HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-18-2014 PH1 Tentative Tract Map 3080 Rockview PlaceCity of San Luis Obispo, Council Agenda Report, Meeting Date, Item Number
FROM: Derek Johnson, Community Development Deputy Director
Prepared By: Jaime Hill, Contract Planner
Marcus Carloni, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP FOR A NINE (9) LOT COMMON-
INTEREST SUBDIVISION, USE PERMIT FOR DEVELOPMENT OF A SITE WITH
SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS, AND ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt the resolution (Attachment 1) approving Vesting Tentative Tract Map 3057 and Use
Permit (A 202-13) that includes a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact (ER
202-13), based on findings, and subject to conditions.
SITE DATA
Applicant Covelop, Inc.
Representative Damien Mavis
Zoning R-2-S (Medium Density Residential,
Special Considerations)
General Plan Medium Density Residential
Site Area 31,479 square feet (0.7227 ac)
Application
Complete
Environmental
Status
February 7, 2014
Mitigated Negative Declaration
recommended for adoption (ER 202-
14)
REPORT-IN-BRIEF
The applicant is seeking approval of a vesting tentative tract map and use permit to create a nine
lot residential common interest subdivision, including eight market rate units and one home
dedicated as a restricted unit for moderate-income families. The 31,479 square foot vacant site is
located on Rockview Place and is bisected by a drainage channel. In addition to the nine single-
family homes, the project entails construction of a common driveway and landscaping, and a
small bridge to provide access to six lots (Lots 4-9), which are across the drainage channel. The
project relies upon exceptions to street yard, other yard, and creek setback standards which were
approved by the Planning Commission.
11/18/14
PH1
PH1 - 1
Council Agenda Report – TR/A/ER 202-13
November 18, 2014 Page 2
On August 27, 2014, the Planning Commission determined (4-0 vote: Riggs, Draze and Multari
absent) that the project was consistent with the General Plan, Subdivision Regulations, and
applicable City policies, and other development standards, and recommended that the City
Council approve the project (Attachment 6). The Planning Commission recommendation was
based on consistency with General Plan policies regarding infill housing, neighborhood
compatibility, preservation of natural features, and the provision of compact affordable-by-
design housing including one affordable housing unit (moderate) on-site. On October 6, 2014,
the Architectural Review Commission (ARC) also determined that the project is consistent with
the Community Design Guidelines, and granted final approval of the site design and architecture.
DISCUSSION
Background
Site Description
The overall project site consists of vacant land (primarily non-native annual grassland). At the
center of the site is an unvegetated drainage channel, which is classified in the General Plan as
“Perennial creek with degraded corridor, high encroachment, and difficulty in restoring”. The
creek enters into existing culverts on properties to both the north and south. The project site is
located in an urbanized area of the City and is surrounded with multi-family zoned residential
buildings and commercial uses to the southeast. The project is approximately 1.5 miles from the
end of San Luis Obispo Airport Runway 29, which is within the boundary of Airport Land Use
Plan (ALUP)1 Zone 6, but beyond Airport Noise Contours.
Table 1: Site Description
1 The ALUP allows for 12 front doors per acre. As measured to the center of the street right-of-way the site is 0.769ac / 12 unit/ac = 9.22
units, rounded down to 9 units (or 9 front doors).
Site Size 31,479.29 sf (0.7227 ac)
Present Use & Development Vacant land
Topography Less than 15% slope
Access Rockview Place
Surrounding Use/Zoning North: Developed multi-family properties zoned R-2.
South/Southeast: Multi-family development zoned R-2 and
Crossroads commercial center zoned Service Commercial with
Planned Development Overlay (C-S-PD).
East: Residential development zoned Service-Commercial with
Special Considerations Overlay.
West: Developed multi-family properties zoned R-2.
PH1 - 2
Council Agenda Report – TR/A/ER 202-13
November 18, 2014 Page 3
Project Description
The proposed project includes the following significant features:
1. Vesting Tentative Tract Map 3057 for a nine-lot common interest subdivision;
2. Eight detached two-bedroom single-family homes;
3. One designated moderate-income affordable unit (a three-bedroom single-family home
on Lot 5) that entitles the project to a density bonus and one concession/incentive. The
requested incentive is setback reductions (including creek, street yard, and other yard
setbacks, and tandem parking in the street yard);
4. A small 18-foot span access bridge located at the western extent of Lot 6 and designed to
provide access to six lots (Parcels 4-9) which are across a drainage channel;
5. A common driveway and guest parking, decorative landscaping, and restorative plantings
in the constructed creek bank areas along the drainage channel.
The nine detached, single-family homes are all two-story with attached single-car garages. There
are three different exterior building designs (A-D, with models B and D differing only
internally). Each home provides ground level private yards, private storage within the garage,
and laundry facilities on the upper sleeping level.
Dedication of one unit as affordable entitles the project to a 7.5% density bonus and one
incentive/concession, as allowed by State Law. The applicant has proposed to utilize these
entitlements by adding an additional bedroom to the dedicated affordable unit (for the density
bonus), and requesting flexibility with regards to setbacks, including street, other yards, and
along the creek corridor (utilizing the incentive/concession). The added density does not
compromise the project’s consistency with ALUP density requirements, as it takes the form of an
additional bedroom within a unit, rather than creating an additional unit (ALUP density standards
are based on number of “front doors,” 9 are allowed by the ALUP and 9 are proposed).
PROJECT ANALYSIS
General Plan Consistency
The site is designated as “Medium Density Residential” on the General Plan Land Use Element
(LUE) map and the site is currently undeveloped. The General Plan anticipates compact
residential development on small lots, with some private outdoor space for each dwelling. The
development proposal can be found consistent with numerous General Plan policies, including
those pertaining to respecting site constraints and natural amenities (LUE Policies 2.2.8 –
Natural Features 2, and LUE Policy 2.2.11 – Site Constraints 3), integration of new development
within existing residential areas (LUE Policy 2.2.6 – Neighborhood Pattern 4), and production of
infill housing with a mix of market-rate and affordable units (HE Policy 4.2 – Mixed-Income
2 General Plan Land Use Element (LUE) Policy 2.2.11 (Site Constraints) states: “Residential development shall respect site constraints such
as property size and shape, ground slope, access, creeks and wetlands, wildlife habitats, native vegetation, and significant trees”.
3 General Plan LUE Policy 2.2.8 (Natural Features) states: “Residential developments should preserve and incorporate as amenities natural
site features, such as land forms, views, creeks, wetlands, wildlife habitats, and plants”.
4 General Plan LUE Policy 2.2.6 (Neighborhood Pattern) states: “All residential development should be integrated with existing
neighborhoods. Where physical features make this impossible, the new development should create new neighborhoods.”
PH1 - 3
Council Agenda Report – TR/A/ER 202-13
November 18, 2014 Page 4
Housing 5, and HE Program 6.14 – Housing Production 6). For a more detailed analysis of the
project’s consistency with these policies, see Attachment 5 (May 14, 2014 Planning Commission
Staff Report).
Property Development Standard Consistency
Within common interest subdivisions, property development standards such as density, yards,
and coverage, apply with respect to both exterior property limits and within each new lot.
Additionally, each unit must comply with development standards specific to common interest
subdivisions. To accommodate these requirements the shapes of lots vary, as the property line
layout was designed to accommodate the allowable residential density and affordable housing, as
well as restoration of the degraded seasonal creek channel.
1. Density
To meet the City’s Inclusionary Housing requirement, the applicant is including one deed-
restricted affordable housing unit for moderate income families within the project. This
dedication entitles the project to a 7.5% density bonus, which the applicant has utilized to
increase the dedicated affordable unit on Lot 5 from two bedrooms to three bedrooms.
2. Setback Exceptions
To achieve the allowable density, the project requires findings in support of approval of setback
reductions to both internal and external property lines and the restored creek corridor, which are
requested as the incentive/concession for providing on-site affordable housing. State law requires
a local jurisdiction to approve requested density bonuses and incentives unless findings are made
based on substantial evidence that their approval will result in a specific adverse impact upon
public health and safety or the physical environment 7.
As detailed in the Planning Commission Staff Report, the majority of the requested yard
reductions are minor in nature, the majority being one to two feet due to building height, and a
minimum of 10-feet separation between buildings will be maintained at all times (Attachment 3,
Setback Table). Additionally, the Natural Resources Manager has supported the proposed 10-
foot creek setback, as it allows reconstruction and revegetation of the creek back with a gradual
2:1 slope bank, which will reduce ongoing maintenance and erosion concerns. As this is a
manufactured creek corridor, it is a fairly unique situation which would not set an undesirable
precedent. As required of a new subdivision, the City Council must approve allowance of
setback reductions with the tentative map, which were recommended for approval by the
Planning Commission.
5 General Plan HE Policy 4.2 (Mixed-Income Housing) states: “Include both market-rate and affordable units in apartment and residential
condominium projects and intermix types of units. Affordable units should be comparable in appearance and basic quality to market-rate
units.”
6 General Plan HE Program (6.14 (Housing Production) states: “Encourage residential development through infill development and
densification within City limits and in designated expansion areas over new annexation of land.”
7 Government Code Section 65915-65918 The city, county, or city and county shall grant the concession or incentive requested by the
applicant unless the city, county, or city and county makes a written finding, based upon substantial evidence, of any of the following: (A)
The concession or incentive is not required in order to provide for affordable housing costs, as defined in Section 50052.5 of the Health and
Safety Code, or for rents for the targeted units to be set as specified in subdivision (c). (B) The concession or incentive would have a
specific adverse impact, as defined in paragraph (2) of subdivision (d) of Section 65589.5, upon public health and safety or the physical
environment or on any real property that is listed in the California Register of Historical Resources and for which there is no feasible
method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific adverse impact without rendering the development unaffordable to low- and
moderate-income households. (C) The concession or incentive would be contrary to state or federal law.
PH1 - 4
Council Agenda Report – TR/A/ER 202-13
November 18, 2014 Page 5
Table 2 (below) indicates the projects consistency with Subdivision Regulation standards for
Common Interest Subdivisions (Chapter 16.17) and pertinent property development standards.
Table 2: Project Statistics
Statistics
Item Ordinance Standard 8 Proposed 9
Street Yards 20 feet 14 and 20 feet
Other Yards 5 – 13 feet Varies
Max. Height of Structure(s) 35 feet 26-30 feet
Density 10 density units 10 10 density units
Building Coverage (footprint) 50% ~ 25%
Private Open Space 250 sf per unit Varies > 250 sf
Common Open Space 150 sf per unit (1,350 sf) 4,618 sf within creek corridor
Total Open Space 400 sf per unit (3,600 sf) ~ 7,000 sf
Parking Spaces
(for residents)
2 per home 2 per home
Parking Spaces (for guests)
Cars
Motorcycle
Bicycle
2 car
1 motorcycle
1 short-term rack
2 car
1 motorcycle
1 bicycle rack
Landscaping n/a Private, Common & Riparian
Grading n/a 1,500 CY Fill
Planning Commission Action
On May 14, 2014, the Planning Commission reviewed the application and continued the project
to allow the applicant to address specific concerns. These included simplification of the lot line
pattern, exploring potential for a pedestrian connection at the eastern corner of the site to the
Crossroads center, submittal of a sample Joint Maintenance Agreement (JMA), and reorientation
of the home on Lot 1 to provide the required external side yard to the south. The Planning
Commission staff reports, hearing minutes and resolution are attached (Attachment 5).
On August 27, 2014 the Planning Commission recommended approval of the project to the City
Council; 4-0 vote (Riggs, Draze and Multari absent). The Planning Commission found that the
redesigned project was consistent with their direction as well as the General Plan, Subdivision
Regulations, and applicable development policies. Aside from the applicant, there was no public
testimony provided at the hearing. Planning Commission discussion focused on project revisions
that addressed their earlier concerns – a new lot pattern, pedestrian connection (which was found
to be infeasible), JMA, and reorientation of the home on Lot 1 – as well as further refinements to
the project including maintaining the recommended 10-foot creek corridor, adjusting the guest
parking layout, and improvement of the projects Green Building rating. The Planning
Commission staff reports, hearing minutes, and resolution are attached (Attachment 6).
8 City Zoning and Subdivision Regulations
9 Applicant’s project plans
10 Allowed Density = 0.6988 ac * 12 density units/ac = 8.39 units. (Allowed 7.5% density bonus plus one incentive/concession) 8.39 density
units x 1.075 = 9.02 density units (allowed to round up to next whole number per Section 17.90.040B) = 10 Density Units
PH1 - 5
Council Agenda Report – TR/A/ER 202-13
November 18, 2014 Page 6
Architectural Review Commission Action
On October 6, 2014, the Architectural Review Commission (ARC), on a 6-0 vote (Wynn
recused) granted final approval of the project design and architecture. The ARC found that the
project was consistent with the Community Design Guidelines and compatible in scale, siting,
detailing and overall character with buildings in the adjacent neighborhood. There was no public
testimony provided at the hearing.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
An Initial Study has been prepared by staff in accordance with the California Environmental
Quality Act and a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) is recommended for adoption
(Attachment 7).
The Initial Study identifies potentially significant impacts associated with air quality, and
biological and cultural resources, and provides recommendations for mitigation measures that, if
incorporated into the project, would reduce the potential impacts to below the threshold of
significance. These mitigation measures will affect the development phase of the project,
including provisions for ensuring that natural and cultural resources (should they be discovered)
are adequately protected. Revisions to the project since the publication of the document have
been evaluated and determined not to have created any new impacts not previously discussed.
With the incorporation of the recommended mitigation measures the potential impacts to the
environment will be reduced below a level of significance.
FISCAL IMPACT
When the General Plan was prepared, it was accompanied by a fiscal impact analysis, which
found that overall the General Plan was fiscally balanced. Since the project does not propose to
change the General Plan designations of the site, it has a neutral fiscal impact.
ALTERNATIVES
1. The Council may continue review of the project. If more information is needed, direction
should be given to staff and the applicants on pertinent issues.
2. The Council may adopt a resolution denying the project based on findings of
inconsistency with the Subdivision Regulations and/or General Plan Policies as specified
by the City Council. This is not recommended because the project is consistent with the
General Plan and has been approved (or recommended for approval) by the Architectural
Review Commission and Planning Commission.
3. Direct staff to return with necessary findings based on substantial evidence that the
approval of the project with density bonus will result in a specific adverse impact upon
public health and safety or the physical environment or the concession or incentive is not
PH1 - 6
Council Agenda Report – TR/A/ER 202-13
November 18, 2014 Page 7
required in order to provide affordable housing costs, as defined in Section 50052.5 of the
Health and Safety Code.
Staff does not recommend this action as no information has been presented to support
these findings. No environmental issues or public safety issues have been identified that
have not been addressed through design measures.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Draft Resolution as recommended by the Planning Commission and staff
2. Vicinity Map
3. Reduced size project plans
4. Project Setback Table
5. May 14, 2014 Planning Commission Minutes, and Staff Report (Full report and attachments
available at the following path: slocity.org>Agendas>Planning Commission>Past Agenda/Staff
Reports>05-14-14).
6. August 27, 2014 Planning Commission Resolution, Minutes, and Staff Report (Full report
and attachments available at the following path: slocity.org>Agendas>Planning Commission>Past
Agenda/Staff Reports>08-27-14).
7. Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact (ER 202-13), recommended on
May 7, 2014
AVAILABLE FOR REVIEW IN THE COUNCIL OFFICE
1. Full-size project plans
\\chstore7\Team\Council Agenda Reports\2014\2014-11-18\Tentative Tract Map - 3080 Rockview Pl (Johnson-
Davidson)\ECAR 3080 Rockview (202-13).docx
PH1 - 7
Attachment 1
R ______
RESOLUTION NO. _____ (2014 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
APPROVING A VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP WITH EXCEPTIONS TO
PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, A USE PERMIT ALLOWING
DEVELOPMENT OF A NINE-UNIT RESIDENTIAL PROJECT ON A SITE WITH
SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS (R-2-S ZONING), AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT.
3080 ROCKVIEW PLACE; TR/A/ER 202-13 (TRACT 3057)
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted public
hearings on May 14, 2014 and August 27, 2014, at which they reviewed the proposed project and
recommended approval to the City Council; and
WHEREAS, the Architectural Review Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo
conducted a public hearing on October 6, 2014, at which they reviewed the proposed project and
granted approval of the site design and architecture; and
WHEREAS, on November 18, 2014, the City Council conducted a public hearing in the
Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, for the purpose of
considering application TR/A/ER 202-13, a request for a Use Permit to allow development of a
site zoned Medium-Density Residential with a Special Considerations overlay with a nine-unit
Common Interest Subdivision and Vesting Tentative Tract Map for a residential subdivision; and
WHEREAS, notices of said public hearing were made at the time and in the manner
required by law; and
WHEREAS, the City Council reviewed and considered the Mitigated Negative
Declaration of environmental impact for the project; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has duly considered all evidence, including the testimony
of the applicant, interested parties, and the evaluation and recommendations by the Planning
Commission and staff, presented at said hearing.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis
Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. Findings. Based upon all the evidence, the City Council makes the
following findings approving the request for Vesting Tentative Tract Map 3057, including
exceptions to property improvement standards for new common interest subdivisions, and Use
Permit A 202-13 to allow development of a site with the Special Consideration overlay zoning:
Subdivision Findings
1. The proposed subdivision, together with the provisions for its design and improvement, is
consistent with the General Plan and Airport Land Use Plan, including compatibility with
PH1 - 8
Resolution No. _____ (2014 Series) Attachment 1
3080 Rockview (202-13)
Page 2
the objectives, policies, general land uses and programs specified in the General Plan for
Medium Density Residential land uses.
2. As demonstrated by the Winter Solstice Shading Plan and Conceptual Landscape Plan,
the design of the subdivision provides, to the extent feasible, for future passive or natural
heating or cooling opportunities in the subdivision.
3. As conditioned, the subdivider will defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City and its
agents, officers and employees from any claim, action or proceeding against the City or
its agents, officers or employees to attach set aside, void or annul an approval of the City
Council, Planning Commission, or City Staff concerning a subdivision.
4. The proposed tentative tract map is consistent with the General Plan, including LUE
Policies 2.2.11, 2.2.8 and 2.2.6, and HE Policies 4.2 and 6.14, because the subdivision
will provide residential development anticipated by the General Plan and preserve and
incorporate as amenities, natural site features, and sensitive natural resources.
5. The site is physically suited for the proposed type of development because the project has
been designed to utilize available residential density while enhancing creek resources.
6. The project is consistent with the intent of the City’s Common Interest Subdivision
standards, in that it provides for small ownership units with private and common
amenities in a compact, cohesive manner.
7. With the incorporation of the recommended conditions and mitigation measures, the
design of the subdivision and improvements are not likely to cause substantial
environmental damage or substantially and unavoidably injure fish or wildlife or their
habitat because the project will create beneficial enhancement of degraded natural
resources.
8. The design of the subdivision, or type of improvements, is not likely to cause serious
public health or safety problems because the type of improvements are appropriate for the
location and will be designed to meet existing building and safety codes.
9. The design of the subdivision, or the type of improvements, will not conflict with
easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, property within
the proposed subdivision because such easements will be maintained.
Affordable Housing
10. The development of one home restricted for a moderate-income family on-site is consistent
with the City’s inclusionary housing requirements which require that projects of this size
provide one affordable unit on-site or pay the in-lieu housing fee
11. The proposed project, which provides a deed-restricted unit affordable to moderate-
PH1 - 9
Resolution No. _____ (2014 Series) Attachment 1
3080 Rockview (202-13)
Page 3
income households, is consistent with policies and programs of the General Plan that
encourage new development to accommodate affordable housing production and variety.
By providing this affordable unit within the project, the City is able to approve a 7.5%
density bonus and one incentive. The specific incentive approved for the project is
allowing relaxation of setback standards, including street, other and creek setbacks that
do not create health and safety impacts as determined through the Mitigated Negative
Declaration prepared for the project
Exceptions to yard requirements (affordable housing incentive/concession)
12. There are circumstances of the site, such as the unusual configuration and bifurcation by
an open drainage channel, distinct from land in the same zoning, which would make
compliance with all setbacks infeasible.
13. Strict adherence to the required property improvement standards would decrease the size
or number of units within the project resulting in a significant loss of entitlement, and
inability to provide for restricted affordable housing on-site.
14. The reduced setbacks will not constitute a grant of special privilege; an entitlement
inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity with the same
zoning, as dedication of one on-site affordable unit, or 12.5% of the project, entitles the
project to at 7.5% density bonus and one incentive or concession.
15. No feasible alternative to authorizing the exception would satisfy the intent of the city
policies and regulations. Final configuration of the homes, including setbacks, has been
reviewed and approved by the Architectural Review Commission at their October 6, 2014
public hearing.
16. The location and design of the feature(s) receiving the exception will minimize impacts
to scenic resources, water quality, and riparian habitat, including opportunities for
wildlife habitation, rest, and movement, as it will facilitate the establishment of
gradually-sloped, vegetated creek bank.
17. The exception will not limit the city’s design options for providing flood control
measures that are needed to achieve adopted city flood policies, as the newly engineered
creek channel has been designed to improve drainage through the site.
18. The exception will not prevent the implementation of city-adopted plans, nor increase the
adverse environmental effects of implementing such plans, as the project includes
reestablishment of a creek channel at this location at a preferred gradual slope-bank.
19. There are circumstances applying to the site, such as its unusual shape and the need to
accommodate the existing culvert on neighboring properties, which does not apply
generally to land in the vicinity with the same zoning that would deprive the property of
privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity with the same zoning.
PH1 - 10
Resolution No. _____ (2014 Series) Attachment 1
3080 Rockview (202-13)
Page 4
20. The exception will not constitute a special privilege – an entitlement inconsistent with the
limitations upon other properties in the vicinity with the same zoning, as the creek
channel will be improved by the proposed project.
21. The exception will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property
in the area of the project or downstream, as the project will improve the creek channel
before it enters the existing culvert on the neighboring property.
22. Site development cannot be accomplished with a redesign of the project without reducing
proposed density and a dedicated affordable unit.
23. Redesign of the project would deny the property owner reasonable use of the property
and the ability to provide affordable housing on-site.
SECTION 2. Environmental Review. A Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared
by the Community Development Department on May 7, 2014. The City Council finds and
determines that the project’s Mitigated Negative Declaration adequately identifies that there is no
foreseeable potential for significant environmental impacts by the proposed project. The City
Council does hereby adopt the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration (ER 202-13) with
incorporation of the following mitigation measures:
Mitigation Measure 1: Air Quality
1. During construction/ground disturbing activities, the applicant shall implement the
following particulate (dust) control measures.
a. Reduce the amount of disturbed area where possible.
b. Use water trucks or sprinkler systems in sufficient quantities to prevent airborne dust
from leaving the site. Increased watering frequency will be required whenever wind
speeds exceed 15 m.p.h. and cessation of grading activities during periods of winds
over 25 m.p.h. Reclaimed (non-potable) water is to be used in all construction and
dust-control work.
c. Dirt stock pile areas (if any) should be sprayed daily as needed.
d. Vehicle speed for all construction vehicles shall not exceed 15 m.p.h. on any unpaved
surface at the construction site.
e. All trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials, are to be covered or should
maintain at least two feet of freeboard (minimum vertical distance between top of
load and top of trailer) in accordance with California Vehicle Code Section 23114.
f. Scheduling of construction truck trips during non-peak hours to reduce peak hour
emissions.
g. If determined to be needed, periodic wash downs or mechanical street sweeping of
streets in the vicinity of the construction site shall be done.
Monitoring Plan, MM #1: These measures shall be shown on grading and building
plans. In addition, the contractor shall designate a person or persons to monitor the
PH1 - 11
Resolution No. _____ (2014 Series) Attachment 1
3080 Rockview (202-13)
Page 5
dust control program and to order increased watering, as necessary, to prevent
transport of dust off site. Their duties shall include holiday and weekend periods
when work may not be in progress. The name and telephone number of such persons
shall be provided to the Community Development and Public Works Departments
prior to commencement of construction.
Mitigation Measure 2: Biological Resources
2. The project shall incorporate the following erosion control measures for work in and
around the riparian corridor:
a. No heavy equipment should enter flowing water.
b. Equipment will be fuelled and maintained in an appropriate staging area removed
from the riparian corridor.
c. Restrict all heavy construction equipment to the project area or established staging
areas.
d. All project related spills of hazardous materials within or adjacent to the project area
shall be cleaned up immediately. Spill prevention and clean up materials should be
onsite at all times during construction.
e. All spoils should be relocated to an upland location outside the creek channel area to
prevent seepage of sediment in to the drainage/creek system.
Monitoring Plan, MM #2: All construction and grading plan sets shall clearly note the
above mitigation measures on applicable sheets and be clearly visible to contractors and
City inspectors. Prior to issuance of building permits, a pre-construction meeting is
required between Associate Planner, Marcus Carloni (or assigned planner) and the project
contractor supervisor to ensure the above requirements are understood and complied with
at all times. Community Development Department staff and Public Works staff will
periodically inspect the site for continued compliance with the above mitigation
measures.
Mitigation Measure 3: Cultural Resources
3. If materials (including but not limited to bedrock mortars, historical trash deposits, and
human burials) are encountered during excavation, work shall cease until a qualified
archaeologist makes determinations on possible significance, recommends appropriate
measures to minimize impacts, and provides information on how to proceed in light of
the discoveries. All specialist recommendations shall be communicated to the City of San
Luis Obispo Community Development Department prior to resuming work to ensure the
project continues within procedural parameters accepted by the City of San Luis Obispo
and the State of California.
Monitoring Plan, MM #3: All construction and grading plan sets shall clearly note the
above mitigation measures on applicable sheets and be clearly visible to contractors and
City inspectors. Prior to issuance of building permits, a pre-construction meeting is
required between Associate Planner, Marcus Carloni (or assigned planner) and the project
PH1 - 12
Resolution No. _____ (2014 Series) Attachment 1
3080 Rockview (202-13)
Page 6
contractor supervisor to ensure the above requirements are understood and complied with
at all times. Community Development Department staff and Public Works staff will
periodically inspect the site for continued compliance with the above mitigation
measures.
SECTION 3. Action. The City Council hereby approves the Vesting Tentative Tract Map
and Use Permit to allow development of a site with Special Considerations, and adoption of a
Mitigated Negative Declaration (TR/A/ER 202-13), with incorporation of the following project
conditions:
Community Development Department - Planning
1. All exceptions to setback standards and conditions of approval, including those required
by the Architectural Review Commission, mitigation measures and easements shall be
shown on the final map and/or subdivision improvement/building plans.
2. Lot 5 shall provide an affordable housing unit in compliance with Section 17.91 of the
Municipal Code. An affordable housing agreement shall be recorded in compliance with
the City’s Affordable Housing Standards subject to the approval of the City Attorney.
Community Development Department - Engineering
3. All easements shall be recorded on title with the individual lots.
4. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66474.9(b), the subdivider shall defend, indemnify
and hold harmless the City and/or its agents, officers and employees from any claim,
action or proceeding against the City and/or its agents, officers or employees to attack, set
aside, void or annul, the approval by the City of this subdivision, and all actions relating
thereto, including but not limited to environmental review (“Indemnified Claims”). The
City shall promptly notify the subdivider of any Indemnified Claim upon being presented
with the Indemnified Claim and City shall fully cooperate in the defense against an
Indemnified Claim."
5. Some of the proposed lot lines are shown relatively close to the proposed building. Wall
rating requirements and opening protective will apply per Table R302.1(2). Proposed
setback dimensions shall be clearly shown on plans to assess the requirements based on
Table as referenced.
6. Park in-lieu fees shall be paid for each lot prior to map recordation in accordance with the
fee resolution in effect at the time of final map submittal/recordation.
7. Complete frontage improvements are required as a condition of the subdivision and
development. All improvements shall be designed and constructed in accordance the
City Engineering Standards and Standard Specifications in effect at the time of submittal
PH1 - 13
Resolution No. _____ (2014 Series) Attachment 1
3080 Rockview (202-13)
Page 7
of said improvements. The required subdivision improvements shall be completed or
covered by an appropriate surety prior to map recordation.
8. Grade and line shall be established by the developer for the new curb and gutter to the
satisfaction of the Public Works Director. A separate public improvement plan may be
required where grades and alignment have not been established or where significant
discrepancies are discovered. The developer is responsible for any required engineering
and/or surveying. Record drawings shall be provided at the completion of construction.
9. The required public and private subdivision improvements may be completed with a
separate subdivision improvement plan submittal processed through the Public Works
Department. As an alternate, the building plan submittal may be used to show all required
improvements. Improvements located within the public right-of-way will require a
separate encroachment permit and associated inspection fees. A separate plan review fee
based on the fee resolution in effect at the time of plan submittal will be required for the
Public Works Department review of the subdivision improvements associated with the
building plan submittal.
10. The final map shall show and note the offer of dedication for the sidewalk, public
pedestrian easement for any ADA sidewalk extensions, a 10’ PUE, and a 10’ street tree
easement.
11. Any required or proposed off-site easements or license agreements shall be secured or
recorded prior to or concurrent with recordation of the map or prior to construction.
12. Private easements for access, parking, maneuverability, drainage, utilities, and open
space shall be shown and noted on the final map. Some or all of the private easements
may be in the form of a blanket easement. The common driveway and any maintenance
agreements shall be recorded in conjunction with the map.
13. The open space easement, drainage easement, and any easement agreements shall be
reviewed and approved to the satisfaction of city’s Natural Resource Manager and Public
Works Department in conjunction with recordation of the map. Restoration planting
within the open space and creek corridor shall be approved by the Natural Resource
Manager.
14. The final map or additional map sheet shall show the limits of 100-year flood inundation
in accordance with the drainage analysis and as generally shown on the tentative map.
15. The updated project soils report shall be referenced on the map or on an additional sheet.
16. The parcel map/final map preparation and monumentation shall be in accordance with the
city’s Subdivision Regulations, Engineering Standards, and the Subdivision Map Act.
17. All boundary monuments, lot corners and centerline intersections, BC's, EC's, etc., shall
PH1 - 14
Resolution No. _____ (2014 Series) Attachment 1
3080 Rockview (202-13)
Page 8
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.
Upon motion of _______________________, seconded by _______________________,
and on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
The foregoing resolution was adopted this _____ day of _____________________ 2014.
____________________________________
Mayor Jan Marx
ATTEST:
____________________________________
Anthony Mejia
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_____________________________________
J. Christine Dietrick
City Attorney
PH1 - 15
R-2-S
R-2-S
C/OS-40
R-2-S
C-S-PD
R-2-S
C-S-S
C-S-S
C-S-PD
R-3-PD
R-2-PD
C-S-S
C-S
C-S
R-2-S
C-C-S
R-2-PD
R-1-PD
R-1-PD
R-1-PD
B
R
O
A
D
R
O
C
K
V
I
E
W
PERKIN
S
SWEEN
E
Y
ORCUTT
VICINITY MAP File No. 202-133080 Rockview ¯
Attachment 2
PH1 - 16
Attachment 3 PH1 - 17
Attachment 3 PH1 - 18
Attachment 3 PH1 - 19
Attachment 3 PH1 - 20
Attachment 3 PH1 - 21
Attachment 3 PH1 - 22
Attachment 3 PH1 - 23
Attachment 3 PH1 - 24
Attachment 3 PH1 - 25
Attachment 3 PH1 - 26
2
3
1
232
231
233
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
22
6
'
22
7
'
22
8
'
229'
229
'
229'
231
'
231'
231'
231'
232
'
232'
232'
232'
2
3
3
'
233'
233'
233'
234'
234'
236'
236
'
237'
237'
23
7
'
238'
238'
239'
239'
239'
2
2
5
'
230'
230'
2
3
0
'
235'
235
'
234
234
233
232
231
230
up
u
p
u
p
u
p u
p
u pu
pu
p
u p
231232231
233
226'227'
22
8
'
229'
229'
231'
231'
232'233'225'230'
230'
2
3
0
'
22 3232232232223223223322232332332222322232232323223223222232232232222222323223232232223222232322322323222222222322223222322322222323222232323232323232323323232333322322323332232232323222323232322332333332323333333332332232323232233232323232233232323232332323232222222 030'00'0'0'00'23223223233 3033000000230300000303003030300030023030303030300000002303033303030303000303000003112312323112312312231312221
222222222222222222222222222
2'2'2'2'2'2'2222'222222'2'2'2'2222222222 '22222''22222'2'22222'22222222222222222222222222222 11111 2331311313133111311'11111''1111 21
(E
)
2
4
"
C
A
L
I
F
O
R
N
I
A
WA
L
N
U
T
T
R
E
E
TO
B
E
R
E
M
O
V
E
D
(E
)
B
L
A
C
K
B
E
R
R
Y
.
T
R
I
M
A
S
N
E
E
D
E
D
TO
C
O
M
P
L
E
T
E
I
M
P
R
O
V
E
M
E
N
T
S
SH
O
W
N
A
N
D
P
R
E
S
E
R
V
E
B
A
L
A
N
C
E
IN
P
L
A
C
E
.
up
up
LA
W
N
LA
W
N
L-1
Co
n
c
e
p
t
u
a
l
L
a
n
d
s
c
a
p
e
P
l
a
n
Ni
n
e
o
n
R
o
c
k
v
i
e
w
Tr
a
c
t
3
0
5
7
,
S
a
n
L
u
i
s
O
b
i
s
p
o
,
C
A
November 26, 2013 File Name: Firma_Rockview_Subdivision_21358 Last Date Modified: 2/7/14
fir
m
a
l
a
n
d
s
c
a
p
e
a
r
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
s
p
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
•
e
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
s
t
u
d
i
e
s
18
7
T
a
n
k
F
a
r
m
R
o
a
d
,
S
u
i
t
e
2
3
0
,
S
a
n
L
u
i
s
O
b
i
s
p
o
,
C
A
9
3
4
0
1
ph
o
n
e
:
8
0
5
.
7
8
1
.
9
8
0
0
f
a
x
:
8
0
5
.
7
8
1
.
9
8
0
3
Le
g
e
n
d
Ri
p
a
r
i
a
n
V
e
g
e
t
a
t
i
o
n
E
n
h
a
n
c
e
m
e
n
t
A
r
e
a
(S
e
e
e
n
l
a
r
g
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
r
i
g
h
t
)
3
,
6
0
0
s
.
f
.
Fr
o
n
t
Y
a
r
d
L
a
n
d
s
c
a
p
e
A
r
e
a
(S
e
e
e
n
l
a
r
g
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
r
i
g
h
t
)
3
,
7
8
5
s
.
f
.
Re
a
r
Y
a
r
d
L
a
n
d
s
c
a
p
e
A
r
e
a
(S
e
e
e
n
l
a
r
g
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
r
i
g
h
t
)
6
,
2
3
4
s
.
f
.
Fr
o
n
t
a
n
d
R
e
a
r
Y
a
r
d
L
a
n
d
s
c
a
p
e
(
1
g
a
l
l
o
n
m
i
n
.
)
Mu
l
c
h
a
l
l
g
r
o
u
n
d
c
o
v
e
r
a
n
d
p
l
a
n
t
e
r
a
r
e
a
s
w
i
t
h
2
”
m
i
n
i
m
u
m
l
a
y
e
r
'
w
a
l
k
-
o
n
'
b
a
r
k
.
Ar
b
u
t
u
s
'
M
a
r
i
n
a
'
/
S
t
r
a
w
b
e
r
r
y
T
r
e
e
Ca
s
s
i
a
l
e
p
t
o
p
h
y
l
l
a
/
G
o
l
d
e
n
M
e
d
a
l
l
i
o
n
T
r
e
e
Pi
s
t
a
c
i
a
c
h
i
n
e
n
s
i
s
/
C
h
i
n
e
s
e
P
i
s
t
a
c
h
e
Ag
a
v
e
a
m
e
r
i
c
a
n
a
'
M
e
d
i
o
-
P
i
c
t
a
'
/
C
e
n
t
u
r
y
P
l
a
n
t
Ag
a
v
e
'
B
l
u
e
G
l
o
w
'
/
B
l
u
e
G
l
o
w
A
g
a
v
e
An
i
g
o
z
a
n
t
h
o
s
(
H
y
b
r
i
d
s
)
/
K
a
n
g
a
r
o
o
P
a
w
Tr
e
e
s
(
5
G
a
l
l
o
n
m
i
n
.
)
Al
n
u
s
r
h
o
m
b
i
f
o
l
i
a
/
W
h
i
t
e
A
l
d
e
r
Pl
a
t
a
n
u
s
r
a
c
e
m
o
s
a
/
C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
S
y
c
a
m
o
r
e
Po
p
u
l
u
s
t
r
i
c
h
o
c
a
r
p
a
/
B
l
a
c
k
C
o
t
t
o
n
w
o
o
d
Qu
e
r
c
u
s
a
g
r
i
f
o
l
i
a
/
C
o
a
s
t
L
i
v
e
O
a
k
Ri
p
a
r
i
a
n
V
e
g
e
t
a
t
i
o
n
E
n
h
a
n
c
e
m
e
n
t
A
r
e
a
(
1
g
a
l
l
o
n
m
i
n
.
)
Ba
c
c
h
a
r
i
s
p
i
l
u
l
a
r
i
s
'
P
i
g
e
o
n
P
o
i
n
t
'
/
P
r
o
s
t
r
a
t
e
C
o
y
o
t
e
B
r
u
s
h
He
t
e
r
o
m
e
l
e
s
a
r
b
u
t
i
f
o
l
i
a
/
T
o
y
o
n
My
r
i
c
a
c
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
c
a
/
P
a
c
i
f
i
c
W
a
x
M
y
r
t
l
e
Rh
a
m
n
u
s
c
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
c
a
'
E
v
e
C
a
s
e
'
/
C
o
f
f
e
e
b
e
r
r
y
Ro
s
a
c
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
c
a
/
C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
W
i
l
d
R
o
s
e
4"
m
u
l
c
h
l
a
y
e
r
u
n
d
e
r
r
i
p
a
r
i
a
n
t
r
e
e
s
o
n
b
a
n
k
Re
t
a
i
n
e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
v
e
g
e
t
a
t
i
o
n
i
n
c
h
a
n
n
e
l
b
o
t
t
o
m
.
Pl
a
n
t
t
h
e
f
o
l
l
o
w
i
n
g
p
l
a
n
t
m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
s
a
t
1
p
e
r
2
5
s
f
i
n
t
h
e
d
r
a
i
n
a
g
e
c
h
a
n
n
e
l
(
a
p
p
r
o
x
.
3
3
p
l
a
n
t
s
)
.
Pl
a
n
t
i
n
g
r
o
u
p
s
o
f
3
-
5
a
t
3
’
o
n
c
e
n
t
e
r
a
m
o
n
g
e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
v
e
g
e
t
a
t
i
o
n
.
10
J
u
n
c
u
s
p
a
t
e
n
s
(
1
g
a
l
l
o
n
)
13
C
a
r
e
x
p
r
a
e
g
r
a
c
i
l
i
s
(
1
g
a
l
l
o
n
)
10
L
e
y
m
u
s
t
r
i
t
i
c
o
i
d
e
s
(
1
g
a
l
l
o
n
)
21
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
P
l
a
n
t
M
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
s
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
p
l
a
n
t
m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
s
w
e
r
e
r
e
v
i
e
w
e
d
a
n
d
a
p
p
r
o
v
e
d
i
n
J
u
l
y
,
2
0
0
8
b
y
M
o
l
l
y
B
r
o
w
n
,
F
i
r
e
I
n
s
p
e
c
t
o
r
I
I
,
Ci
t
y
o
f
S
a
n
L
u
i
s
O
b
i
s
p
o
F
i
r
e
D
e
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
a
n
d
D
r
.
N
e
i
l
H
a
v
l
i
k
,
N
a
t
u
r
a
l
R
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
M
a
n
a
g
e
r
,
C
i
t
y
o
f
S
a
n
L
u
i
s
O
b
i
s
p
o
.
Carex tumulicola / Berkeley Sedge Festuca 'Elijah Blue' / Elijah Blue Fescue Leymus condensatus 'Canyon Prince' / Canyon Prince Wild Rye Pennisetum 'Orientale' / Oriental Fountain Grass Aptenia cordifolia / Red Apple Arctostaphylos edmundsii 'Carmel Sur'/Carmel Sur Manzanita Senecio mandraliscae / Blue Chalk Sticks
Rockview Place
Wa
t
e
r
C
o
n
s
e
r
v
a
t
i
o
n
C
o
n
c
e
p
t
S
t
a
t
e
m
e
n
t
Pl
a
n
t
i
n
g
&
i
r
r
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
p
l
a
n
s
h
a
v
e
b
e
e
n
d
e
s
i
g
n
e
d
t
o
c
o
n
s
e
r
v
e
w
a
t
e
r
.
Th
e
f
o
l
l
o
w
i
n
g
d
e
s
i
g
n
t
e
c
h
n
i
q
u
e
s
h
a
v
e
b
e
e
n
i
n
c
o
r
p
o
r
a
t
e
d
t
o
a
c
h
i
e
v
e
th
i
s
g
o
a
l
.
Ir
r
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
S
y
s
t
e
m
D
e
s
i
g
n
(
F
r
o
n
t
&
R
e
a
r
Y
a
r
d
s
)
:
Ir
r
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
s
y
s
t
e
m
t
o
b
e
a
f
u
l
l
y
a
u
t
o
m
a
t
i
c
u
n
d
e
r
g
r
o
u
n
d
s
y
s
t
e
m
u
t
i
l
i
z
i
n
g
ei
t
h
e
r
l
o
w
-
p
r
e
c
i
p
i
t
a
t
i
o
n
s
p
r
a
y
h
e
a
d
s
,
b
u
b
b
l
e
r
s
,
o
r
d
r
i
p
e
m
i
t
t
e
r
s
,
o
r
a
co
m
b
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
t
h
e
r
e
o
f
.
I
r
r
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
h
y
d
r
o
z
o
n
e
s
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
s
e
p
a
r
a
t
e
d
w
i
t
h
co
n
t
r
o
l
v
a
l
v
e
s
a
n
d
c
o
n
t
r
o
l
l
e
r
s
t
a
t
i
o
n
s
i
n
t
o
a
p
p
r
o
p
r
i
a
t
e
a
n
d
c
o
m
p
a
t
i
b
l
e
zo
n
e
s
.
M
a
t
c
h
e
d
p
r
e
c
i
p
i
t
a
t
i
o
n
s
p
r
a
y
h
e
a
d
s
h
a
v
e
b
e
e
n
u
t
i
l
i
z
e
d
f
o
r
ef
f
i
c
i
e
n
t
w
a
t
e
r
a
p
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
.
R
a
i
n
s
e
n
s
o
r
o
v
e
r
r
i
d
e
s
w
i
t
c
h
e
s
h
a
v
e
b
e
e
n
sp
e
c
i
f
i
e
d
t
o
l
i
m
i
t
i
r
r
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
d
u
r
i
n
g
r
a
i
n
y
s
e
a
s
o
n
.
Ir
r
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
S
y
s
t
e
m
D
e
s
i
g
n
(
R
i
p
a
r
i
a
n
V
e
g
e
t
a
t
i
o
n
E
n
h
a
n
c
e
m
e
n
t
A
r
e
a
)
:
Ri
p
a
r
i
a
n
V
e
g
e
t
a
t
i
o
n
E
n
h
a
n
c
e
m
e
n
t
A
r
e
a
t
o
r
e
c
e
i
v
e
t
e
m
p
o
r
a
r
y
d
r
i
p
ir
r
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
t
o
e
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
p
l
a
n
t
m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
s
.
Pl
a
n
t
i
n
g
D
e
s
i
g
n
:
Pl
a
n
t
m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
s
p
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
a
r
e
s
e
l
e
c
t
e
d
f
o
r
t
h
e
i
r
c
o
m
p
a
t
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
t
o
c
l
i
m
a
t
i
c
an
d
s
i
t
e
c
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
,
r
e
s
i
s
t
a
n
c
e
t
o
w
i
n
d
,
a
n
d
d
r
o
u
g
h
t
t
o
l
e
r
a
n
c
e
.
A
l
l
pl
a
n
t
e
r
s
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
m
u
l
c
h
e
d
w
i
t
h
a
2
”
m
i
n
i
m
u
m
l
a
y
e
r
o
f
o
r
g
a
n
i
c
m
u
l
c
h
th
r
o
u
g
h
o
u
t
,
t
o
r
e
t
a
i
n
s
o
i
l
m
o
i
s
t
u
r
e
a
n
d
r
e
d
u
c
e
w
i
n
d
e
r
o
s
i
o
n
.
A
v
a
r
i
e
t
y
of
d
r
o
u
g
h
t
-
t
o
l
e
r
a
n
t
o
r
n
a
m
e
n
t
a
l
p
l
a
n
t
s
h
a
v
e
b
e
e
n
s
e
l
e
c
t
e
d
f
o
r
f
l
o
w
e
r
co
l
o
r
,
f
o
l
i
a
g
e
t
e
x
t
u
r
e
a
n
d
m
a
t
u
r
e
s
i
z
e
t
o
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
a
n
a
t
t
r
a
c
t
i
v
e
v
i
s
u
a
l
ap
p
e
a
r
a
n
c
e
.
Wa
t
e
r
E
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
t
L
a
n
d
s
c
a
p
e
O
r
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
S
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
s
(
W
E
L
O
)
:
Cr
e
e
k
e
a
s
e
m
e
n
t
l
a
n
d
s
c
a
p
e
a
r
e
a
i
s
3
,
6
0
0
s
q
u
a
r
e
f
e
e
t
t
o
t
a
l
.
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
e
r
-
in
s
t
a
l
l
e
d
l
a
n
d
s
c
a
p
e
a
r
e
a
i
s
1
0
,
0
1
8
s
q
u
a
r
e
f
e
e
t
t
o
t
a
l
.
T
h
e
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
of
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
o
f
S
a
n
L
u
i
s
O
b
i
s
p
o
W
a
t
e
r
E
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
t
L
a
n
d
s
c
a
p
e
S
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
s
(J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
0
)
a
r
e
a
p
p
l
i
c
a
b
l
e
a
n
d
w
i
l
l
b
e
o
b
s
e
r
v
e
d
a
s
t
h
e
t
o
t
a
l
l
a
n
d
s
c
a
p
e
ar
e
a
e
x
c
e
e
d
s
2
,
5
0
0
s
q
u
a
r
e
f
e
e
t
.
(
R
e
f
e
r
t
o
S
e
c
t
i
o
n
1
7
.
8
7
.
0
2
0
A
1
.
)
Si
t
e
l
i
g
h
t
i
n
g
C
o
n
c
e
p
t
S
t
a
t
e
m
e
n
t
Lo
w
h
e
i
g
h
t
(
b
o
l
l
a
r
d
)
l
i
g
h
t
f
i
x
t
u
r
e
s
w
i
l
l
b
e
i
n
s
t
a
l
l
e
d
a
l
o
n
g
pe
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
a
n
d
p
a
r
k
i
n
g
a
r
e
a
s
(
l
o
w
v
o
l
t
a
g
e
w
i
t
h
L
E
D
l
a
m
p
s
)
an
d
s
h
i
e
l
d
e
d
t
o
d
i
r
e
c
t
l
i
g
h
t
d
o
w
n
w
a
r
d
.
Scale: 1" = 10'-0"05'10'10'North
Si
t
e
L
a
n
d
s
c
a
p
e
A
r
e
a
P
l
a
n
Ri
p
a
r
i
a
n
V
e
g
e
t
a
t
i
o
n
E
n
h
a
n
c
e
m
e
n
t
A
r
e
a
La
n
d
s
c
a
p
e
P
l
a
n
Sc
a
l
e
:
1
"
=
1
0
'
-
0
"
0
5
'
1
0
'
10
'
No
r
t
h
Ty
p
i
c
a
l
F
r
o
n
t
&
R
e
a
r
Y
a
r
d
La
n
d
s
c
a
p
e
P
l
a
n
Sc
a
l
e
:
1
"
=
2
0
'
-
0
"
0
1
0
'
2
0
'
20
'
No
r
t
h
L
o
t
1
L
o
t
2
L
o
t
3
L
o
t
4
L
o
t
5
L
o
t
6
L
o
t
7
L
o
t
8
L
o
t
9
Attachment 3 PH1 - 27
Attachment 4
Project Setback Table
Lot
Number
(model)
Direction
Roof Height
(in feet)
Above Av. Natural Grade
Required Setback
for height
(in feet)
Proposed
Setback
(in feet)
Requested setback
exceptions
Lot 1
(model a )
North 27 11.5 5 Internal
East 24-28 11.5 5 Internal
Creek
(Top of Bank) - 20 41
South 24 10 10 West
(street yard) 24-28 20 20, with tandem
parking Street Yard Parking
Lot 2
(model c)
North 28 12 28 East 23-28 12 15 South 23 10 5.5 Internal
West
(street yard) 23-28 20 14 Street Yard
Lot 3
(model a)
North 23-27 11.5 11.5 East 27 11.5 24 Creek
(Top of Bank) - 20 10 Creek
South 23-27 11.5 8 Internal
West 23 10 5 Internal
Lot 4
(model a)
North 26 11 5 Internal
East 22-26 11 7 Internal
South 22 9 9 West 22-26 11 26 Creek
(Top of Bank) - 20 18 Creek
Lot 5
(model d)
North 21-25 10.5 7.5 Internal
East 21 9 10 South 21-25 10.5 8 External property line
West 25 10.5 24
Lot 6
(model c)
North 26 11 5.5 Internal
East 22-26 11 10 External property line
South 22 9 5 Internal
West 22-26 11 3 Internal
Lot 7
(model c)
North 20 8.5 10 East 20-25 10.5 10.5 South 25 10.5 24 West 20-25 10.5 12
Lot 8
(model a)
North 22-25 10.5 10 External property line
East 25 10.5 5 Internal
South 22-25 10.5 10.5 West 22 9 24
Lot 9
(model b)
North 26 11 6 Internal
East 22-26 11 3 Internal
South 22 9 9 West 22-26 11 41 Creek
(Top of Bank) - 20 10 Creek
PH1 - 28
Attachment 5
PH1 - 29
Attachment 5
PH1 - 30
Attachment 5
PH1 - 31
Attachment 5
PH1 - 32
Attachment 5
PH1 - 33
Attachment 5
PH1 - 34
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT
SUBJECT: Review of Vesting Tentative Tract Map 3057 for a nine (9) lot common-interest
subdivision and a Use Permit to allow development on a site zoned Medium-Density Residential
with the Special Considerations overlay (R-2-S). PROJECT ADDRESS: 3080 Rockview Place BY: Jaime Hill, PMC Contract Planner Marcus Carloni, Associate Planner Phone Number: 781-7176 E-mail: mcarloni@slocity.org FILE NUMBER: TR/A/ER 202-13 FROM: Doug Davidson, Deputy Director
RECOMMENDATION: Recommend that the City Council approve Vesting Tentative Tract
Map 3057 and Use Permit A 202-13, and adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration of
Environmental Impact (Attachment 5, Draft Resolution), based on findings, and subject to
conditions.
SITE DATA
Applicant Covelop, Inc.
Representative Damien Mavis
Zoning R-2-S (Medium Density Residential,
Special Considerations)
General Plan Medium Density Residential
Site Area 31,479 square feet (0.7227 ac)
Application
Complete
Environmental
Status
February 7, 2014
Mitigated Negative Declaration was
recommended by the Community
Development Department on May 7
2014 (ER 202-14)
SUMMARY
On February 10, 2014, the City received applications for a vesting tentative tract map, use permit,
architectural review, and environmental review to create a nine-unit common interest
subdivision. The project includes construction of nine single-family homes on individual lots
(including dedication of one unit as affordable to moderate-income households), a common
driveway and landscaping, and a small bridge designed to provide access to six lots (Lots 4-9),
which are across a drainage channel.
Meeting Date: May 14, 2014
Item Number: 3
for D.D.
PC3 - 1
Attachment 5
PH1 - 35
TR/A/ER 202-13 (3080 Rockview Place)
Page 2
Following the review and approval by the Planning Commission and City Council of the use
permit to allow development of a site with Special Considerations, Vesting Tentative Map
(VTM) 3057, and Mitigated Negative Declaration, the project will be forwarded to the
Architectural Review Commission (ARC). At that time the ARC will be asked to grant approval
of the site plan and home designs and exceptions to development standards, including reductions
in street yard , other yard, and creek setbacks, and a request to allow tandem parking in a street
yard . The staff report discusses in some detail the range of development exceptions requested,
but staff is recommending that the ARC take the final action on these exceptions since
refinements to the design continue to be discussed with the applicant that might lessen or
eliminate certain exceptions.
1.0 COMMISSION’S PURVIEW
The project is VTM 3057 to create a residential common interest subdivision, and Use Permit A
202-13 to allow development on a site with the Special Considerations overlay zoning (R-2-S).
The Planning Commission’s role is to review the project in terms of its consistency with the
General Plan, Zoning, and Subdivisions Regulations, and make a recommendation to the Council
on approval of the subdivision, use permit, and environmental review. Relevant excerpts and
standards are included in the analysis where pertinent.
2.0 PROJECT INFORMATION
2.1 Site Information/Setting
The overall project site consists of ruderal vacant land (primarily non-native annual grassland).
At the center of the site is an unvegetated drainage channel, which is classified in the General
Plan as “Perennial creek with degraded corridor, high encroachment, and difficulty in restoring”.
The project site is located in an urbanized area of the City and is surrounded with multi-family
zoned residential buildings and commercial uses to the southeast. The project is approximately
1.5 miles from the end of San Luis Obispo Airport Runway 29, which is within the boundary of
Airport Land Use Plan (ALUP)1 Zone 6, but beyond Airport Noise Contours.
1 The ALUP allows for 12 front doors per acre. As measured to the center of the street right-of-way the site is
0.769ac / 12 unit/ac = 9.22 units, rounded down to 9 units.
Site Size 31,479.29 sf (0.7227 ac)
Present Use & Development Vacant ruderal land
Topography Less than 15% slope
Access Rockview Place
Surrounding Use/Zoning North: Developed multi-family properties zoned R-2.
South/Southeast: Multi-family development zoned R-2 and
Crossroads commercial center zoned Service Commercial with
Planned Development Overlay (C-S-PD).
East: Residential development zoned Service-Commercial with
Special Considerations Overlay.
West: Developed multi-family properties zoned R-2.
PC3 - 2
Attachment 5
PH1 - 36
TR/A/ER 202-13 (3080 Rockview Place)
Page 3
2.2 Project Description
The proposed project includes the following significant features:
1. Vesting Tentative Tract Map 3057 for a nine-lot common interest subdivision;
2. Eight detached two-bedroom single-family homes;
3. One designated moderate-income affordable unit – a three-bedroom single-family home
on Lot 5 entitling the project to a density bonus and one concession/incentive;2
4. A small bridge designed to provide access to six lots (Parcels 4-9) which are across a
drainage channel;
5. A common driveway and guest parking, decorative landscaping, and restorative plantings
in the constructed creek bank areas along the drainage channel;
6. Requests to allow reduced creek, street yard, and other yard setbacks, and tandem parking
in the street yard.
The nine detached, single-family homes are all two-story with attached single-car garages. There
are three different exterior building designs (A-D, with models B and D differing only
internally), which provides for an aesthetically cohesive development without falling into
monotony. Changes in massing, materials and accent colors, together with the use of quality
natural materials, provide for distinctive compact home designs. Each home provides both
ground level private yards and upper level balconies, private storage within the garage, and
laundry facilities on the upper sleeping level.
Dedication of one unit as affordable entitles the project to a 7.5% density bonus and one
incentive/concession. The applicant has proposed to utilize these entitlements by adding an
additional bedroom to the dedicated affordable unit, and requesting flexibility with regards to
setbacks. As required of a new subdivision, the Planning Commission and City Council must
approve allowance of setback reductions, details of which will be reviewed by the ARC.
The proposed access bridge is approximately 18–feet in span and located at the western extent of
Lot 6. The proposed grading and creek crossing remain similar to those approved with the
previous version of the project.
3.0 PROJECT ANALYSIS
The following discussion provides an evaluation of the project for consistency with applicable
General Plan Policies and development standards. An earlier project at this site was approved in
2011, including a tentative parcel map creating four lots and a creek setback exception
(A/MS/ER 34-11). However a final map was not recorded and the applicants have since revised
the project.
2 Zoning Regulations Section 17.90.040G and .060A: 1 affordable unit / 8 market rate units = 12.5% of the project
restricted, yielding a 7.5% density bonus. With greater than 10% of the total units restricted for families of
moderate income the developer is entitled to one incentive or concession.
PC3 - 3
Attachment 5
PH1 - 37
TR/A/ER 202-13 (3080 Rockview Place)
Page 4
3.1 General Plan Consistency
The site is designated as “Medium Density Residential” on the General Plan Land Use Element
(LUE) map and the site is currently undeveloped. The General Plan anticipates compact
residential development on small lots, with some private outdoor space for each dwelling.
General Plan conformity is essential in reviewing all development applications. The City must
make a finding that a tentative map is or is not consistent with the General Plan. Based on staff’s
detailed review, the development proposal can be found consistent with numerous General Plan
policies. Those policies are listed below in order of importance to the project in bold print and
staff’s analysis follows in italics.
1. General Plan Land Use Element (LUE) Policy 2.2.11 (Site Constraints) states:
“Residential development shall respect site constraints such as property size and
shape, ground slope, access, creeks and wetlands, wildlife habitats, native
vegetation, and significant trees”.
2. General Plan LUE Policy 2.2.8 (Natural Features) states: “Residential
developments should preserve and incorporate as amenities natural site features,
such as land forms, views, creeks, wetlands, wildlife habitats, and plants”.
Staff Analysis: The project is consistent with these policies, and is considered to be an
“acceptable” design according to Figure 8 of the COSE because the project, as
proposed, adequately respects existing constraints, preserves, and incorporates natural
site features as amenities, and enhances the degraded creek corridor.
The project includes restoring the existing drainage swale into a creek corridor, with a
re-contoured slope bank and native plant palette. The restoration plan was designed in
conjunction with the City’s Natural Resource Manager, who determined that the newly-
engineered 3:1 slope bank, together with a reduced creek setback for development, was
environmentally preferable to the alternative, which includes a more space-economical
2:1 slope with a standard 20-foot development setback. The more moderate 3:1 slope
grade is less susceptible to erosion and provides for greater site access for future
maintenance. Additionally, because of the current degraded state of the channel, there is
no native vegetation that would be affected with some creek setback encroachment. The
City’s Natural Resource Manager has recommended that at least a 10-foot setback from
the new top of bank should be maintained. The final site development plan, including
building footprints and creek setbacks, will be reviewed by the ARC.
3. General Plan LUE Policy 2.2.6 (Neighborhood Pattern) states: “All residential
development should be integrated with existing neighborhoods. Where physical
features make this impossible, the new development should create new
neighborhoods.”
PC3 - 4
Attachment 5
PH1 - 38
TR/A/ER 202-13 (3080 Rockview Place)
Page 5
Staff Analysis: This section of Rockview Place has been developed with a mixture of
single family homes and small condominium and common-interest subdivisions, including
either small-lot detached or attached units. Consistent with other similar developments,
units fronting Rockview Place would address the street, while units at the interior of the
site would address one another. Their consistent architectural style, color palate and
landscape provides for a cohesive visual setting while adding to the neighborhood’s
visual setting.
4. General Plan HE Policy 4.2 (Mixed-Income Housing) states: “Include both
market-rate and affordable units in apartment and residential condominium
projects and intermix types of units. Affordable units should be comparable in
appearance and basic quality to market-rate units.”
5. General Plan HE Program (6.14 (Housing Production) states: “Encourage
residential development through infill development and densification within City
Limits and in designated expansion areas over new annexation of land.”
Staff Analysis: The project is consistent with these policies, restricting one of the nine
units as affordable to moderate-income households. The restricted unit, Lot 5/model d, is
comparable in appearance and basic quality to other units, and also includes a third
bedroom. Consistent with State Law and City policy, the applicant has utilized the
allowable density bonus to increase the bedroom count of the affordable unit (as
described in section 2.2 above). Given the unusual site configuration and significant
portion of the site dedicated to the restored creek channel, the project relies on reduced
setbacks to utilize all of the available density, and to provide for an affordable on-site
unit. The requested setback flexibility is appropriate as the one concession/incentive that
the project is entitled to under City Affordable Housing provisions (Zoning Regulations
Section 17.90.040G and .060A).
3.2 Consistency with Property Development Standards
3.2.1 Development Standards. Common interest subdivisions provide for ownership of
separate units as well as interest in commonly owned areas that are managed and maintained
via a joint maintenance agreement. Within common interest subdivisions property
development standards 3 including, but not limited to, density, yards, and coverage, apply with
respect to both exterior property limits and within each new lot. In addition to property
development standards, each unit must also comply with development standards specific to
common interest subdivisions 4.
Each of the proposed lots is approximately 3,500 square feet in area, with an average cross
slope of less than 15%. The shapes of lots vary, as the property line layout was designed to
accommodate the allowable residential density and affordable housing, as well as restoration
of the degraded seasonal creek channel. To achieve the allowable density on this site the
project requires the Council make findings in support of approval of setback reductions to
3 Zoning Regulations Chapter 17.16 (Property Development Standards)
4 Subdivision Regulations 16.17.030B-H: Property Improvement Standards for Common Interest Subdivisions
PC3 - 5
Attachment 5
PH1 - 39
TR/A/ER 202-13 (3080 Rockview Place)
Page 6
both internal and external property lines and the restored creek corridor.
While the majority of these reductions are for internal setbacks, several could potentially
impact adjacent neighbors. Staff is continuing to work with the applicant on refinements
which would reduce these impacts, such as reversing the unit footprint on Lot 1 to reduce the
height along the side yard, and utilizing model a in lieu of model b on Lot 9 to eliminate the
need for a creek setback reduction at this location.
Subdivision Regulation Chapter 16.17.110 B requires that the Council make certain findings
to allow exceptions to property improvement standards for new common interest
subdivisions. A table comparing setback standards and those proposed is provided as
Attachment 3. Ordinance standards and project statistics are provided in Table 3.2, below.
Staff has recommended findings supporting flexibility in these standards, and allowing the
ARC to evaluate these property development exceptions with other aspects of the
development plan (e.g. street yard, side yard and creek setbacks, and tandem parking).
Table 3.2 Project Statistics
Statistics
Item Ordinance Standard A Proposed B
Street Yards 20 feet 14 or 20 feet
Other Yards 5 – 13 feet Varies
Max. Height of Structure(s) 35 feet 26-30 feet
Density 10 density units 5 10 density units6
Building Coverage (footprint) 50% ~ 25%
Private Open Space 250 sf per unit Varies > 250 sf
Common Open Space 150 sf per unit (1,350 sf) 4,618 sf within creek corridor
Total Open Space 400 sf per unit (3,600 sf) ~ 7,000 sf
Parking Spaces
(for residents)
2 per home 2 per home
Parking Spaces (for guests)
Cars
Motorcycle
Bicycle
2 car
1 motorcycle
1 short-term rack
2 car
1 motorcycle
1 bicycle rack
Landscaping n/a Private, Common & Riparian
Grading n/a 1,500 CY Fill
Notes: A. City Zoning and Subdivision Regulations
B. Applicant’s project plans submitted [February 2014]
5 Total Site Area = 0.7227 ac
Creek Area = 0.0239 ac
Net Site Area = 0.6988 ac
Allowed Density = 0.6988 ac * 12 units/ac = 8.39 units
Density bonus with 1/8 (12.5%) of units restricted = 7.5% density bonus (plus one incentive/concession) = 9.02,
(allowed to round up to next whole number per Section 17.90.040B) to 10.0 density units.
Minimum parcel size = [43,560 sf/ac ]/ [12 units/ac (1.075) ] = 3,376.7 sf
6 Proposed 8 market rate units and 1 designated moderate unit: 8.39 units x 1.075 = 9.02 du = 10 Density Units
Proposed 9.5 Density Units (eight 2-bedroom homes and one 3-bedroom home)
PC3 - 6
Attachment 5
PH1 - 40
TR/A/ER 202-13 (3080 Rockview Place)
Page 7
3.2.2 Density. Nine on Rockview is located on a narrow, L-shaped lot that is split
perpendicularly by a degraded creek corridor. The nine detached, single-family homes would
be on individual parcels created as part of a common interest subdivision. Lots range in size
from 3,430 sf to 3,582 sf, in excess of the 3,376.7 sf minimum required for a two-bedroom
home. As mentioned in the Project Description (Section 2.2), the home on Lot 5 would be
restricted for moderate income families, entitling the project to a density bonus and one
concession/incentive. The applicant has requested to apply the density bonus to the affordable
unit, increasing it to three bedrooms. The requested concession takes the form of flexibility in
setback standards, which will be reviewed by the ARC following Council approval of other
entitlements. The shapes of lots vary, as the property line layout was designed to
accommodate the allowable residential density and affordable housing, as well as restoration
of the degraded seasonal creek channel.
3.2.3 Open Space. Internal property lines and the fences that delineate individual private
yard spaces do not necessarily correspond, as fences are located to maximize the useable
portion of each lots yard area, while minimizing view conflicts and privacy issues. Property
and fence lines are shown on page A-1 of Attachment 2 (Project Plans). Each unit exceeds
the Subdivision Regulations minimum 250-square feet of qualifying private open space by
providing ground level yard space for each unit. Passive common open space is provided
within the restored creek corridor far in excess of the 1,350 sf required. Similarly, total open
space exceeds the 3,600 sf required (see table 3.2 below).
3.2.4 Access and Parking. Eight of the homes will take access via a common driveway at the
north extent of the site, while the home at the south-west corner of the property will front
Rockview Place directly. A small bridge across the creek channel would provide access to
Lots 4-9. The bridge is approximately 18–feet in span and located at the western extent of Lot
6. The crossing is proposed to be bridged with either a wood structure or a con-span open
bottom arch. Both potential options require a concrete foundation wall at each end of the span
to transfer loads from the structure to the ground.
Vehicle parking for each unit includes both one space within an attached garage and one
uncovered space immediately adjacent to the home. The uncovered parking space for Lot 1
has been proposed to be in tandem within the required street yard. Garages are sized such that
they can also provide enclosed, secure bicycle storage. Guest Parking for two vehicles, one
motorcycle, and bicycles is provided on lot 3, adjacent to the creek, and parallel to the home
on lot 9.
3.3 Environmental Review
On May 7, 2014, the Community Development Director recommended a Mitigated Negative
Declaration of Environmental Impact (Attachment 4). The Initial Study identifies potentially
significant impacts associated with air quality, and biological and cultural resources, and
provides recommendations for mitigation measures that if incorporated into the project would
reduce the potential impacts to below the threshold of significance. These mitigation measures
PC3 - 7
Attachment 5
PH1 - 41
TR/A/ER 202-13 (3080 Rockview Place)
Page 8
will affect the development phase of the project, including provisions for ensuring that natural
and cultural resources (should they be discovered) are adequately protected. With the
incorporation of the recommended mitigation measures the potential impacts to the environment
will be reduced below a level of significance.
4.0 Conclusion
Considerable effort has been made by the applicant to design a project that is consistent with the
General Plan and applicable property development standards. The type and density of
development has been planned to suit the physical character of the neighborhood and site, and
improve the condition of the creek corridor. With the incorporation of conditions of approval and
mitigation measures included in the Mitigated Negative Declaration, the design of the
subdivision and proposed improvements would enhance creek resources and provide quality
housing in an area anticipated by the General Plan for development.
For these reasons, staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt a resolution recommending
that the City Council adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration, Use Permit A 202-13, and VTM
3057. Final design of the homes, including requested setbacks and tandem parking, will be
reviewed by the ARC following Council approval. Development-specific conditions of approval
will be imposed at that time, as the project could occur without recordation of a final map as
rental units.
ALTERNATIVES
1. The Commission may provide direction to the applicant, staff or Architectural Review
Commission on modifications that should be made to the project design for better
consistency with General Plan policies, Design Guidelines, and property development
standards.
2. The Commission may recommend that the City Council deny the use permit and vesting
tentative tract map, based on findings of inconsistency with the General Plan.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Vicinity map
2. Reduced copy of project plans
3. Table identifying building setbacks
4. Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact, recommended on May 7, 2014
5. Draft Resolution
Enclosed: Full-size project plans
PC3 - 8
Attachment 5
PH1 - 42
Attachment 6
PH1 - 43
Attachment 6
PH1 - 44
Attachment 6
PH1 - 45
Attachment 6
PH1 - 46
Attachment 6
PH1 - 47
Attachment 6
PH1 - 48
Attachment 6
PH1 - 49
Attachment 6
PH1 - 50
Attachment 6
PH1 - 51
Attachment 6
PH1 - 52
Attachment 6
PH1 - 53
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT
SUBJECT: Review of revised plans for a Vesting Tentative Tract Map 3057 for a nine (9) lot
common-interest subdivision with exceptions to yard standards and a Use Permit to allow
development on a site zoned Medium-Density Residential with the Special Considerations
overlay (R-2-S). The project includes the dedication of one affordable housing unit to families
qualifying as “moderate income”. PROJECT ADDRESS: 3080 Rockview Place BY: Jaime Hill, PMC Contract Planner Marcus Carloni, Associate Planner Phone Number: 781-7176 E-mail: mcarloni@slocity.org DD FILE NUMBER: TR/A/ER 202-13 FROM: Doug Davidson, Deputy Director
RECOMMENDATION: Recommend that the City Council approve Vesting Tentative Tract
Map 3057 and Use Permit A 202-13, and adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration of
Environmental Impact (Attachment 8, Draft Resolution), based on findings, and subject to
conditions.
SITE DATA
Applicant Covelop, Inc.
Representative Damien Mavis
Zoning R-2-S (Medium Density Residential,
Special Considerations)
General Plan Medium Density Residential
Site Area 31,479 square feet (0.7227 ac)
Application
Complete
Environmental
Status
February 7, 2014
A Mitigated Negative Declaration
was recommended by the
Community Development
Department on May 7 2014 (ER 202-
14)
SUMMARY
On May 14, 2014, the Planning Commission reviewed an application for a vesting tentative tract
map, use permit, and environmental review to create a nine-unit common interest subdivision,
and continued the project to allow the applicant to address specific concerns. The applicant has
Meeting Date: August 27, 2014
Item Number: 1
Attachment 6
PH1 - 54
since revised the proposal and provided the additional requested information.
Previously staff had recommended that the ARC take the final action on requested exceptions to
development standards, including reductions in street yard, other yard, and creek setbacks, and a
request to allow tandem parking in a street yard. Because of the interest shown by Planning
Commission on the specific layout of property lines, and the effect their realignment has on
building setbacks, staff is now recommending that all setback reductions and the request for
tandem parking be reviewed as part of the subdivision map, and acted upon by the Planning
Commission. This staff report focuses on evaluation of the revisions made subsequent to the
Commissions’ earlier review. For the complete project analysis please see the May 14, 2014 staff
report; Attachment 3.
Following the review and approval by the Planning Commission and City Council of the use
permit to allow development of a site with Special Considerations, Vesting Tentative Map
(VTM) 3057) with exceptions to property development standards, and Mitigated Negative
Declaration, the project will be forwarded to the Architectural Review Commission (ARC). At
that time the ARC will be asked to take the site plan into account, but focus on the home
designs.
1.0 COMMISSION’S PURVIEW
The project is VTM 3057 to create a residential common interest subdivision, and Use Permit A
202-13 to allow development on a site with the Special Considerations overlay zoning (R-2-S).
The Planning Commission’s role is to review the project in terms of its consistency with the
General Plan, Zoning, and Subdivisions Regulations, and make a recommendation to the Council
on approval of the subdivision, use permit, and environmental review. Relevant excerpts and
standards are included in the analysis where pertinent.
2.0 PROJECT ANALYSIS
The following discussion provides an evaluation of revisions to the project following earlier
review and for consistency with previous Commission direction. For the complete project
description and evaluation for consistency with the General Plan and property development
standards, please see the May 2014, 2014 staff report (Attachment 3). The applicants’ resubmittal
letter detailing the revisions proposed is included as Attachment 4.
2.1 Planning Commission Direction
1. Simplify the pattern of lot lines to reduce instances where fence lines and property
lines differ, and reduce the need for excessive private use easements.
Applicant Response and Staff Analysis: Lot shapes and sizes have been adjusted to
simplify the internal property lines and reduce the number of private use easements,
while maintaining compliance with the minimum allowable lot sizes 1. Where previously
1 Lot sizes range from 3,392 square feet (lot 4) to 9,958 square feet (lot 2); for the density proposed, the minimum
area required per lot is 3,376 square feet.
Attachment 6
PH1 - 55
fences and property lines differed in many places, private yards and parking spaces are
now wholly on the lots they serve. A single common driveway, open space, utility and
maintenance easement incorporates all access ways, shared parking, and other site
features, such as the creek corridor, trash enclosure and bike parking (see Attachment 2,
project plans page C-1).
Although the placement and separation between homes is largely unchanged in the revised
submittal, restructuring the property lines has affected the internal setbacks. As shown on Table
2.1, internal setbacks to property lines are reduced in several locations. In two locations internal
setbacks are less than the 5-foot minimum; in both these instances the reductions are adjacent to
the private driveway, which guarantees that minimum separations required by building code will
be maintained. In all cases the required minimum setback between buildings of 10feet is
retained. The only change to an external setback is on the south side of Lot 1, discussed in item
4, below. The Zoning Regulations Section 17.16.020E2c allows the entity approving a
subdivision map to approve exceptions to other yard standards, provided at least 10feet
separation between buildings and an acceptable level of solar exposure is maintained. Staff
supports approval of these exceptions, as it will facilitate the development of affordable housing
on-site, fulfilling the applicants entitlement to one development incentive/concession 2.
Table 2.1: Setback Table
Lot
Number
(model)
Direction
Roof
Height
(in feet)
Above Av.
Natural
Grade
Required Setback
for height
(in feet)
Proposed
Setback2
(in feet)
Exceptions to the
setback requirements
requested for multiple
external and internal
setbacks
Lot 1
(model a )
North 27 11.5 5 Internal
East 24-28 11.5 5 Internal
Creek
(Top of Bank) - 20 41
South 24 10 10 West
(street yard) 24-28 20 20, with tandem
parking Street Yard Parking
Lot 2
(model c)
North 28 12 28 East 23-28 12 15 South 23 10 5.5 Internal
West
(street yard) 23-28 20 14 Street Yard
Lot 3
(model a)
North 23-27 11.5 11.5 East 27 11.5 24 Creek
(Top of Bank) - 20 10 Creek
South 23-27 11.5 8 Internal
West 23 10 5 Internal
Lot 4 North 26 11 5 Internal
2 Zoning Regulations Section 17.90.040G and .060A: 1 affordable unit / 8 market rate units = 12.5% of the project
restricted, yielding a 7.5% density bonus. With greater than 10% of the total units restricted for families of
moderate income the developer is entitled to one incentive or concession.
Attachment 6
PH1 - 56
(model a) East 22-26 11 7 Internal
South 22 9 9 West 22-26 11 26 Creek
(Top of Bank) - 20 18 Creek
Lot 5
(model d)
North 21-25 10.5 7.5 Internal
East 21 9 10 South 21-25 10.5 8 External property line
West 25 10.5 24
Lot 6
(model c)
North 26 11 5.5 Internal
East 22-26 11 10 External property line
South 22 9 5 Internal
West 22-26 11 3 Internal
Lot 7
(model c)
North 20 8.5 10 East 20-25 10.5 10.5 South 25 10.5 24 West 20-25 10.5 12
Lot 8
(model a)
North 22-25 10.5 10 External property line
East 25 10.5 5 Internal
South 22-25 10.5 10.5 West 22 9 24
Lot 9
(model b)
North 26 11 6 Internal
East 22-26 11 3 Internal
South 22 9 9 West 22-26 11 41 Creek
(Top of Bank) - 20 10 Creek
2. Explore providing public access at the eastern corner of the site to the Crossroads
Center.
Applicant Response and Staff Analysis: At the direction of the Planning Commission, the
applicant evaluated the potential for pedestrian access to the neighboring Crossroads
Commercial Center, which share about 10feet of property along their rear property lines
(see Attachment 5, Pedestrian Access Exhibit and email correspondence). Four main
issues led to the determination that such a connection was not practical:
• Pedestrian access would cross an existing drainage swale and easement from the
neighboring property which would require renegotiation and reengineering.
• The existing drainage swale at the location of potential connection contributes to
a 3-5-foot elevation change from the project site to the Crossroads parking lot.
• If access easements were granted by Crossroads, the access to the front of the
development would also need to meet ADA accessibility standards, which it does
not currently. The only feasible location for ADA access improvements would
necessitate additional engineering, demolition and construction, and would
encroach on the parking space back up distances to the extent that required
parking would be eliminated.
Attachment 6
PH1 - 57
• Both the developer and the owner of the Crossroads Commercial Center agree
that encouraging pedestrian traffic through an unattended, rear parking lot has
the potential to invite vagrancy.
Staff agrees that connections between residential and commercial facilities should be
forged where the topography and existing physical improvements are conducive.
However, given the existing design of the Crossroads Development and the potential
impacts associated with providing a public access path adjacent to a private yard (Lot 5,
the moderate-income family unit), in this instance such a connection appears to be
impracticable.
3. Submit a sample Joint Maintenance Agreement (JMA), including method for
ongoing creek maintenance.
Staff Analysis: The Planning Commission expressed concern as to how ongoing
maintenance of common facilities, including the creek corridor, would be controlled in
absence of a formal Home Owners Association (HOA). To address this concern the
applicant has submitted an exhibit that identifies several Common Interest Subdivisions
of similar scale within the City and copies of their City-approved JMAs (see Attachment
6). Although none of these other subdivisions include creek corridors, maintenance
would occur here like in any other commonly held facility. Reading of these JMAs
confirms that the CCR’s and home buyers responsibilities will be the same under a JMA
as under an HOA, only without need for professional management and the higher costs
this entails. Given the small number of homes, the ongoing monthly costs for an HOA
can be a substantial burden and negatively impact the ongoing affordability of the units.
4. Modify the home on Lot 1 to provide required South side yard setback.
Staff Analysis: The home has been mirrored to reverse the home on the site and reduce
the height along the property line, which coincides with a reduced setback requirement,
and shifted north so that it now conforms to setback standards for this exterior property
line. Additional minor adjustments have been made throughout to simplify the property
lines while meeting lot size minimums and building code requirements. As noted in
discussion item 1, above, multiply setback reductions have been requested as part of the
subdivision, but in all cases a minimum separation of 10-feet is maintained.
2.2 Additional Refinements and Information
1. 10-Foot Creek Corridor Maintained. As discussed in the May 14th staff report, the
restoration plan was designed in conjunction with the City’s Natural Resource Manager,
who determined that the newly engineered 3:1 slope bank, together with a reduced creek
setback for development, was environmentally preferable to the alternative, which
includes a more space-economical 2:1 slope with a standard 20-foot development
setback. To maintain the 10-foot creek setback recommended by the Natural Resources
Manager the home on Lot 9 was shifted north and east. Previous plans identified a creek
Attachment 6
PH1 - 58
setback of down to 7-feet at this location.
2. Adjusted guest parking layout. To accommodate the changes made to the home on Lot
9, the guest parking space that was previously shown as parallel to the east side of this
home has been rotated, to be a standard stall to the south of the home.
3. Green Building Checklist Update. The applicant revisited the Green Building Checklist
and found additional features to include which would bring the Total Targeted Points to
104 from 87; an increase of nearly 20% and more than double the minimum. These
include some additional landscape measures such as resource efficient landscapes,
minimization of turf, and installation of high-efficiency irrigation systems (see
Attachment 7, revised Green Building Checklist).
4. Finance discussion contrasting Common Interest Subdivisions with Condominiums.
Incited by the complexity of property lines and number of setback variations necessary for
this project, there was some discussion by the Planning Commission on whether an
attached condominium product would yield a better housing product than would a
Common Interest Subdivision. In their cover letter, the applicant provides an assessment
of the total cost differences to homeowners that result from the different subdivision
approaches in consideration of the financing opportunities and HOA fees that the buyers
of the homes will face (Attachment 4). According to the information provided, ongoing
expenses and the ability to obtain low-cost financing would both be negatively impacted
by development as a condominium based on structural requirements outside the developer
or City’s control.
3.0 Environmental Review
On May 7, 2014, the Community Development Director recommended a Mitigated Negative
Declaration of Environmental Impact (Attachment 8). The Initial Study identifies potentially
significant impacts associated with air quality, and biological and cultural resources, and
provides recommendations for mitigation measures that if incorporated into the project would
reduce the potential impacts to below the threshold of significance. These mitigation measures
will affect the development phase of the project, including provisions for ensuring that natural
and cultural resources (should they be discovered) are adequately protected. Revisions to the
project since the publication of the document have been evaluated and determined not to have
created any new impacts not previously discussed. With the incorporation of the recommended
mitigation measures the potential impacts to the environment will be reduced below a level of
significance.
4.0 Conclusion
Considerable effort has been made by the applicant to comply with the direction provided by the
Planning Commission, and design a project that will provide affordable detached homes in the
City of San Luis Obispo. The type and density of development has been planned to suit the
physical character of the neighborhood and site, and improve the condition of the creek corridor.
With the incorporation of conditions of approval and mitigation measures included in the
Attachment 6
PH1 - 59
Mitigated Negative Declaration, the design of the subdivision and proposed improvements would
enhance creek resources and provide quality housing in an area anticipated by the General Plan
for development.
For these reasons, staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt a resolution recommending
that the City Council adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration, Use Permit A 202-13, and VTM
3057. Final design of the homes will be reviewed by the ARC following Council approval.
Development-specific conditions of approval will be imposed at that time, as the project could be
constructed as rental units without recordation of a final map.
ALTERNATIVES
1. The Commission may provide direction to the applicant, staff or Architectural Review
Commission on modifications that should be made to the project design for better
consistency with General Plan policies, Design Guidelines, and property development
standards.
2. The Commission may recommend that the City Council deny the use permit and vesting
tentative tract map, based on findings of inconsistency with the General Plan.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Vicinity map
2. Reduced copy of project plans
3. May 14, 2014 Planning Commission Staff Report
4. CoVelop response to Planning Commission Comments, June 24, 2014
5. Pedestrian Access Exhibit and email correspondence between CoVelop and Cross Roads
Center, June 25, 2014
6. Common Interest Subdivision Exhibits and Joint Maintenance Agreements
7. Revised Green Building Checklist
8. Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact, recommended on May 7, 2014
9. Draft Resolution
Attachment 6
PH1 - 60
1
INITIAL STUDY
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
For ER # 202-13
1. Project Title:
Nine on Rockview
9 Lot Common Interest Subdivision, Vesting Tentative Tract Map, with creek and yard setback
exception requests, on a site with Special Considerations; City File A/ARC/TR/ER 202-13.
2. Lead Agency Name and Address:
City of San Luis Obispo
919 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
3. Contact Person and Phone Number:
Marcus Carloni, Associate Planner
805-781-7176
4. Project Location:
3080 Rockview Place (APN 004-583-048/049)
5. Project Sponsor’s Name and Address:
Covelop, Inc. c/o Damien Mavis (Project Representative)
P.O. Box 12910
San Luis Obispo, CA 93406
6. General Plan Designation:
Medium Density Residential
7. Zoning:
Medium-Density Residential with Special Considerations Overlay (R-2-S)
Attachment 7
PH1 - 61
2
8. Description of the Project:
The project proposes the following:
1. Nine lot Common Interest Subdivision
2. Construction of nine detached single-family homes (approximately 1,700 square feet
each), including one unit affordable to moderate-income households, and relying on a
7.5% density bonus and exception to allow reduced setbacks.
a. One 3-bedroom residence (the designated affordable unit)
b. Eight 2-bedroom residences
3. Creek setback reductions to allow a small bridge providing access to Lots 4-9 and both
structures and uncovered parking on lots 3, 4, 8 and 9.
4. Street and Other yard setback reductions to allow reduced setbacks at both internal and
external property lines on lots.
5. Tandem parking within the street yard on Lot 2
6. Complete road improvements along Rockview Place.
The proposed project includes a nine-lot Common Interest Subdivision, construction of a single-
family home on each new lot, and a small bridge designed to provide access to six lots (Parcels
4-9) which are across a drainage channel. The project also includes restorative plantings along
constructed creek bank areas along the drainage channel, which is classified in the General Plan
as “Perennial creek with degraded corridor, high encroachment, and difficulty in restoring”.
Access to eight of the nine parcels is proposed via a common driveway from Rockview Place
(Lot 1 would take access directly from Rockview Place). The bridge is approximately 18–feet in
span and located at the western extent of Lot 6. The crossing is proposed to be bridged with
either a wood structure or a con-span open bottom arch. Both potential options require a concrete
foundation wall at each end of the span to transfer loads from the structure to the ground.
Numerous yard setback reductions have been requested, for internal and external property lines
given the height of the structures, and along the restored creek. The applicant has provided a
winter solstice shading plan (Attachment 2: project plans, page A7), demonstrating the additional
shading that would affect properties to the north and east. A 20-foot Creek setback is required
unless some lesser setback is approved through the Use Permit process. Together with the
uncovered parking and trash enclosures, which are allowable accessory features per Section
17.16.25G2 and 3 of the Zoning Code, the requested encroachment for the homes account for
less than 21% of the creek setback area, below the 50% maximum allowed by Zoning
Regulations Section 17.16.025G2. These setback reductions will be subject to the review and
approval of the Architectural Review Commission. Internal property lines were established to
comply with City density standards. But in order to provide more functional outdoor spaces the
project relies on an alternative fencing plan and easements, which allow each residence to have
more useable spaces. All buildings would maintain a minimum separation of 9-feet.
Attachment 7
PH1 - 62
3
The following table identifies yard requirements, proposed setbacks, and functional setback
where easements/fencing plan differ from property lines.
Lot
Number
(model)
Direction
Roof
Height
(in feet)
Required Setback
(in feet)
Proposed Setback
(in feet)
Functional Setback
(in feet)
Lot 1
(model a)
North 23.5 10 5 4
East 23.5-28.5 12.5 38 13-35
South* 28.5 12.5 6 6
West (street yard)* 23.5-28.5 20 20, tandem parking 20, tandem parking
Lot 2
(model c)
North* 28.5 12.5 32 5-12
East 23.5-28.5 12.5 12 13
South 23.5 10 5 6
West(street yard)* 23.5-28.5 20 14 14
Lot 3
(model a)
North* 22.5-27.5 12 27 4
East 27.5 12 13 2-12
South 22.5-27.5 12 6 3-8
West 22.5 10 16 1-10
Creek (east) 27.5 20 11 n/a
Lot 4
(model a)
North 22 9 5 3
East 22-27 11.5 5 9
South* 27 11.5 10 10
West 22-27 11.5 60 10
Creek (west) 22-27 20 14 n/a
Lot 5
(model d)
North 21.5-26.5 11.5 9 5
East* 26.5 11.5 10 10
South* 21.5-26.5 11.5 9 9
West 21.5 9 30 8
Lot 6
(model c)
North 27.5 12 4 8
East* 22.5-27.5 12 10 10
South 22.5 10 4 8
West 22.5-27.5 12 21 8
Lot 7
(model c)
North* 21 9 10 10
East* 21-26 11 10 10
South 26 11 25 5
West 21-26 11 12 12
Lot 8
(model a)
North* 20-25 10.5 10 5
East 25 10.5 5 5
South 20-25 10.5 16 8
West* 20 8.5 24 4
Creek (west) 20 20 14 n/a
Lot 9
(model a)
North 27 11.5 4 5-11
East 22-27 11.5 5 6
South 22 9 8 10
West 22-27 11.5 50 9
Creek (west) 22-27 20 7 n/a
Notes: * External Setback
Bold Text Indicates Reduced Yard Setback
Attachment 7
PH1 - 63
4
9. Surrounding Land Uses and Settings:
The overall project site consists of 31,479 square feet (0.7227 acres) of ruderal vacant land
(primarily non-native annual grassland) zoned R-2-S (Medium-Density Residential Special
Considerations Overlay). The project site is located in an urbanized area of the City and is
surrounded with multi-family zoned residential buildings and commercial uses to the southeast.
Existing uses surrounding the site area are as follows:
West: Developed multi-family properties zoned R-2.
North: Developed multi-family properties zoned R-2.
East: Residential development zoned Service-Commercial with Special Considerations Overlay.
South/Southeast: Multi-family development zoned R-2 and Crossroads commercial center
zoned Service Commercial with Planned Development Overlay (C-S-PD).
See Attachment 1, Vicinity Map.
In 2011 a tentative parcel map creating four lots and a creek setback exception were approved
(A/MS/ER 34-11). A final map was not recorded and those approvals have since expired.
10. Project Entitlements Requested:
Use Permit: Use Permit approval is required to allow development of a site with Special
Considerations, reduced side and street yard setbacks, reduced creek setbacks for the bridge
structure, residences and unenclosed parking, and tandem parking within a street yard.
Architectural Review: Architectural Review Commission (ARC) approval is required for the site
layout and home designs. The ARC will also take action on the requested setback reductions and
tandem parking.
Tentative Tract Map: Tentative Tract Map approval will be required for the proposed nine lot
common interest subdivision. The vesting tentative tract map will require a Planning
Commission review and City Council approval. The Council will also take action on allowing
development of a site with Special Considerations at this time.
11. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or
participation agreement.):
Air Pollution Control District – grading permits
Attachment 7
PH1 - 64
5
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.
Aesthetics
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Population / Housing
Agriculture Resources
Hazards & Hazardous
Materials
Public Services
X
Air Quality
Hydrology / Water Quality
Recreation
X
Biological Resources
Land Use / Planning
Transportation / Traffic
X
Cultural Resources
Mineral Resources
Utilities / Service Systems
Geology / Soils
Noise
Mandatory Findings of
Significance
FISH AND GAME FEES
The Department of Fish and Wildlife has reviewed the CEQA document and written no effect
determination request and has determined that the project will not have a potential effect on fish, wildlife,
or habitat (see attached determination).
X
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. This initial study has
been circulated to the California Department of Fish and Wildlife for review and comment.
STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
X
This environmental document must be submitted to the State Clearinghouse for review by one or more
State agencies (e.g. Cal Trans, California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Department of Housing and
Community Development). The public review period shall not be less than 30 days (CEQA Guidelines
15073(a)).
Attachment 7
PH1 - 65
6
DETERMINATION (To be completed by the Lead Agency):
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment,
and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been
made, by or agreed to by the project proponent. 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 “potentially significant” impact(s) or “potentially
significant unless mitigated” impact(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. 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,
because all potentially significant effects (1) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR
or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (2) have been avoided
or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR of NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions
or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.
Signature Date
For: Derek Johnson
Pam Ricci, AICP, Senior Planner Community Development Director
Attachment 7
PH1 - 66
7
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
1. A brief explanation is required for all answers except “No Impact” answers that are adequately supported by the
information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A “No Impact” answer is
adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects
like the one involved (e.g. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A “No Impact” answer should be explained
where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g. the project will not expose sensitive
receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis).
2. All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well
as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts.
3. Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must
indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant.
"Potentially Significant Impact' is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If
there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required.
4. “Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With 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 19, "Earlier Analysis," as described in (5) below, 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)). In this case, a brief
discussion should identify the following:
a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review.
b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and
adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects
were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are “Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated,” describe
the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they
addressed site-specific conditions for the project.
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.
7. Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted
should be cited in the discussion.
8. The explanation of each issue should identify:
a) The significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and
b) The mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance
Attachment 7
PH1 - 67
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER # 202-13 (A/ARC/TR/ER 202-13)
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
8
1. AESTHETICS. Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? 1, 5 --X--
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not
limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, open space, and historic
buildings within a local or state scenic highway?
5, 11 --X--
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of
the site and its surroundings?
1,11 --X--
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would
adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
29 --X--
Evaluation
a) The proposed project is in an urbanized section of the City and will not have adverse effects on a scenic vista.
b, c) The proposed project will not damage or alter any scenic resources that are visible from a local or state scenic highway.
Visual resources in the vicinity of the site include views of the South Hills (open space). The applicant proposes development
of single-family residences with maximum peak heights that are well below the maximum allowed (35-feet). The proposed
project is consistent with the scale of neighboring development and will not obstruct views of the South Hills. Additionally,
the project will be reviewed by the Architectural Review Commission for consistency with the Community Design
Guidelines.
d) The project is located in an already urbanized area with light sources from neighboring residential uses, and light from
vehicular circulation along neighboring streets. The proposed project will not create a new source of substantial light or glare
or affect nighttime views in the area. The project will be required to conform to the Night Sky Preservation Ordinance
(Zoning Regulations Chapter 17.23) which sets operational standards and requirements for lighting installations.
Conclusion: Less than significant impact
2. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of
Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps
pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of
the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?
14
--X--
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a
Williamson Act contract?
10 --X--
c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to
their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland
to non-agricultural use?
12
--X--
Evaluation
a) b) c) The project site is not located on farmland nor is it designated for agricultural uses in the General Plan. The project
site is surrounded by developed properties and public streets. The Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the
California Resources Agency designate this property as Urban and Built-Up Land. There is no Williamson Act contract in
effect on the project site. Redevelopment of the site will not contribute to conversion of farmland. No impacts to existing on
site or off site agricultural resources are anticipated with development of the project site.
Conclusion: No Impact
3. AIR QUALITY. Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or
air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air
quality plan?
9, 16 --X--
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an
existing or projected air quality violation?
--X--
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria
pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an
--X--
Attachment 7
PH1 - 68
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER # 202-13 (A/ARC/TR/ER 202-13)
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
9
applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard
(including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative
thresholds for ozone precursors)?
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations?
--X--
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of
people?
--X--
Evaluation
a), b), c), d) The Clean Air Plan (CAP) for San Luis Obispo County was developed and adopted by the Air Pollution Control
District (APCD) and is a comprehensive planning document designed to reduce emissions from traditional industrial and
commercial sources, as well as from motor vehicle use. Conservation and Open Space Element Policy 2.3.2 states that the
City will help the APCD implement the CAP. Assessment of potential air quality impacts that may result from the proposed
project was conducted using the April 2012, CEQA Air Quality Handbook. The CEQA Air Quality Handbook is provided by
the County of San Luis Obispo Air Pollution Control District for the purpose of assisting lead agencies in assessing the
potential air quality impacts from residential, commercial and industrial development. Under CEQA, the SLO County APCD
is a responsible agency for reviewing and commenting on projects that have the potential to cause adverse impacts to air
quality.
Operational Screening Criteria for Project Impacts:
Based on reference of Table 1-1 of the CEQA Air Quality Handbook, both thresholds of significance for the APCD Annual
Bright Line threshold (MT CO2e) and reactive organic gases (ROG) and oxides of nitrogen (NO x ) would not be exceeded by
the proposed project. The project is well below operational thresholds of significance.
Construction Significance Criteria:
Temporary impacts from the project, including but not limited to excavation and construction activities, vehicle emissions
from heavy duty equipment and naturally occurring asbestos, has the potential to create dust and emissions that exceed air
quality standards for temporary and intermediate periods. However, the following dust control measures are recommended to
augment existing City regulations and reduce any potential impacts.
Mitigation Measure 1:
1. During construction/ground disturbing activities, the applicant shall implement the following particulate (dust) control
measures. These measures shall be shown on grading and building plans. In addition, the contractor shall designate a
person or persons to monitor the dust control program and to order increased watering, as necessary, to prevent
transport of dust off site. Their duties shall include holiday and weekend periods when work may not be in progress.
The name and telephone number of such persons shall be provided to the Community Development and Public Works
Departments prior to commencement of construction.
a. Reduce the amount of disturbed area where possible.
b. Use water trucks or sprinkler systems in sufficient quantities to prevent airborne dust from leaving the site.
Increased watering frequency will be required whenever wind speeds exceed 15 m.p.h. and cessation of grading
activities during periods of winds over 25 m.p.h. Reclaimed (non-potable) water is to be used in all construction
and dust-control work.
c. Dirt stock pile areas (if any) should be sprayed daily as needed.
d. Vehicle speed for all construction vehicles shall not exceed 15 m.p.h. on any unpaved surface at the construction
site.
e. All trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials, are to be covered or should maintain at least two feet of
freeboard (minimum vertical distance between top of load and top of trailer) in accordance with California
Vehicle Code Section 23114.
f. Scheduling of construction truck trips during non-peak hours to reduce peak hour emissions.
g. If determined to be needed, periodic washdowns or mechanical streetsweeping of streets in the vicinity of the
construction site shall be done.
Attachment 7
PH1 - 69
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER # 202-13 (A/ARC/TR/ER 202-13)
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
10
e) The project includes the development of nine single-family residences, as anticipated in the Medium-Density Residential
zone, and therefore would not include any potential land uses which would have the potential to produce objectionable odors
in the area.
Conclusion: With recommended construction mitigation measures, the project will have a less than significant impact on air
quality.
4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through
habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate,
sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans,
policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish
and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
5,10,
11
--X--
b) Have a substantial adverse effect, on any riparian habitat or
other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional
plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department
of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
--X--
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected
wetlands as defined in Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.)
through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or
other means?
--X--
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident
or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native
resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of
native wildlife nursery sites?
--X--
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting
biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or
ordinance?
--X--
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted habitat Conservation
Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved
local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
--X--
Evaluation
(a-f) There is no known candidate, sensitive or special status species in the immediate vicinity of the project. The City’s
Natural Resource Manager has visited the site and identified no biological issues associated with the project.
No heritage trees or significant native vegetation exist on the site. A tributary of Acacia Creek runs through the site. The
drainage way that runs through the property has been highly disturbed and is in a degraded condition. While the creek’s value
as a significant biological corridor is diminished by its physical separation from other segments of the riparian corridor, its
condition could be improved with the proposed project development. The City’s Natural Resources Manager has reviewed
the project plans and has recommended a grading and planting plan which would retain existing vegetation in the channel
bottom and establish native plantings along the banks of the drainage way to establish a riparian corridor and promote
restoration of the creek habitat. It is not anticipated that any areas meeting the criteria for jurisdictional wetlands will be
disturbed by the project and the project site is not part of a local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan.
The large, multi-trunked Walnut tree in the northeast portion of the site would be removed with the proposed development.
Both the City Arborist and Natural Resources Manager have reviewed the removal and concurred that the proposed landscape
plan, including both street trees and trees within the riparian corridor, provide adequate mitigation. This tree was previously
approved for removal with an earlier development application and planting plan (A/MS/ER 34-11).
Conclusion: Potentially significant unless mitigation incorporated
Community Development Department, Planning Division staff recommends a number of mitigation measures to reduce
Attachment 7
PH1 - 70
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER # 202-13 (A/ARC/TR/ER 202-13)
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
11
potential direct impacts to species downstream of the project including erosion control measures and measures to eliminate
sedimentation downstream of the project site; all of which are incorporated into this Initial Study as follows:
Mitigation Measure 2:
The project shall incorporate the following erosion control measures for work in and around the riparian corridor:
a. No heavy equipment should enter flowing water.
b. Equipment will be fuelled and maintained in an appropriate staging area removed from the riparian corridor.
c. Restrict all heavy construction equipment to the project area or established staging areas.
d. All project related spills of hazardous materials within or adjacent to the project area shall be cleaned up immediately. Spill
prevention and clean up materials should be onsite at all times during construction.
e. All spoils should be relocated to an upland location outside the creek channel area to prevent seepage of sediment in to the
drainage/creek system.
5. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a
historic resource as defined in §15064.5.
10,21,
22, 23
--X--
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an
archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5)
--X--
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource
or site or unique geologic feature?
--X--
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of
formal cemeteries?
--X--
Evaluation
a-d) The existing property does not contain any historic or prehistoric archaeological resources identified on city maintained
resource maps and no known archaeological resources exist within the project site. Though the site is not within an
archaeologically sensitive area and additional study to determine the presence of archaeological historical resources is not
required, there is the limited potential that materials (including but not limited to bedrock mortars, historical trash deposits,
and human burials) could be encountered given the proximity to the creek.
Conclusion: Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated
In the event archaeological resources are found, the following mitigation measure will be in effect:
Mitigation Measure 3
If materials (including but not limited to bedrock mortars, historical trash deposits, and human burials) are encountered
during excavation, work shall cease until a qualified archaeologist makes determinations on possible significance,
recommends appropriate measures to minimize impacts, and provides information on how to proceed in light of the
discoveries. All specialist recommendations shall be communicated to the City of San Luis Obispo Community Development
Department prior to resuming work to ensure the project continues within procedural parameters accepted by the City of San
Luis Obispo and the State of California.
6. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project:
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse
effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving:
4,10,
28, 30
I. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the
most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map
issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other
substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of
Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.
--X--
II. Strong seismic ground shaking? --X--
III. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? --X--
IV. Landslides? --X--
Attachment 7
PH1 - 71
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER # 202-13 (A/ARC/TR/ER 202-13)
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
12
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? --X--
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that
would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially
result in on or off site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence,
liquefaction or collapse?
--X--
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 1802.3.2
[Table 1806.2) of the California Building Code (2007) [2010],
creating substantial risks to life or property?
--X--
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic
tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers
are not available for the disposal of waste water?
--X--
Evaluation
a) San Luis Obispo County, including the City of San Luis Obispo is located within the Coast Range Geomorphic Province,
which extends along the coastline from central California to Oregon. This region is characterized by extensive folding,
faulting, and fracturing of variable intensity. In general, the folds and faults of this province comprise the pronounced
northwest trending ridge-valley system of the central and northern coast of California.
Under the Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone Act, the State Geologist is required to delineate appropriately wide special
studies zones to encompass all potentially and recently-active fault traces deemed sufficiently active and well-defined as to
constitute a potential hazard to structures from surface faulting or fault creep. In San Luis Obispo County, the special Studies
Zone includes the San Andreas and Los Osos faults. The edge of this study area extends to the westerly city limit line, near
Los Osos Valley Road. According to a recently conducted geology study, the closest mapped active fault is the Los Osos
Fault, which runs in a northwest direction and is about one mile from the City’s westerly boundary. Because portions of this
fault have displaced sediments within a geologically recent time (the last 10,000 years), portions of the Los Osos fault are
considered “active”. Other active faults in the region include: the San Andreas, located about 30 miles to the northeast, the
Nacimiento, located approximately 12 miles to the northeast, and the San Simeon-Hosgri fault zone, located approximately
12 miles to the west.
Although there are no fault lines on the project site or within close proximity, the site is located in an area of “High Seismic
Hazards,” specifically Seismic Zone D, which means that future buildings constructed on the site will most likely be
subjected to excessive ground shaking in the event of an earthquake. Structures must be designed in compliance with seismic
design criteria established in the California Building Code for Seismic Zone D. To minimize this potential impact, the
California Building Code and City Codes require new structures be built to resist such shaking or to remain standing in an
earthquake. No mitigation measures are necessary.
b) This is an infill site located in an urbanized area and the planting plan for the drainage channel that runs through the
property is specifically designed to enhance the riparian channel to prevent further erosion. The project will not result in loss
of topsoil.
c), d) The Safety Element of the General Plan indicates that the project site has a high potential for liquefaction, which is true
for most of the City. Development will be required to comply with all City Codes, including Building Codes, which require
proper documentation of soil characteristics for designing structurally sound buildings to ensure new structures are built to
resist such shaking or to remain standing in an earthquake. The Building Division of the Community Development
Department routinely reviews project plans for compliance with recommendations of the soils engineering reports.
e) The proposed project will be required to connect to the City’s sewer system. Septic tanks or alternative wastewater systems
are not proposed and will not be used on the site.
Conclusion: Less than significant impact.
Attachment 7
PH1 - 72
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER # 202-13 (A/ARC/TR/ER 202-13)
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
13
7. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS. Would the project:
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly,
that may have a significant impact on the environment?
1, 2,
13
X
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for
the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases.
X
Evaluation
a) b) In addition to the criteria pollutants discussed in the above air quality analysis, the state of California recently passed
Assembly Bill 32, the California Global Warming Solution Act of 2006 and California Governor Schwarzenegger Executive
Order S-3-05 (June 1, 2005), both require reductions of greenhouse gases in the State of California. The proposed project will
result in infill development, located in close proximity to transit, services and employment centers. City policies recognize
that compact, infill development allow for more efficient use of existing infrastructure and Citywide efforts to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions. The City’s Climate Action Plan (CAP) also recognizes that energy efficient design will result in
significant energy savings, which result in emissions reductions. The proposed development includes several features
recognized on the GreenPoint Rated Checklist, scoring 87 total points, which far exceeds the minimum requirements of the
program (minimum qualification = 50 points).
Conclusion: Less than significant impact.
8. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment
through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous
materials?
28, 30
--X--
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment
through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions
involving the release of hazardous materials into the
environment?
30
--X--
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely
hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter
mile of an existing or proposed school?
10, 30
--X--
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous
materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section
65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to
the public or the environment?
10
--X--
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where
such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public
airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety
hazard for people residing or working in the project area?
27, 30
--X--
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the
project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working
in the project area?
10, 12
--X--
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an
adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation
plan?
4, 30
--X--
h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury,
or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are
adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed
with wildlands?
4, 11
--X--
Evaluation
a), b), c), d) The proposed project involves a land division to allow development of nine small single-family residential lots,
Attachment 7
PH1 - 73
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER # 202-13 (A/ARC/TR/ER 202-13)
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
14
and associated site improvements, and would not involve the use, transportation, disposal, or emission of hazardous
materials. The site is not listed as having known hazardous materials or contamination, and there are no existing or proposed
schools within one-quarter mile of the site.
e), f), The project site is located within Safety area S-2 of the San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport. Table 10 of the
Airport Land Use plan allows up to a maximum of 12 density units per acre with an approved ACOS (Airport Compatible
Open Space Area). The proposed project’s density is less than 12 density units per acre. The project site is not in the vicinity
of a private airstrip.
g), h) The project site is an infill site and plans have been reviewed by the Fire Marshal who determined that as designed the
project will not conflict with any emergency response plan or evacuation plan. The site is not directly adjacent to any
wildlands.
Conclusion: Less than significant impact.
9. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge
requirements?
10,19,
25,
30, 31
--X--
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere
substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would
be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local
groundwater table level (e.g. the production rate of pre-existing
nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support
existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been
granted)?
--X--
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or
area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream
or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion
or siltation on or off site?
--X--
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or
area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream
or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface
runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on or off site?
--X--
e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the
capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or
provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?
--X--
f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? --X--
g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on
a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map
or other flood hazard delineation map?
--X--
h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which
would impede or redirect flood flows?
--X--
i) Expose people or structures to significant risk of loss, injury or
death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the
failure of a levee or dam?
--X--
j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? 11, 12 --X--
Evaluation
a), f) This project received the first discretionary development approvals prior to March 6, 2014 so is not subject to the
current stormwater regulations as promulgated by the Regional Water Quality Control Board. The proposed plan is subject to
the requirements for Interim Low Impact Development as a Tier 3 Project, as it is a residential subdivision map of 5 or more
units. The applicant proposes to store and release the sites’ increased storm water runoff in a subsurface detention/retention
system. The re-vegetated creek corridor will also act as a vegetated bioswale, which will further decrease runoff and siltation
compared to the current degraded configuration. Bio-swales will be used where possible to direct runoff into the sites
subsurface system, which complies with the City’s Low Impact Development (LID) Tier 3 standards for stormwater runoff.
Attachment 7
PH1 - 74
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER # 202-13 (A/ARC/TR/ER 202-13)
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
15
The project will comply with City Engineering Standard 1010.B for water quality treatment of stormwater runoff from
expanded street paving; requiring the treatment for storm events.
b) The project will be served by the City’s sewer and water systems and will not deplete groundwater resources.
c), d), e), i) Physical improvement of the project site will be required to comply with the drainage requirements of the City’s
Waterways Management Plan. This plan was adopted for the purpose of insuring water quality and proper drainage within the
City’s watershed. The Waterways Management Plan requires that site development be designed so that post-development
site drainage does not significantly exceed pre-development run-off. The applicant proposes to store and release the sites
increased storm water runoff in a subsurface detention/retention system. The re-vegetated creek corridor will also act as a
vegetated bioswale, which will further decrease runoff and siltation compared to the current degraded configuration. The
Drainage Analysis prepared by Keith V. Crowe concludes the project’s water flows increase minimally from preconstruction
to post-construction, which complies with the City’s Waterways Management Plan. Compliance with the Waterways
Management Plan is sufficient to mitigate any potentially significant impacts of the project in the areas of water quality and
hydrology. The Public Works Department has determined that the proposed improvements, including frontage improvements
to redirect flows, bioswales in the reengineered creek corridor, and sizes of the detention/retention system are sufficient to
avoid drainage impacts, such as flooding, on-site or downstream.
g), h) The project site is located at the base of the South Hills and is not within the boundaries of an area subject to inundation
from flood waters in a 100-year storm per the Federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map. The project will
not impede or re-direct the flow of any waters.
j) The proposed development is outside the zone of impacts from seiche or tsunami, and the existing upslope projects do not
generate significant storm water runoff such to create a potential for inundation by mudflow. The Soils Engineering Report
prepared by GeoSolutions, Inc has not identified upslope or on-site slope instability.
Conclusion: Less than significant impact
10. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community? 1, 10 --X--
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation
of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but
not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal
program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of
avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
1, 9,
31
--X--
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or
natural community conservation plan?
5, 12 --X--
Evaluation
a), c) The proposed infill development project is designed to fit among existing residential development and will not
physically divide an established community or conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community
conservation plans.
b) The proposed project will not conflict with applicable land use plans, policies, or regulations for the purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an environmental effect. The project is proposed to be consistent with City regulations and development standards,
with the exception of a request for reduced setbacks which would allow development of structures and unenclosed parking
within the minimum creek and yard setbacks, as depicted within the Project Description, on page 3 of this document.
The City’s Natural Resource Manager has reviewed the proposed creek setback reductions and concluded that with the
implementation of the creek corridor restoration plan, including re-engineered 3:1 slope-banks and riparian vegetation plan,
the setback reductions are less than significant and the project will result in improved conditions.
Home designs rely on exceptions to both internal and external property setback standards. Within the development, internal
lot lines were derived to meet required minimum lot sizes, but do not always correlate with fence lines and the separation of
spaces. Easements would be utilized to maximize functional yard areas while also minimizing view or privacy issues. In no
case would building separation be less than the minimum requirements. The Architectural Review Commission will review
Attachment 7
PH1 - 75
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER # 202-13 (A/ARC/TR/ER 202-13)
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
16
the proposed setback exceptions and determine if they are appropriate and if the diminished solar exposure is acceptable.
Conclusion: Less than significant impact.
11. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource
that would be of value to the region and the residents of the
state?
5
--X--
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral
resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan,
specific plan or other land use plan?
--X--
Evaluation
a), b) There are no known mineral resources on the project site.
Conclusion: No impact
12. NOISE. Would the project result in:
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of
standards established in the local general plan or noise
ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
3, 9,
10
--X--
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne
vibration or groundborne noise levels?
--X--
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the
project vicinity above levels existing without the project?
--X--
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise
levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the
project?
--X--
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan, or where
such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public
airport or public use airport, would the project expose people
residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the
project expose people residing or working in the project area to
excessive noise levels?
27
--X--
10,12 --X--
Evaluation
a), c) The Noise Guidebook includes distances from the center line of roads to noise contours on sites along roadways with
heavier traffic volumes. The table indicates that existing noise levels at the site are below 60 decibels (dB) Ldn. With build-
out of the City noise levels will increase to about 60 at the most easterly portion of the project site. The Guidebook indicates
that these estimates should be taken as worst case estimates and do not take into account shielding by buildings or landforms
which can reduce noise exposure up to 14 dB. Residences are designated as noise sensitive by the Noise Element. The Noise
Element indicates that noise levels of 60 dB are acceptable for outdoor activity areas and 45 dB for indoor areas. Exterior
noise levels will be less than 60 dB when attenuation afforded by intervening buildings or property fencing is taken into
account. Interior noise levels of less than 45dB will be achievable with standard building materials and construction
techniques. Noise and ground borne vibrations may occur during construction. However, the temporary noise and vibration
will have less than significant impacts since construction will be during daytime hours and temporary in nature.
b), d) Site development will result in increases in ambient noise levels but not to significant levels because policies in the
City’s Noise Element regulate potential noise impacts. Noise increases that would affect ambient levels are to be reduced to
thresholds determined to be acceptable in residential areas. Construction activities also generate noise, and may temporarily
raise the ambient noise levels above acceptable levels for the duration of construction, including ground borne vibration and
noise. Construction noise is regulated by the City’s Noise Ordinance, which regulates time of construction and maximum
noise levels that may be generated. The project would be required to meet the noise standards contained in the Ordinance,
which includes limitations on the days and hours of construction.
Attachment 7
PH1 - 76
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER # 202-13 (A/ARC/TR/ER 202-13)
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
17
e), f) The project is approximately 1.5 miles from the end of San Luis Obispo Airport Runway 29 and is just within the
boundary of ALUP Zone 6 and is beyond Airport Noise Contours projecting a 50 dB airport noise. Table 1 of the General
Plan Noise Element states that the maximum noise exposure for outside residential activities is 60dB. The project will not
experience noise sources which exceed significance thresholds. The project is not within the vicinity of a private airstrip.
Conclusion: Less than significant impact
13. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project:
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly
(for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or
indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other
infrastructure)?
1, 11 --X--
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating
the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
--X--
--X--
Evaluation:
a), b), c) The project proposes the construction of nine single-family residences on a vacant infill site. The General Plan
encourages this type of development because efficiently utilizes existing facilities for water, sewer, storm drainage,
transportation and parks. The added population growth caused by this project is within the General Plan’s projection and will
not result in population exceeding local and regional growth projections.
Conclusion: No impact
14. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the
provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant
environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance
objectives for any of the public services:
a) Fire protection? 12, 30 --X--
b) Police protection? --X--
c) Schools? --X--
d) Parks? --X--
e) Roads and other transportation infrastructure? --X--
f) Other public facilities? --X--
Evaluation
a), b), d), e), f) No potential impacts have been identified to any public services because of the scale of the project and its
location within a developed portion of the City.
c) The school districts in the state have the authority to collect fees at the time of issuance of building permits to offset the
costs to finance school site acquisition and school construction, and are deemed by State law to be adequate mitigation for all
school facility requirements. Any increases in demand on school facilities caused by the project are considered to be
mitigated by the district’s collection of adopted fees at the time of building permit issuance.
Conclusion: No impact.
15. RECREATION.
a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood or
regional parks or other recreational facilities such that
substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or
be accelerated?
1, 30
--X--
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the
construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might
have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
--X--
Attachment 7
PH1 - 77
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER # 202-13 (A/ARC/TR/ER 202-13)
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
18
Evaluation:
a) The project will add incrementally to the demand for parks and other recreational facilities. However, given the size of the
project (nine new residences) and expected number of residents, no significant recreational impacts are expected to occur
with development of the site. Park Land In-Lieu fees will be required to be paid to the City to help finance additional park
space, maintenance or equipment in the vicinity, per existing City policy. Should the map not be recorded and the project
developed as for-rent units on one parcel, the City also collects a Dwelling Unit Construction tax that goes to a Park
Improvement Fund with building permits for multi-family projects. Collection of these fees helps offset the impacts of new
projects on the City’s recreational facilities.
b) Each of the nine proposed homes will include a small private outdoor area. No additional recreational facilities are
proposed.
Conclusion: Less than significant impact
16. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the project:
a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy
establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of
the circulation system, taking into account all modes of
transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel
and relevant components of the circulation system, including but
not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways,
pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit?
9,12,
17
--X--
b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program,
including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel
demand measures, or other standards established by the county
congestion management agency for designated roads or
highways?
--X--
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an
increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in
substantial safety risks?
27
--X--
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g.,
sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses
(e.g. farm equipment)?
30
--X--
e) Result in inadequate emergency access? 12 --X--
g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding
public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise
decrease the performance or safety of such facilities?
2, 9,
30
--X--
Evaluation
a), b)The project does not conflict with any applicable circulation system plans and does not add to demand on the circulation
system or conflict with any congestion management programs or any other agency’s plans for congestion management. The
project will add vehicular trips to local and area streets which lead out of the neighborhood to uncontrolled intersections. The
existing streets have sufficient unused capacity to accommodate the added vehicular traffic without reducing existing levels
of service. The proposed project would not result in a significant impact with regard to increased vehicular trips and does not
conflict with performance standards provided in City adopted plans or policies. The project will also contribute to overall
impact mitigation for transportation infrastructure by participating in the Citywide Transportation Impact Fee program.
c) The project will not result in any changes to air traffic patterns and does not conflict with any safety plans of the Airport
Land Use Plan.
d) The project has been designed to meet City Engineering Standards and will not result in safety risks. The project will
include curb, gutter, and sidewalk per City Engineering Standards, which will improve pedestrian and vehicle safety along
Rockview Drive.
Attachment 7
PH1 - 78
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER # 202-13 (A/ARC/TR/ER 202-13)
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
19
e) The project has been reviewed by the City Fire Marshal to ensure adequate emergency access has been provided.
f) The project is consistent with policies supporting alternative transportation due to the site’s location within the City’s
urban center, and its proximity to shopping, parks and services.
Conclusion: Less than significant impact
17. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable
Regional Water Quality Control Board?
9,12,
20,24,
28
--X--
b) Require or result in the construction or expansion of new water
or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing
facilities, the construction of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
--X--
c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water
drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant environmental
effects?
--X--
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project
from existing entitlements and resources, or are new and
expanded entitlements needed?
--X--
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider
which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate
capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to
the provider’s existing commitments?
--X--
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to
accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs?
--X--
g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations
related to solid waste?
--X--
Evaluation
a), b), c), e) The proposed project would result in an incremental increase in demand on City infrastructure, including water,
wastewater and storm water facilities. Development of the site is required to be served by City sewer and water service,
which both have adequate capacity to serve the use. Existing storm water facilities exist in the vicinity of the project site, and
it is not anticipated the proposed project will result in the need for new facilities or expansion of existing facilities which
could have significant environmental effects. This project has been reviewed by the City’s Utilities Department and no
resource/infrastructure deficiencies have been identified.
The developer will be required to construct private sewer facilities to convey wastewater to the nearest public sewer. The on-
site sewer facilities will be required to be constructed according to the standards in the Uniform Plumbing Code and City
standards. Impact fees are collected at the time building permits are issued to pay for capacity at the City’s Water
Reclamation Facility (WRF). The fees are set at a level intended to offset the potential impacts of each new residential unit
in the project.
d) The proposed project would result in an incremental increase in demand on water supplies, as anticipated by the General
Plan. Per the 2012 Water Resource Status Report, the City has sufficient water supplies for build-out of the City’s General
Plan. The incremental change is not considered to be significant. This project has been reviewed by the City’s Utilities
Engineer and no resource/infrastructure deficiencies have been identified.
f), g) The proposed project will be served by San Luis Garbage Company, which maintains standards for access and access to
ensure that collection is feasible, both of which will be reviewed by the Architectural Review Commission.
Attachment 7
PH1 - 79
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER # 202-13 (A/ARC/TR/ER 202-13)
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
20
Background research for the Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (AB 939) 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 must be
submitted with the building permit application. The project is required by ordinance to include facilities for recycling to
reduce the waste stream generated by the project, consistent with the Source Reduction and Recycling Element. The
incremental additional waste stream generated by this project is not anticipated to create significant impacts to solid waste
disposal.
Conclusion: Less than significant impact
18. 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, 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?
--X--
The project is an infill residential development in an urbanized area of the city. Without mitigation, the project could have the
potential to have adverse impacts on all of the issue areas checked in the Table on Page 3. As discussed above, potential
impacts to biological and cultural resources will be less than significant with incorporation of recommended mitigation
measures.
b) 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 with the effects of the past projects,
the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable
future projects)?
--X--
The project is consistent with the General Plan, which identifies this site as appropriate for medium-density residential uses,
and which supports infill development utilizing existing infrastructure. The proposed project will not result in cumulatively
considerable impacts.
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause
substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or
indirectly?
--X--
With the incorporation of a mitigation measures, the project will not result in substantial adverse impacts on humans.
19. EARLIER ANALYSES.
Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have
been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration. Section 15063 (c) (3) (D). In this case a discussion
should identify the following items:
a) Earlier analysis used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review.
In 2011 The City of San Luis Obispo certified a Mitigated Negative Declaration (ER 34-11) for a tentative parcel map and
setback exception request for the project site. The map and setback exception were subsequently approved (MS/A 34-11);
however these projects were never completed. Project files, including all findings and conditions are available for review at
the City of San Luis Obispo’s Community Development Department.
b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately
analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by
mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
The earlier Environmental Review for this site (ER 34-11) also recognized and addressed potential significant impacts in the
areas of Biological and Cultural Resources.
c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the mitigation
Attachment 7
PH1 - 80
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER # 202-13 (A/ARC/TR/ER 202-13)
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
21
measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific
conditions of the project.
Because the potentially significant impacts identified in ER 34-11 were related to the features of the site (as opposed to the
proposed development project), they have been reintroduced in this document. Please see Required Mitigation Measures and
Monitoring Program, below.
20. SOURCE REFERENCES.
1. City of SLO General Plan Land Use Element, June 2010
2. City of SLO General Plan Circulation Element, April 2006
3. City of SLO General Plan Noise Element, May 1996
4. City of SLO General Plan Safety Element, March 2012
5. City of SLO General Plan Conservation & Open Space Element, April 2006
6. City of SLO General Plan Housing Element, April 2010
7. City of SLO Water and Wastewater Element, July 2010
8. City of SLO General Plan EIR 1994 for Update to the Land Use and Circulation Elements
9. City of San Luis Obispo Municipal Code
10. City of San Luis Obispo, Land Use Inventory Database
11. Site Visit
12. City of San Luis Obispo Staff Knowledge
13. City of SLO Climate Action Plan, August 2012
14. Website of the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency:
http://www.consrv.ca.gov/dlrp/FMMP/
15. Unused
16. CEQA Air Quality Handbook, Air Pollution Control District, April 2012
17. Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation Manual, 9th Edition, on file in the Community
Development Department
18. Soils Engineering Report, GeoSolutions, Inc. May 14, 2013
19. City of SLO Waterways Management Plan
20. Water Resources Status Report, July 2012, on file with in the Utilities Department
21. City of San Luis Obispo, Archaeological Resource Preservation Guidelines, on file in the Community
Development Department
22. City of San Luis Obispo, Historic Site Map
23. City of San Luis Obispo Burial Sensitivity Map
24. City of SLO Source Reduction and Recycling Element, on file in the Utilities Department
25. Drainage Analysis, Keith V. Crowe, Consulting Engineer, January 20, 2014
26. Engineering Geology Investigation Report, GeoSolutions, Inc., November 8, 2013
27. San Luis Obispo County Airport Land Use Plan
28. 2010 California Building Code
29. City of San Luis Obispo Zoning Regulations August 2012
30. Project Plans
31. Applicant project statement/description
Attachments:
1. Vicinity Map
2. Project Plans
Attachment 7
PH1 - 81
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER # 202-13 (A/ARC/TR/ER 202-13)
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
22
REQUIRED MITIGATION AND MONITORING PROGRAMS
Mitigation Measure 1: Air Quality
During construction/ground disturbing activities, the applicant shall implement the following particulate
(dust) control measures.
a. Reduce the amount of disturbed area where possible.
b. Use water trucks or sprinkler systems in sufficient quantities to prevent airborne dust from
leaving the site. Increased watering frequency will be required whenever wind speeds exceed 15
m.p.h. and cessation of grading activities during periods of winds over 25 m.p.h. Reclaimed
(non-potable) water is to be used in all construction and dust-control work.
c. Dirt stock pile areas (if any) should be sprayed daily as needed.
d. Vehicle speed for all construction vehicles shall not exceed 15 m.p.h. on any unpaved surface at
the construction site.
e. All trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials, are to be covered or should maintain
at least two feet of freeboard (minimum vertical distance between top of load and top of trailer)
in accordance with California Vehicle Code Section 23114.
f. Scheduling of construction truck trips during non-peak hours to reduce peak hour emissions.
g. If determined to be needed, periodic washdowns or mechanical streetsweeping of streets in the
vicinity of the construction site shall be done.
Monitoring Plan, MM #1:
These measures shall be shown on grading and building plans. In addition, the contractor shall
designate a person or persons to monitor the dust control program and to order increased
watering, as necessary, to prevent transport of dust off site. Their duties shall include holiday
and weekend periods when work may not be in progress. The name and telephone number of
such persons shall be provided to the Community Development and Public Works Departments
prior to commencement of construction.
Mitigation Measure 2: Biological Resources
The project shall incorporate the following erosion control measures for work in and around the riparian
corridor:
a. No heavy equipment should enter flowing water.
b. Equipment will be fuelled and maintained in an appropriate staging area removed from the
riparian corridor.
c. Restrict all heavy construction equipment to the project area or established staging areas.
d. All project related spills of hazardous materials within or adjacent to the project area shall be
cleaned up immediately. Spill prevention and clean up materials should be onsite at all times
during construction.
e. All spoils should be relocated to an upland location outside the creek channel area to prevent
seepage of sediment in to the drainage/creek system.
Monitoring Plan, MM #2: All construction and grading plan sets shall clearly note the above
mitigation measures on applicable sheets and be clearly visible to contractors and City
Attachment 7
PH1 - 82
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER # 202-13 (A/ARC/TR/ER 202-13)
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
23
inspectors. Prior to issuance of building permits, a pre-construction meeting is required between
Associate Planner, Marcus Carloni (or assigned planner) and the project contractor supervisor to
ensure the above requirements are understood and complied with at all times. Community
Development Department staff and Public Works staff will periodically inspect the site for
continued compliance with the above mitigation measures.
Mitigation Measure 3: Cultural Resources
If materials (including but not limited to bedrock mortars, historical trash deposits, and human burials)
are encountered during excavation, work shall cease until a qualified archaeologist makes
determinations on possible significance, recommends appropriate measures to minimize impacts, and
provides information on how to proceed in light of the discoveries. All specialist recommendations shall
be communicated to the City of San Luis Obispo Community Development Department prior to
resuming work to ensure the project continues within procedural parameters accepted by the City of San
Luis Obispo and the State of California.
Monitoring Plan, MM #3: All construction and grading plan sets shall clearly note the above
mitigation measures on applicable sheets and be clearly visible to contractors and City
inspectors. Prior to issuance of building permits, a pre-construction meeting is required between
Associate Planner, Marcus Carloni (or assigned planner) and the project contractor supervisor to
ensure the above requirements are understood and complied with at all times. Community
Development Department staff and Public Works staff will periodically inspect the site for
continued compliance with the above mitigation measures.
Attachment 7
PH1 - 83
Page intentionally left
blank.
PH1 - 84