the
quality of the environment, substantially reduce the
habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or
wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels,
threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, X
reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal or eliminate important
4-29
Fuller Road Subdivision, Tract ._.s9 Sources Pose,. .Y potentially Less Than No
R.W. Hertel and Sons Inc. Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER 166-98 Issues Unless Impact
mitigation
Page 15 Incorporated
examples of the major periods of California history or
prehistory?
Without mitigation, the project would have the potential to have adverse impacts for all the issue areas
checked in the table on page 3.
b) Does the project have the potential to achieve short-
term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental X
goals?
In this case, short- and long-term environmental goals are the same.
c) Does the project have impacts that are individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively
considerable" means that the incremental effects of a
project are considerable when viewed in connection X
with the effects of the past projects, the effects of
other current projects, and the effects of probable
future projects)
The impacts identified in this initial study are specific to this project and would not be categorized as
cumulatively significant.
d) Does the project have environmental effects which will
cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, X
either directly or indirectly?
With incorporation of mitigation measures, the.project will not result in substantial adverse impacts on
humans.
17. EARLIER ANALYSES.
Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one o
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.
Edna Islay Specific Plan (EISP) and the EISP Final EIR and the San Luis Obispo Land Use Element Update
and FEIR can be found at the City of San Luis Obispo Community Development Department at 990 Palm
Street, San Luis Obispo, California.
b) Impacts.adequately:addresse& Identify.which effects from the above checklist were within the:scop
of. and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to.applicable legal standards, and stat
Whether such.effects were.addressed by mitigation.measures based on the.earlier analysis.
Not applicable.
c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe
the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent t
which they address site-specific conditions of the project.
Not applicable.
Authority: Public Resources Code Sections 21083 and 21087.
Reference: Public Resources Code.Sections 21080 (c),. 21080.1, 21080.3, 21082.1,.21083, 21083.3,
21093, 321094, 21151; Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino, 202 Cal. App. 3d 296 (1988); Leonofff v.
Monterey Board of Supervisors, 2.22 Cal. App. 3d 1337 (1990).
18. SOURCE REFERENCES
1. City of San Luis Obispo Zoning Regulations, February 1997.
2. City of SLO Land Use Element, April 1997.
3. Edna-Islay Specific Plan, adopted in 1982 by City Council.
4. State of California Department of Finance 1997 Population and Household Estimates.
4-30
5. San Luis Obispo Quadrangle Map, prepared by the State Geologist in compliance with the Alquist-
Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act, effective January 1, 1990.
6. City of San Luis Obispo Seismic Safety Element, July 1975.
7. Flood Insurance Rate Map (Community Panel 060310 0005 C) dated July 7, 1981.
8. APCD's "CEQA Air Quality Handbook", August 1995.
9. 1 Trip Generation, Institute of Transportation Engineers, 6" Edition, Volume 2.
10. Soil Survey of San Luis Obispo County - Coastal Part, United States Department of Agriculture-
Soil Conservation Service.
11 . City of SLO Energy Conservation Element, April 1981.
12. County of San Luis Obispo Airport Land Use Plan.
13. City of San Luis Obispo Noise Element, May 1996.
14. City of SLO Water Allocation Regulations, June 1995.
15. Water and Wastewater Management Element, 1994.
16. City of San Luis Obispo Source Reduction and Recycling Element, Brown, Vence & Associates,
July 1994.
17. City of San Luis Obispo Archaeological Resource Preservation Guidelines, October 1995.
18. 1 City of San Luis Obispo Historical preservation Program Guidelines, February 1987.
19. Phase 1 Archaeological Survey of Tract 2289, Thor Conway, Jan., 1999.
20. Biological Survey, Bowland and Associates, April and December 1998.
19. MITIGATION MEASURES/MONITORING PROGRAM
1. Mitigation Measure: A detailed soils engineering report shall to be submitted, as approved, as part
of the grading and building permit applications. The soils report shall include:
data regarding the nature, distribution and strength of the existing soils,
conclusions and recommendations for grading procedures including such
recommendations to ensure that there are no impacts to the creek, and design
criteria for corrective measures, when necessary. Grading and building must
be designed and performed in compliance with the soils engineering report.
Monitoring Program: The Community Development Department and Engineering staffs will
review plans in conjunction with the soils engineering report through the
building permit plan check process.
2. Mitigation Measure: The subdivider shall provide the Director of Public Works 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 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-year 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 Map prior to final
acceptance of the development, to the satisfaction of the Director of
Public Works.
Any lots subject to flooding during a 100-year storm shall be graded to
provide minimum pad elevations at least 1 foot above the 100-year storm
elevation, to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works. The areas
subject to flooding shall be noted on the final map.
Monitoring Program: The Community Development Department and Engineering staffs will
review plans in conjunction with the soils engineering report through the
building ermit plan check process. 4-31 1
3. Mitigation Measure: The property owner shall grant an avigation easement to the County of San
Luis Obispo via an avigation easement document prepared by the County.
Monitoring Program: Compliance with this requirement shall be monitored through the review of
plans submitted for a building permit by the Community Development
Department staff.
4. Mitigation Measure: Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall mitigate the loss of
Congdon's tarplant habitat by either a City approved transplanting effort or
participation in a City approved or initiated mitigation effort being conducted by
other parties.
Monitoring Program: Compliance with this requirement shall be monitored through the review of
plans submitted for a building permit by the Community Development
Department staff and Natural Resources Manager.
5. MitigationMeasure: A pre-construction clearance survey shall be conducted by a qualified
biologist prior to ground disturbance to assure turtles are not present
within the construction zone. If turtles are found, the turtles shall be
removed out of the construction zone and placed in a safe, suitable habitat
within the lower creek.
Monitoring Program: Compliance with this requirement shall be monitored through the
Community Development Department and Public Works Departments
review of grading plans.
6. MitigationMeasure: 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 the turtles. Background information
may be obtained from the Final Report of the Arbors at Islay Hill
Southwestern Pond Turtle Study, Hunt and Bowland, March 1995.
Monitoring Program: Compliance with this requirement shall be monitored through the
Community Development Department's review of the project's CC&Rs.
7. Mitigation Measure: A specific contact person shall be designated, either a resident within the
development or someone with an appropriate 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 the California Department of
Fish and Game.
Monitoring Program: Compliance with this requirement shall be monitored through the
Community.Development Department's review of the project's CC&Rs.
8. Mitigation Measure: All residents should be discouraged from using invasive non-native plants in
the landscaping areas adjacent to the creek/riparian areas.
Monitoring Program: Compliance with this requirement shall be monitored through the
Community Development Department's review of the project's CC&Rs.
9. Mitigation Measure: Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall mark the edge
of grading with snow fencing to the satisfaction of the Natural Resources
Manager.
Monitoring Program: The Natural Resources Manager will review plans through the grading
permit process.
10. Mitigation Measure: Site development shall include a solid waste recycling plan for recycling
discarded building materials such as concrete, drywall, wood and metals
from the construction site. The plans must be submitted for approval by
the Community Development Director prior to building permit issuance.
Monitoring Program: Compliance with this requirement shall be monitored through the review of
detailed plans submitted for architectural review and building permit
primarily by the Community Development Department staff.
4-32
11. Mitigation Measure: The final project shall be designed to include interior and exterior recycling.
Monitoring Program: Compliance with this requirement shall be monitored through the review of
detailed plans submitted for architectural review and building permit
primarily by.the Community Development Department staff.
,r
4-33
�EGJEI VED APR 2 1
BOWLAND & ASSOCIATES
Biological & Environmental Consulting Services
2674 East Main Street, Suite C-205
Ventura, CA 93003-2899
(805) 652-0577 fax 652-0576
Mr. Jon Adams, Construction Manager April 3, 1998
R. W. Hertel & Sons, Inc.
75 South Higuera, Suite 165
San Luis Obispo, Ca 93401
RE: Garcia Property - Biological Survey
Dear Jon:
In accordance with your request, 1 conducted.a biological survey of the Garcia property,
located generally west of Tract 2211 (The Willows) on March 18, 1998. I conducted a thorough
walk-over survey of the property. The site can be characterized as a disturbed annual grassland,
with the southern and northern boundaries formed by the riparian corridors of two forks of'lslay
Creek.
The site appears to have been previously disturbed by disking and/or tilling, and a result,
is vegetated primarily with non-native, ruderal plant species. Although many plants were not
yet.in flower, the site appears to be dominated by non-native wild oats (Avera species). Other
common non-native plants include wild radish (Raphanus sativus), cutleaf.geranium (Geranium
dissectum), Italian wild rye (Lolium multiflorum), sweet fennel (Foeniculum vulgare), Fuller's
teasel (Dipsacus follonum), and bur clover (Medicago polymorpha). One gum tree(Eucalyptus
species) occurs near the center of the site. Patches of native coyote bush (Baccharis piluaris)
are scattered throughout the property, becoming more common in the western perimeter. Small,
dense patches of the native grass, creeping wild rye (Leymus triticoides), occurs between the
annual grassland and the riparian corridors along both forks.of Islay Creek. Few other native
plants were identified within the grassland component of the site.
An outcrop of serpentine rock occurs along the southern boundary of the site, adjacent
to and extending into the southern fork of Islay Creek. This rocky area is sparsely vegetated,
and contains mostly the non-native grasses wild oats and Italian wild rye, along with scattered
natives such as lupine (Lupinus species), sawtooth goldenbush (Hazardia squarrosa), redmaids
(Calandrinia ciliata), and creamcups (Platystemon californicus).
The riparian corridors are dominated by willows (Salix.species), with occasional western
sycamores (Platanus racemosa) and a few California black walnuts (Juglans californica). The
understory includes poison oak (Toxicodendron diversilobum), California blackberry (Rubus
ursinus), non-native grasses such as wild oats (Avena species) and Italian wild rye (Lolium
multiflorum). The non-native and invasive ornamental periwinkle (Vinca species) occurs along
the banks of the south fork.
— -
Jon Adams
April 3, 1998
Page two
Wildlife use of the site is expected to be limited to cosmopolitan species accustomed to
human activity. Substantial gopher activity was noted during the field survey, but no other
mammal usage was indicated. The site itself offers unrestricted movement for wildlife, but is
bounded by urban land uses, including industrial, residential, and a golf driving range.
The creeks along the property boundaries are intermittent drainages, which provide
habitat for southwestern pond turtles and numerous species of birds and other wildlife. These
creeks are not expected to provide suitable habitat for California red-legged frogs, since they do
not contain a well-developed series of ponds and riffles, nor is water present throughout the
year. No other sensitive species of wildlife are expected to occur within this site.
Please do not hesitate to call to discuss the contents of this report. I would be happy to
answer any questions you may have.
Sincerely yours,
Jacqueline L. Bowland
Consulting Biologist
4-35
BOWLAND & ASSOCIATES
Biological & Environmental Consulting Services
2674 East Main Street, Suite C-205
Ventura, CA 93003-2899
(805) 652-0577 fax 652-0576
Ms. Peggy Mandeville December 7, 1998
City of San Luis Obispo
PO Box 8100
San Luis Obispo, CA
93403-8100
RE: Biological Survey - Tentative Tract 2289 (Garcia Property)
Dear Peggy:
In accordance with Jon Adams' request, I conducted a second biological survey of
tentative tract 2289 (the Garcia property) located in the City of San Luis Obispo. On 11/20/98,
1 conducted a thorough walk-over survey of the property, specifically searching for a sensitive
plant known as Cogdon's tarplant (Hemizonia parryi ssp. congdoniz). This subspecies is listed
by the California Native Plant Society as List 1B (plants rare, threatened, or endangered in
California and elsewhere)/C 1 (enough data on file to support federal listing).' This annual plant
typically occurs in alkaline grasslands, and has been recently seen occurring in several locations
throughout the City of San Luis Obispo where it had not previously been noted (pers. comm.,
Peggy Mandeville, 11/16/98).
Approximately 14 dead Cogdon's tarplants were found in two locations adjacent to the
driving range: on both sides of the existing dirt road (the extension of Fuller Road) within spoil
piles (approximately 8-10 plants);.4 dead and/or dying plants on the east side of Lot 23, along
the paved sidewalk, west side of Larkspur Street. The latter location may have been a spoil site;
other plants present are all ruderal species, common to disturbed areas (i.e. bristly ox-tongue
(Picris echioides), yellow star thistle(Centaurea soLstifialis);black mustard(Brassica nigra); and
non-native grasses). The approximate location of these plants is roughly shown on the enclosed
map.
No other Cogdon's tarplants were discovered within the remainder of the subject
property. The conditions encountered during the November 20th site visit were substantially the
same as found during the March 1998 site visit, with no new species. of plants identified. As
previously reported, the site is dominated by non-native wild oats (Avera sp. ) with abundant
wild vetch (Vicia sp.) and bristly ox-tongue (Picris echioides). The dead oats and vetch form
dense mats ranging in depth from 3 to 10 inches, shading the ground and retarding the growth
of other plants. Areas lacking these mats contained grass seedlings.
Skinner,et al. (1994), Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California. California Native
Plant Society, Special Publication No. 1/Fifth Edition.
Peggy Mandeville
December 7, 1998
Page two
Other common non-native plants include wild radish (Raphanus sativus), cutleaf geranium
(Geranium dissectum), Italian wild rye(Lolium multiflorum), sweet fennel (Foeniculum vulgare),
Fuller's teasel (Dipsacus follonum), and bur clover (Medicago polymorpha). One gum tree
(Eucalyptus species) occurs near the center of the site. Patches of native coyote bush (Baccharis
piluaris) are scattered throughout the property, becoming more common in the western
perimeter. Small, dense patches of the native grass, creeping wild rye (Leymus triticoides),
occurs between the annual grassland and the riparian corridors along both forks of Islay Creek.
Few other native plants were identified within the grassland component of the site.
An outcrop of serpentine rock occurs along the southern boundary of the site, adjacent
to and extending into the southern fork of Islay Creek. This rocky area is sparsely vegetated,
and contains mostly the non-native grasses wild oats and Italian wild rye, along with scattered
natives such as lupine (Lupinus species), sawtooth goldenbush (Hazardia squarrosa), redmaids
(Calandrinia ciliata), and creamcups (Platystemon californicus).
Please do not hesitate to call to discuss the contents of this report. I would be happy to
answer any questions you may have.
Sincerely yours,
Jacqueline L. Bowland
Consulting Biologist
cc: Jon Adams, Hertel
enclosure (map)
4-37
council
A acenoA RCPOIZt
C I T Y OF SAN L UI S OBISPO
FROM: Arnold Jonas, Community Development Director
Prepared By: Peggy Mandeville, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: SUBDIVISION OF A 14.66 ACRE SITE INTO 48 SINGLE FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL LOTS AND REQUEST FOR SUBDIVISION AND
STREET YARD SETBACK EXCEPTIONS AT THE SOUTHEAST
CORNER OF FULLER ROAD AND BROAD STREET(TR/ER 166-98;
R.W. Hertel& Sons, applicant)
CAO RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a resolution approving the Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact, with
mitigation, and approving the tentative map with subdivision and setback exceptions, with
conditions.
DISCUSSION
Situation
The Fuller Road annexation area was added to the City in February of this year. It is within the
Secondary Planning Area of the Edna-Islay Specific Plan (FISP) area. R.W. Hertel and Sons,
Inc. have submitted an application to subdivide a portion of the annexation area into 48
residential lots.
Data Summary
Address: SE comer Fuller Road and Broad Street (behind existing service
commercial center)
Applicants: R. W. Hertel & Sons, Inc.
Representative: RRM Design Group
Zoning: Low-Density Residential, Specific Plan (R-1-SP)
General Plan: Low-Density Residential
Environmental status:Negative Declaration with mitigation measures recommended by the
Community Development Director on March 27, 1999.
Action deadline: September 1, 1999
Sitedesc ' tion
The site is relatively flat, with two tributaries of Islay Creek running through the site from the
east to the northwest. A large serpentine rock outcropping is located in the southeastern comer
of the property. Vegetation on the site consists primarily of weedy grasses and forbs, with
several trees at the edge of the site and along the creek. Existing development on the northern
portion of the property includes a golf driving range. Surrounding land uses include single
family residential to the north and east and service commercial to the south and west.
4-38
Council Agenda Report—TRIER 166-98(Tract 2289)
Page 2
Project Description
The project is a request to subdivide a 14.66 acre parcel into 48 residential lots. The parcels
range in size from 558 sm (6,004 s.f.) to 1048 sm (11,276 s.f.). In order to provide access to
these lots, the applicant proposes to extend Goldenrod Lane approximately 225 m (738 feet)
and construct two additional cul de sacs with access from Fuller Road. Other components of
the subdivision include site grading and the installation of public improvements including one
vehicular bridge on Fuller Road, two detention basins, one bike path and one pedestrian bridge
crossing the creek that bisects the site. The project also involves the dedication of the creek
and setback areas to the City for the purpose of managing and protecting the existing seasonal
creeks on the property.
The proposed project is fully described in the Planning Commission staff report (Attch. 4).
Planning Commission Review
On April 14, 1999 the Planning Commission reviewed the proposed subdivision and
recommended Council adoption of the Negative Declaration and approval of the vesting
tentative map on a 6-1 vote (Commr. Ready voting no because the City would maintain
ownership of the creeks). The Commission amended the staff recommended conditions
requiring a pedestrian bridge at the end of Goldenrod Lane to connect with Street "A",
requiring Fuller Road to be constructed to City standards (and not a reduced right of way if
needed to address the location of existing off-site structures), and disclosure to potential
purchasers of lots that the neighboring property to the west is zoned Service-Commercial.
EVALUATION
The proposed subdivision is consistent with the City's General Plan, Zoning Regulations, and
the Edna-Islay Specific Plan. As required by the General Plan, the proposed subdivision has
been integrated into the existing neighborhood and the property's creek areas have been
preserved. Additionally, the subdivision provides for the extension of an existing off-street
bikepath which is called for in the Edna-Islay Specific Plan. The attached draft resolution of
approval contains specific findings for approval of the tentative map as well as subdivision and
setback exceptions.
Fuller Road Right of Way
The Edna-Islay Specific Plan calls for Fuller Road to be widened to City standards and
connected with the existing Edna-Islay roadway system with the development of properties
abutting Fuller Road. The southern half of the right of way needed for Fuller Road is located
on the subject property. The northern half is located on the adjoining property north of the
existing roadway.
The Subdivision Ordinance (MC 16.36.250.A) states: The "full width" of each street shall be
improved by grading, base preparation and paving. If a street constitutes a boundary of the
subdivision or connects the subdivision with the rest of the City's street system, even though it
is not within the area to be subdivided, the "full width" of the roadway shall be improved. The
City may, depending on individual circumstances, require full curb, gutter and sidewalk
4-39
Council Agenda ReportTRIER 166-98(Tract 2289)
Page 3
improvements on the opposite side of the.street.
Public Works Department staff recommended the condition for full right of way (-RJW) and use
of eminent domain proceedings, if needed, to acquire the off site north half(15feet) of Fuller
Road R/W (currently a private street) and an additional 13 feet to accommodate the design
R/W of 56 feet. Full street paving (36 ft. curb to curb) is required, with curb, .gutter and
sidewalk on the south side and an AC berm on the north side to control drainage. Future curb,
gutter and sidewalk would be installed by the northerly property owners with development.
There is an existing storage/shop building that is on the existing northerly road right of way
line (see Attachment 6) that would prevent completion of the full paved section at that location
without removal or modification of the structure. If the building stayed, the paved section
would be only 15 feet instead of 16.5 feet (to the future gutter line) although it would be better
to hold back the paving to at least 2 feet from the building (13 feet of paving).
The Planning Commission conditioned the subdivider to construct Fuller .Road to City
standards (not a reduced right of way). To accomplish this, the storage/shop building must be
moved, modified (if feasible), or the right of way "jogged" around the existing building. The
Planning Commission suggested the latter alternative. The Public Works Department has
reviewed this alternative and finds that it would be undesirable to offset the right of way
around the building, due to the proximity to the bridge and transition needed to meet the
existing frontage improvements at the commercial property at the Broad Street intersection.
Additionally, the Public Works Department does not want to condemn the building for the
right of way because the full R/W requirement may be easier to acquire - outside of the
building itself. It may be premature to speculate as to the likelihood of the subdivider
acquiring all the R/W without condemnation anyway, but it would seem easier to acquire that
portion outside of the building.
Although the condition as written meets the ordinance, it may be good to consider whether,
pending development on the north side of Fuller Road, the City could consider a narrower
section for about 50 ft. alongside of the building. That would provide for a 13 foot travel lane
plus 2 feet of shoulder area.
City Ownership of Creeks
City staff recommends conditioning the subdivision to have the creek areas delineated as
separate lots dedicated to the City with appropriate access for maintenance. This is consistent
with the actions taken by the City in the Edna-Islay area in the past and is consistent with the
Edna-Islay Specific Plan. Staff recommends the establishment of a reasonable assessment
mechanism on the homeowner's association or residential property owners to support
streamside stormflow management activities (i.e. pruning/thinning of willows) and fire
protection activities (i.e. mowing) in the area as theimmediate homeowners are the primary
beneficiaries of such activities.
The boundary of the creek and the developed commercial parcel to the west should be the
center line of the creek. This way the City would not be responsible for creek.bank protection
4-40
Council Agenda Report—TRIER 166-98 (Tract 2289)
Page 4
on the developed side where there are buildings right at the top of the bank. The property line
could be modified later if the commercial property is redeveloped and buildings are relocated
away from the top of bank.
Pedestrian Bridge Requirement
In order to provide pedestrian connections between neighborhoods, the Planning Commission
required the construction of a pedestrian bridge and associated trails which would allow a
pedestrian to have direct access from the end of Goldenrod Lane to Street "A". This
pedestrian connection is shown of the attached tentative map.
Disclosure to Property Owners
During their discussion of this item, the Planning Commission expressed concern that potential
buyers might not be aware that the property to the south and west of the project site is zoned
Service-Commercial. To address this issue, the Commission conditioned to subdivider to
disclose to all potential buyers of lots that the neighboring property is zoned Service
Commercial (C-S) and provide them with a list of allowed C-S uses.
Dust Control
At the Planning Commission public hearing, several members of the public spoke regarding
construction dust. To ensure that the building contractors are aware of the dust control
measures required during construction, the Commission added the specific dust control
language to the conditions of approval in place of the standard language requiring compliance
with the dust management practices contained in Municipal Code Section 15.04.040. The dust
control measures include the regular wetting of roads and graded areas and periodic wash-
downs or mechanical street sweeping of streets in the vicinity of the site.
Subdivision and Setback Exceptions
Exceptions to the City's Subdivision and Zoning Regulations have been requested on several
lots. Details of the request are provided in the Planning Commission staff report. The
Planning Commission recommended approval of the proposed exceptions as recommended by
staff to allow reduced lot depths on nine lots and reduced street yards on three lots. With
approval of these exceptions, the City will be provided with an approximate 12 foot wide
access way beyond the edge of riparian vegetation/top of bank for creek maintenance.
Additionally, no creek setback exceptions are needed as a result of granting the exceptions. In
fact, in most areas a development setback in excess of 20 feet will be provided.
Environmental Review
The initial study prepared for this project identifies eleven mitigation measures that have been
added to the project to mitigate potentially significant environmental impacts. The most notable
of these mitigation measures include mitigation for the loss of a small number Congdon's
tarplants and protection of the southwestern pond turtle. A copy of the initial study is attached
to this report for Council review.
4-41
Council Agenda Report=TRIER 166-98(Tract 2289)
Page 5
Inclusionary Housing
The vesting tentative tract. map application was deemed complete- for processing prior to the
April 1, 1999 effective date of the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance, therefore, no such
requirements have been imposed on this project.
CONCURRENCES
Other department comments have been incorporated into the staff report.
FISCAL IMPACT
Fiscal impacts will be limited to costs to maintain the public improvements and creek. area
(recommended for City ownership). The detention basin, bikepath, and pedestrian bridge are
proposed to be owned and maintained by the homeowners association.
ALTERNATIVES
The Council may deny the subdivision, if it finds that itis inconsistent with the General Plan..
The Council may approve the subdivision with modified findings or conditions.
The Council may continue action on this item if additional information is needed. Direction
should be given to staff and the applicant..
ATTACHMENTS
1. Draft Resolution of Approval
2. Draft Resolution of Denial
3. Environmental Initial Study for TR 166-98
4. Planning Commission staff report
5. Minutes of the April 14, 1999 Planning Commission meeting
6. Fuller Road Right of Way Detail
7. Small scale:project plans
8. Vicinity map
Separate plans have been provided to the City Council and are available for review at the City
Clerk's Office.
PmandevNlCOTR 166-98,Hertel.doc
4-42
/�riT�Gtth'b�- 5
City Council Meeting Page 5
Tuesday,June 15, 1999 -7:00 p.m.
City Administrator Dunn presented an overy of the budget process.
Mayor Settle opened the public heariNo comments. Mayor Settle closed the public
hearing.
Council comments followed. Z"q
il Member Schwartz and Vice Mayor Romero voiced
support. Council Member rx reiterated for the record that in her opinion it is a mis-use of
general fund money for rking reduction,that funds should come from the parking
enterprise funds. Co cil Member Ewan agreed.
ACTION: oved by Schwartz/Ewan to adopt Resolution No. 8943 approving the
1999-0inancial Plan and 1999-00 Budget; motion carried 5:0.
4. SUBDIVISION OF A 14.66 ACRE SITE INTO 48 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOTS
AND REQUEST FOR SUBDIVISION AND STREET YARD SETBACK EXCEPTIONS AT
THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF FULLER ROAD AND BROAD STREET, R.W. HERTEL
&SONS.APPLICANT: 166-98 (CONTINUED FROM JUNE 1. 1999). (File No.203-03)
Associate Planner Peggy Mandeville presented the staff report and noted revisions to
Conditions#21 and 36. Council questions followed. Tim Walters, RRM Design Group,
responded to Vice Mayor Romero's questions regarding the detention holding pond.
Council Member Marx and Mayor Settle voiced concerns regarding traffic impacts,
particularly at the intersection of Fuller Road and Broad Street(Hwy.227). Development
Review Manager Whisenand reported that the design of Fuller Road was reviewed by
CalTrans,who determined that there would be an acceptable levet of service at that
intersection. Mayor Settle recommended prohibiting left turns onto Broad Street.
Development Review Manager Whisenand noted that staff would take the suggestion to
CalTrans.
Mayor Settle opened the public hearing.
Bob Fowler.Vice President of R.W. Hertel,addressed some of the issues raised by the
Council. He reported that he had spoken with adjacent property owners, Mr. and Mrs. Blair,
regarding alternatives for resolving the issue of the building which encroachEs upon the
road easement He noted that the Circulation Element,and the EdnalIslay Specific Plan both
show Fuller Road through to Broad Street, but indicated that he would not have any
objection to the solution suggested by the Mayor regarding the intersection of Fuller and
Broad. In addition, he indicated that he was in agreement with revisions proposed by staff
for Conditions#21 and 36.
David Wilson.979 Goldenrod,voiced concerns regarding the quality of the construction of
homes in Willows subdivision (adjacent to proposed subdivision and built by the same
developer). In addition, he explained that he has been dissatisfied with the customer
service attitude of the developer. He urged the Council not to approve the subdivision. Cites
Attorney Jorgensen advised the Council that it cannot use construction disputes as a basis
for denial.
Joseph DePanfilis. 1000 Goldenrod Lane, also expressed concerns about the quality of
construction in the Willows subdivision. He added that he was opposed to the number of
exceptions the applicant is requesting and has additional concerns about traffic impacts at
Fuller and Broad. He urged Council to approve a project with fewer homes.
Michael Rocchio.984 Goldenrod,reported that during construction, crews left debris in the
creek(i.e.: paint cans, nails,fast food containers). He acknowledged that the developer has
4-43
City Council Meeting Page 6
Tuesday,June 15, 1999 m7:00 p.m.
been making a valiant attempt to resolve construction issues. He questioned the
orientation of-some of the homes as proposed; noting that those similar in the Willows
subdivision look awkward.
Ray Blair.4300 Fuller, spoke to traffic issues and expressed concerns regarding the wells
that serve him and other homes in that immediate area. He explained that the existing
building in the right-of-way belongs to him and noted that it is important to him that any
promised solutions be taken care of in a professional manner. In response to inquiry from
Vice Mayor Romero, he indicated that he.is satisfied with a solution recommended by Public
Works.
Mr. bowler provided a rebuttal and responded to additional questions from the Council.
Mayor Settle closed the public hearing and called a break at.9:46 p.m. The meeting was
reconvened at 10:00 P.M.
Lengthy Council discussion ensued regarding proposed conditions. Council Member
Schwartz suggested that the project be sent back for re=design; Council Members Marx and
Ewan concurred. City..Attomey.Jorgensen advised that if the Council wants to consider an
alternative design, it should continue the matter in light of application deadlines. Mr.
Fowler agreed to a continuance,but asked Council for specific direction. Individual Council
comments relative.to the design followed:
Council Member Schwartz suggested that three lots(#46,47,48) be eliminated,that
Goldenrod be re-aligned to minimize the need for lot depth exceptions,that the bikepath
be moved,study given to the possibility of shifting lot lines,and that building
placement be noted on the map.
Council Member Ewan proposed a variable front yard set-back with the garage moved
back to encourage a new urbanism design. He also suggested that the ARC look at the
design and aesthetics of the bicycle paths.
Council Member-Marx requested that language be added to the conditions that would
require creek protection during construction.
o Vice.Mayor Romero requested revisionstoConditions#1 and#6 to moo�4dequately
clarify issues relating to Fuller Road construction standards and utility,�nd`street tree
easements.
ACTION: Moved by Schwartz(Settle to continue the public hearing until August 17,
1999 with direction staff to amend conditions of approval as recommended. Further
direction given to the developer and staff to refine the design of the subdivision
based on Council comments; motion carried 5:0.
5. APPEAL OF-THE-USE PERMIT RE EST.FOR CONVERSION OF A RESIDENCE TO
INTERMITTENT GOVERMENTAL. FFICES.AND MEETING SPACE USE: 610
MONTEREY STREET(A 46-99). )(File No.201-11)
Associate Planner Peggy Mandeville resented the staff report.
Mayor Settle opened the public he 'ng.
Public Works Director McCluske appellant, provided the history of the property and prior
Council actions.
4-44
14
q / fw'::;
Mom
it iJ�1: [\ Y" � ` rir.;}::c <ffi,� :��' :�`� •'� 7
,r/ !: �l;:� �!'1: !";;;;;'.';;._�'.:,", .S':,•o:kir',... a:.r;:: .a .::T � {7
dr` �F.j lt.' �.o'i�' ,f'::::;!' '.�:. •,E 'i;>:.;i},..::y i<::.;. :w a }� � , �� � w
.�. -. ct:;: .;:;;.) t r; y>�z,;.:` ,tit` � :>::.:>. :3 q1
' i:R F ny ":.>;; i.'i.p;J[ V.:R:y+:ti•%'/n.:/ y� J�:��'�.yT2[u:'w.T`" f .:\_ <
!'v,t� t •t�:: tif:'y g..;=;aoi:::;.. ¢:<::`$t�'r:5 1`:!CS. St �{ iE
.;I�FL'<::i..'.- ::.;�::....;:t.t:i 1 y,[�'i:.v, .3'�...�'� [v.:3:y�;.3• ����r, m �-�
z e a
in
y:;C:i:iYii' , t y�An� I /I 4. ,S✓f',r t� E
/ V
t
t
4-4d
i
01
fir'✓ m
.,' i, �' •.: ,at• •. ',`-,', •a 1. r', z :'` :R;':
41
44
el
/ ♦ t I
If
pet, t
' .a a�• .�•.� \�.fir'' `�-�_.r
Icy
^ Cc Lu
gg
Wit
•/- t g
4_ 5 W
5A ` '
ME
STATE OF CALIFORNIA—BUSINESS.TRANSPOR IN AND HOUSING AGENCYaa 22 GRAY DAMS.Govemor
E
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 11>'z Q V
50 HIGUERA STREET i
4N LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401-5415
ELEPHONE: (805)549-3111 �� JUL 4 E9
TDD (805)549-3259
http://www.dot.ca.gov/distO5
CIPH I 1�'OBISPO
L K31011UTIES
July 12, 1999
SLO-227-10.7+
Fuller Lane Subdivision
Mr. Jim Hanson
City of San Luis Obispo Public Works Department
955 Morro Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Dear Jim:
I spoke with Julie Gonzales in our Traffic Electrical Operations Branch about the prospect of
future signalization of the Route 227/Fuller Lane Intersection. She believes it is highly
unlikely that this will occur in the foreseeable future. However, she did recommend traffic
impact fees should be collected and that a portion of them could be used to make geometric
improvements to the intersection itself. These improvements could include widening the
Fuller approach to Route 227 and installing deceleration and acceleration lanes on Route
227. The feasibility of and the need for such improvements should be adequately
investigated by City Engineering staff. Once City staff has a recommendation, Caltrans
Traffic Operation's staff would be happy to review it.
hope this letter gives your agency a better understanding of Caltrans concerns with
respect to this development. Should you have further questions about this letter please
contact me at (805) 549-3683. Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
Sincerely,
Lary Newland
District 5
Intergovernmental Review Coordinator
cc: SStrait,JGonzalez, SChesebro
4-47