HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/05/1999, 3 - PD, TR AND ER 71-99: PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REZONING, PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SUBDIVISION OF PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF EL CAPITAN WAY; 865 AND 885 EL CAPITAN, TRACT 2330 council o _5_q
j acEnaa REpout , N°
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
FROM: Arnold Jonas,Community Development Director�D
Prepared By: John Shoals,Associate Planner
SUBJECT: PD, TR and ER 71-99: PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REZONING,
PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SUBDIVISION OF PROPERTY LOCATED
ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF EL CAPITAN WAY; 865 and 885 EL CAPITAN, TRACT 2330
CAO RECOMMENDATION
1. Introduce to print an ordinance approving a mitigated negative declaration of environmental
impact and approving, with findings and conditions, a PD rezoning and development plan, as
recommended by the Planning Commission (Draft Ordinance "A"); and
2. Adopt a resolution approving, with findings and conditions, a vesting tentative tract map to
take effect on the effective date of the PD rezoning, as recommended by the Planning
Commission(Draft Resolution "A").
DISCUSSION
Project Description
The project involves the following:
1. environmental review;
2. a PD rezoning from R-2-SP to R-2-SP-PD with a development plan to allow reduced lot
widths and a greater than 3-to-1 lot depth to width relationship; and
3. a vesting tentative tract to divide one parcel into six 6,160 square foot lots for residential
development.
The proposed project and site are fully described in the Planning Commission staff report
(Attachment 6). A reduced-scale development plan and subdivision map are also contained in
that staff report.
ARC Action
The development plan and home designs were reviewed by the Architectural Review
Commission on August 2, 1999. On a 5-0-2 vote (Commr. Howard and Parker were absent), the
ARC granted schematic approval to the project with the findings and modified conditions. The
conditions modified by the ARC addressed architectural embellishments, front porch design,
building setbacks and landscaping.
3 .1
Council Agenda Report
PD,TR and ER-71-99(865 and 885 El Capitan - Gearhart)
Page 2
The ARC generally liked the site design, but directed the applicant to modify the project plans to
be more consistent with the existing homes on El Capitan Way. Those changes include: (a)
installing a pedestrian walkway to connect each home's front porch to the public sidewalk, (b)
varying the street yards(building setbacks)by a minimum of three feet to give a visual break along
the street frontage; (c) installing a sprinkling of landscaping in the front and side yards as
foundation planting, and a minimum of two street trees in the front of each lot; and (d) retaining
several of the existing on-site trees by incorporating them into the final landscape plans, where
feasible.
The ARC liked the home designs and felt they were consistent with the existing homes in the
neighborhood. The ARC encouraged the applicant to explore modifying the building elevations to
include additional architectural treatments such as wood gable details, decorative shutters, vent
ornamentation, and open railing to enclose the porches on two homes.
Subsequent to the Council's action on the PD rezoning, planned development and subdivision
map, the final development plan and home designs will go before the ARC for final approval.
Planning, Commission Action
This project was reviewed by the Planning Commission on August 25, 1999. The Commission
discussed various aspects of the project including: potential environmental impacts and
appropriate mitigation measures; project design and the possibility of providing studio
apartments over the detached garages at rear of the lots; buffering the proposed residences from
the existing adjoining commercial use directly to the west; and retaining the existing mature
Cypress trees on the site. After extensive discussion, the Planning Commission voted 6-1
(Commissioner Peterson voted against the motion) to recommend that the City Council approve
the mitigated negative declaration and the project, with modifications. The Commission did not
support the future addition of above-garage studios because they felt it would create too dense a
project (Commissioner Peterson supported the project, but not the motion because of the
exclusion of the studio apartments). The Commission modified the recommended conditions of
approval to require the installation of an appropriate sound and visual buffer between the
residential and commercial uses, and to require the applicant to disclose to potential residential
purchasers that the property immediately to the west is zoned service-commercial and of the
potential commercial-service type uses that could be established on that property. Attachment 4
is a copy of the Planning Commission Resolution No. 5263-99 and Attachment 5 is a copy of the
draft minutes from the August 25, 1999 meeting.
The following paragraphs outline the Commission's actions and recommendations.
A. Environmental Review
The Planning Commission determined that the initial environmental study adequately addresses the
project's potential environmental impacts. The Commission made minor modifications to the
mitigation measure regarding the recycling of discarded building materials from the demolition and
3-Z
Council Agenda Report
PD,TR and ER-71-99 (865 and 885 El Capitan- Gearhart)
Page 3
construction phases of the project. The Commission's modifications are incorporated into the draft
resolution approving the mitigated negative declaration.A copy of the initial environmental study
is attached to the Planning Commission staff report(Attachment 6).
R Planned Development and PD Rezoning
The Commission generally liked the project design and found it to be consistent with the existing
homes on the north side of El Capitan Way. The Planning Commission felt that the City Council
could make required findings to approve the Planned Development rezoning and development
plan. The Commission is recommending that the Council make the following findings:
1) The project provides facilities or amenities suited to a particular occupancy group (such
as the elderly or families with children) which would not be feasible under conventional
zoning;
2) The project provides more affordable housing than would be possible with conventional
development; and
3) Features of the particular design achieve the intent of conventional standards (privacy,
usable open space, adequate parking, neighborhood compatibility, and so on) as well as
or better than the standards themselves.
C. Subdivision Map
The Planning Commission determined that the proposed project meets the required subdivision
findings and is recommending that the Council make the following findings:
1) The design of the tentative map and proposed improvements are consistent with the
General Plan and the Edna-Islay Specific Plan;
2) The site is physically suited for the type and density of development proposed with the
tentative tract map;
3) The subdivision design 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; and
4) The design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict with
easements for access through, or use of property within,the proposed subdivision.
,33
Council Agenda Report
PD,TR and ER-71-99 (865 and 885 El Capitan - Gearhart)
Page 4
CONCURRENCES
The project was circulated to the Public Works, Fire, and Utilities Departments as well as the
Building Division of the Community Development Department. Comments from Building,
Public Works, Utilities and Fire are addressed in recommended conditions.
FISCAL IMPACT
None
ALTERNATIVES
1. The Council may approve the PD rezoning, preliminary development plan and tentative tract
map, with changed conditions.
2. The Council may deny the PD rezoning, preliminary development and subdivision if it fords
them to be inconsistent with the General Plan or the Edna-Islay Specific Plan.
3. The Council may continue discussion if additional information is needed. Direction should
be given to staff and the applicant.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Draft Ordinance of Approval - PD Rezone
2. Draft Resolution of Approval - Environmental and Subdivision
3. Draft Resolution of Denial
4. Planning Commission Resolution No. 5623-99
5. Draft Minutes of August 25, 1999 Planning Commission hearing
6. Planning Commission Staff Report of August 25, 1999
JShoals/CC/TR71-99-2(Gearhart)
3-�
eAttachment 1
DRAFT ORDINANCE "A"
ORDINANCE NO. (1999 Series)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
AMENDING THE ZONING REGULATIONS MAP TO
DESIGNATE A 0.84-ACRE SITE, ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF
EL CAPITAN WAY,TO MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL-
SPECIFIC PLAN WITH A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
OVERLAY (R-2-SP-PD); 865 AND 885 EL CAPITAN WAY.
PD-71-99
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on August 25, 1999,
and recommended approval of amendments to the City's Zoning Map; and
WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing on October 5, 1999, and has
considered testimony of 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 revisions are consistent with the
General Plan, the purposes of the Zoning Regulations, and other applicable City ordinances; 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 ORDAINED 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 map amendment to the Zoning Regulations, 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. Consistent with Municipal Code Section 15.44.270, 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 that project's 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 mph;
c) Cessation of grading activities during periods of winds over 25 mph;
d) Direct application of water on material being excavated and/or transported onsite or offsite;
e) Watering material stockpiles;and
f) Periodic washdowns,or mechanical streetsweeping,of El Capitan Way in the vicinity of the
construction site.
3-S
Ordinance No. (1999 Series)
Page 2
2. The property owner shall grant an avigation easement to the County of San Luis Obispo via
an avigation easement document prepared by the County.
3. Site development shall include a solid waste recycling plan for recycling discarded building
materials such as concrete, drywall, wood and metals from the demolition and construction
phases. The plans must be submitted for approval by the Community Development Director
prior to building permit issuance.
4. The final project shall be designed to include interior and exterior recycling.
SECTION 2. The Zoning Regulations map amendment (PD .71-99) designating the
property to R-2-SP-PD as shown on the attached Exhibit "A", is hereby approved based on the
following findings:
1. The project provides facilities or amenities suited to a particular occupancy group (such as
the elderly or families with children) which would not be feasible under conventional zoning;
2. The project provides more .affordable housing than would be possible with conventional
development; and
3. Features of the particular design achieve the intent of conventional standards (privacy, usable
open space, adequate parking, neighborhood compatibility, and so on) as well as or better
than the standards themselves.
SECTION 3. The Zoning Regulations map amendment (PD 71-99) is hereby approved
subject to the following conditions:
1. All development shall be consistent with the Edna-Islay Specific Plan.
2. The final development plan shall include the Architectural Review Commission directions on
building setbacks, landscaping and architectural treatments.
3. The applicant shall submit a more refined landscaping and irrigation plan for final review and
approval. The existing mature trees shall be incorporated in to final project design,as feasible.
4. Appropriate visual and sound mitigation, approved by the Community Development
Director, shall be installed between the residential project and adjoining commercial
property.
5. The developer shall provide disclosure to potential home buyers that the adjoining property is
occupied with commercial uses and is zoned C-S (Service-Commercial), and shall provide
3-6
I
Ordinance.No. (1999 Series)
Page 3
home purchasers with a zoning matrix with the potential commercial uses:that may be
established.on the property.
SECTION 4. A summary of this ordinance,. together with the names of Council
members voting for and against, shall be published at least.five (5) days prior to its final passage,
in the Tribune, a newspaper published and circulated in this City. This ordinance shall go into
effect at the expiration of thirty (3 0) days after its,final passage.
INTRODUCED AND PASSED TO PRINT by the Council of the City of San Luis
Obispo at its meeting held. on.the 5th day of October, 1999;.on a motion ;
seconded by , and on.the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES-
ABSENT:
OES-ABSENT:
Mayor Allen Settle
= ATTEST:
City Clerk Lee Price
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
N
o y J Jor nsen
JShoals/ccr R11-99(Ord)
3-7
EXHIBIT „All _
PD 71 -99 _ Trig
Y
i
R 2-SP PD
R-2-SP-PD
Ct�SP-PD
i
R 2-SP to
G
R-2-SP-PD
G P
G
G� l
�• � � E
3 - �
DRAFT RESOLUTION"A" Attachment 2
RESOLUTION NO. (1999 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
SAN LUIS OBISPO APPROVING A VESTING TENTATIVE
TRACT MAP FOR A SIX-LOT RESIDENTIAL
SUBDIVISION ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF EL CAPITAN
WAY 1856 AND 885 EL CAPITAN WAY].
(TR-71-99; County file no.Tr 2330)
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on August 25, 1999,
and recommended approval of Vesting Tentative Tract Map 71-99; and
WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing on October 5, 1999 and has
considered testimony of 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 subdivision is consistent with the General
Plan, the Edna-Islay Specific Plan, the Zoning Regulations, Planned Development 71-99 and
other applicable City ordinances; and
WHEREAS,the City Council has considered the draft Mitigated 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 tentative tract map, 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. Consistent with Municipal Code Section 15.44.270, 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 that project's 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 mph;
c) Cessation of grading activities during periods of winds over 25 mph;
d) Direct application of water on material being excavated and/or transported onsite or
offsite;
e) Watering material stockpiles;and
f) Periodic washdowns, or mechanical streetsweeping,of El Capitan Way in the vicinity of
the construction site.
31�
Resolution no. 095. .-ries)
Tract 71-99 (TR2330)
Page 2
2. The property owner shall grant an avigation easement to the County of San Luis Obispo via
an avigation easement document prepared by the County.
3. Site development shall include a solid waste recycling plan for recycling discarded building
materials such as concrete, drywall, wood and metals from the demolition and construction
phases. The plans must be submitted for approval by the Community Development
Director prior to building permit issuance.
4. The final project shall be designed to include interior and exterior recycling.
SECTION 2. Subdivision Findings. That this Council, after consideration of Vesting
Tentative Tract Map 71-99, 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 EISP;
2. The site is physically suited for the type and density of development proposed with the
tentative tract map;
3. The subdivision design 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; and
4. The design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict with easements
for access through, or use of property within, the proposed subdivision.
SECTION 3. Conditions of Approval. The vesting tentative map for Tract 71-99
(County File Tract 2330) is approved subject to the following conditions:
1. The subdivider shall dedicate necessary right of way to complete a 17 in (56 ft) total street
R/W.
2. The subdivider shall dedicate a 1.8m [6 ft] wide public utility easement across the frontage of
each lot. Said easement shall be adjacent to and contiguous with all public right-of-way lines
bordering each lot.
3. The subdivider shall dedicate a 3m [10 ft] wide street tree easement across the frontage of
each lot. Said easement shall be adjacent to and contiguous with all public right-of-way lines
bordering each lot.
4. A detailed hydrology study indicating the effects of the proposed development on adjacent
and downstream properties will be required. The scope of the study must include analysis of
all affected public and private drainage facilities and creek capacities between this props%
3 -i o
Resolution no. (1995 emeries)
Tract 71-99 (TR2330)
Page 3
and an adequate point of disposal and shall include recommendations for appropriate
improvements that would reduce flooding.
If the study identifies any on-site areas subject to 100-yr storm flooding, the developer shall
process and complete a Federal Emergency Management Agency Letter of Map Amendment
(LOMA), or, Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) prior to final acceptance of any development.
Any lots or building pads, identified to be subject to flooding during a 100-yr storm shall be
graded to provide minimum pad elevations of at least 1 foot above the 100-yr storm
elevation. All areas subject to flooding shall be documented.
5. The development must be designed so as not to increase flooding downstream; detention
facilities are required, to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director. All proposed
detention basin and drainage improvements, except those within a public street, shall be
privately owned and maintained by the property owner and/or homeowners association (if
applicable). Maintenance responsibilities of detention facilities shall also be addressed,
particularly if an existing off-site detention basin is used. If detention facilities are not owned
or controlled by the subdivider, he shall submit written proof and verification that said
detention facilities are provided in accordance with the approved tract map.
6. Existing water wells may remain in use to serve only the lot on which the well is located.
Upon development, water well use shall comply with the City regulations and policies in
effect at that time. All structures connecting to the City's water system and shall be required
to pay all applicable water and sewer impact fees.
7. All lots shall be graded to preclude cross-lot drainage, or, appropriate easements and drainage
facilities shall be provided, to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works.
8. Each lot shall be served with separate water, sewer, gas, electric, telephone and cable TV
services in accordance with City standards.
9. Existing trees shall require safety pruning by a certified Arborist, to the satisfaction of the
City Arborist.
10. All boundary monuments, lot comers and centerline intersections, BC's, EC's, etc., shall be
tied to the City's Horizontal Control Network. At least two control points shall be used and a
tabulation of the coordinates shall be submitted with the final map or parcel map. All
coordinates submitted shall be based on the City coordinate system. A 3.5" diameter
computer floppy disk, containing the appropriate data compatible with Autocad (Digital
Interchange Format, DXF) for Geographic Information System (GIS) purposes, shall be
submitted to the City Engineer.
11. 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 City Engineer.
12. A copy of all public improvement plans (record drawings) shall be submitted Of z s"
.3-ll
Resolution no. (199. :ries)
Tract 71-99 (TR2330)
Page 4
diameter computer diskettes in a format compatible with the City's CAD system and shall
comply with the City's computer aided drafting standards (including but not limited to
layering, symbols, line weights and colors, stationing, scale, etc...).
SECTION 4. Code Requirements. The vesting tentative map for Tract 71-99 (County
File Tract 2330) is approved subject to the following code requirements:
I. Traffic impact fees are required to be paid prior to the issuance of building permits.
2. Water & Wastewater fees are required to be paid prior to the issuance of a building permit
for construction on any lot.
3. Street trees shall be planted on each lot at the time of development of each lot, per City
Standards and to the satisfaction of the City Arborist. The number of trees is determined
by one tree per 35 linear feet of street frontage.
4. EPA Requirement. General Construction Activity Storm Water Permit 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.
5. A water allocation is required, due to the additional units. Currently, a water allocation
can only be obtained through the water retrofit program. The City's Water Conservation
division can help in determining the needed allocation and the necessary number of
retrofits. Water Conservation can be reached by calling 781-7258.
6. Water and Wastewater Impact Fees shall be paid at the time building permits are issued.
Both the Water and the Wastewater Impact Fees are based on the number of single family
units being built. The cost of developing an allocation through retrofit could offset a
portion of the required Water Impact Fee according to appropriate City policies.
7. Each parcel is to have its own separate water and wastewater service. Water services shall
be manifolded in pairs, whenever possible, in accordance with City standards.
8. New construction shall meet the setback requirements of the Uniform Plumbing Code
(UPC) table 7-7 for water wells, if a well exists.
9. Lots shall be developed with grades that comply with the Uniform Building Code (UBC)
appendix section 3315.4.
10. The subdivider shall pay Park-In-Lieu fees consistent with SLO Municipal Code Section
16.40.80.
Resolution no. (199,, ,cries)
Tract 71-99 (TR2330)
Page 5
11. The subdivider shall meet the Inclusionary housing requirementconsistent with the SLO
Municipal Code Section 1.7.91..
SECTION 5. Effective Date: Vesting Tentative Tract Map 71-99 (County file no. TR
2530) shall take effect on the effectivel date of the PD rezoning.
On motion of ,seconded by
and on the2 following roll call Vote:
APES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
the foregoing resolution was adopted this 5th,day of October, 1999 .
Mayor Allen Settle
ATTEST:
CityClerk Lee Price
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
-A�La
- -
m Jef y J gensen
J Shoals/CCA R71-99res
3-i 3
Attachment 3
DRAFT RESOLUTION"B"
RESOLUTIONNO. (1999 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
SAN LUIS OBISPO DENYING THE PLANNED
DEVELOPMENT REZONING AND THE VESTING
TENTATIVE MAP FOR A RESIDENTIAL SUBDMSION
AT 915 EL CAPITAN WAY,EAST OF BROAD STREET:
(PD-,TR-71-99; County file no.Tr 2330)..
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on August 25, 1999,
and recommended approval of Vesting Tentative Tract Map 71-99; and
WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing on October 5, 1999 and has
considered testimony of 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 subdivision is consistent with the General
Plan, the Edna-Islay Specific Plan, the Zoning Regulations, Planned Development 71-99 and
other applicable City ordinances; and
WHEREAS,the City Council has considered the draft Mitigated 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. Findings. That this Council, after consideration of Planned Development
Rezoning and Vesting Tentative Tract Map 71-99, and the Planning Commission's
recommendations, staff recommendations, public testimony, and reports thereof, makes the
following findings:
SECTION 2. Denial. Planned Development Rezoning and Vesting Tentative Tract Map
71-99 (County File no. Tract 2330) are hereby denied.
3-i�
Resolution no. (195. emeries)
Tract 71-99 (TR2330)
Page 2
On motion of _ ,seconded by
and on the following roll call vote:
AYES`.
.NOES-
ABSENT-
the
NOESABSENT-the foregoing resolution was adopted'this day of _ ,1999.
MayoYAllen Settle
ATTEST:
City Clerk Lee Price
APPROVED AS TO FORM:.
City Attorney Jeffrey Jorgensen
3- i -5
Attachment 4
SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. 5263-99
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo did conduct
a public hearing in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo,
California, on August 25, 1999, pursuant to a proceeding instituted under application
ER, PD and TR 71-99, Kelly Gearhart, applicant.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
Request for a PD rezoning and planned development to allow single-family detached
homes on parcels with reduced widths and greater lot depth-width relationship; vesting
tentative tract map to create six residential lots of 6,160 square feet each; and mitigated
negative declaration of environmental impact.
GENERAL LOCATION:
865 and 885 EI Capitan Way
WHEREAS, said Commission as a result of its inspections, investigations, and
studies made by itself, and in behalf of testimonies offered at said hearing has
established existence of the following circumstances:
Recommend City Council approval of the PD rezoning, with modifications to the
development plan, allowing reduced lot widths and a greater depth-to-width ratio, based
on the following findings:
Planned Development and PD Rezoning Findings:
1. The design provides facilities or amenities suited to a particular occupancy group,
specifically moderate-income families, which would not be feasible under
conventional zoning, because the narrow lots combined with simple small three-
bedroom homes allows room for large back yards and adequate living room for
children.
2. The planned development provides more affordable housing than would be possible
with conventional development, because the narrow lots allow the project the
potential to approach the medium-density limits of the site, while the lot designs
emulate low density development;
3-�b
Resolution No.5263-99
Page 2
3. Features of the particular design achieve the intent of conventional standards
(privacy, usable open space, adequate parking, compatibility with neighborhood
character, and so on) as well as or better than the standards themselves
Vesting Tentative Tract Map Findings:
4. The design of the tentative map and proposed improvements are consistent with the
General Plan, the Edna-Islay Specific Plan and the development plan.
5. The site is physically suited for the type and density of development allowed in the
R-2-SP-PD zone.
6. 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.
7. The design of the subdivision or the .type of improvements will not conflict with
easements for access through, or use of property within, the proposed subdivision.
8. The initial environmental study and mitigated negative declaration, ER 71-99,
concludes that the project will not have a significant adverse impact on the
environment.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission recommends to
the City Council, approval of the mitigated negative declaration and the project, subject
to the following conditions and code requirements:
Conditions
1. Consistent with Municipal Code Section 15.44.270, 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 that
project's 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 mph.
c) Cessation of grading activities during periods of winds over 25 mph;
3-r �
Resolution No.5263-99
Page 3
d) Direct application of water on material being excavated and/or transported
on-site or off-site;
e) Watering material stockpiles;and
f) Periodic wash-downs, or mechanical street sweeping, of EI Capitan Way in
the vicinity of the construction site.
2. The property owner shall grant an avigation easement to the County of San Luis
Obispo via an avigation easement document prepared by the County.
3. 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.
4. The final project shall be designed to include interior and exterior recycling.
5. All development shall be consistent with the Edna-Islay Specific Plan.
6. The applicant shall submit a more refined landscaping and irrigation plan for final
review and approval. The existing mature trees shall be incorporated in to final
project design, as feasible.
7. The subdivider shall dedicate necessary right of way to complete a 17 m (56 ft)
total street RAN.
8. The subdivider shall dedicate a 1.8m [6 ft] wide public utility easement across the
frontage of each lot. Said easement shall be adjacent to and contiguous with all
public right-of-way lines bordering each lot.
9. The subdivider shall dedicate a 3m [10 ft] wide street tree easement across the
frontage of each lot. Said easement shall be adjacent to and contiguous with all
public right-of-way lines bordering each lot.
10. A detailed hydrology study indicating the effects of the proposed development on
adjacent and downstream properties will be required. The scope of the study must
include analysis of all affected public and private drainage facilities and creek
capacities between this property and an adequate point of disposal and shall
include recommendations for appropriate improvements that would reduce
flooding.
Resolution No.5263-99
Page 4
If the study identifies any on-site areas subject to 100-yr storm flooding, the
developer shall process and complete a Federal Emergency Management Agency
Letter of Map Amendment (LOMA), or, Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) prior to
final acceptance of any development. Any lots or building pads, identified to be
subject to flooding during a 100-yr storm shall be graded to provide minimum pad
elevations of at least 1 foot above the 100-yr storm elevation. All areas subject to
flooding shall be documented.
11. The development must be designed so as not to increase flooding downstream;
detention facilities are required, to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director. All
proposed detention basin and drainage improvements, except those within a
public street, shall be privately owned and maintained by the property owner
and/or homeowners association (if applicable). Maintenance responsibilities of
detention facilities shall also be addressed, particularly if an existing off-site
detention basin is used. If detention facilities are not owned or controlled by the
subdivider, he shall submit written proof and verification that said detention
facilities are provided in accordance with the approved tract map.
12. Existing water wells may remain in use to serve only the lot on which the well is
located. Upon development, water well use shall comply with the City regulations
and policies in effect at that time. All structures connecting to the City's water
system and shall be required to pay all applicable water and sewer impact fees.
13. All lots shall be graded to preclude cross-lot drainage, or, appropriate easements
and drainage facilities shall be provided, to the satisfaction of the Director of Public
Works.
14. Each lot shall be served with separate water, sewer, gas, electric, telephone and
cable TV services in accordance with City standards.
15. Existing trees shall require safety pruning by a certified Arborist, to the satisfaction
of the City Arborist.
16. All boundary monuments, lot comers and centerline intersections, BC's, EC's, etc.,
shall be tied to the City's Horizontal Control Network. At least two control points
shall be used and a tabulation of the coordinates shall be submitted with the final
map or parcel map. All coordinates submitted shall be based on the City
coordinate system. A 3.5" diameter computer floppy disk, containing the
appropriate data compatible with Autocad (Digital Interchange Format, DXF) for
Geographic Information System (GIS) purposes, shall be submitted to the City
Engineer.
Resolution No.5263-99
Page 5
17. 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 City Engineer.
18. A copy of all public improvement plans (record drawings) shall be submitted on
3.5" diameter computer diskettes in a format compatible with the City's CAD
system and shall comply with the City's computer aided drafting standards
(including but not limited to layering, symbols, line weights and colors, stationing,
scale, etc...).
19. Appropriate visual and sound mitigation, approved by the Community
Development Director, shall be installed between the residential project and
adjoining commercial property.
20. The developer shall provide disclosure to potential home buyers that the adjoining
property is occupied with commercial uses and is zoned C-S (Service-
Commercial), and shall provide home purchasers with a zoning matrix with the
potential commercial uses that may be established on the property.
Code Requirements
1. Traffic impact fees are required to be paid prior to the issuance of building
permits.
2. Water & Wastewater fees are required to be paid prior to the issuance of a
building permit for construction on any lot.
3. Street trees shall be planted on each lot at the time of development of each lot,
per City Standards and to the satisfaction of the City Arborist. The number of
trees is determined by one tree per 35 linear feet of street frontage.
4. EPA Requirement. General Construction Activity Storm Water Permit 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.
i 3-c�D
Resolution No.5263-99
Page 6
5. A water allocation is required, due to the additional units. Currently, a water
allocation can only be obtained through the water retrofit program. The City's
Water Conservation division can help in determining the needed allocation and
the necessary number of retrofits. Water Conservation can be reached by calling
781-7258.
6. Water and Wastewater Impact Fees shall be paid at the time building permits are
issued. Both the Water and the Wastewater Impact Fees are based on the
number of single family units being built. The cost of developing an allocation
through retrofit could offset a portion of the required Water Impact Fee according
to appropriate City policies.
7. Each parcel is to have its own separate water and wastewater service. Water
services shall be manifolded in pairs, whenever possible, in accordance with City
standards.
8. New construction shall meet the setback requirements of the Uniform Plumbing
Code (UPC) table 7-7 for water wells, if a well exists.
9. Lots shall be developed with grades that comply with the Uniform Building Code
(UBC) appendix section 3315.4.
10. The subdivider shall pay Park-In-Lieu fees consistent with SLO Municipal Code
Section 16.40.80.
11. The subdivider shall meet the Inclusionary housing requirement consistent with
the SLO Municipal Code Section 17.91.
The foregoing resolution was adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of
San Luis Obispo upon the motion by Commissioner Loh, seconded by Commissioner
Senn, and on the following roll call vote:
AYE S: Commrs. Loh, Jeffrey, Whittlesey, Ready, Senn, Peterson and Cooper
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
Arnold B. Jonas, Secretary
Planning Commission
Dated: August 25, 1999
Attachment 4
DRAFT
SAN LUIS OBISPO
PLANNING COMMISSION
SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES
AUGUST 25, 1999
CALL TO ORDER/PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
The San Luis Obispo Planning Commission was called to order at 5:10 p.m. on
Wednesday, August 25, 1999, in Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San
Luis Obispo, California.
ROLL CALL:
Present: Commissioners Alice Loh, Charles Senn, Mary Whittlesey, David
Jeffrey, Stephen Peterson, Allan Cooper, and Chairman Paul
Ready
Absent: None
Staff Recording Secretary Leaha Magee, Associate Planner John Shoals,
Present: Community Development Director Arnold Jonas, and Assistant City
Attorney Gilbert Trujillo.
ACCEPTANCE OF THE AGENDA:
The agenda was accepted as presented.
ACCEPTANCE OF THE MINUTES:
The Minutes of July 14, 1999, were accepted as presented.
PUBLIC COMMENT ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS:
There were no non-agenda comments made.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
1. 865 and 885 EI Capitan Way: PD. TR, ER 71-99: Request for a planned
residential development to allow single-family detached homes on parcels with
reduced widths; a tentative tract map to create six residential lots of 6,160 square
feet each, and environmental review; R-2-SP zone; Kelly Gearhart, applicant.
Associate Planner John Shoals presented the staff report and recommended that the
Planning Commission recommend that the City Council (1) adopt the mitigated nerintivp
Draft Planning Commission M���rtes
August 25, 1999
Page 2
declaration of environmental impact, (2) approve the PD rezoning and preliminary
development plan, and (3) approve the vesting tentative tract map based on findings
and subject to conditions and code requirements.
Commissioner Jeffrey asked for staff comment on the above-garage studios.
Associate Planner Shoals stated the studio recommendation was included because
there was previous discussion on the north side development on EI Capitan Way with
regards to a neo-traditional design concept which included above-garage studio
apartments. He explained that the staff report outlines how studios could be included in
the project.
Commissioner Jeffrey noted he didn't see parking addressed in relation to the studios.
Associate Planner Shoals stated that, given the location of the garages, there would be
room to provide an additional parking space, possibly as a tandem space.
Commissioner Whittlesey stated that no consideration was given to incremental air
quality degradation or impacts to the water supply in the initial study of environmental
impact, yet incremental consideration was given to solid waste. She felt that
incrementally these projects do effect and use resources and asked how the Initial
Study could recognize incremental effects in one area/category but not in all
categories?
Director Jonas noted that the General Plan looks at air quality impacts in the built-out
community which is where cumulative impacts should be addressed.
Commissioner Cooper asked if the adjoining property to the west is used as a storage
yard,.and questioned its zoning conformance.
Commissioner Cooper said he would like a visual buffer provided between the adjoining
property and this project. He also noted that Condition 6, page 10 should include
language reflecting that any necessary tree removals that occur should be to the
approval of the City Arborist.
Associate Planner Shoals concurred with Commr. Cooper's comments.
There were no further comments or questions and the public comment session was
opened.
PUBLIC COMMENT:
Doug Davidson, Cannon and Associates, representing the applicant, stated this is the
third phase of development on El Capitan Way, andit is basically a mirror of Phase One
with detached units and two-car garages to the rear. He is requesting the same
exceptions under the PD rezoning as Phase One, and felt the same three findir=,
3-3 3
Draft Planning Commission br,...,tes
August 25, 1999
Page 3
Findings 1, 3, and 4 apply. In his opinion, the project meets the intent of the medium-
density statement on page 4 of the staff report. He noted the ARC granted schematic
approval on August 2, 1999, and he reviewed the ARC's four recommendations. He
said he is in full agreement with the staff recommendation, findings and conditions.
Over-garage studios are not a condition and would change the nature of the single-
family neighborhood and call for a redesign of the project which they do not want to do.
He requested a recommendation of approval of the project as presented (without the
above-garage studios). He also noted that this project is subject to the Inclusionary
Housing Ordinance and over $25,000 will be contributed. He indicated that none of the
homeowners in phase two have taken advantage or shown interest in the studios.
Commissioner Cooper asked if the adjoining property is being used appropriately as a
storage yard.
Mr. Davidson did not know the details of the adjoining property's use.
Commissioner Peterson complemented Mr. Davidson on the neo-traditional or new
urbanistic project design, and supports the idea of above-garage studios which aid in
the reduction of urban sprawl.
Commissioner Whittlesey asked for comment on the demolition of the existing house.
Mr. Davidson stated that all demolition will comply with solid waste recycling
requirements.
Commissioner Whittlesey suggested Condition 3, page 10, be amended to reflect, "...
discarded building materials such as concrete, drywall, wood and metals from the
demolition and construction phases." This will include demolition in the recycling
efforts.
Commissioner Loh asked if more phases are planned.
Mr. Davidson responded that this is the last phase.
Commissioner Loh commented that above-garage studios would increase density and
may have parking impacts.
Seeing no further speakers come forward, the public comment session was closed.
COMMISSION COMMENT
Commissioner Loh moved to recommend to the City Council (1) adoption of the
mitigated negative declaration (2) approval of the PD rezoning including the
development plan without above-garage studios (3) approval of the vesting tentative
tract map based on findings and subject to conditions and code requirements, and with
the following changes: (A) Condition 3. page 10, be amended to reflect. "... discarded
3-ay
Draft Planning Commission M.,,utes
August 25, 1999
Page 4
building materials such as concrete drywall, wood and metals from the demolition and
construction phases.": (B) Condition 15 page 11, be amended to include, "Tree
removal shall be to the satisfaction of the City Arborist.": (C) include a Condition 19,
page 11 stating an appropriate sound and visual mitigation buffer shall be installed
between Parcel 1 and the adjacent commercial use to the satisfaction and approval of
the Community Development Director: and (D) include a Condition 20, page 11, stating
that there be a disclosure to potential purchasers that the property to the immediate
west is commercially zoned and will be utilized for commercial purposes and that
potential purchasers be provided with a zoning matrix indicating uses allowed in the C-
S zone. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Senn.
Commissioner Peterson expressed support of the project but not of the motion because
of the exclusion of studio housing. He felt that studios help provide affordable housing,
student housing, keeps the city denser and allows for the accommodation of more
people within our existing urban footprint without the creation of sprawl.
AYES: Commissioners Loh, Senn, Jeffrey, Whittlesey, Cooper, and
Chairman Ready
NOES: Commissioner Peterson
REFRAIN: None
The motion carried 6-1-0.
2. Citywide; TA, GPA, and ER 30-99: Request to amend Table 9 of the Zoning
Regulations to conditionally allow professional offices in the C-N zone; General Plan
ext Amendment to change General Plan policies on neighborhood commercial
u s and office locations; and environmental review; Molina Family Trust, applicant.
Associate lanner Shoals presented the staff report and recommended denial of the
amendments ased on findings which he outlined.
Commissioner Je asked if there is a vehicle or recourse for a non-conforming uses
to expand square foot e.
Associate Planner Shoals eplied that City Zoning Regulations do not allow
nonconforming uses to expand are footage.
There were no further comments or q stions and the public comment session was
opened.
PUBLIC COMMENT:
Randy Poltl, representing Laguna Village Shopping Center, ated in an effort to satisfy
two concerns, he was directed to file this application for proce ing at the expense of
$5,900. His concerns are (1) relocating the grandfathered, nonc forming Century 21
office use in the shopping center to a larger office and (2) expansi of the di.�pouaj
3-dS
A tachment 5
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT ITEM# 1
BY: John Shoals, Associate Planner MEETING DATE: August 11, 1999
FROM: Ron Whisenand, Development Review Manage
FILE NUMBER: ER,PD and TR 71-99
PROJECT ADDRESS: 865 and 885 El Capitan Way
SUBJECT: Planned Development (PD) rezoning, preliminary development plan, subdivision
and environmental review for a six lot residential subdivision on EI Capitan Way.
SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION
Recommend that the City Council: 1) adopt the mitigated negative declaration; 2) approve the
PD rezoning and preliminary development plan; and 3) approve the vesting tentative tract map,
based on findings and subject to conditions and code requirements.
BACKGROUND
This item was continued from the Planning Commission meeting of July 28, 1999 without
discussion. The following report is the same as the one before the Commission on July 28, 1999.
Situation
With the recent annexation of the property to the City of San Luis Obispo, the applicant would
like to proceed with development of the site. His plans are to improve the site with single family
detached homes consistent with the existing lots and homes on the north side of El Capitan Way.
In July of 1996 and January of 1997, the City Council approved a PD rezoning and.subdivision
map to allow the development of 13 three-bedroom dwellings with detached garage (at the rear
of the lot) on a small narrow lots.
In order to proceed with development of the property, the applicant must obtain approval of: a
PD rezoning to allow a PD overlay zone and a development plan to allow narrower lots and lots
with a greater depth-to-width ratio (3.2:1 instead of 3:1); a subdivision map; and environmental
review. The Planning Commission's role is review the project and to make a recommendation to
the City Council, which will make the final decision. It should also be noted that the preliminary
development plan and home designs will require approval by the City's Architectural Review
Commission.
Proiect Description
The project is a request to rezone a 0.84-acre site to allow a planned development overlay zone
and .to divide the property into six residential lots. Specifically, the Planning Commission is
being asked to make a recommendation to the City Council on the following items:
1. a negative declaration with mitigation measures;
3-�6
TR 71-99 (Tract 2330)
865 and 885 El Capitan(Gearhart)
Page 2
2. a development plan and PD rezoning to change the property's zoning from R-2-SP to R-2-
SP-PD and to allow 44-foot wide lots and a 3.2:1 depth-to-widthratio for the project;and
3. a subdivision map to divide two parcels into six 6,160 square foot lots.
Proiect Data Summary
Address: 865 and 885 El Capitan Way
Applicant/property owner: Kelly Gearhart
Representative: Cannon Associates
Existing Zoning: R-2-SP
General Plan: Medium-Density Residential
Environmental status: Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact recommended
by the Community Development Director on June 2, 1999.
Project action deadline: 60 days from date of adoption of the Negative Declaration. City
Council is expected to take final action on the Negative Declaration in August or September of
1999.
Site description
The rectangular-shaped lot is approximately 0.84 acres in size. The site is relatively flat with a
less than 5% slope. The soil underlying the site is primarily clay and with minor areas of loam.
Vegetation on the site consists primarily of weedy grasses and forbs, and ornamental
landscaping. There are several large Cypress, pine and eucalyptus trees on the property.
The project site is occupied by an older single family home and a garage with storage yard.
Surrounding land uses include: single family homes (Tract 2248 which was developed by the
applicant), a carpet warehouse store and a church to the west.
EVALUATION
A. Environmental Review
The Community Development Department prepared an initial study (IS) of the project in June of
1999. The IS addressed potentially significant,but mitigable,impacts to geologic hazards(seismic
hazards and soils), drainage, biological resources, solid waste and cultural resources. Impacts to
other environmental areas were determined to be less than significant. On June 2, 1999, the
Community Development Director determined that the project would qualify for.a mitigated
negative declaration (ND) of environmental impact. The IS and director's determination were
published in the Telegram-Tribune and made available for public review and comment at the
Community Development Department at 990 Palm Street. State law (CEQA) requires that the
environmental document be available for review a minimum of 20 days prior to final action on the
project(to be taken by City Council). The public review period commenced on June 3, 1999 and
ended on June 24, 1999.
3-d
TR 71-99 (Tract 2330)
865 and 885 El Capitan(Gearhart)
Page 3
B. Planned Development Rezoning and Development Plan
Pursuant to City Zoning Regulations, PD rezoning must occur simultaneously with approval of a
specific project and must be approved by the City Council. Zoning Regulations state: "If the
Council approves the preliminary development plan, the Council shall approve the rezoning to
indicate approval of the planned development and the official zoning map will be amended." The
preliminary development plan and requested property development standard exceptions are
discussed below.
The PD zone overlay is intended to encourage imaginative development and effective use of the
site. It must provide benefits to the project occupants or to the community as a whole which could
not be provided under conventional zoning. Under an approved development plan, property
development standards such as lot size and configuration,yards,height,coverage and parking may
be specified for a project without conformance to the standards of the underlying zone. The
applicant is requesting exceptions to the lot width and depth-width relationship. A copy of the
preliminary development plan is included as Attachment 3. Attachment 4 is a copy of the
applicant's project statement.
1. Lot Design
Reduced Lot Width
As shown on the preliminary development plan,44-foot wide lots are proposed where 60 foot wide
lots are typically required in the R-2 zone district.The applicant is proposing to create narrower lots
with the development plan as allowed by the Subdivision Regulations. Section 16.36.160 states:
"...Lots which are approved in conjunction with a development plan as provided for in the Zoning
Regulations may have any size or shape consistent with the structures and improvements shown in
the development plan."
The proposed lot widths are similar in size to the existing lots in the immediate area. In December
of 1996,Council approved a PD rezoning to allow 45 foot wide lots on the north side of El Capitan
Way. The tract map was subsequent approved in January of 1997. In May of 1999, the Council
approved a PD rezoning and tract map to allow a 42 foot wide lots for seven new homes at the
southeast end of El Capitan Way. Based on these previous actions, staff'finds the proposed lot
widths to be consistent with other lots in the neighborhood.
Lot Depth- Width Ratio
The proposed lots are 44 feet wide and 140 feet deep, with a 3.2:1 depth-to-width ratio. As
designed, the lots exceeds the 3:1 depth-to-width ratio required in the City's Subdivision
Regulations(Section 16.36.200). The applicant is proposing to establish a 3.2:1 ratio as part of the
development plan as allowed by City Code.
Section 16.36.200 states that: "Lots with a ratio of depth to width greater than three shall not be
permitted unless there is adequate assurance that deep lot subdivision will not occur or that deep lot
3-,-�S
TR 71-99 (Tract 2330)
865 and 885 El Capitan(Gearhart)
Page 4
subdivision and subsequent development will be accomplished without detriment to adjacent
properties."
It is staff's opinion that the proposed project meets the intent of the lot depth-width relationship
requirement. The requested depth to width ratio (3.2:1) is minor and will not increase the lots
allowable density and area to where an additional lot could be created. The proposed location of
the detached garage(at the rear of the lot) also eliminates the possibility of any further subdivision
of the property. Therefore,staff recommends approval of the requested ratio of depth to width.
2. Residential Design
The applicant is looking to continue with the same home designs that were approved and
constructed across the street. Specifically, the applicant is proposing to build simple single-
story, modest, three-bedroom dwellings, each on its own lot, with garages in the rear, accessed
by concrete-strip driveways. The design and density of nine+ units per acre is consistent with
General Plan policies, which say:
2.4.6 Medium-Density Residential development should be primarily dwellings
having locations and forms that provide a sense of both individual identity and
neighborhood cohesion for the households occupying them, but in a more
compact arrangement than Low-Density Residential. Such dwellings are
generally one- or two-story detached buildings on small lots, or attached
dwellings, with some private outdoor space for each dwelling. ...
Neo-traditional design: The home designs are simple and modest in scale, contain porches and
three bedrooms. This configuration is desirable to fust-time buyers or any buyers looking to
reduce housing costs. The porches also encourage greater neighborhood interaction, while the
rear garages allow the homes themselves to dominate the street appearance. The subdivision
design encapsulates many "neo-traditional" design concepts, including the rear garages,
driveway strips, relatively small homes.
Studios over garages: One additional aspect of neo-traditional design that should be considered
is the potential for adding units above the garages. The PD rezoning for the units across the
street allows for the future construction of studios over the garages. Staff would also like to see
this aspect incorporated into the proposed project. In staff's opinion allowing additional units
can help make the dwellings more affordable and is consistent with the intent of the Medium-
Density zone and of LUE goals for a compact city.
Each lot is approximately 6,160 square feet in area, and allows a density of 1.78 units per lot
(6,160/43,560 = 0.14 acre X 12 units per acre = 1.78 units per lot). Each three-bedroom
dwelling counts as 1.50 dwelling units. Therefore, the remaining density available on most of
these lots is 1.78 - 1.50 = 0.38 units. The smallest possible unit, a studio apartment, counts as
0.50 units. Therefore, without a density bonus no additional units could be added to each of
these lots. To allow the opportunity for each homeowner to add a studio in the future, one of
the following changes could be made to the subdivision design:
TR 71-99 (Tract 2330)
865 and 885 El Capitan(Gearhart)
Page 5
• Slightly wider lots could be created, each 7,260 square feet or larger, but there would be
fewer of them (5 lots).
• A development configuring the lots differently could be created. For example, lots could
be larger (twice as large or larger) and could contain multiple dwelling units. The
applicant's statement indicates that such a configuration would not be desirable because of
the additional costs and paperwork often associated with such designs (see attached
statement).
• A density bonus could be considered. The projected sales prices for these homes falls
within the limits set in the City's Affordable Housing Standards for moderate-income
residents. To qualify for a density bonus, though, the applicant would have to enter into an
agreement with the City to maintain such affordable prices for a minimum period of thirty
years.
The PD rezoning is based on a specific preliminary design. It should be noted that all three of
the alternatives would require some modifications to applicant's preliminary design. The
Planning Commission should decide if it supports the future addition of studios, and which
alternative the applicant should pursue. Staff would work with the applicant on subdivision
designs that that would allow for the additional of units within the parameters set by the
Council.
Driveway Design The concrete-strip driveways appear functional and acceptable.
Planned Development Findings
In order to approve the planned development and PD rezoning,the Planning Commission and City
Council must find that it meets one or more of the following criteria:
1. It provides facilities or amenities suited to a particular occupancy group (such as the elderly or
families with children)which would not be feasible under conventional zoning;
2. It transfers allowable development,within a site,from areas of greater environmental sensitivity
or hazard to areas of less sensitivity or hazard;
3. It provides more affordable housing than would be possible with conventional development;
4. Features of the particular design achieve the intent of conventional standards (privacy, usable
open space,adequate parking,compatibility with neighborhood character,and so on)as well as
or better than the standards themselves;
5. It incorporates features which result in consumption of less materials, energy or water than
conventional development;
6. The proposed project provides exceptional public benefits such as parking, open space,
landscaping, public art, and other special amenities which would not be feasible under
conventional development standards.
3-3D
TR 71-99 (Tract 2330)
865 and 885 El Capitan(Gearhart)
Page 6
In staffs opinion,the project meets three of the required PD findings(nos. 1, 3 and 4). The narrow
lots combined with the simple small three-bedroom homes allow room for large back yards and
adequate living room for children. The narrow lots allow the project to approach the medium-
density limits of the site, while the lot designs emulate low density development. There are also
features of the particular design that achieve the General Plan objective that calls for residential
projects to design elements that facilitate neighborhood interaction. The project design achieves
this objective by providing a front porch in close proximity to the public sidewalk and locating the
garages at the rear of the site to de-emphasize the automobile. It should also be noted that the City
Council and Planning Commission made the same findings in approving the residential
development on the north side of El Capitan(Ordinance 1303, 1996 series) and at the end of the
cul-de-sac(Ordinance 1352, 1999 series). Staff feels that the same findings can also be made in
this case.
C. Subdivision Map Review
The subdivider is requesting concurrent approval of a vesting tentative tract map to create six
residential lots. Approval of a vesting tentative map confers a "vested right" to development in
substantial compliance with the ordinances,policies and standards in effect when the application is
determined complete and accepted for processing. The Planning Commission should review the
tract map for compliance with the City's Subdivision Regulations and consistency with the
development plan, General Plan and the Edna-Islay Specific Plan. Other items that need to be
reviewed as part of the subdivision process are drainage.
1. Subdivision Regulations Compliance
City Subdivision Regulations require that the layout of streets and lots within a subdivision be
consistent with the densities and types of uses authorized by the General Plan, Specific Plan and
Zoning Regulations. Section 16.36.160 of the Subdivision Regulations establishes minimum lot
area and dimensions for each zoning district.The minimum standards for the R-2 zone are: 6,000
square feet for lot area,the 60 feet for lot width,90 feet for lot depth and 30 feet for street frontage.
The project is proposing to create lots with the following areas and dimensions: 6,160 square feet
for lot area,44 feet for lot width and 140 feet for lot depth. The project complies with most of the
minimum lot area and dimensions of the R-2 zone. The only two standards that it does not meet are
lot width and depth-to-width ratio. However, the applicant is requesting exceptions to the two
standards be approved in conjunction with the development plan(see above discussion).
2. Planned Development Consistency
Staff finds the tentative tract map to be consistent with the proposed development plan. However,
if the City Council modifies the PD, then subdivision map will need to be revised to be
consistent.
3-31
TR 71-99 (Tract 2330)
865 and 885 El Capitan (Gearhart)
Page 7
3. General Plan Consistency
The site has a maximum allowable density of 10 equivalent units and is proposing nine (9)
equivalent units. The applicant is proposing to construct single-family detached dwellings
consistent with the existing residential development in the immediate area. Staff finds the
tentative tract map to be consistent with the General Plan.
4. Edna-Islay Specific Plan Consistency
The site is identified as part of the Secondary Planning Area in the Edna-Islay Specific Plan
(EISP) which was adopted by the City Council in 1982. The EISP designates the site as
Medium-Density Residential. .The proposed street and pedestrian improvements are consistent
with the circulation design shown in the EISP. Based on these reasons, staff finds the tentative
tract map and development plan to be consistent with the Edna-Islay Specific Plan.
5. Drainage
Project drainage will flow into the street and into an existing detention basin on the commercial
property at Broad Street and El Capitan Way. A preliminary analysis of the basin, by the project
engineer, confirms that project drainage can be accommodated by the existing basin. Drainage
calculations must be verified by City Engineering prior to final map approval. If the existing
basin cannot accommodate the project's drainage, an onsite detention basin will be required.
Subdivision Findings
City Subdivision Regulations require that the layout of streets and lots within a subdivision be
consistent with the densities and types of uses authorized by the General Plan, specific plan and
zoning. They also require that a subdivision's design be suitable for the site given its physical
condition,including slope, soil types, and adjacent land use. In order to approve the subdivision
map, the following findings must be made by the Planning Commission and City Council:
1) The design of the tentative map and proposed improvements are consistent with the General
Plan and the EISP;
2) The site is physically suited for the type and density of development proposed with the
tentative tract map;
3) The subdivision design 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; and
4) The design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict with easements
for access through, or use of property within, the proposed subdivision.
In addition, the Commission must find that the potential environmental impacts are adequately
addressed in the initial environmental study/negative declaration.
3-3 ti
TR 71799 (Tract 2330)
865 and 885 EI Capitan(Gearhart)
Page 8 __.
D. InclusionaryHousing Requirement
The City's Inclusionary Housing Requirement was adopted by Ordinance No. 1348 in February,
1999 and became effective April 1, 1999. This program is designed to increase the supply of
housing affordable to low- and moderate income households in the City of San Luis Obispo. It
does this by requiring most new residential and commercial development projects to including
affordable housing, pay an in-lieu housing fee, or dedicate real property for affordable housing..
The project is subject to the inclusionary housing requirement because the application was received
after April 1, 1999 and.the project consists of more than four dwelling units. The project applicant
will meet the City's inclusionary housing requirement by paying the in-lieu fees. Attachment 6 is a
copy of the developer's statement as required by City Code.
OTHER DEPARTMENT COMMENTS
The project plans were circulated to other City departments for comment. The Fire and Utilities
Departments did not have any concerns as the necessary public improvements were installed as
part of Tract 140-98. Public Works is concerned with drainage and public improvements.
ALTERNATIVES
1. Recommend that the Council approve the PD rezoning, preliminary development plan,
tentative tract map and mitigated negative declaration with-modifications.
2. Recommend that the Council deny the PD rezoning, preliminary development and
subdivision if it finds them to be inconsistent with the general plan.
3. Continue discussion if additional information is needed. Direction should be given to staff
and the applicant.
RECOMMENDATION
That the Planning Commission take the following actions:
1. Recommend City Council adopt the mitigated negative declaration of environmental impact
report, ER 71-99.
2. Recommend City Council approval of the PD rezoning, with modifications to the
development plan, allowing reduced lot widths and a greater depth-to-width ratio, based on
the following findings:
a) The design provides facilities or amenities suited to a particular occupancy group,
specifically moderate-income families, which would not be feasible.under conventional
zoning, because the narrow lots combined with simple small three-bedroom homes allows
room for large backyards and adequate-living room for children.
-33
TR 71-99 (Tract 2330)
865 and 885 El Capitan (Gearhart)
Page 9
b) The planned development provides more affordable housing than would be possible with
conventional development, because the narrow lots allow the project the potential to
approach the medium-density limits of the site, while the lot designs emulate low density
development;
c) Features of the particular design achieve the intent of conventional standards (privacy,
usable open space,adequate parking,compatibility with neighborhood character,and so on)
as well as or better than the standards themselves;
3. Recommend approval of the vesting tentative map to the City Council based on the
following findings:
a) The design of the tentative map and proposed improvements are consistent with the
General Plan, the Edna-Islay Specific Plan and the development plan.
b) The site is physically suited for the type and density of development allowed in the R-2-
SP-PD zone.
c) 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.
d) The design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict with
easements for access through, or use of property within, the proposed subdivision.
e) The initial environmental study and mitigated negative declaration, ER 71-99,
concludes that the project will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment.
Conditions: The above three recommendations shall be subject to the following conditions:
1. Consistent with Municipal Code Section 15.44.270, 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 that project's 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 mph;
c) Cessation of grading activities during periods of winds over 25 mph;
d) Direct application of water on material being excavated and/or transported onsite or offsite;
e) Watering material stockpiles;and
f) Periodic washdowns,or mechanical streetsweeping,of El Capitan Way in the vicinity of the
construction site.
2. The property owner shall grant an avigation easement to the County of San Luis Obispo via
an avigation easement document prepared by the County.
3.3y'
TR 71-99 (Tract 2330) -
865 and 885 El Capitan(Gearhart)
Page 10
3. 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.
4. The final project shall be designed to include interior and exterior recycling.
5. All development shall be consistent with the Edna-Islay Specific Plan.
6. The applicant shall submit a more refined landscaping and irrigation plan for final review and
approval. The existing mature trees shall be incorporated in to final project design,as feasible.
7. The subdivider shall dedicate necessary right of way to complete a 17 m (56 ft) total street
R/W.
8. The subdivider shall dedicate a 1.8m [6 ft] wide public utility easement across the frontage of
each lot. Said easement shall be adjacent to and contiguous with all public right-of-way lines
bordering each lot.
9. The subdivider shall dedicate a 3m [10 ft] wide street tree easement across the frontage of
each lot. Said easement shall be adjacent to and contiguous with all public right-of-way lines
bordering each lot.
10. A detailed hydrology study indicating the effects of the proposed development on adjacent
and downstream properties will be required. The scope of the study must include analysis of
all affected public and private drainage facilities and creek capacities between this property
and an adequate point of disposal and shall include recommendations for appropriate
improvements that would reduce flooding.
If the study identifies any on-site areas subject to 100-yr storm flooding,the developer shall
process and complete a Federal Emergency Management Agency Letter of Map Amendment
(LOMA), or, Letter of Map Revision(LOMR)prior to final acceptance of any development.
Any lots or building pads, identified to be subject to flooding during a 100-yr storm shall be
graded to provide minimum pad elevations of at least 1 foot above the 100-yr storm
elevation. All areas subject to flooding shall be documented.
11. The development must be designed so as not to increase flooding downstream; detention
facilities are required, to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director. All proposed
detention basin and drainage improvements, except those within a public street, shall be
privately owned and maintained by the property owner and/or homeowners association (if
applicable). Maintenance responsibilities of detention facilities shall also be addressed,
particularly if an existing off-site detention basin is used. If detention facilities are not owned
or controlled by the subdivider, he shall submit written proof and verification that said
detention facilities are provided in accordance with the approved tract map.
TR 71-99 (Tract 2330) -
865 and 885 El Capitan(Gearhart)
Page 11
12. Existing water wells may remain in use to serve only the lot on which the well is located.
Upon development, water well use shall comply with the City regulations and policies in
effect at that time. All structures connecting to the City's water system and shall be required
to pay all applicable water and sewer impact fees.
13. All lots shall be graded to preclude cross-lot drainage, or, appropriate easements and drainage
facilities shall be provided,to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works.
14. Each lot shall be served with separate water, sewer, gas, electric, telephone and cable TV
services in accordance with City standards.
15. Existing trees shall require safety pruning by a certified Arborist, to the satisfaction of the
City Arborist.
16. All boundary monuments, lot corners and centerline intersections, BC's, EC's, etc., shall be
tied to the City's Horizontal Control Network At least two control points shall be used and a
tabulation of the coordinates shall be submitted with the final map or parcel map. All
coordinates submitted shall be based on the City coordinate system. A 3.5" diameter
computer floppy disk, containing the appropriate data compatible with Autocad (Digital
Interchange Format, DXF) for Geographic Information System (GIS) purposes, shall be
submitted to the City Engineer.
17. 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 City Engineer.
18. A copy of all public improvement plans (record drawings) shall be submitted on 3.5"
diameter computer diskettes in a format compatible with the City's CAD system and shall
comply with the City's computer aided drafting standards (including but not limited to
layering, symbols, line weights and colors, stationing, scale, etc...).
CODE REQUIREMENTS
A. Traffic impact fees are required to be paid prior to the issuance of building permits.
B. Water& Wastewater fees are required to be paid prior to the issuance of a building permit for
construction on any lot.
C. Street trees shall be planted on each lot at the time of development of each lot, per City
Standards and to the satisfaction of the City Arborist. The number of trees is determined by
one tree per 35 linear feet of street frontage.
D. EPA Requirement. General Construction Activity Storm Water Permit are required for all
storm water discharges associated with a construction activity where clearing, grading and
3 -3W
TR 71-99 (Tract 2330)
865 and 885 El Capitan(Gearhart)
Page 12
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.
E. A water allocation is required, due to the additional units. Currently, a water allocation can
only be obtained through the water retrofit program. The City's Water Conservation division
can help in determining the needed allocation and the necessary number of retrofits. Water
Conservation can be reached by calling 781-7258.
F. Water and Wastewater Impact Fees shall be paid at the time building permits are issued.
Both the Water and the Wastewater Impact Fees are based on the number of single family
units being built. The cost of developing an allocation through retrofit could offset a portion
of the required Water Impact Fee according to appropriate City policies.
G. Each parcel is to have its own separate water and wastewater service. Water services shall be
manifolded in pairs, whenever possible, in accordance with City standards.
H. New construction shall meet the setback requirements of the Uniform Plumbing Code (UPC)
table 7-7 for water wells, if a well exists.
I. Lots shall be developed with grades that comply with the Uniform Building Code (UBC)
appendix section 3315.4.
J. The subdivider shall pay Park-In-Lieu fees consistent with SLO Municipal Code Section
16.40.80.
K. The subdivider shall meet the Inclusionary housing requirement consistent with the SLO
Municipal Code Section 17.91.
Attachments
Attachment 1 - Vicinity Map
Attachment 2 - Reduced Scale of Vesting Tentative Tract Map
Attachment 3 - Reduced Scale of Development Site Plan
Attachment 4 - Applicant's Project Statement
Attachment 5 - Initial Environmental Study,ER 71-99
Attachment 6 - Developer's Statement for Compliance with Inclusionary Housing Requirement
Full size drawings of the Development Plan and Tract Map are available at the Community
Development Department.
JShoals/PO TR71-99(Gearhart)
3-3�
Atta
chment 1
P PD
R�2- -PD
GS-SP-PD
R 2=,SP-PD
C-&S-SP
� ® s
VI...nity
N 0 70 140 210 Feet 885 & 865 EI Capitan i
A ® 93=36
TR 71 9�
Attachment 2
e=
.. i9
ei Z
• d e�
#" 9. o
y: 7
O�
N
f
Q
F E'
e :
W
L '
f
Q !.I
H.
v
❑ , a
N
-ccZ.
,� y
'
UI .
40
• ,- v�.... _ is
°r.
fs]
n
Je
Tr
J 9.0• '
M`` • a
3 -39
M3 6661 90 :60 :91 90 Jd1P and 6Mp'dVW_1\OL-10E096\10E096\9661\f Otic
j-SA30 CEPNirld 14LLN3CI ! a t
Ato c h m e n t 3 NV-W 3118 INN% 7EMM
-- ! : � X11 .' •
i O '
N .
• 1
1 <
Ch
I
LLJ
! / - Q
! r ...
0.•LO
CN
\• r
E:l
Ell
I
Q.
i a
w '
Ell.
i I
i
3-qD
rIO 6661 bE :66 :e1 90 jdtl ani 6Mp'Nld-A30\OL' t0E096\10E056\6661\ro8c
Bannon Attachment 4
A S S O C I A T E S
PROJECT STATEMENT
South Side of EI Capitan Way (Gearhart) Phase 3
Planned Development Overlay Zone—Tentative Tract Map
Project Background
Tract 2245, on the north side of El Capitan Way, was approved by the City in January,
1997. This 16-lot single family subdivision has been built out. Tract 2294 (Phase 2), the
property constrained by the creek, is tentatively scheduled for the April 20, 1999 City
Council meeting after being continued from their March 2, 1999 meeting. Proposed
Tract 2330 will mirror Tact 2245 by proposing single family dwellings with two-car
garages located to the rear.
Project Description
The project proposes 6 single-family residences on individual lots of 6,160 square feet
each. The homes are single-story, three-bedroom units with a detached two-car garage
located in the rear. The homes are designed with covered front porches to provide a sense
of neighborhood and be compatible with the subdivisions to the north and east. The
proposed project will complete the El Capitan Way neighborhood.
Design Objectives
The primary objective of the project is to provide housing opportunities for moderate-
income households. The housing design combines the simpler form of ownership and
construction found in R-2 districts with the private yard space typical in R-I
developments.
The following amenities have been incorporated into the project design:
• Front setbacks can be varied to break up a uniform"row"pattern.
(Note: The plans show a constant setback of 23 feet. The homes can be staggered 5
feet as in Tract 2245)
• Street trees are planted at uneven intervals for variety(35 feet maximum).
• Each home includes a 10' X 10' covered front porch.
• Front yard landscaping, ground cover, and lawn are provided by the developer.
• Fencing is provided along the side property lines.
• Detached two-car garages are located in the rear of the lot to increase the front yard
landscaping.
Development Standards R-2 Requirements Proposed PD Overlay
Density 12 d.u. per acre 10 d.u. per acre
Parking 2 spaces per residence 2 spaces per residence
Street Yard 20 feet 23 feet
Side Yard 5 feet 5 feet
Proj/950301.60/staterr mt.doc 3-
arin®n_
ASSOCIATES
Rear Yard 5 feet 13 feet
Min-iinum Lot Size 6,000 sq. ft. 6,160_sq.f.- !
Maximum Lot-Coverage 50% 30%
_ -° _
Lot Depth to Width _ - 3:1 31:1
Development Schedule
Following annexation and recordation of thetract map, the applicant intends to construct
and sell single-family residences as approved by the subdivision and.PD zone.
Planned Development Overlay Zone
The design of the project varies from City standards in the lot to depth ratio. The lot to
depth:ratio exceeds 3:1. The homes are designed for the narrower, deeper lots and
provide garages to the rear. Although, the lots exceed 3:1 depth-to=width, deep lot(flag
lot) subdivision of these parcels is not.feasible.
Summary of Objectives/Findings for Planned Development Zone
The proposed project takes advantage of the R-2 density and the planned development
flexibility to provide moderately priced single family dwellings within the City. The
project meets the findings required under Section 11.62.040 as.follows:
1
1. The project is designed for moderate-income households. Three-bedroom units with
private yards appeal to families with children. .
2. Simple, cost effective home designs with the slightly higher density of the R-2 zone,
provides more affordablehousing_ than otherwise possible under conventional
development.
3. The project achieves the intent of conventional:standards by provides private, useable
open space, covered porches, two-car garages, and a compatible design with the
existing development.
Proj/950301.60/sWematdoe 3 q-2
cityluis oBispo® s
iMN
990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249
Attachment 5
INITIAL STUDY ER 71-99
865 & 885 EI Capitan Way
1. Project Title: EI Capitan Phase III
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:
John Shoals, Associate Planner
(805) 781-7166
4. Project Location:
South side of EI Capitan Way - 865 and 885 EI Capitan Way
5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Representative:
Kelly Gearhart Cannon Associates
6205 Alcantra Avenue 364 Pacific Street
Atascadero, CA 93422 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
6. General Plan Designation:
Medium-High Density Residential
7. Zoning:
R-2-SP (Medium-Density Residential with a specific plan overlay)
8. Project Description:
The project is a request to rezone a 0.84-acre site to allow a planned development
overlay zone (R-2-SP-PD) and to subdivide the property into six residential lots for the
construction of single family homes. Other project components include: site grading, the
installation of public and private walkways, landscaping and fencing.
9. Surrounding Land uses and Setting:
The project site is comprised of two parcels (APNs 076-421-30 and 176-421-31)
consisting of 0.84 acres in total. One of the parcels is developed with an older single
family home, and the other is developed with a garage and storage yard. Surrounding
V� The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services, programs and activities;3-Y3
Telecommunications Device for the Deaf(805)781-7410.
land uses include: 13 small-lot single family homes (Tract 2248 which was developed
by the applicant) on the north side of EI Capitan Way, a recently approved 7-lot
subdivision to the east; an older single family home, commercial service types uses,
and a church to the west.
10. Project Entitlements Requested:
The applicant is requesting approval of the following:
a) environmental review;
b) vesting tentative tract;
c) a preliminary development plan and PD rezoning for reduced lot width and a
greater than 3:1 depth-width relationship;and
d) architectural review of building designs and development plan.
11. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g. permits, financing
approval, or participation agreement):
San Luis Obispo County Airport Land Use Commission
3-�
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project,
involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the
checklist on the following pages.
Land Use and Planning Biological Resources Aesthetics
Population and Housing X Energy and Mineral Cultural Resources
Resources
X Geological Problems X Hazards X Recreation
X Water Noise X Mandatory Findings
of Significance
t x 'V `N 7+� 'I
Air Quality Public Services ,;�•yt �ry` e n,,,;-j `
X Transportation and X Utilities and Service
Circulation Systems
There is no evidence before the Department that the project will have any potential adverse
effects on fish and wildlife resources or the habitat upon which the wildlife depends. As such,
the project qualifies for a de minimis waiver with regards to the filing of Fish and Game Fees.
The project has potential to impact fish and wildlife resources and shall be subject to the
payment of Fish and Game fees pursuant to Section 711.4 of the California Fish and Game
Code.
DETERMINATION:
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
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 an attached sheets
have been added to the project. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. X
I find that the proposed project May have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one
effect (1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards,
and (2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on
attached sheets, if the effect is a "Potentially Significant Impact" or is "Potentially Significant Unless
Mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects
that remain to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL
NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (1) have been analyzed
3-ys
in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards and (2) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to
that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project.
June 2, 1999
gnatu 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.
if
Issues and Supporting Informa. Sources Sources Pote` :y Potentially Less Than No
EI Capitan III Subdivision and PD(Kelly Gearhart) Significant Significant Significant Impact
Issues Unless Impact
ER 71-99 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?
X
e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an
established community (including a low-income or
minority community)?
General Plan and Zoning:
The project site is general planned Medium Density Residential and zoned R-2-SP (Medium Density Residential
with a specific plan overlay) with a maximum allowable density of 10 units. The applicant is proposing a project
with a density equivalent of nine(9)units which meets the density requirement.
Under the PD rezoning process, the applicant is requesting approval of a development plan with variations from
City subdivision requirements for lot width and depth-to-width ratio standards. If the City Council approves the PD
rezoning with exceptions to City subdivision standards, the project would be consistent with the City Subdivision
Regulations.
Edna-Islay Specific Plan (EISP): The site is identified as part of the Secondary Planning Area in the Edna-Islay
Specific Plan which was adopted by the City Council in 1982. The EISP designates the site as Medium-Density
Residential. The circulation design shown in the EISP matches the street design proposed. Therefore, the project
is consistent with the Edna Islay Specific Plan.
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 includes the construction of six single family dwelllings. 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 14 persons would live on the property. This additional population and housing is
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. Therefore, the project would not induce substantial growth into the area or cause
exceedances to local and regional growth projections.
Although the project involves the relocation or demolition of existing housing, it will provide six new homes in the
low to moderate price range.
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
3 14 '1
Issues and Supporting Informa-L. . Sources sources Pote. y Potentially IessThan No
EI Capitan III Subdivision and PD(Kelly Gearhart) Significant Significant significant Impact
Issues Unless Impact
ER 71-99 mitigation
Page 6 Incorporated
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 life 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.
In January of 1999, Buena Geotechnical Services (BGS), prepared a soils report on the site and the adjoining
property. 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. The
BGS soils report concluded that the site is generally suitable for development,with proper grading and foundation
designs. Grading and building must be designed and performed in conformance with the soils engineering
report. In addition, compliance with the City's Grading standards will assure that no soil impacts occur in the
short-term or long-term.
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 le.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
Issues and Supporting Informal. ., Sources sources Pote y Potentially Less Than No
EI Capitan III Subdivision and PD(Kelly Gearhart) significant Significant significant Impact
Issues Unless Impact
ER 71-99 mitigation
Page 7 Incwtpotated
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.
According to the tentative grading plan, the project has been designed to drain towards the street(EI Capitan)and
into an existing detention basin at Broad Street and EI Capitan. The applicant has submitted preliminary drainage
analysis that shows that drainage from the project can be accommodated by modifying the existing detention
basin. Compliance with the City's grading and drainage standards will also assure that the project will not
generate significant drainage impacts.
Flooding
According to the City's Information Atlas, the project site is not located within flood prone area which significantly
reduces the risk of flooding. Compliance with the City's Flood Damage and Prevention Regulations will assure
that there are not significant flooding impacts associated with the project.
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.
Mitigation Measure(s):
1. Consistent with Municipal Code Section 15.04.040 X. (Sec. 7004 (b)), 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:
• Regular wetting of roads and graded areas(at least twice daily with complete coverage of all active areas);
• Increasing frequency of watering whenever winds exceed 15 mph;
• Cessation of grading activities during periods of winds over'25 mph;
• Direct application of water on material being excavated and/or transported onsite or offsite;
•Watering material stockpiles;
• Periodic washdowns, or mechanical street sweeping, of streets in the vicinity of the construction site; and
• Non-potable water is to be used in all construction and dust control work.
Long-Term Impacts
San Luis Obispo County is a non-attainment area for the State ozone and PM10 (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.
According to the APCD's"CEQA Air Quality Handbook, a project which generates more than 10 pounds per day of
emissions has the potential for significant air quality impacts. A residential project with 35 dwelling units would
3-4y
Issues and Supporting Informa.. . Sources Sources Pott y Potentially IessThan No
El Capitan III Subdivision and PD(Kelly Gearhart) significant Significant significant Impact
Issues Unless Impact
ER 71-99 mitigation
Page 8 1 Incorporated
generate 10 lbs/day of emission. Given that the project's size is below thresholds contained in the APCD's
"CEQA Air Quality Handbook,' it will not significantly impact long-term air quality.
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)
Trip Generation
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 60 ADT and 6 PHT.
The project will incrementally contribute to an increase in traffic on EI Capitan Way and Broad Streets. EI Capitan
Way is a local street that was constructed as part of Tract 2248. It is presently improved to its full right-of-way
width. 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.
Parkin
Dwelling units in the R-2 zone have a parking requirement of one space for the first one and one-half (1-1/2)
bedrooms and one-half(1/2)space for each additional bedroom. A two bedroom dwelling is required to provide two
parking spaces,and a three-bedroom dwelling 2.5 spaces(rounded to three spaces). The project is providing a two
car garage, at the rear of the lot, with adequate room to provide one additional parking space on-site. Compliance
with the City's Parking Requirements will assure that project does not generate parking problems in the
neighborhood.
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:
1. The property owner shall grant an avigation easement to the County of San Luis Obispo via an avigation
easement document prepared by the County.
7. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal affect: it
a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats
(including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, X
animals or birds)?
3-so
Issues and Supporting Informai. Sources sources Pote. Potentially Less Than No
EI Capitan III Subdivision and PD(Kelly Gearhart) Signifid 1 Significant Significant Impact
ER 71-99 Issues Impact
mitigation
Page 9 Incorporated
b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)? X
c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak
forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? X
d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool? X
e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? X
No impacts to biological resources is expected to occur because no endangered, threatened or rare species were
observed on the site. Moreover, the site have been disturbed by development.
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 existence of EI Capitan Way.
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.
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 say that a generally acceptable
level of noise for residences is 60 decibels. 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 site is more than 300 feet from 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
3-51
Issues and Supporting Informs . Sources sources Pott y Potentially Less Than No
EI Capitan III Subdivision and PD(KellyGearhart) Significant Significant Significant Impact
Issues unless Impact
ER 71-99 mitigation
Page 10 Incorporated
therefore is not significantly impact by noise from airport operations.
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 six single-family homes. In San Luis Obispo, according to CDF estimates,
the average household size is 2.3 persons. If all eight homes are occupied, the projected.population of this
subdivision would be 6 X 2.3 = 14. Also according to census figures, approximately 13.8% of the city's population
is aged seventeen or younger. Therefore, we would expect to find 14 X 13.88% = 1.9 (rounded to 2) 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 2+ children will have on school facilities will be mitigated
in whole or in part by the District's fees, charged at the time of building permit issuance for each home.
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 project is expected to use 0.30 acre-feet/dwelling X 6 dwellings = 1.8 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 at least as much water
annually as the 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.
3-5 2
Issues and Supporting Informa-r. . Sources Sources Pote y Potentially Less Than No
EI Capitan III Subdivision and PD(Kelly Gearhart) Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER 71-99 Issues Unless Impact
mitigation
Page 11 Incorporated
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.
The sewer serving this development is tributary to the Tank Farm-Rockview lift station system. Lift station
fees will be charged. Any work done to increase capacity will offset lift station fees. Participation in a
project to construct a gravity sewer replacement to the lift 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 at the lift station or in the cost of a new gravity sewer line.
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, 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 1989 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 should be
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 Measures:
1 . 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.
2. The final project shall be designed to include interior and exterior recycling.
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.
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
In December of 1998, a cultural resources survey and impact assessment 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
3-53
Issues and Supporting Informa. Sources sources Pot. .y Potentially Less rnan No
EI Capitan III Subdivision and PD (Kelly Gearhart) Significant significant significant Impact
Issues Unless Impact
ER 71-99 mitigation
Page 12 Incorporated
material or deposits are believed to exist within the area, the proposed project is not expected to have any
effect on known of suspected cultural resources. Based on these findings, no additional archaeological work
is required.
The project involves the relocation or demolition of a residence with accessory structures (885 EI Capitan)
and a garage and storage yard (865 EI Capitan). No Cultural Heritage Committee (CHC) files exists on the
properties since they were only recently annexed into the City. Using the City's Historical Preservation
Guidelines, it was determined that the individual buildings are not considered to be "historical resources,"
and are not "contributing' structures in an older neighborhood. Therefore, the demolition of the structures
will not significantly impact any historical resources.
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 six homes will add incrementally to the demand for parks and other recreational facilities. Park-in-fiel.
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.
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
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.
;ssues and Supporting Informa.. .Sources Sources rote potentially Less Than No
EI Capitan III Subdivision and PD(Kelly Gearhart) Significant significant significant Impact
Issues Unless Impact
ER 71-99 mitigation
Page 13 Incorporated
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 addressed. 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, 222 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.
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. 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. City of San Luis Obispo Historical preservation Program Guidelines, February 1987.
19. Cultural Resources Survey and Impact Assessment, Clay A. Singer, Anthropologist, Dec., 1998.
3-SS
19. MITIGATION MEASURES/MONITORING PROGRAM: ER 71-99 EI Capitan (Gearhart)
1. Mitigation Measure: Consistent with Municipal Code Section 15.04.040 X. (Sec. 7004(b)), 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:
• Regular wetting of roads and graded areas (at least twice daily with
complete coverage of all active areas);
• Increasing frequency of watering whenever winds exceed 15 mph;
• Cessation of grading activities during periods of winds over 25 mph;
• Direct application of water on material being excavated and/or transported
onsite or offsite;
• Watering material stockpiles;
• Periodic washdowns, or mechanical street sweeping, of streets in the
vicinity of the construction site; and
• Non-potable water is to be used in all construction and dust control work.
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.
2. 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.
3. 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. 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.
JShoals/ER/Initial Studies/ER 71-99 (EI Capitan III)
3�(�
Applicant Acceptance of Mitigation Measures
Project: 71-99
865 and 885 EI Capitan Way
This agreement is entered into by and between the City of San Luis Obispo and Kelly Gearhart
on the IoTM day of rJWI- , 1999 The following measures are
included in the project to mitigate potential adverse environmental impacts. Please sign the
original and return it to the Community Development Department.
MITIGATION MEASURES:
1. Consistent with Municipal Code Section 15.04.040 X. (Sec. 7004 (b)), 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:
• Regular wetting of roads and graded areas (at least twice daily with complete
coverage of all active areas);
• Increasing frequency of watering whenever winds exceed 15 mph;
• Cessation of grading activities during periods of winds over 25 mph;
• Direct application of water on material being excavated and/or transported onsite or
offsite;
• Watering material stockpiles;
• Periodic washdowns, or mechanical street sweeping, of streets in the vicinity of the
construction site; and
• Non-potable water is to be used in all construction and dust control work.
2. The property owner shall grant an avigation easement to the County of San Luis Obispo via
an avigation easement document prepared by the County.
3. 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.
4. The final project shall be designed to include interior and exterior recycling.
If the Community Development Director or hearing body determines that the above mitigation
measures are ineffective or physically infeasible, he may add, delete or modify the mitigation to
meet the intent of the original measures.
Please note that section 15070 (b) (1) of the California Administrative Code requires the
applicant to agree to the above mitigation measures before the proposed Mitigated Negative
Declaration is released for public review. This project will not be scheduled for public
review and hearing until this signed original is returned to the Community Development
De ent.
C
Arnold B. Jonas telly Gearhart
Community Devel ent Director
3-5 -7
MICHAEL F. C ANNON,.PE
ANOR[*.G. MERRIANI, AIA,..AICP
DANIEL S. HUTC HINSON,'LS
Sarmon
A ss O C I.A T E s
Attachment 6
July 19, 1999
ENGINEERS John Shoals
Associate Planner
PLANNERS
City of San Luis Obispo
SURVEYORS 990 Pin Street
San Luis Obispo, Ca 93406
12E: Inclusionary housing Requirement .
Vesting Tentative Tract 2330 (Kelly Gearhart-EI Capitan Way)
Dear John:
After consulting with Kelly Gearhart, we have decided to meet the City's
inclusionary hoiisinwrequirement.by paying thein-lieu fees. Our understanding is
that these fees are equal to 5%of the building valuation.
We look forward to the Planning Commission hearing date on July 28, 1999.
Please do not hesitate to call if you have questions.
Sincerely;
u1t�v�.
Doug Davidson, AICP
Senior Planner
I
805 544-14()7
Inr.805 544-3863
PROVIDING SERVICE SINCE 1.976
.
Prod/950301.69VwiaPP1t.doc 3� $