Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/17/2006, PH6 - REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION, GENERAL PLAN MAP AMENDMENT AND PRE-ZONE TO LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL AND CONS council M.�i,D� U j agenda RepoRt I�N.,h. CITY OF SAN LUIS 0BISP0 FROM: John Mandeville,Community Development Director Prepared By: Phil Dunsmore, Associate Planner SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION, GENERAL PLAN MAP AMENDMENT AND PRE-ZONE TO LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL AND CONSERVATION OPEN SPACE TO ALLOW AN 11- LOT RESIDENTIAL TRACT MAP ON A 9.76 ACRE PROPERTY WEST OF THE CITY LIMITS ON FOOTHILL BOULEVARD. (ANNX/GP/R/TR/ER-124-03) CAO RECOMMENDATION As recommended by the Planning Commission at a public hearing on November 9, 2005: 1. Adopt a resolution approving the annexation and amending the General Plan Land Use Element map to change the land use designation from Interim Open Space to Low-Density Residential and Conservation/Open Space, and approving a revised Mitigated Negative Declaration (ER 124-03). 2. Introduce an ordinance to pre-zone the developable portions of the subject property to low- Density Residential (R-1) with the remainder of the property to be zoned Conservation/Open Space (C/OS-5).. 3. Adopt a resolution approving a tentative tract map with eleven residential lots subject to findings and conditions. 4. Adopt a Resolution accepting the negotiated exchange of property tax revenues and annual tax increment that is required as a prerequisite of any jurisdictional change by the Revenue and Tax Code Section 99. REPORT-IN-BRIEF The project is a request to annex a 9.76 acre property located outside the City limits at the west end of Foothill Boulevard and to allow an 11-lot residential development. Amendments to the General Plan and zoning map include changing the property's designation from Interim Open Space to Low Density Residential (R-1) and Conservation Open Space (C/OS-5). The project includes significant public improvements to Foothill Boulevard including widening, new curb, gutter and sidewalks, and associated improvements. A new cul-de-sac street would serve the project from Foothill Boulevard as shown in the project exhibits, Attachment 2. On November 9, 2005, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the project on a 5-0 vote (1 vacancy and 1 absence). The Commission's recommendation included elimination of two conditions of approval that staff recommended as important to determine the project's compliance with General Plan policy. One condition required a pedestrian connection accessing the adjacent residential neighborhood to implement several General Plan policies. The second condition required a 50-foot separation between development and the Urban Reserve Line, Council Agenda Report—ANNX/GkXfIT./ER 124-03 January 17,2006 Page 2 consistent with Open Space Element Policy 13.2.1. The Council will need to determine whether the absence of these features creates an inconsistency with the General Plan that would mean that annexation into the City cannot be supported. If the Council believes that it is an appropriate time to annex and allow development of the property and that the project complies with the intent of General Plan Policy, then the Council should follow the recommendation of the Planning Commission and approve the annexation and development request. DISCUSSION Situation The proposed project is a request to annex and pre-zone a 9.76 acre property to allow an I1-lot residential subdivision. The existing General Plan Map designates the lower portions of the site as Interim Open Space and the upper portions (at approximately the 310 foot contour) as Open Space. The annexation includes a request to pre-zone the property to Low Density Residential (R-1) up to the 327-foot elevation contour and pre-zone the remainder of the property for Conservation/Open Space (Attachment 1 and 2, vicinity map and reduced scale plans). Proiect History The project was initially reviewed by the Planning Commission on July 27, 2005 with a staff recommendation for denial of the project due to inconsistency with several General Plan Policies (Attachments 3, 4 and 5 PC meeting action letter, minutes and staff report). At this hearing, the Planning Commission felt that improvements could be made to the subdivision design which would allow the Commission to support the project. The Planning Commission's action for a continuance included three main items for the applicant to address (Attachment 3). These items included modifying the affordable housing proposal to eliminate the use of secondary dwelling units, provide for on-site open space trails, and provide for a potential trail linkage to the edge of private property at Tract 1313 (La Loma Court). Upon returning to the PC on November 9, 2005, the applicant's modified project was approved on a 5-0 vote (see Attachments 6, 7, and 8, PC resolution, minutes, and staff report). Project modifications included a revised affordable housing proposal that involves the acquisition of off- site affordable rental apartments. The development plan was modified to include dedicated public open space and on-site pedestrian trails. Although not specifically requested by the Planning Commission, the project was also amended to accommodate additional separation between proposed building envelopes and the City's Urban Reserve Line to the west. Staff's recommendation to approve the project on November 91h relied upon two significant conditions that addressed General Plan policy conformance. The Planning Commission disagreed with staff's recommendation and eliminated these conditions in their recommendation to City Council. These concerns are discussed in the attached Planning Commission reports and in additional detail below since a full understanding of the Commissions view on these issues, and some practical constraints, are necessary in order to make the appropriate findings. Council Agenda Report—ANNX/GPR/TR/ER 124-03 January 17,2006 Page 3 General Plan Implementation The proposed tentative tract map contains eleven lots and a proposed new street, consistent with the City's Subdivision Regulations and engineering standards. The proposed lot sizes conform to Subdivision Regulations standards. The central issue with review of this development has been the project's conformance with the General Plan. The proposed subdivision is consistent with many General Plan policies, especially with respect to adding new housing to the City. The Planning Commission discussion reveals that the Commission gives great weight to implementing this policy. The Housing Element set forth specific targets for new residential construction, excerpted below. The Commission supported the proposed subdivisions contribution to additional housing stock. H 6.2.1 Land Use Element Consistency "Consistent with the growth management portion of its Land Use Element and the availability of adequate resources, the City will plan to accommodate up to 2,909 exempt and non-exempt dwelling units between January 2001 and July 2009." The Open Space Element allows the City to approve a development project on part of the site: OS 2.2.3:Foothill Annexation The northern portion of the Foothill property (see site #3, Site Map) and the creek area shall be annexed as open space. Development on this site should be clustered or located near Foothill Boulevard, with the northern portion of the site and creek area preserved as open space. The proposed subdivision implements many General Plan policies regarding site design and open space conservation. The northern portion of the site remains in open space and land adjacent to Bishops Peak permanently preserved for open space. The project preserves riparian and wetland areas. The main topographic features of the site, including the small creek and drainage swale will be preserved. Development is centered on the least sensitive portions of the site. The Commission's action clearly supported using the.Interim Open Space portion of the site for housing rather than Open.Space. This is consistent with the thinking that went into the Housing Element update. During the update, the residential capacity of this site was counted assuming it would be rezoned to R-1 with the number of housing units the density provisions allow the site area. The reason for the assumption is the Land Use Element policy language with making residential development possible if consistent with all aspects of the General Plan as well as a substantial amount of private interest in residential development on this site during the years leading up to the Housing Element update. The estimates for residential capacity done for the Housing Element update calculated up to 14 dwelling units for the site. The detailed site planning for this project only produces 11 dwellings., A difference between the general estimate and the detailed site planning is not unexpected. The project will comply with the City's Inclusionary Housing Ordinance by providing in-lieu fees for at least two moderate housing units and one low-income unit. During the Planning Commission hearing process, the development plan was modified to respond to the Commissioner's concerns. Many points of general Plan consistency were CQ --3 i Council Agenda Report—ANNX/GPR/TR/ER 124-03 — January 17,2006 Page 4 considered. Staff has provided a complete list of G6neial Plan Policies associated with the project as Attachment 10. The staff reports and the Planning Commission discussed two policy issues at length, regarding neighborhood connectivity and the urban reserve boundary buffer. These two policy objectives compete, in different ways, with the feasibility of the subdivision as currently designed. The Planning Commission decision balanced the creation of additional housing with not fully implementing these other two permissive policy objectives. The following discussion focuses on these two policy points because the Council should be in agreement with the Planning Commission's interpretation of priority and balance in the general plan consistency findings. The two policy objectives not fully implemented by the project include neighborhood connectivity and the recommended minimum urban reserve boundary buffer distance. The following policies describe these two policy objectives. LU 2.1.4:Neighborhood Connections All areas should have a street and sidewalk pattern that promotes neighborhood and community cohesiveness. There should be continuous sidewalks or paths of adequate width, connecting neighborhoods with each other and with public and commercial services to provide continuous pedestrian paths throughout the City. LU 2.2.6.Neighborhood Pattern All residential development should be integrated with existing neighborhoods. Where physical features make this impossible, the new development should create new neighborhoods. LU 2.2.12:Residential Project Objectives Residential projects should provide: F)Separate paths for vehicles and for people, and bike paths along collector streets. H 7.2.5: Walled-Off Residential Enclaves The creation of walled-off residential enclaves, or of separate, unconnected tracts, is discouraged because physical separations prevent the formation of safe, walkable, and enjoyable neighborhoods. OS 13.2.1: Urban Reserve Line Within the city limits the City will, and outside the city limits, the City will encourage the State and County to: E) Require proposed urban uses located adjacent to the Urban Reserve Line to provide a transition to open space or Greenbelt areas. Transition areas should add to the preservation of open space lands or resources.At a minimum a 50 foot transition area (preserved in essentially a natural state) should be provided within the project along the project boundary with the URL (unless the transition area is defined elsewhere in this Element). Staff has attempted to assist the applicant in modifying the project to achieve these General Plan policies. Thus far, ideas for creating a safer pedestrian link to larger neighborhood have met with resistance from neighboring property owners. A neighborhood connection, however, remains a city goal for new residential development. Other than Foothill Boulevard, an arterial street that to -y Council Agenda Report—ANNX/GPR/TR/ER 124-03 January 17,2006 Page-5 constitutes the edge of the neighborhood, the only opportunity to allow access between the new homes and the existing neighborhood is between private properties. As discussed in detail in the November 9`h PC staff report (Attachment 6), the logical location for this to occur is along the side yards of two vacant properties at the end of La Loma Court. A pedestrian link is not only important to allow logical and safe access to the neighborhood, but it is important to allow a safe route to school since Bishop Peak School is accessible from the adjacent neighborhood on Los Cerros Drive (see graphic below). Without a pedestrian linkage, elementary school children must walk along the Foothill Boulevard arterial to get to a local street in the neighborhood that will take them to school. The school district supports an alternative to sending children alongside Foothill, provided the alternative route is well designed and maintained. The Public Works Existing trail I I I department notes that pedestrian paths in for Tract 1313 - other parts of the City do not have problems and normally homeowners associations are responsible for the Bishops Peak - School maintenance. d To achieve the recommended connection, no more than five feet of easement is _. necessary.from each of the side yards of the two vacant properties shown to the = nuu,o right. The project applicant has discussed the possibility of gaining access between Bishop Knoll these properties with the property owners property ono and both property owners have refused to offer such access. The owners of these two adjoining parcels felt that a path . t Proposed access to between their properties would existing neighborhood significantly alter the value and intended between undeveloped z future use of the property. Staff properties. introduced the prospect of eminent domain at the Planning Commission meeting, however the use of eminent domain was not supported by the Commission. In addition, the City Attorney believes eminent domain under these circumstances could be problematic. Since the Planning Commission meeting, staff has looked for ways other than eminent domain to provide a pedestrian connection between this property and the adjacent neighborhood. In analyzing other options to provide pedestrian access and a safe route to school, staff examined the possibility of constructing a detached sidewalk on the north side of Foothill Boulevard and providing a landscaped buffer between the sidewalk and street. However, due to the right of way width, this option would also require the purchase of private property and is therefore not a viable option. Another option staff identified after the Planning Commission meeting, and now recommended by staff, is to condition the subdivision bond (for a period of five years) for the purchase of an off-site pedestrian easement and trail construction, should the adjoining property owner(s) provide an easement in the future. The Council resolution recommending approval of the project contains this condition as a means to establish General Plan conformity. The Council may choose to retain or remove this condition in their action on the tentative map. `s Council Agenda Report—ANNX/GPIVI R/ER 124-03 January 17,2006 Page 6 As noted in General Plan Open Space Element Policy 13.2.1 above, a minimum of 50 feet should be maintained in a natural state between a project and the Urban Reserve Line (URL) which lies immediately to the west of the subject property. The proposed project includes building envelopes on several properties that are approximately 35 feet from the URL and one that narrows to approximately 25 feet from the URL. The Commission felt that because there is a well established windrow of trees along the property line and the fact that the policy says "should" rather than "shall" that flexibility to the 50-foot minimum exists. In determining when to apply a "should" versus a "shall" statement in a general plan policy, the State Office of Planning and Research provides the following guidance: "Shall" indicates an unequivocal directive. "Should" signifies a less rigid directive, to be honored in the absence of compelling or contravening considerations. The Council needs to determine if there is compelling evidence or contravening considerations that support a minimum buffer that is less than 50 feet. The Commission required a minimum buffer of 35 feet for all lots. The Community Development Department has reviewed many proposals for this property during the last twelve years. Almost all of these proposals failed to become applications because of incompatibilities with the General Plan. It has been difficult for potential developers to design a development that is financially successful given the open space requirements and the need to preserve habitat and buffer areas, near the developable part of the site. This does not mean, however, that the City must approve this residential development or any other project at this property. The Planning Commission's decision was that this project has gone as far as reasonably possible to create a housing project at this site. Affordable Housing Since the applicant is proposing houses that will exceed 3,000 square feet in size and the property is considered an expansion area with a very low residential density, the housing element requires that the developer allocate a minimum of 10% low and 20% moderate income housing either on or off site. The developer is proposing to acquire rental apartment units off-site in order to satisfy these requirements. Project conditions require the developer to deed restrict 2 units in the moderate category and 1 unit in the low-income category for a period of 30 years. Due to the low density of the project site the developer chose not to pursue affordable units on-site. Public Improvements Although the project plans only identify widening and improvements to Foothill Boulevard for a portion of the property in front of the project site, project conditions require complete road improvements including widening, additional paving and sidewalks for the entire project frontage. This will involve significant grading, removal of willow trees, extension of a drainage culvert below Foothill Boulevard and it new retaining wall at the north edge of Foothill Boulevard near the northwest corner of the property. Ultimately, the public improvements will add a new left-turn lane into the project while increasing site distance on Foothill Boulevard. The existing.residence on the property, now located close to Foothill Boulevard, would be demolished and removed from the site as part of the project. Council Agenda Report-ANNX/GPR/TR/ER 124-03 January 17,2006 Page 7 Environmental Review An initial study of environmental review was drafted for the project that identifies potentially significant impacts in the area of Aesthetics, Agricultural Resources, Air Quality, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Geology/Soils, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Hydrology/Water Quality, Land Use and Planning, Transportation & Traffic, and Utilities and Service Systems (Attachment 9). The Initial Study concludes that although significant impacts may occur, that mitigation is either incorporated into the project by design or could be added by way of project conditions to reduce the potential project impacts to a less than significant level. Although the PC report discusses a mitigation measure that requires a new drainage culvert and wildlife corridor below Foothill, this mitigation measure was eliminated since it has been determined that the culvert beneath Foothill does not warrant replacement. It should be noted, however, that improvements to Foothill Boulevard will impact a seasonal creek and require the removal of native willow trees and associated riparian vegetation. The Planning Commission determined that the proposed Initial Study, as amended, adequately addressed the project impacts. 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. Amending the General Plan for this location and allowing the development of eleven residential lots could affect City revenues since the base property tax revenues provided by the new residences would primarily go to the County as discussed in further detail below. Additional public services such as Police, Fire and maintenance issues would be a potential fiscal impact to the City that would not be offset by proportional amounts of new revenue. The project is, however, required to install public improvements, including widening and re-paving of portions of Foothill Boulevard and making extensions and connections to utility services to offset impacts to City infrastructure. City-County Tax Exchange Negotiations Status Prior to the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) action on the annexation, both the City Council and Board of Supervisors need to adopt similar resolutions acknowledging the negotiated agreement between the City and the County related to property tax revenues and annual tax increment. Attachment 11 contains the Council's resolution accepting the negotiated exchange of property tax revenues and annual tax increment that is required with the annexation. The City of San Luis Obispo (City) and the County of San Luis Obispo (County) have previously agreed to a property tax exchange methodology pursuant to Joint Resolution No. 01-96 which provides that in the case of undeveloped property, all of the "base" property tax revenues will be retained by the County, with incremental property tax revenues to be apportioned between the County and City as follows: in the case of land pre-zoned for residential uses, the County will receive 66% of the incremental property tax revenues it would otherwise have received from the Tax Rate Area, and the City will receive the remaining 34%. Le-7 Council Agenda Report—ANNX/GPR/TR/ER 124-03 - January 17,2006 Page 8 Conclusion The property currently has a City land use designation of Interim Open Space. Under current County Zoning regulations the property is considered a sensitive resource area and does not allow for additional residential development until the property is annexed into the City. As stated below, General Plan Policy clearly describes when Interim Open Space should be converted and the area used for residential land uses: Land Use Element Policy 6.1.4 "The Interim Open Space designation is to be changed to an urban classification only when the conditions necessary for development can be satisfied and a certain type of development is approved. After further study, it may be found that permanent Open Space is an appropriate classification for areas initially classified as Interim Open Space." At this time, the Planning Commission believes that the General Plan can be interpreted to support the proposed project. In order for the project to be consistent with the General Plan without determining that there is compelling or contravening evidence to not follow the policies in question, staff recommended that the Planning Commission incorporate changes. These changes included dedicated and improved neighborhood connections and a wider urban/open space buffer. The Council should decide whether there is compelling or contravening evidence that the policies not be followed and the absence of these features means "the conditions necessary for development" (as required by LUE policy 6.1.4 above) have been met and annexation is appropriate. If the Council believes that it is an appropriate time to annex and allow development of the property, then the Council should follow the recommendation of the Planning Commission and approve the annexation and development request. ALTERNATIVES 1. Adopt the proposed resolution, Attachment 14, approving the proposed tentative map without Condition #6 to create a neighborhood connection in addition to Foothill Blvd. 2. Adopt the optional resolution B, Attachment 15, and deny the proposed annexation and General Plan Amendment due to inconsistency with General Plan Policy. The Council may find that the development constraints necessary to accommodate General Plan Policy cannot be overcome at this time. 3. Continue action, if additional information is needed, with direction provided to staff. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Vicinity Map 2. Reduced scale project drawings 3. July 27`h, 2005 Planning Commission action letter 4. July 27`h, 2005 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 5. July 27`h, 2005 Planning Commission Staff Report 6. November 9`h, 2005 Planning Commission Resolution Council Agenda Report—ANNX/GPR/TR/ER 124-03 - January 17,2006 Page 9 7. November 9`h, 2005 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 8. November Th, 2005 Staff Report 9. Initial Study of Environmental Review 10. General Plan Policy Analysis 11. City/County property tax exchange resolution 12. Resolution approving the annexation and amending the General. Plan Land Use Element map and adopting a mitigated negative declaration. 13. Ordinance to pre-zone a portion of the subject property to low-Density Residential (R-1) with the remainder of the property to be zoned Conservation/Open Space (C/OS-5). 14. Resolution approving a tract map with eleven residential lots subject to findings and conditions 15. Resolution `B" denying the project request. G:\Pdunsmore\Rezoning&PDs\124-03 Bishop Knolh124-03 CCrpt final draft 2(01-17-06).doc 1 Attachmen R1 R-1- 0 .sem DEL NORTE �`vv RAMONA DEL SUR SAN JOS VICINITY MAP ANNX 124-03 N A 36 West Foothill CD Atta enOD 2 _ 1.. :•. �� CL �J 3 e a rti _ r � a �0p a , fig' \ . \ _- .. ,; yq, s u,: ........ '....ur -....v..."" ...._.._._..... �N9 ... 6 ..e....,..- -:::: 66 - i Ctl "iii }} �ii LN ,. . AL Ell Li a I I =t. a , e e vS�S>��u!(iFeeiear2se.. ' Attachment 2 Dooms oa q amiO3 sn B(1/J!j so a/w .v.nc if 1 0.= 1 1 K � I � I \•�r� �Fl�tilt\. // // / / b `��� � '• •/ rte( Attachment 2 Mid W9W— WL r°i oardww0 9ei�md�.4eu BpIJ d a d pia• i eFda �§ § s 3 :: 4 q, s � Id lilt € lilt o o C) 10 foil s Ce �3 �yy�i�ppp pAttachment 3 CII ��IIII� II ..lt of S�►1�11�,11S OBISW 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 August 4, 2005 Jay Poindexter 4711 Thurber Lane Santa Cruz, CA 95065 SUBJECT: GP/R, ANNX, TR, and ER 124-03: 36 West Foothill Blvd Annexation, General Plan Amendment and prezoning request to R-1-PD and Conservation Open Space (C/OS) for approximately 10 acres of land at the western edge of the City, tentative map review for proposed 11-lot subdivision, and environmental review Dear Mr. Poindexter: The Planning Commission, at its meeting of July 27, 2005, continued the above project to a date uncertain with the following direction: 1. Establish a trail that allows pedestrian access into the proposed on-site open space areas with the potential for linking to off-site open space areas in the future. 2. Revise the affordable housing proposal to not include the use of secondary dwelling units. 3. Provide an easement within the project area from the proposed new street to a logical connection to the Los Cerros Drive neighborhood. If you have any questions, please contact Phil Dunsmore 781-7522. Sincerely, Ronald hisenan Deputy Director o Community Development Development Review cc: County of SLO Assessor's Office Jeff Edwards P.O. Box 6070 Los Osos, CA 93412 OThe City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services,programs and activities. L� Telecommunications Device for the Deaf(805)781-7410. ' - Attachment 4 SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES July 27, 2005 CALL TO ORDERIPLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: The San Luis Obispo Planning Commission was called to order at 7:00 p.m. on Wednesday, July 27, 2005, in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo. ROLL CALL: Present: Commrs. Orval Osborne, Alice Loh, Andrew Carter, Carlyn Christianson, Vice-Chair Jim Aiken, and Chairperson Michael Boswell Absent: Commr. Andrea Miller Staff: Deputy Community Development Director Ronald Whisenand, Community Development Director Mike Draze, Senior Planner Jeff Hook, Associate Planner Phil Dunsmore, Assistant City Attorney Christine Dietrick, Natural Resource Manager Neil Havlik and Recording Secretary Kim Main ACCEPTANCE OF THE AGENDA The agenda was accepted as presented. PUBLIC_COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS There were no public comments. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: 1. 36 West Foothill Boulevard. GP/R, ANNX, TR, and ER 124-03: Annexation, General Plan Amendment and prezoning request to R-1-PD and Conservation/ Open Space (C/OS) for approximately 10 acres of land at the western edge of the City, tentative map review for proposed 11-lot subdivision, and environmental review; Jay Poindexter, applicant. (Phil Dunmore) Associate Planner Phil Dunsmore presented the staff report, recommending the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council deny the annexation, General Plan map Amendment and Tract Map. .PUBLIC COMMENTS: Jeff Edwards, applicant's representative, gave a slide presentation of the proposed project, noting that this project conforms with the City's General Plan Map. He asked that the Commission continue this project to a date certain, and direct staff to reconsider their recommendation. Attachment 4 Planning Commission Minutes July 27, 2005 Page 2 Dan Zweifel, 1215 Vista Del Lago, noted that he owns the property adjacent to this project and will not grant an easement. Pam Zweifel, 1215 Vista Del Lago, expressed her concerns and opposed the project. John Ashbaugh, 1818 Vista Del Lago, expressed concerns with the entrance location and spoke against this project. Joan Lobos 193 Los Cerros, expressed her concerns with the entrance location and spoke against the project. There were no further comments from the public. COMMISSION COMMENTS: Discussion focused on neighborhood connections, open space trails, affordable housing, and the City's Urban Reserve Line. Commr. Aiken asked for clarification of the 25 foot buffer. He supported development of this property, noting that the applicant should not be required to provide public access. He asked for clarification of frontage areas, and recommend a 30-foot buffer be required. Commr. Loh asked for clarification on the lot size, and asked if the applicants would be willing to work with staff to change the access to Bishop Peak. -She suggested that the Commission continue this project. Commr. Carter expressed his concern with the lack of access or connection to adjoining neighborhoods, noting the importance for children to have access from the neighborhoods. Commr. Christianson supported continuing the project, noting that she does not support the secondary dwelling units for affordable housing. On motion by Commr. Loh to continue this item to a date uncertain, with the following direction: 1. Establish a trail that allows pedestrian access into the proposed on-site open space areas with the potential for linking to off-site open space areas in the future. 2. Revise the affordable housing proposal to not include the use of secondary dwelling units. 3. Provide an easement within the project area from the proposed new street to a logical connection to the Los Cerros Drive neighborhood. Seconded by Commr: Aiken AYES: Commrs. Osborne, Aiken, Boswell, Loh, Carter, and Christianson NOES: None ABSENT: Commr. Miller ABSTAIN: None The motion carried on a 6 :0 vote / Attachment 5 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT ITEM#1 BY: Philip Dunsmore, Associate Planner (781-7522) MEETING DATE: July 27, 2005 Pam 9icci (-a✓ FROM: Ronald Whisenand, Deputy Director- Development Review{ FILE NUMBER: GP/R, ANNX and TR/ER 124-03 PROJECT ADDRESS: 36 West Foothill Boulevard SUBJECT: Review of a proposed annexation and General Plan Map amendment to allow an 11 lot residential tract map on a 9.76 acre property west of the City limits on Foothill Boulevard. RECOMMENDATION Adopt the attached Planning Commission resolution which denies deny the annexation, General Plan map Amendment and Tract Map. BACKGROUND Situation The project is a request to annex and pre-zone.a 9.76 acre property to allow an 11 lot residential tract map. The existing General Plan Map designates the site as Interim Open Space and the upper portions of the property (at approximately the 310 foot contour) are designated as Open Space. The annexation includes a request to pre-zone the property to R-1 up to the 327 foot elevation contour and pre-zone the remainder of the property.for Open Space. Data Summary Address: 36 and 4 West Foothill Applicant: Jay Poindexter,4711 Thurber Lane Santa Cruz.CA 95065 Zoning: County designation: RSF, SRA, GS (Residential Single Family, Sensitive Resource Area, and Geologic Survey area. General Plan: Interim Open Space and Conservation Open Space Environmental: A Mitigated Negative Declaration has been provided for review of the Planning Commission (ER 124-03) Site Description The property is a 9.76 acre site, consisting of two lots located outside the northwest boundary of the City. It is primarily undeveloped grassland and pasture at the base of Bishop's Peak. The property contains a small, older single family residence near Foothill Boulevard and a wood sided barn with metal roofmg at the interior of the site (recently demolished by the property owner). The site is gently to steeply sloped, ranging from 10 to 20% and greater. A small Attachment,5, GP/R/ER/TWANNX 124-03 Bishop Knoll - 36 West Foothill Page 2 seasonal drainage Swale bisects the property and drains towards Foothill Boulevard and a small seasonal creek enters the southwest corner of the property from beneath Foothill Boulevard. A row of aging cypress trees exists near and parallel to Foothill Boulevard. A row of significantly sized eucalyptus trees is located near the western property boundary. Adjacent property to the west is vacant and utilized for cattle grazing. Property to the east is developed with a large lot, single family residential subdivision and property to the north is vacant land utilized for passive recreation (open space and trails) and is steeply sloped (Bishops Peak). The property boundary to the south abuts Foothill Boulevard, a minor arterial roadway. A church and associated parking lot occupies property across the road to the south of the property. Proiect Description The proposed tract map includes 11 residential lots designed for single family residences, five of which would have secondary dwelling units deed restricted to meet the City's affordability requirements. The applicant proposes to sell the lots rather than develop each lot. The project would include a new cul-de-sac street intersecting with Foothill- Boulevard and road improvements (including widening, bike lanes, curb, gutter and sidewalk) for Foothill Blvd. The developed portion of the project would cover approximately 3.6 acres, while the remaining six acres would remain as open space. An existing residence and driveway currently at the edge of Foothill'Boulevard would be removed from the site. The area surrounding the existing residence would be enhanced and landscaped as an open space area between the project site and Foothill Boulevard. Project History Since 1998, the property owner, in conjunction with project representatives, have made several attempts at producing a reasonable development plan that meets General Plan Policies and is compatible with the neighborhood and surrounding open space areas. Although the proposed development plan has made significant advancements towards achieving these goals, there are still significant development constraints to overcome. The interim Open Space designation is described as land that"'shall be kept open until development constraints can be resolved". General Plan Land Use Element Policy 6.1.4 elaborates: "The Interim Open Space designation is to be changed to an urban classification only when the conditions necessary for development can be satisfied and a certain type of development is approved After further study, it may be found that permanent Open Space is an appropriate classification for areas initially classified as Interim Open Space." Although the applicant has responded to staff's requests in designing a development scenario for the property that responds to City engineering standards, the City's subdivision regulations and compliance with Fire Department standards there are several significant issues that still have not been resolved. These issues are rooted in important General Plan Policies as discussed in the following paragraphs. 1� —Igoe GP/R/ERIfR/ANNX_ 124-03 Bishop Knoll - Attachment 5 36 West Foothill Page 3 -._.. EVALUATION General Plan Analysis The Commission should refer to Attachment 4 for a complete list of General Plan Policies associated with the proposed development. Although the project meets many of the City's General Plan Policies and is consistent with the development standards for the proposed R-1 district, inconsistency with the following General Plan policies does not allow staff to make the necessary findings to support approval of the annexation and proposed subdivision: LU2.1.4:Neighborhood Connections All areas should have a street and sidewalk pattern that promotes neighborhood and community cohesiveness. There should be continuous sidewalks or paths of adequate width, connecting neighborhoods with each other and with public and commercial services to provide continuous pedestrian paths throughout the City. Staff response: Not consistent: No neighborhood connections have been proposed to allow a link to the adjacent neighborhood or adjacent open space areas. Residents will need to access existing neighborhood amenities such as parks and schools by way of Foothill Boulevard, a high speed arterial roadway. Staff has encouraged the applicant to work with owners of adjacent vacant properties to obtain access easements to the Los Cerros Drive Nieghborhood, however no agreement has been reached and no access is proposed between the new subdivision and existing neighborhoods to the west. LU 1.9.3:Public Access Areas preserved for open space should include public trail access, controlled to protect the natural resources, to assure reasonable security and privacy of dwellings, and to allow continuing agricultural operations. Public access through production agricultural land will not be considered, unless the owner agrees. Staff response: Not consistent: No trail access areas are proposed at this time. LU 2.1.5:Neighborhood Open Links The City should treat streets, sidewalks, and front setbacks as a continuous open link between all areas of the City and all land uses. These features should be designed as amenities for light, air, social contact, and community identity. Staff response: Not consistent: No open link is proposed between the project site and the adjacent neighborhood or proposed open space areas. LU 2.2.6:Neighborhood Pattern All residential development should be integrated with existing neighborhoods. Where physical features make this impossible, the new development should create new neighborhoods. L 5 GP/R/ER/TR/ANNX 124-03 Bishop Knoll Attachment 36 West Foothill Page 4 Staff response: Not consistent: Proposed development is not integrated with the existing neighborhood and is too small (11 residential lots) to create its own neighborhood. H 7.2.4:New Development's Relationship to Neighborhoods Within expansion areas, new residential development should be an integral part of an existing neighborhood or should establish a new neighborhood, with pedestrian and bicycle linkages that provide direct, convenient and safe access to adjacent neighborhoods, schools and shopping areas. Staff response: Not consistent: Again, the proposed development is not an integral part of the existing neighborhood and does not have pedestrian and bicycle linkages that provide direct, convenient and safe access to adjacent neighborhoods, schools and shopping areas. H 7.2.5: Walled-Off Residential Enclaves The creation of walled-off residential enclaves, or of separate, unconnected tracts, is discouraged because physical separations prevent the formation of safe, walkable, and enjoyable neighborhoods. Staff response: Proposed development is a separate unconnected tract. H 7.2.7: Physical Design The physical designs of neighborhoods and dwellings should promote walking and bicycling, and should preserve open spaces and views. Staff response: The proposed design does not promote walking and bicycling, however some open space and views are preserved. OS 2.1.3:Hazards and Views Protect hill and mountain properties from potentially hazardous or visually degrading development conditions Staff response: This is a hillside property, and development of this site will alter views from Foothill Boulevard and the adjacent neighborhood. OS 10.2.3:Buffers Urban uses adjacent to agricultural lands shall provide an agricultural buffer. This requirement may be eliminated or modified only if there are significant topographical differences, a barrier of vegetation capable of eliminating potentially adverse impacts associated with agriculture on adjacent development, or existing physical barriers between the urban development and the agricultural land. If a developer cannot provide an adequate agricultural buffer between urban uses and agricultural land, the developer shall pay a mitigation fee to purchase agricultural protection elsewhere within the Greenbelt. GP/R/ERfMANNX 124-03 Bishop Knall Affachment 5, 36 West Foothill Page 5 _ Staff response: Not consistent: A less than adequate buffer of only 25 feet has been proposed between residential home sites and active grazing land outside of the Urban Reserve Line. A project.in this location should have buffers that vary between a minimum of 50 to 75 feet. OS 13.2.1: Urban Reserve Line Within the city limits the City will, and outside the city limits, the City will encourage the State and County to: E)Require proposed urban uses located adjacent to the Urban Reserve Line to provide a transition to open space or Greenbelt areas. Transition areas should add to the preservation of open space lands or resources. At a minimum a 50 foot transition area (preserved in essentially a natural state) should be provided within the project along the project boundary with the URL (unless the transition area is defined elsewhere in this Element). F) Maintain the Greenbelt and the Outer Planning Area primarily for rural uses, agriculture, watershed, and as a separator between urban communities. Staff response: Not consistent: A less than adequate buffer of only 25 feet has been proposed between residential home sites and active grazing land outside of the Urban Reserve Line. A project in this location should have buffersthat vary between a minimum of 50 to 75 feet. OS 14.2.9:New Development Open Space Buffers The City shall require that development adjacent to existing open space provide:A buffer between proposed development and existing open space parcels/resources to minimize conflicts between development and existing open space lands. The buffer should provide for an extension of the open space holding. B) Gates, fences, or other deterrents when such facilities are deemed necessary to discourage prohibited or incompatible uses from entering open space lands. Staff response: Not consistent: As discussed above, a less than adequate buffer has been proposed between the proposed.development and existing open space. CI4.1: Walking to School, Work and Shopping Destinations Walking should be encouraged as a regular means of transportation for people who live within a 20-minute walk of school, work, or routine shopping destinations. Staff response: Not consistent: The proposed development plan does not promote walking. Opportunities for a connection to the adjacent neighborhood exist as stated above. The applicants have been encouraged to make this connection. CI 4.2: Walking Network The City should complete a continuous network of sidewalks and separated pedestrian paths connecting housing areas with major activity centers and with trails leading into city and county open areas that avoid sensitive areas. r rr r r ri r �r ' rr r r r 'r •r ♦r ;r r r r r r r rr 'r r 'r r ir ' rr «- �x`y �R ` f .}5 y ? r �,Y °2V4'.E •�,ti, nk. + - ryriy � . 'Sa.3' `'-�'�` '3" �y hY�''� f �•�„�� ��-'v� �`5 �u r� a*Y 'ss"t•��fi�"'�`,�,��„�, ... .-��q �r ?.iw lrA� �p�i��y�fl'�` l< j ;1�1'� ,�Y' �TS�:S �i'j�y�YaC�Y. L Y��� '(i� �( ✓�'T Yt"S�u 'f,}4•s�,1 .xw2�_�c�� i "Yti. .' �,+t��.s� >�'S`n .�� �y-5�, .,t.(f f c ' - - ;i-wLy.,L,+a.�'�+t��.�,, �'1��%�� .,,.� .Y ��`}y ��k'"�'�t Y^�•� � �� 1� � N ;;fit � �S ~V` � f «C. •i.a+w!z -2 �!3 a�'��Yi A-=!,�)!�i)i i i..3i •i '"�4Y`� y, �'�� �t�� 9 �WS Fy ;• : 6 RON gel •- _� • • • ,,.. -a S .� � fix„� '� v .<,.'hx-tea. - �. � �'0"F? �-s•�c,. ;± ' �.� yam`" ..t ate'�y-ynt.[`�p�{'���,� "�`^`•' e r—"a �'-'}*�.r. "'c NEe We Pv :i" • e s rIme -, ,p,.cslL.y^ ,, y1'µ •�: �"...`.356 JA �x -i �y- w° .y .c r A.'`r , k,-'r4`�r r`A iy' �`✓J `" '+ej. S .'^'£J.`yP 'l1'i Cr. �^ -� `n ci� ssr ry.y ,,,u�x<ff�.uY! v � v �'�1 •v.-N KC4 } �?`. �....,rLr�.sie� 'Ax�"'.'.�a'r�:• .,.,^�`�d' :;'•E�.A& '^'�" r,'.aZn'�j,�' �<.., �� J�,�:.°� ' n GP/R/ER MANNX 124-03 Bishop Knoll Attachment 5 36 West Foothill Page 7 Although the propose development plan extends higher up on the hillside into an area currently designated as Open Space on the General Plan Map, other land within the Interim Open Space area near Foothill (the creek and tree area) is proposed to be preserved as open space.in exchange. The area proposed for permanent open space is greater in area than the area currently designated as open space, therefore the potential impact of this proposal is less than significant and is consistent with the intent of General Plan Policy. In early review of project proposals, staff agreed that the new development should be set at an elevation similar to existing development currently found on La Loma Court (to the west). The Commission should discuss the trade off of having development extend higher on the hillside vs. preservation of sensitive habitat along Foothill or whether both should be considered as part of a reduced scope project. Subdivision design and property development standards The proposed subdivision provides for eleven parcels and a remainder parcel for open space purposes on a 9.76 acre site. Planned Development zoning is not proposed, so all parcels must comply with the standard requirements for the R-1 zoning district. As proposed, the subdivision complies with the standards and no exceptions have been requested. A significant portion of the site will also be reserved for public improvements, including a new cul-de-sac street and extensive widening of Foothill Boulevard with curb, gutter and sidewalk along the project's frontage. Lot 1 and lots 6 through 11 are standard lots with street frontage, while lots 2 through 5 are considered Flag Lot parcels which must be consistent with the City's Flag lot regulations, Section 16.36.230 of the Subdivision Regulations. As proposed, the flag lot configuration complies with the minimum width and area standards as required by chapter 16.36.230. On hillside sites, lot sizes are dictated by slope, with larger lot sizes required for sites that are greater than 16% in slope in accordance with the Subdivision Regulations 16.36.180. The proposed lots are sloped greater than 16% and are appropriately sized in accordance with the Subdivision Regulations with lot sizes ranging from 11,600 to 20,000 square feet in area. The proposed subdivision would be served by a new public street that would be developed consistent with City Engineering standards for an alternative street. The street is considered as an alternative street since it is narrower than a standard City Street. When streets are designed narrower than standard (as preferred by Planning staff), it eliminates the possibility of parking on both sides of the street. Because of this, the engineering standards require additional parking to be secured either within the public right of way or within easements on private property. The proposed plans identify optional additional parking spaces within the flag lot area proposed for lots 2 through 5. Since the proposed annexation and subdivision does not propose development of each residential property, comprehensive property development standards cannot be analyzed at this time. However, grading, building envelopes, site access, and hillside development.standards are items that must be applied to these properties should the Planning Commission wish to recommend approval of the request. The proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration, Attachment 5, recommends specific mitigation measures that respond to grading and other aesthetic concerns GP/R/ER(MANNX 124-03 Bishop Knoll - Attachment _5 36 West Foothill Page 8 related to property development standards. In addition to the proposed mitigation measures, the property development standards for the R-1 district, as adopted by the Zoning Regulations, will apply to each development site. As an added level of review, the mitigation measures require designation of each development site as a sensitive site, requiring architectural review for site development. Land Use and Neighborhood compatibility The design of the project responds to existing adjacent residential development in the Los Cerros Drive neighborhood (R-1—PD zone) and preserves a significant amount of the property (and viewshed) as open space. Building footprints on the adjoining lots (adjacent neighborhood at La Loma Court) extend up to the 327 foot contour (approximately). The maximum height of the building footprints on the subject lots will be at the .same contour level. If designed to meet General Plan Policies that promote neighborhood connectivity, the development site's best land use designation would be Low-Density Residential with R-1 or R-1-PD zoning. If proposed site development for this area cannot accommodate General Plan policy, perhaps the site should remain as Interim Open space or be annexed as Open Space. Under County Land Use Policy, the property currently contains a land use designation of Residential Single Family (RSF) with a Sensitive Resource Area (SRA) overlay zone. County General Plan policy recommends the site remain as agriculture or open space until the property can be annexed and appropriately developed in the City. Under the current County Zoning the property could not be subdivided and may only be able to be developed with two residences. Inclusionary Housing Ordinance The City's Inclusionary Housing Ordinance requires residential development projects of 5 units or more to provide affordable housing or pay an in-lieu fee. In this case the project is subject to additional affordable housing fees because it is a very low density project within an expansion area and the size of houses proposed by the applicant would exceed 3,000 square feet in floor area. According to Table 2 and 2a of the Housing Element (below) the project would be subject to 2 times the residential expansion area requirement and would require the applicant to construct a large percentage of affordable units. Inclusionary Housing Requirement Type of Developm at Project' R6sideaasl-A*=base ngaaem!u pa rabb 2A Table.2A Bold 3?%6 bw or 5%moderate some gold Project Iralusimmy Homing Regtdtrmem In city Affordable DweRog ffis(AWsi,but not leas Density Atrinshoent Factor' s Uthan I ADU per (Demity 023 pay uv U111113 per Average tinct Sla(sq it) Pay m•6m valaati=4 Net Actr)t up to 1,100 1,101-11500 1,501-2,000 2,001-2,500 2,901.3,000 >3,000 36 or more 0 0 .75 1 1.25 1.5 Bead 5%low and 105'6 moderate mcomeg� 243599 0 0 ,75 1 1.25 I.5 . o ADM,but not less drat I ADU per propeK or 12-3599 0 .25 l 1.25 1.5 1.75 Area pry ia-Sen fee equal to 15%ofba:lditg tiahatim y 7-11.99 0 .5 1 1.25 1.5 CJ 0 .5 1.25 1.5 1.75' 2 Aftachmenf 5 GP/R/ER/TR/ANNX 124-03 Bishup Knoll 36 West Foothill Page 9 The City's Housing Programs Manager has reviewed the project proposal and has worked with the applicant.and City staff to incorporate a reasonable affordable housing program into the project. At the applicant's request, tentative approval has been granted to allow secondary dwelling units (SDU's) to contribute to the affordable housing requirement. In this case the SDU's would be larger than the minimum 450 square foot size and be designed to complement proposed house designs. Five of the eleven lots would be required to have secondary dwelling units that would be deed restricted to moderate and low-income affordability levels for 30 years. As an option the applicant would retain the right to instead deed restrict other residential units off site, within the City. The Planning Commission should consider the inclusionary housing proposal and determine whether it satisfactorily meets the City's requirements. Public Improvements Development Review and Public Works staff has reviewed the proposed development. The Transportation Division finds that the project will create less than significant impacts to area circulation provided improvements are made to Foothill Boulevard as generally shown on the Tentative Map. Primary access to the site will be from a 34-foot wide access road that will be constructed at the north side of Foothill Boulevard. A culvert would be inserted over the drainage area and the road would extend northward terminating in a cul-de-sac on the hillside. Foothill Boulevard improvements would include widening of Foothill Boulevard along the project's frontage consistent with the street pattern further to the west. A new curb, gutter and sidewalk would be added in addition to turn lanes serving the new street. The widening of Foothill Boulevard is an item that has created extensive discussion between Public Works Staff, Planning Staff and the project applicant. > ' ^ The widening is necessary Potential area s "s to accommodate the project impactedmaA �^ } and develop the road to City road . �. standards. However, its impacts will result in P significant si site �- .✓,; r . �r� .+ �.� r s: � grading, removal of willow trees and • potential impacts to a small yam ' Existing culvert riparian area below Foothill beneath Foothill Boulevard at the south east comer of the development property. This location is characterized by dense willow trees at the edge of Foothill Boulevard. A culvert that runs beneath Foothill Boulevard from the south, currently allows drainage from Cerro San Luis to enter the property as it joins with a small seasonal drainage from the proposed development site and runs to the south west. This culvert would have to be upgraded and GP/R/ER/MANNX 124-03 Bishop Knoll Attachment 5 36 West Foothill Page 10 -- extended in order to accommodate the proposed road improvements. Potential environmental impacts are discussed in greater detail in the attached Environmental Initial Study. Although the impacts created by potential widening of the roadway may not be considered significant unavoidable impacts (therefore requiring an EIR), these potential impacts should be considered by the Planning Commission when considering staff's recommendation of denial for the project. Staff has considered several options for the road widening, including transitioning the road further to the east to avoid grading over the willow tree area, however Public Works staff believes that the project warrants complete road improvements for the entire project frontage. Environmental Review An initial study of environmental review was drafted for the.project for review by the Planning Commission, should you consider forwarding the proposal to the Council for approval. If the Commission recommends denial of the project, an Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration does not have to be adopted for the project (a project that is denied by a public agency is statutorily exempt from CEQA). The initial study identifies potentially significant impacts in the area of Aesthetics, Agricultural Resources, Air Quality, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Geology/Soils, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Hydrology/Water Quality. Land Use and Planning, Transportation & Traffic, and Utilities and Service Systems. The Initial Study concludes that although significant impacts may occur, that mitigation. is either incorporated into the project by design or could be added by way of project conditions to reduce the potential project impacts to a less than significant level. The Planning Commission should review the attached initial study and if there is a desire to forward a project to the City Council, determine whether the Mitigated Negative Declaration is sufficient to address the impacts or whether an EIR would be required. If an EIR is required, then the project would need to be returned to staff for preparation of the required CEQA document. Conclusion Although the applicant has diligently worked with staff to produce a design for the property, staff believes there are still too many inconsistencies with the General Plan in order to support approval of the project. The Interim Open Space designation is a unique category that demands a development proposal that conforms to the General Plan, addresses site constraints and is compatible with the neighborhood. Annexation of property adjacent to open space and at the City's urban edge, for purposes of development, is a significant request that should not be granted until it can be adequately justified that the contribution of the development outweighs potential environmental impacts and is consistent with the intent of the General Plan. The City's General Plan Land Use Element (Introduction to the Land Use.Element, Community Goals City Form) suggests how the City's form should develop. Unfortunately, annexation and development of this site appears to conflict with many of these basic goals: 28) Maintain the town's character as a small, safe, comfortable place to live, and maintain its rural setting, with extensive open land separating it from other urban development. GP/R/ER/I'R/ANNX 124-03 Bishop Knoll - Attachment 36 West Foothill Page 11 29) Maintain existing neighborhoods and assure that new development occurs as part of a neighborhood pattern. 30) Keep a clear boundary between San Luis Obispo's urban development and surrounding open land. 31) Grow gradually outward from its historic center until its ultimate boundaries are reached, maintaining a compact urban form. 34) Develop buildings and places which complement the natural landscape and the fabric of neighborhoods. 36) Provide a safe and pleasant place to walk and ride a bicycle,for recreation and other daily activities. The Commission may wish to continue the item with recommended project changes, recommend conditional approval of the project and forward it to City Council or outright deny the proposal as recommended by staff. The Commission should carefully consider the following project alternatives: Alternatives 1. Continue the item with specific direction to staff and the applicant with project changes or additional information necessary in order to support approval of the annexation and map. 2. Adopt a resolution recommending approval of the project to the City Council. Conditions to enhance the project's consistency with the General Plan should be incorporated into the resolution. 3. Deny,the request and forward a separate recommendation to the City Council to modify the General Plan map from Interim Open Space to Open Space if the Commission feels no development options exist consistent with the City's General Plan. . Attached: 1. Vicinity Map 2. Reduced scale tract map and project drawings 3. Applicant's project description 4. General Plan Analysis 5. Environmental Initial Study 6. Proposed Resolution recommending denial of the project to City Council 7. Resolution recommending approval of the project to City Council. Full-scale project plans will be distributed to the Planning Commission, a copy of which will be available at the Community Development Department. oc 7 - Attachment RESOLUTION NO. 5432-05 A RESOLUTION OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION,TENTATIVE TRACT MAP, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT,PREZONING,AND ANNEXATION FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 36 WEST FOOTHILL AND 4 FOOTHILL BOULEVARD TR/ER/GP/R/ANNX 124-03 (Tract 2568) WHEREAS,the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California; on November 9, 2005, for the purpose of considering application TR/ER/GP/R/ANNX 124-03, a request to, annex a 9.76 acre property into the City, amend the General Plan Land Use Map, pre- zone portions of the site R-1 and C/OS,and allow an eleven-lot residential subdivision; and WHEREAS, said public hearing was for the purpose of formulating and forwarding recommendations to the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo regarding the project; and WHEREAS, notices of said public hearing were made at the time and in the manner required by law; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed and considered the Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impact and the mitigation monitoring program prepared for the project; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has duly considered all evidence, including the testimony of the applicant, interested parties, and the evaluation and recommendations by staff, presented at said hearing. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: Section 1. Findings. Based upon all the evidence, the Commission makes the following findings in support of the project approval as a recommendation to the City Council as shown within the project exhibits: A. General Plan Man findings 1. Amendment of the General Plan Map from Interim Open Space to Single-Family Residential is consistent with Open Space Policy OS 2.2.3- Foothill Annexation since the northern portion of the property and the creek area is proposed to be annexed as open space and the development plan is as close to Foothill Boulevard as possible while preserving the creek area as open space. 2. Amendment of the General Plan Map to allow development higher. on the hillside within areas designated Open Space is consistent with the neighborhood development pattern and allows preservation of more sensitive areas within the creek. The amount of open space to be preserved is greater in area than the existing Interim Open Space designation and the Attachment to Planning Commission Resolution No.5432-05 GP/R/ER/TR/ANNX 124-03 Bishop Knoll Project 36 West Foothill Page 2 development is logically located. 3. As proposed, the development plan meets the intent of General Plan policy and allows logical, low density residential lots, consistent with the development pattern found in the adjacent neighborhood. 4. As conditioned, a Low-Density Residential land use designation is appropriate for this site since it allows a transition between the existing neighborhood and open space areas to the east and north. 5. Allowing the Land Use Element map amendment. will allow for development and road improvements that will enhance the safety and levels of service on Foothill Boulevard. 6. The subdivision, as conditioned, furthers the public interest and necessity by providing additional housing opportunities consistent with the community's desires as supported by survey results obtained during the 2005-07 City Budget Goal exercise and the City's General Plan. B. Subdivision Map findings 1. As conditioned, the design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is consistent with the General Plan Map for Low Density Residential because each property is appropriately sized in response to slope, and the development would occur as part of the neighborhood pattern anticipated for the Low-Density Residential zone. 2. As conditioned, the site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development because the site is adjacent to an existing residential neighborhood and there are existing roadways and services available to serve the development in accordance with City standards. I . The design of the subdivision, or the type of improvements, is not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and unavoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat because the development plan (as conditioned and as described in the proposed mitigation measures) contains provisions to preserve and protect the creek and sensitive hillside areas and the project mitigation measures reduce the likelihood of significant environmental impacts. 4. The design of the subdivision, or type of improvements, is not likely to cause serious public health problems because the development is of a similar scale to surrounding development. Additionally, new construction will be designed to meet existing building and safety codes. S. 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 no such easements exist. 6. The existing sidewalk provides sufficient access to the neighborhood and therefore eliminates the need for additional neighborhood connections within the subdivision. 7. The existing windrow of trees, site topography, and the fact that General Plan Policy is written with the term "should provide a minimum of 50 feet" (rather than shall) supports the use of a lesser setback for proposed homesites adjacent to the Urban Reserve Line. 8. The Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project adequately identifies and evaluates the potential impacts associated.with this project and where impacts are potentially significant, mitigation measures are provided to reduce these impacts to less than significant levels. �� ' - Attachment co Planning Commission Resolution No.5432-6 GP/R/ER/TR/ANNX 124-03 Bishop Knoll Project 36 West Foothill Page 3 Section 2. Environmental Review. The Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project, with the following mitigation measures and monitoring program. Aesthetics 1. The development area shall be designated as a"Sensitive Site" and shall require architectural review. Site plans and elevations shall be reviewed for consistency with the City's Community Design Guidelines, Chapter 7.2, Hillside Development. Monitoring Program: An application for architectural review shall be submitted to the City prior to preparation of construction documents for residential site development. Plans submitted for architectural review shall provide justification for compliance with the Community Design Guidelines. Compliance with the architectural plans shall be verified through construction plan check. 2. All new construction shall be limited to a 25-foot maximum height limit as measured from existing natural grade and based on an average between the highest and lowest points below the footprint of the proposed structure. Monitoring Program: An application for architectural review shall be submitted to the City prior to preparation of construction documents for residential site development. Plans submitted for architectural review shall provide justification for compliance with property development standards, including height. Compliance with the architectural plans shall be verified through construction plan check and field inspections of finished construction. 3. Site development shall be restricted to building footprints that shall be provided on an exhibit to be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Director. Monitoring Program:. An exhibit identifying building envelopes shall be submitted prior to approval of a final map. The building envelope exhibit shall be kept on file at the Community Development Department (within the project Tract Map file) to guide future residential development. All proposed development shall be reviewed for consistency with the exhibit. 4. For building sites that exceed 15% slope or greater (native slope prior to grading), slab on grade construction shall be prohibited. Structures shall utilize stem walls, raised foundations, retaining walls or other construction methods in order to reduce or eliminate site grading outside of the building footprint. Monitoring Program: All residential sites shall require an application for architectural review and the plans submitted for review shall identify existing natural grade, proposed grading plans, and type of construction. The building plan check submittal shall be checked for consistency with approved architectural plans. 5. Grading outside of the building footprint to create level yard areas shall be limited to a maximum of 15% of the lot area or 10% of the lot area for lots over 15,000 square feet in area. Attachment U Planning Commission Resolution-No.5431-05 GP/R/ERrfR/ANNX 124-03 Bishop Knoll Project 36 West Foothill Page 4 Monitoring Program: All residential sites shall require an application for architectural review and the plans submitted for review shall identify existing natural grade, proposed grading plans, and type of construction. The building plan check submittal shall be checked for consistency with approved architectural plans. 6. Manufactured cut and fill slopes shall not exceed 3:1 in slope and shall be contoured to appear as natural slopes. Monitoring Program: All residential sites shall require an application for architectural review and the plans submitted for review shall identify existing natural grade, proposed grading plans, and type of construction. The building plan check submittal shall be checked for consistency with approved architectural plans. 7. Graded 'slopes shall be appropriately landscaped with native and drought tolerant grasses, ground covers and shrubs. Monitoring Program: A final landscape plan will be reviewed and approved as part of the construction plan check. Installed landscape will be reviewed prior to occupancy release. 8. Existing cypress and redwood trees shall remain in place and be protected during all phases of site construction. Other trees shall remain on site unless otherwise approved by the Community Development Department and the City Arborist for removal. Eucalyptus trees shall remain on site and shall be safety pruned to remove dead or hazardous growth. Monitoring Program: Tree.protection fencing (temporary construction fencing) shall be securely installed at the drip line of all trees to be preserved. The fencing shall be installed prior to beginning of any earthwork, utilities, public improvements or other construction work and shall be inspected by City staff prior to issuance of construction permits. 9. If new street lighting or other public space lighting is proposed, a photometrics plan that shows how the light does not create substantial glare and maintains views of the night sky shall be required. Monitoring Program: Plans submitted for architectural review shall provide a required setbacks and site dimensions. Compliance with the site plan shall be verified through construction plan check and site review. A lighting photometric plan shall be submitted for review and approval by the Community Development Department as part of the construction plan check. 10. An open space easement that prohibits structures, grading, and removal of native vegetation (for purposes other than fire fuel management) shall be established at and above the 327-foot elevation contour as shown on the Tentative Tract Map. Monitoring Program: The final map shall include an open space easement that provides for open space as shown on the tentative map. The easement shall be recorded with appropriate language to preserve the open space as a native habitat, with no grading, structures, or other improvements unless associated with pedestrian access or erosion control improvements. & Attachment (a Planning Commission Resolution No.5432-05 GP/R/ER/TWANNX 124-03 Bishop Knoll Project 36 West Foothill Page 5 11. An open space easement shall be established between the edge of Foothill Boulevard and proposed development sites. The easement shall be designed to preserve the cypress trees and redwood trees, the drainage area area, and any existing native trees. No grading, construction, or structures shall be placed within the open space easement unless approved as part of a creek enhancement plan or recreation path through the open space area. The open space easement shall be a minimum width of 120 feet beginning at the east edge of the new road and a minimum width of 200 feet at the west end of the property. Monitoring Program: The final map shall include an open space easement that provides for open space as shown on the tentative map. The easement shall be recorded with appropriate language to preserve the open space as a native habitat, with no grading, structures, or other improvements unless associated with pedestrian access or erosion control improvements. 12. Native sycamore trees, willows, blackberries, and other approved native tree and shrub species shall be planted within the open space easement near Foothill Boulevard as part of a habitat restoration plan following removal of the existing structures and completion of road improvements. Monitoring Program: A landscape plan shall be submitted along with final improvement plans. The landscape plan and associated improvements shall be implemented prior to recordation of the final map. Landscape improvements shall be subject to final inspection by the Community Development Department. 13._All existing structures, concrete foundations, plumbing and associated utility structures, and associated debris shall be removed from the site prior to recordation of a final map for the subdivision. Monitoring Program: The public improvement plans and required landscape plans shall include plans for removal of existing concrete, utilities and other items mentioned above. The Community Development Department shall inspect compliance with this measure prior to recordation of the final map. Agricultural Resources 14. A minimum 35-foot buffer shall be retained between proposed residential structures and active cattle grazing areas outside of the City's Urban Reserve Line. Monitoring Program: The final map shall indicate building envelopes for all parcels, consistent with the 35-foot buffer zone requirement. Plans submitted for architectural review shall indicate required setbacks and site dimensions for each structure. Compliance with the site plan shall be verified through construction plan check and site review. Air Quality 15. The following dust mitigation measures are designed to reduce temporary and intermittent air pollution impacts associated with grading and construction of the site. They are required LQ �� Planning Commission Resolution No.5432-05 Attachment (n GP/R/ERTMANNX 124-03 Bishop Knoll Project 36 West Foothill Page 6 from the start, and are to be maintained throughout the duration of the construction or grading activity: a) Unless otherwise approved, an Asbestos Dust Mitigation Plan shall be submitted to the Air Pollution Control District for review and approval prior to the start of any construction or grading activity. The plan, if required shall be implemented during all phases of earthwork at the site. b) Construction vehicle speed at the work site must be limited to fifteen (15) miles per hour or less; c) Prior to any ground disturbance, sufficient water must be applied to the area to be disturbed to prevent visible emissions from crossing the property line; d) Areas to be graded or excavated must be kept adequately wetted to prevent visible emissions from crossing the property line; e) Storage piles must be kept adequately wetted, treated with a chemical dust suppressant, or covered when material is not being added to or removed from the pile; f) Equipment must be washed down before moving from the property onto a paved public road; and g) Visible track-out on the paved public road must be cleaned using wet sweeping or a TEPA filter equipped vacuum device within twenty-four(24)hours. Monitoring Program: An asbestos dust mitigation plan shall be submitted to the City and approved by the Air Quality.District prior to issuance of a construction permit. City staff shall ensure compliance with standards through site inspections. Biological Resources 16. A creek enhancement plan shall be prepared by a qualified landscape professional for the area between Foothill Boulevard and the project site and the drainage swale area to the east of the project site. The plan shall include provisions to remove any non-native intrusive plant species, restore the drainage course of the swale, and planting of native willow trees, sycamore trees, and appropriate shrubs and grasses. All work shall be performed during the dry season (between May 15th and October 15th) and appropriate measures shall be prescribed in order to prevent erosion. Monitoring Program: A final landscape plan will be reviewed and approved as part of the construction plan check for public improvements prior to recordation of the final map. Installed landscape will be reviewed by the Community Development Department prior to prior to recordation of the final map. 17. During the construction and excavation phase of the road improvements, the construction boundary shall be clearly marked with orange construction fencing and silt fencing shall be . installed between the building site and native soil areas. Willow trees and drainage areas outside of the construction boundary shall be protected and preserved during all phases of construction. Construction plans shall identify measures to prevent concrete waste, construction debris, or construction equipment from entering drainage area or interfering with remaining willow trees. Attachment lP Planning Commission Resolution No.5432-05 GP/R/ER/TR/ANNX 124-03 Bishop Knoll Project 36 West Foothill Page 7 Monitoring Program: The Community Development Department will inspect construction fencing prior to commencement of any earthwork or other construction. A pre-construction meeting to include representatives from the Community Development Department and City Natural Resources Manager shall occur prior to commencement of construction. 18. Permits to work within the creek area will be required from the Department of Fish and Game and the Army Corp of Engineers. Such permits shall be secured prior to any grading or vegetation removal within the creek vicinity. Monitoring Program: The applicant shall provide evidence to the City of approval of creek modification permits from applicable agencies prior to commencement of construction. Cultural Resources 19. During construction, in the event that subsurface cultural or historic material is discovered on the property, all activities shall cease in the affected area until the area is surveyed by an archeologist/historian approved by the City. At that time a subsurface testing program shall be initiated in order to determine the presence or absence of any historic or pre-historic materials on the site. Under the direction of the archaeologist/historian, a mitigation plan shall be developed and approved by the environmental coordinator. Monitoring Program: The project manager, contractor and subcontractors shall be responsible for continued monitoring of grading and excavation operations for compliance with this mitigation measure. Prior to construction, the applicant shall consult with a qualified archeologist (from the City's list of archeologists) who may be called upon in the event of a discovery. The final construction plans shall indicate the name and contact information of the archeologist to be contacted, including a list of procedures as indicated in the mitigation measure. In the event of a discovery, the City and archeologist shall be notified immediately. 20. Prior to removing or demolishing the existing residence at the property, all provisions of the City's Building Demolition and Relocation codes shall be utilized. This may include a 90- day notice advertised in a local newspaper offering the existing residence for re-location. Monitoring Program: The final subdivision improvement plans shall include a demolition plan and permit submittal for the existing residence. At that time evidence of compliance with the City's Building and Demolition and Relocation code shall be submitted. 21. Salvageable material from the barn or residence .shall be recycled or re-used whenever possible. The Dacite rock foundation (from Bishop Peak Quarry) from the barn shall be preserved and incorporated into an approved feature of the site development.. Monitoring Program: The final improvement plans shall contain a plan for use of the rock foundation. Implementation of the plans shall be verified by the Community Development Department. Planning Commission Resolution No. 5432-05 Attachment (v GP/R/ER/TR/ANNX 124-03 Bishop Knoll Project 36 West Foothill Page 8 Geolosv and Soils 22. The recommendations of the engineering geotechnical report prepared by Mid Coast Geotechnical on February 10, 2003, shall be incorporated into the project unless superior design alternatives are approved by the City Public Works Director subject to approval of a State registered geotechnical engineer. Monitoring Program: The engineering geotechnical report recommendations shall be incorporated into the project plans to be submitted for construction permits. The applicable construction methods shall be incorporated into the final project and inspected as part of the building inspection process during construction. Hazards 23. Appropriate buffer zones shall be established between residential structures and existing native vegetation, subject to the review and approval of the City Fire Marshal and the Community Development Director. Annual maintenance of native vegetation and appropriate planting of drought tolerant and fire suppressive landscape plants shall be incorporated into the project and into the CC&R's for the project Monitoring Program: All residential sites shall require an application for architectural review and the plans submitted for review shall identify existing natural grade, proposed grading plans, and type of construction. The building plan check submittal shall be checked for consistency with approved architectural plans. Hydrolo2y and Water Ouality 24. As discussed in the Hydrologic Analysis prepared by EDA on October 6, 2004, the drainage pipes below Foothill Boulevard shall be extended to accommodate the proposed road widening. All work shall be completed prior to recordation of the final tract map. Monitoring Program: Construction plans, including a grading and drainage plan, shall reflect direction of drainage and identify any proposed detention or retention. Public improvement plans for Foothill Boulevard shall implement any necessary upgrades and modifications to the drainage pipes below the roadway. All improvements shall be inspected by the Public Works Division for compliance with the public improvement plans prior to recordation of the final map(unless a bond is approved by the Public Works Division). Drainage systems and applicable installations shall be incorporated into the site prior to final inspection. Land Use and Planning 25. A pedestrian path shall be incorporated into the project to allow a possible future neighborhood connection between the proposed project site and the existing residential neighborhood to the east. Monitoring Program: Required public improvements shall include incorporation of a pedestrian path. The path shall be constructed prior to recordation of a final map to the satisfaction of the Community Le Attachment (o Planning Commission Resolution-No. 5432-05 GPaTRTlWANNX 124-03 Bishop Knoll Project 36 West Foothill Page 9 Development Department. Ongoing maintenance of the path shall be a responsibility of the homeowners association. Section 3. Recommendation. The Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council approval of application ER/TR/GP/R/ANNX 124-03, subject to the following conditionsand code requirements. 1. The project shall be forwarded to the Architectural Review Commission to review the project design for consistency with the Community Design Guidelines following approval of the General Plan Amendment, Prezoning, Tract Map and Annexation by the City Council, unless each lot is to be sold separately prior to development. If the lots are to be sold separately without development, each residential lot shall be deemed a sensitive site subject to architectural review. The level of architectural review shall be at the discretion of the Community Development Director. 2. An affordable housing agreement consistent with the draft affordable housing proposal shall be submitted for review and approval of the Community Development Director prior to proceeding to the Architectural Review Commission, following approval of the applicable entitlements by the City Council. The housing plan shall include at least two moderately affordable units and one low-income unit. 3. The project shall be developed with attention to sustainable construction features and contemporary energy reducing design as identified within the General Plan Housing Element. These features include, energy and water conservation methods, attention to preservation of native site conditions, and recyclable construction materials. 4. The subdivider shall dedicate a public easement to allow pedestrian access within trails. identified on the tentative map. Easements shall include at least two potential future access points to open space properties to the east. The trails shall be constructed prior to recordation of the final map. The trail design shall include appropriate grades and surfacing to allow pedestrian access and reduce erosion potential. The design and finish construction of the open space trails shall be reviewed and approved by the Natural Resources Manager. 5. The project's pedestrian paths shall be privately owned and maintained by the Homeowners Association. 6. The subdivider shall dedicate an easement for all property above the 330-foot contour, to perpetually preserve the property as private open space. The easement shall be written to prohibit grading, construction and land disturbance other than pedestrian pathways or native landscape. Erosion control devices and wildland fire vegetation control may be allowed within the open space.easement. 7. The subdivider shall dedicate an easement to preserve the creek area south of the proposed sewer line easement below proposed residential sites 14 as shown on the tentative tract map. The easement shall prevent vegetation removal, grading, and other site disturbance other than required demolition activities to remove the existing residence and other associated improvements and debris. � - 3 Attachment '(9 Planning Commission Resolution-No.5432-05 GP/R/ER/TR/ANNX 124-03 Bishop Knoll Project 36 West Foothill Page 10 8. The building envelopes shall be adjusted to accommodate a 35-foot buffer between residential homesites and the urban reserve line. 9. All site construction shall be limited to area within established building envelopes as established on the Tentative Tract Map. 10. The applicant shall pay Park In-Lieu Fees prior to recordation of the Final Map, consistent with SLO Municipal Code Section 16.40.080. Credit may be given for areas dedicated as permanent open space subject to review and approval of the Finance Director and the Community Development Director. 11. 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. 12. The demolition of the existing residence shall be subject to the City's demolition and building relocation code and may be subject to a 90-day newspaper advertisement prior to demolition or removal. Conditions and code requirements from other departments: The following code requirements are included for information purposes only. They serve to give the applicant a general idea of other City requirements that will apply to the project. Phis is not intended to be an exhaustive list as other requirements may be identified during the plan check process. Public Right-of-way 1. Provide an expanded site plan to show both sides of Foothill Boulevard at the entire property frontage including all existing and proposed driveways, intersections, sidewalks and striping. Show all proposed road improvements or provide justification for lack .of proposed improvements. The plan submitted does not provide enough detail for the opposite side of Foothill Boulevard to determine the location and extent of existing improvements. This project will be required to complete full width improvements to Foothill Blvd along it frontage per the section approved by Council and codified in section 17.74.100 of the City's Municipal Code. 2. Since curbside parking is not provided, alternate parking equivalent to one space for each twenty-fivefeet of frontage shall be provided. Such alternate parking shall be provided within a public right-of-way, or on lots adjacent to the street, with convenient access to the street. An exception to the street development requirements per S.L.O. M.C. Section 16.36.140 is required if the alternative street section is used(per 16.36.030). 3. Provide a 1:1 taper structural pavement to existing pavement to the West. 4. The proposed cul-de-sac shall be a private street owned and maintained by a homeowners Lv -3 ;7 Planning Commission Resolution-No.5432-05 Attachment (o GP/R/ER/TR/ANNX 124-03 Bishop Knoll Project 36 West Foothill Page 11 association. 5. Complete street improvements along Foothill Blvd are required and shall be constructed in accordance with the most current City regulations, City of San Luis Obispo Engineering Standards and Standard Specifications (improvements include but are not limited to: curbs, gutters & 2m sidewalks, full width street pavement, signing, striping, barricades, street trees, street lights, etc.). The improvements shall extend along the entire property frontage and transition back to reasonable location outside the project boundary as approved by the Public Works Director. 6. The subdivider shall dedicate a 2m wide public utility easement and a 3m wide street tree easement across the frontage of each lot. Said easement shall be adjacent to and contiguous with all public right-of-way lines bordering each lot. 7. The internal street and turnaround area curbs shall be panted red and properly signed and stenciled as a"Fire Lane"per the Fire Department's "Developer's Guide" in order to prohibit parking in unauthorized areas and preventing access in case of emergencies. Grading& Drainage 8. Provide a proposed storm water plan and hydrology calculations for site drainage including proposed culverts and bridge crossing at street entry. The rate of runoff from the site post development shall not significantly exceed(5-percent) that of predevelopment for the 2, 10, 100 year 24hour storm. Analysis and design of stormwater facilities shall be consistent with the City's Waterways Management Plan-Drainage Design Manual. 9. In order to mitigate for a decrease in water quality, the stormwater runoff from all improved areas of the development site,except rooftops, shall be treated in accordance with the Best Management Practices published.in the California Stormwater Quality Association's Best Management Practice Handbook,January 2003. For the purposes of water quality design, all water quality BMPs shall be designed to treat runoff from a 25 mm/24-Hour storm event. 10. In order to mitigate for a decrease in water quality, the stormwater runoff from all improved areas of the development site,except rooftops, shall be treated in accordance with the Best Management Practices published in the California Stormwater Quality Association's Best Management Practice Handbook,January 2003. For the purposes of water quality design, all water quality BMPs shall be designed.to treat runoff from a 25 mm/24-Hour storm event. 11. Prior to the approval of public improvement plans, the subdivider shall submit an updated report based on the final design in accordance with the City's Waterways Management Plan Drainage Design Manual Water,Sewer& Utilities 12. The proposed on-site sewer main will be privately owned and maintained by the Homeowner's Association. Attachment (P Planning Commission Resolution No. 5432-05 GP/R/ERMANNX 124-03 Bishop Knoll Project 36 West Foothill Page 12 13. The subdivider shall place underground, all existing overhead utilities along the public street frontage(s), to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director and utility companies. 14. It is necessary to be certain that all City facilities fall within proposed easements or property deeded to the City. The on-site sewer system shall be privately owned and maintained, up to the point of connection to the City sewer system. The tentative map shall clearly indicate that the sewer system is to be private. There shall be a joint ownership and maintenance agreement covering all common facilities. The City shall own and maintain the water system up to and including the water meter. 15. The sewer force main shall revert to gravity flow before entering the public right-of-way. This will require that the applicant get an easement from the owner of Lot 4 in Tract 1313, and the sewer force main shown within this easement outside of the Foothill Blvd right-of- way. The manhole receiving the discharge from the sewer force main shall be coated with Sancon 100, or approved equal,to protect against hydrogen sulfide corrosion. Transportation 16. The common mailbox location shall be relocated to the east side of the private street and shall be located in an area where on-street parking is provided. 17. Directional curb ramps shall be provided where Foothill Boulevard intersects the private street unless it can be demonstrated that at this location directional ramps cannot be designed to meet City standards. 18. Pedestrian access shall be provided between this development and the existing residential neighborhood to the east. On motion by Commr. Loh, seconded by Commr. Miller, and on the following roll call vote to wit: AYES: Commrs. Miller, Boswell, Loh, Carter and Christianson NOES: None REFRAIN: None ABSENT: Commr. Osborne VACANCY: oNE The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 9th day of November, 2005. Ro d Wiiisen3dcd, Secretary Planning Co 7 uission I Attachment SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES November 9, 2005 CALL TO ORDER/PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: The San Luis Obispo Planning Commission was called to order at 7:00 p.m. on Wednesday, November 9, 2005, in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo. .ROLL CALL: Present: Commissioners Carlyn Christianson, Alice Loh, Andrea Miller, Orval Osborne, Andrew Carter, Chairperson Michael Boswell (and one vacancy) Absent: Commr. Osborne Staff: Deputy Community Development Director Ronald Whisenand, Senior Planner Jeff Hook, Associate Planner Phil Dunsmore, Assistant City Attorney Christine Dietrick, and Recording Secretaries Raquel Rodriguez. and Jill Francis MINUTES: The minutes of October 12, 2005 were approved as presented. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS There were no comments made from the public. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS:. 1. 36 W. Foothill Boulevard. ANNX, GP/R, TR, and ER-124=_0_3; Request to annex approximately 10 acres of land into the City; prezone the property to R-1 (low- density residential); consideration of a tentative tract map to create 11 lots from one lot; and environmental review; Jay Poindexter, applicant. (Phil Dunsmore) Associate Planner Phil Dunsmore presented the staff report, recommending that the Commission recommend that the City Council approve the annexation, General Plan Map Amendment and Tract Map, based on findings and subject to conditions, code requirements, and mitigation measures. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Public testimony generally opposed the project and adjacent property owners strongly opposed the use of eminent domain to allow a path through private vacant lots. Jeff Edwards, applicant's representative explained the issue of cost versus benefit. He felt that public use of the trail could devalue property. David Foote, 49 Monterey Street, felt the City should look at both sides. Planning Commission Minutes \`J - Attachment 7 November 9, 2005 Page 2 Larry Parker, 1396 Diablo Drive, noted he owns a vacant lot in the area (lot 4) and expressed concern that a new pedestrian path to La Loma Court might affect his ability to build a home on that property. .Richard Zweifel, 1218 Vista del Lago, expressed that a pathway is redundant and unnecessary, and asked that the walkway at Foothill Boulevard be extended instead. He voiced concern with liability, parking and traffic issues, as well as a financial impact on him as a homeowner of Lot 5. Pam Zweifel, 1218 Vista del Lago, felt Foothill Boulevard usage should be primary. Connie Framberger, 82 La Loma , voiced concern with proposed changes as they relate to property usage since property was purchased back in 1986. Horst ? —Lot#13- had concerns with the potential for imminent domain. Michael Framberger, 82 La Loma, noted concerns with potential water and traffic problems. Michael Sullivan noted concerns with open spaces. There were no further comments from the public. COMMISSION COMMENTS: Following extensive discussion and public testimony regarding a proposed pedestrian path to the existing neighborhood at Tract 1313, the Planning Commission supported approval of the annexation and tract map. The Commission discussed the neighborhood connection concerns raised by the staff report and agreed that Foothill Blvd provided sufficient connectivity given the location and small size of the project to meet General Plan requirements. They also discussed the option presented by staff of eminent domain proceedings and specifically rejected that option. On motion by Commr. Loh to recommend the City Council approve the project with removal of staff recommended conditions that require a pedestrian path to connect the Proposed neighborhood to existing neighborhoods, removal of conditions that required an urban reserve line buffer of 50. feet, and the addition of findings to support the subdivision without the path and without. a 50-foot setback from the Urban Reserve Line. Seconded by Commr. Miller. AYES: Commrs. Loh, Miller, Christianson, Carter and Boswell NOES: None ABSENT: Commr. Osbome ABSTAIN: None The motion passed on a 5:0 vote. 7l Planning Commission Minutes Attachment ? November 9, 2005 Page 3 On motion by Commr. Carter to require the three Inclusionary housing units be for low- income families. The motion failed due to the lack of a second. 2. 2975 Rockview Place. TR 167-05; Consideration of a tentative tract map to convert 20 apartments into 20 condominium units with one common area parcel, R-2-S zone; Holly Weatherford, applicant. (Phil Dunsmore) Associate Planner Phil Dunsmore presented the staff report recommending that the Commission recommend that the City Council approve the tract map, based on findings and subject to conditions and code requirements. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Pamela Jardini, applicant's representative expressed agreement with the staff report, noting that the water meter and waterline locations needs to be determined. There were no further comments from the public. COMMISSION COMMENTS: Since this project had been previously reviewed by the Planning Commission and City Council, there was no significant Commission discussion and no public testimony. The approval did not include any changes to staff recommended findings and conditions: On motion by Commr. Carter to recommend the City Council approve the tract map. Seconded by Commr. Loh AYES: Commrs. Carter, Loh, Miller, Boswell and Christianson NOES: None ABSENT: Commr. Osborne ABSTAIN: None The motion passed on a 5:0 vote. 3. 1213 and 1221 Nipomo Street: 577 and 597 Marsh Sheet. GP/R and ER 160-05. Request to amend the General Plan Land Use Map at 1221 Nipomo Street from High-Density Residential to General. Retail and rezone the property from R-4 (High- Density Residential) to C-D-MU (Downtown Commercial with a mixed use overlay zone); and rezone 1213 Nipomo, 577 & 597 Marsh Street from C-D (Downtown Commercial) to C-D-MU (Downtown Commercial with a mixed use overlay zone); and modification of the Parking Space In-Lieu Fee area; Bermant Homes, applicant. (Jaime Hill) Associate Planner Phil Dunsmore presented the staff report recommending that the Commission recommend that the City Council 1) adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration (ER 160-05) and amend the General Plan Land Use Element map to change the land �Vry�?_ .�� Attachment 8 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT ITEM#1 BY: Philip Dunsmore, Associate Planner(781-7522) MEETING DATE: November 9, 2005 FROM: Ronald Whisenand, Deputy Director- Development Rev<W> 2 FILE NUMBER: GP/R, ANNX and TR/ER 124-03 PROJECT ADDRESS: 36 West Foothill Boulevard SUBJECT: Review of a proposed annexation and General Plan Map amendment to allow an 11- lot residential tract map on a 9.76 acre property west of the City limits on Foothill Boulevard. RECOMMENDATION Adopt the attached Planning Commission resolution which recommends approval of the annexation, General Plan Map Amendment and Tract Map to the City Council based on findings and subject to conditions, code requirements and mitigation measures. BACKGROUND Situation The project is a request to annex and pre-zone a 9.76 acre property to allow an 11-lot residential tract map. The existing General Plan Map designates the site as Interim Open Space and the upper portions of the property (at approximately the 310 foot contour) are designated as Open Space. The annexation includes a request to pre-zone the property to R-1 up to the 327-foot elevation contour and pre-zone the remainder of the property.for Open Space. The item was reviewed by the Planning Commission on July 27, 2005 and continued to a date uncertain with specific direction. Now the applicant is seeking Planning Commission approval of the project in order to proceed to the City Council. Data Summary Address: 36 and 4 West Foothill Applicant: Jay Poindexter, 4711 Thurber Lane Santa Cruz CA 95065 Zoning: County designation: RSF, SRA, GS (Residential Single Family, Sensitive Resource Area, and Geologic Survey area. General Plan: Interim Open Space and Conservation Open Space Environmental: An amended version of the Mitigated Negative Declaration was recommended by the Senior Planner on October 28, 2005 and is attached to this agenda report (ER 124-03) Attachment 8 GP/R/ERTMANNX 124-03 Bishop Knoll 36 West Foothill Page 2 Proiect and Site Description See attached Planning Commission staff report from July 27, 2005. Proiect.History At the previous Planning Commission (PC) hearing of July 27, 2005, staff recommended denial of the project due to inconsistency with the General Plan, specifically General Plan Land Use Element Policy 6.1.4 which states: "The Interim Open Space designation is to be changed to an urban classification only when the conditions necessary for development can be satisfied and a certain type of development is approved. After further study, it may be found that permanent Open Space is an appropriate classification for areas initially classified as Interim Open Space." Staff felt that the site development constraints had not been completely addressed through the subdivision design. The most significant issues were; the lack of neighborhood connectivity;less than adequate buffering and setbacks from the edge of the Urban Reserve Line and active agricultural uses; and an insufficient inclusionary housing plan. The Planning Commission staff report from July 27`h (Attachment 4) outlines the applicable General Plan policies that were the basis of staffs recommendation. At the hearing, the Planning Commission felt that improvements could be made to the subdivision design, which would allow the Commission to support the--project. The Planning Commission's action for a continuance included three main items for the applicant to address (Attachment 5), that are discussed in detail in the evaluation section below. EVALUATION The project is now closer to meeting many of the City's General Plan Policies and is consistent with the development standards for the proposed R-1 district. The following discussion highlights the response to the previous direction formulated at the PC hearing on July 27`x'. Planning Commission Direction The Commission should refer to Attachment 4 for a partial list of General Plan Policies associated with the proposed development. 1. Establish a trail that allows pedestrian access into the proposed on-site open space areas with the potential for linking to off-site open space areas in the future. Staff response: The project includes significant private open space areas adjacent to Foothill Boulevard and above the development boundary on the hillside. A trail system that includes public easements has now been proposed in the open space areas. Additionally, a developed pathway is proposed in the open space area adjacent to Foothill Boulevard. As directed by staff and the Commission, the trails allow for circulation through the open space without precluding Attachment f; GP/R/ERl1R/ANNX 124-03 Bishop Knoll 36 West Foothill Page 3 linkages to open space areas outside of the project area at a later date. One of the trails is intended to allow a pedestrian connection to La Loma Court within the Los Cerros Drive neighborhood as discussed in item 3 below. All of the trails would need to be constructed in accordance with City standards (as prescribed by the City's Natural Resource Manager) prior to recordation of the final map. Staff believes that the applicant has achieved the goals of the Commission and staff with the pedestrian enhancements described. Project conditions 4 through 7 discuss the required trail improvements. 2. Revise the affordable housing proposal to exclude the use of secondary dwelling units. Staff response: The applicant is in the process of purchasing off-site multi-family units that will be deed restricted as affordable units. Two 2-bedroom units and one 1-bedroom unit are proposed to be deed restricted to meet the City's affordable standards for a 30 year period (see Attachment 3). Although the applicant's letter states affordable for moderate-income levels, the Inclusionary Housing Requirements indicate that two moderate-income units and one-low-income unit will be required. Staff has included a condition of approval that clarifies the requirements. Secondary dwelling units are no longer included in the proposal. As conditioned, staff(including the City's Housing Programs Manager) supports the applicant's proposal to meet the City's inclusionary housing program policies for a project of this scale. 3. Provide an easement within the project area from the proposed new street to a logical connection to the Los Cerros Drive neighborhood. Staff response: The applicant is proposing a trail that would begin at the west side of the new road and terminate at the edge of vacant properties between lots 4 and 5 in La Loma Court. The trail location is the most logical location (due to topography) to allow access to the Los Cerros Drive neighborhood. The proposed trail terminates at private property since the applicant has not been successful in obtaining an easement through the private lots to allow access to the public sidewalk on La Loma Court. This is a significant issue as discussed in the - y , prior Planning Commission staff ( N report and at the public hearing of July 27, 2005 since many of the BishopKnoll r City's General Plan Policies mandate boundary , •y neighborhood connectivity. At the _ Q prior Planning Commission hearing, Commissioners understood the difficulty in obtaining an easement - -- $ through private property; therefore, the applicant was only requested to provide a connection to the edge of i the private property. 41 In responding to the issue of neighborhood connectivity, some potential easement area06 +a �• O � K • 1 I� Attachment 6 GP/R/ER/TR/ANNX 124-03 Bishop Knoll 36 West Foothill Page 4 commissioners felt that Foothill Boulevard would provide adequate linkages for residents to neighborhood amenities such as parks, schools and friends. Because of the importance of interlinked neighborhoods, staff, once again, would like to stress that a neighborhood connection other than Foothill Boulevard is crucial to allow this project to be consistent with General Plan Policies. As discussed in the July 27, 2005 staff report, there are several General Plan policies that mandate neighborhood connections in new subdivisions: LU 2.1.4.Neighborhood Connections All areas should have a street and sidewalk pattern that promotes neighborhood and community cohesiveness. There should be continuous sidewalks or paths of adequate width, connecting neighborhoods with each other and with public and commercial services to provide continuous pedestrian paths throughout the City. LU 2.1.5:Neighborhood Open Links The City should treat streets, sidewalks, and front setbacks as a continuous open link between all areas of the City and all land uses. These features should be designed as amenities for light, air, social contact, and community identity. LU 2.2.6: Neighborhood Pattern All residential development should be integrated with existing neighborhoods. Where physical features make this impossible, the new development should create new neighborhoods. As mentioned earlier, these policies Existing trail L I led to staffs recommendation of for Tract 1313 denial in the original project review. In fact, when the adjacent Los Cerros Drive subdivision was Bishops Peak approved, a link to other school neighborhoods and Bishop Peak " school was required (see graphic at right). This pathway also required the subdivider to acquire easements over private land outside the subdivision. This important link exists today at the end of Los Bishop Knoll Cerros drive and is frequently used property by the neighborhood. The Proposed trail for development of the Bishop Knoll Bishop Knoll project is very similar and must be designed to meet similar requirements. Without the trail, children trying to reach Bishop's Peak school, or pedestrians simply trying to visit friends or neighbors, would have to navigate along Foothill Boulevard which is a high speed,4-lane arterial road at this location. Attachment $ GP/R/ERrrWANNX 124-03 Bishop Knoll 36 West Foothill Page 5 The concept of eminent domain was not discussed at the hearing, however this may be a necessary option should the project applicant be unable to accomplish a reasonable link to the neighborhood. The City Attorney was consulted regarding the use of eminent domain to acquire an easement through the vacant residential properties at La Loma Court. More information on this possibility will be presented to the Commission at the hearing. If the City lends its powers of eminent domain to the applicant, the applicant would still be responsible for purchasing the easement for the path and paying for associated legal expenses. Project conditions 5, 6 and 7 outline the specifications and requirements for the easement and path. The properties involved in the potential easement include lots 4 and 5 of Tract 1313 at the end of La Loma Court. Each of these properties is currently vacant and at a similar grade to the proposed Bishop Knoll project. A logical location for a pedestrian easement and unpaved pathway could be a 6-foot wide space between each of these lots (perhaps three-feet on each lot) as shown in the graphic on page 3. Urban Reserve Line Buffer Although the Commission did not provide specific direction to increase the Urban Reserve Line (URL) buffer on July 27th, staff has encouraged the applicant to explore an expanded buffer consistent with General Plan policy. Changes have now been incorporated into the project to expand the URL buffer for the lots adjacent to the western project boundary. The original map identified a 20 to 25 foot URL buffer and the revised map provides for a 35-foot buffer between residential development pads and the URL. General Planpolicy states: OS 13.2.1: Urban Reserve Line Within the city limits the City will, and outside the city limits, the City will encourage the State and County to: E) Require proposed urban uses located adjacent to the Urban Reserve Line to provide a transition to open space or Greenbelt areas. Transition areas should add to the preservation of open space lands or resources. At a minimum a 50 foot transition area (preserved in essentially a natural state) should be provided within the project along the project boundary with the URL(unless the transition area is defined elsewhere in this Element). The applicant believes that the existing eucalyptus tree row will act to augment the proposed 35- foot buffer to meet the intent of the policy. Greater setbacks to the URL would likely require significant alterations to the map or exceptions to the minimum lot size and/or dimensions. Although the 35-foot separation is an improvement from the earlier map and seems consistent with Commission comments at the last meeting, staff remains concerned that anything less than 50-feet will be inconsistent with General Plan policy. The key consideration for the Commission is the use of the operative words "should" vs. "shall" in the policy. It is staff's belief that the intent of the policy is to require, when possible, at least a 50-foot buffer. 35 feet is certainly better than 25 feet, however this does not meet the minimum standard of "at a minimum of 50" as stated in the policy. Some members of the Commission, however, felt that the use of the word "should" allowed flexibility to consider combining the applicant's proposal of 25 feet with the added buffering that the adjacent windrow of trees provides. - 17 V Attachment 6 GP/R/ER/TR/ANNX 124-03 Bishop Knoll 36 West Foothill Page 6 ` Staff has included a condition of approval to require the map to be amended to illustrate a 50- foot buffer adjacent to the URL prior to proceeding to City Council. The Planning Commission should determine whether this condition (proposed condition 10) is appropriate or whether a lesser buffer is acceptable. If a lesser buffer is determined acceptable than specific reference to policy OS 13.2.1 E should be included in the findings. Frontage Improvements for Foothill Boulevard At the July 27th hearing, Public Works staff indicated that substantial discussion had taken place regarding the level of improvements that would be required along Foothill. The Municipal Code requires the applicant to install frontage improvements for the entire property frontage at Foothill Boulevard. Municipal Code Section 16.36.250 A. describes improvement requirements for subdivisions: "The full width of each street shall be improved by grading, base preparation and paving. If a street constitutes a boundary of the subdivision or connects the subdivision with the rest of the City's street system, even though it is not within the area to be subdivided, the full width of the roadway shall be improved. The City may, depending on individual circumstances, require full curb, gutter and sidewalk improvements on the opposite side of the subdivision. " The applicant is proposing to terminate the complete road improvements at the edge of the URL along Foothill Boulevard, allowing the required 4-lane arterial road improvements for City projects to transition back to two lanes within the City limits. As proposed, Foothill Boulevard would be completely improved with street pave-out, curb, gutter and sidewalk for 2/3 of the frontage and then begin narrowing (without sidewalk) to the west at the boundary of the Urban Reserve Line. Although the applicant's proposal will reduce potential environmental impacts to the creek area north of Foothill Boulevard, this scenario would be contrary to Municipal Code requirements. At best, deleting the requirements of this subdivision for frontage improvements adjacent to the creek will only defer the need to construct them until a future time. The Natural Resource Manager has concluded that if impacts are to take place to the creek the City should have it occur one time only and not subject the ecosystem to repeat disturbances. Furthermore, unless the applicant is required to pay for these future improvements, the City, using General Fund monies, will have to pay-for them in the future. Staff has considered the applicant's request and has concluded that complete frontage improvements (A roadway width that will accommodate 4 travel lanes, curb gutter and sidewalk) including any necessary mitigation for environmental impacts should be done by this project at this time. Environmental impacts and proposed mitigation measures are discussed in the environmental section below. Subdivision Design and Property Development Standards. The basic subdivision design is described in detail in the attached PC report from July 27th. Although the applicant has modified the proposal, the basic design remains the same, and the project still complies with the City's Subdivision regulations for a standard R-1 subdivision. Z O Attachment S GP/R/ERrMANNX 124-03 Bishop Knoll 36 West Foothill Page 7 Since the proposed annexation and subdivision do not propose development of each residential property, specific development plans cannot be analyzed at this time. However, staff looked at grading, building envelopes, site access, and hillside development standards in evaluating the subdivision. The proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration, Attachment 6, recommends specific mitigation measures that respond to grading and other aesthetic concerns related to applicable property development standards. Mitigation measures also require designation of each development site as a sensitive site, requiring architectural review for site development. Sensitive site status is appropriate due to significant slope and aesthetics and to ensure appropriate implementation of environmental mitigation and subdivision conditions. Environmental Review An initial study of environmental review was drafted for the project that identifies potentially significant impacts in the area of Aesthetics, Agricultural Resources, Air Quality, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Geology/Soils, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Hydrology/Water Quality, Land Use and Planning, Transportation & Traffic, and Utilities and Service Systems. The Initial Study concludes that although significant impacts may occur, that mitigation is either incorporated into the project by design or could be added by way of project conditions to reduce the potential project impacts to a less than significant level. The Planning Commission should review the attached resolution and list of mitigation measures for the project. In addition to mitigation measures that are designed to ensure appropriate development of this hillside property, Mitigation Measure 19 has been added to require incorporation of a wildlife corridor between the project site and open space areas on Cerro San Luis on the other side of Foothill Boulevard. This mitigation measure requires the installation of an earth bottom culvert below Foothill Boulevard in order to accommodate the wildlife corridor. Since the existing culvert below Foothill is failing, and improvements to Foothill Boulevard will require retrofit of the culverts beneath Foothill, the culverts could be designed and sized to accommodate a wildlife corridor. Mitigation Measure 25 already requires reconstruction of the culverts below Foothill in order to repair the failing culverts and allow for the widening of Foothill Boulevard. The Planning Commission should also be aware of Municipal Code section 16.36.250 f. that requires storm drainage improvements to be constructed for the subdivision: "Storm drainage, erosion and flood-control facilities shall be constructed for the collection and transmission of stormwater from the subdivision to the nearest point of disposal which is satisfactory to the city engineer. The subdivider shall be responsible for proper drainage of all storm water which runs onto his property from adjacent properties." Staff believes that the project mitigation measures to replace the culvert are the minimum necessary improvement requirements that will be required to reduce the impacts to a less than significant level. Other mitigation measures will be required in order to accommodate the widening of Foothill Boulevard. If Foothill is widened to 4 lanes across the frontage of the property, portions of the creek will need to be culverted and a retaining wall will replace the existing slope on the north side of Foothill. Willow trees and portions of the seasonal creek would be removed. The project will require the applicant to secure permits from the Department At#achinerit 8 GP/R/ER/TR/ANNX 124-03 Bishop Knoll 36 West Foothill Page 8 of Fish and Game and the Army Corp of Engineers. Mitigation measures designed to protect the remainder of the creek area and restore the site following construction have been proposed. The Planning Commission should review the attached initial study and if there is a desire to forward a project to the City Council, determine whether the Mitigated Negative Declaration is sufficient to address the impacts or whether an EIR would be required. If an EIR is required, then the project would need to be returned to staff for preparation of the required CEQA document. Conclusion Staff believes the applicant's reconfigured plan reasonably accommodates Planning Commission concerns and issues highlighted by staff at the July 27`h hearing. Staff, however, remains firm in our recommendation that if the project is to be found consistent with the General Plan as required by State law and City ordinances, that changes to the project or conditions are necessary. These changes include dedicated and improved connections and a wider urban/open space buffer. If the applicant is able to accommodate the proposed project mitigation measures and conditions, than the project should proceed to the City Council with a recommendation for approval. Alternatives 1. Continue the item with specific direction to staff and the applicant with project changes or additional information necessary in order to support approval of the annexation and map. 2. Adopt a resolution recommending denial of the project to the City Council. Specific findings for denial should be included in the motion for denial. 3. Deny the request and forward a separate recommendation to the City Council to modify the General Plan map from Interim Open Space to Open Space if the Commission feels no development options exist consistent with the City's General Plan. Attached: 1. Vicinity Map 2. Reduced scale tract map and project drawings 3. Applicant's statement and affordable housing proposal 4. Former PC staff report and General Plan Analysis from July 27th 5. Planning Commission meeting minutes from July 27`h, 2005 6. Environmental Initial Study 7. Resolution recommending approval of the project to City Council. Full-scale project plans will be distributed to the Planning Commission, a copy of which will be available at the Community Development Department. Attachment 9 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM For ER# 124=03 1. Project Title: Bishop Knoll Tract 2568, GP/R/TR 124-03 2.- Lead Agency Name and Address: City of San Luis Obispo, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Philip Dunsmore, Associate Planner (805) 781-7522 4. Project Location: _. ... 36 W. Foothill Boulevard, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Jay Poindexter,4711 Thurber Lane Santa Cruz CA 95065 6. General Plan Designation: Interim Open Space and Open Space. 7. Zoning: County Zoning Designation: RSF, SRA, GS (Residential Single Family, Sensitive Resource Area, and Geologic Survey area. 8. Description of the Project: The project is a request to annex and pre-zone a 9.76-acre property to allow an 11-lot residential tract map. The existing General Plan Map designates the site as Interim Open Space and the upper portions of the property (at approximately the 310 foot contour) are designated as Open Space. The annexation includes a request to pre-zone the property to R-1 up to the 327-foot elevation contour and pre-zone the property Open Space for the remainder of the property. The development plan for the property includes 11 residential lots with single family residences, five of which would have secondary dwelling units deed restricted to meet the City's affordability requirements. The project would include a new cul-de-sac street intersecting with Foothill Boulevard and road improvements (including widening, bike lanes, curb, gutter and sidewalk) for Foothill Blvd. The developed portion of the project would cover approximately 3.6 acres, while the remaining six acres would remain as open space. 9. Surrounding Land Uses and Settings: The property is located at the northwest boundary of the City and is primarily undeveloped grassland and pasture at the base of Bishop Peak. The property contains a small, older single family residence near Foothill Boulevard and a wood sided barn with metal roofing at the interior Attachment 9 of the site. The site is gently to steeply sloped with slopes ranging from 10 to 20% and greater. A small seasonal drainage swale bisects the property and drains towards Foothill Boulevard. Vegetation is primarily annual grasses and low shrubs. A row of aging cypress trees exists near and parallel to Foothill Boulevard. A row of significantly sized eucalyptus trees is located near the western property boundary. A small seasonal creek enters the southwest corner of the property from beneath Foothill Boulevard. Adjacent property to the west is vacant and utilized for cattle grazing. Property to the east is developed with a large lot, single family residential subdivision and property to the north is vacant land utilized for passive recreation (open space and trails) and is steeply sloped (Bishop Peak). The property boundary to the south abuts Foothill Boulevard, a minor arterial roadway. A church and associated parking lot improvements occupies property across the road to the south of the property. Subject property � �s r ,�.t •�— boundary = r C. Approldmate proposed N development boundary 4 . = 1 � T 10. Project Entitlements Requested: The project proposes the following: 1. Annexation into the City of San Luis Obispo. 2. Pre-Zone to R-1 and Open Space. 3. General Plan Amendment to modify the map from Interim Open Space and Open Space to Low-Density Residential and Open Space. 4. Tentative Tract Map to allow an 11-lot residential subdivision. CITY OF SAN Luis OBt5P0 2 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2005 , C _S 1 Attachment 9 11. Other public agencies whose approval is required: California Department of Fish and Game, County of San Luis Obispo, Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO). CITY OF SAN LUIS Osispo 3 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2005 Attachment 9 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. X X Aesthetics Geology/Soils Public Services X X Agricultural Resources Hazards&Hazardous Recreation Materials X X Air Quality Hydrology/Water Quality XTransportation&Traffic X X Biological Resources Land Use and Planning Utilities and Service Systems X Cultural Resources Noise Mandatory Findings of Significance Energy and Mineral Population and Housing 3 1 y` x Resources a L -F. s . FISH AND GAME FEES There is no evidence before the Department that the project will have any potential adverse effects on fish and wildlife resources or the habitat upon which the wildlife depends. As such, the project qualifies for a de minimis waiver with regards to the filing of Fish and Game Fees: 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 Game for review and comment. STATE CLEARINGHOUSE 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 Game, Department of Housing and Community Development). The public review period shall not be less than 30 days (CEQA Guidelines 15073(a)). CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 4 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2005 4 ­5� - Attachment 9 DETERMINATION: On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been X made, or the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet(s) have been added and agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a "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. io -�� •OS Signature Date Fmm Rc cc i.) S-60h f o r Flav river r Ronald Whisenand Deputy Community Development Director For:John Mandeville, Printed Name Community Development Director CITY OF SAN Luis OBISPO 5 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2005 Attachment 9 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: 1. A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the analysis in each section. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact"answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g. the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants,based on a project-specific screening analysis). 2. All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well , as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. The explanation of each issue should identify the significance criteria or threshold, if any,used to evaluate each question. 3. "Potentially Significant Impact'is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact"entries when the determination is made,an EIR is required. 4. "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section 17, "Earlier Analysis," may be cross-referenced). 5. Earlier analysis may be used where,pursuant to the tiering,program EIR,or other CEQA process,an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063 (c) (3) (D) of the California Code of Regulations. Earlier analyses-are discussed in Section 17 at the end of the checklist. 6. Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g. general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. 7. Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached,and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 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 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 address site-specific conditions for the project. CRY OF SAN LUIS OBtsPO 6 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2005 S(40 Issues, Discussion and Supportii,. nfo„jtation Sources Sources Pott Ay Potentially s ran ' o y Bishop Knoll GP/R/TR 124-03 Significant Significant Significant Impact ER# 124 03 Issues unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated 1.AESTHETICS. Would theproject: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? 11,5 --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? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of 11 --X— the site and its surroundings? 1 -7 d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would T adversely effect day or nighttime views in the area? Evaluation The project site is located at the base of Bishop Peak, an established City open space and recreation area and a significant scenic vista. The lower portions of Bishop Peak are already developed with residential neighborhoods within the City limits to the east and north above the elevation contour of the proposed project site. The project site is partially visible from surrounding public streets and is currently an open grazing pasture that provides a rural scenic quality at the edge of the City as it transitions into unincorporated grazing property to the west. The project would alter the visual character of the site by adding a new road, eleven homes, vehicular parking, and associated site improvements. However, existing cypress trees and eucalyptus trees on the property would help to buffer the new development from direct visibility from Foothill Boulevard and adjacent open space areas.The scale and scope of the residential development would be no different than existing residential development immediately to the east. Mitigation measures are necessary to ensure that the height and scale of the new structures do not block or significantly alter views of Bishop's Peak. Measures are also necessary to ensure preservation of existing trees and incorporation of open space easements to preserve views from Foothill Boulevard. The project could result in new sources of light or glare since it includes the development of a new street and new residential properties. Careful design and placement of street lighting and regulations to limit private residential lighting will help to reduce new lighting impacts to a less than significant level. Mitigation measures are necessary in order to ensure appropriate lighting levels. Conclusion Although the project will modify views of existing open land from adjacent properties and public areas, the following mitigation measures will reduce project impacts to a less than significant level: Mitigation Measures:Aesthetics a) The development area shall be designated as a"Sensitive Site" and shall require architectural review. Site plans and elevations shall be reviewed for consistency with the City's Community Design Guidelines, Chapter 7.2, Hillside Development. b) All new construction shall be limited to a 25-foot maximum height limit as measured from existing natural grade and based on an average between the highest and lowest points below the footprint of the proposed structure. c) Site development shall be restricted to building footprints that shall be provided on an exhibit to be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Director. d) For building sites that exceed 15% slope or greater (native slope prior to grading), slab on grade construction shall be prohibited. Structures shall utilize stem walls,raised foundations,retaining walls or other construction methods in order to reduce or eliminate site grading outside of the building footprint. e) Grading outside of the building footprint to create level yard areas shall be limited to a maximum of 15% of the lot area or 10%of the lot area for lots over 15,000 square feet in area. f) Manufactured cut and fill slopes shall not exceed 3:1 in slope and shall be contoured to appear as natural slopes. g) Graded slopes shall be appropriately landscaped with native and drought tolerant grasses,ground covers and shrubs. h) Existing cypress and redwood trees shall remain in place and be protected during all phases of site construction. Other trees shall remain on site unless otherwise approved by the Community Development Department and the City Arborist for removal. Eucalyptus trees shall remain on site and shall be safety pruned to remove dead or hazardous growth. CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 7 INMAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2005 � -57 Issues, Discussion and Supportir,, intu,.nation Sources Sources Pott .ly Potentially Less Than No Bishop Knoll GP/R/TR 124-03 Significant Significant Significant Impact ER # 124-03 Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Inco orated i) If new street lighting or other public space lighting is proposed, a photometrics plan that shows how the light does not create substantial glare and maintains views of the night sky shall be required. j) An open space easement that prohibits structures,grading, and removal of native vegetation(for purposes other than fire fuel management) shall be established at and above the 327-foot elevation contour as shown on the Tentative Tract Map. k) An open space easement shall be established between the edge of Foothill Boulevard and proposed development sites. The easement shall be designed to preserve the cypress trees and redwood trees, the drainage area area, and any existing native trees. No grading, construction, or structures shall be placed within the open space easement unless approved as part of a creek enhancement plan or recreation path through the open space area. The open.space easement shall be a minimum width of 120 feet beginning at the east edge of the new road and a minimum width of 200 feet at the west end of the property. 1) Native sycamore trees, willows, blackberries, and other approved native tree and shrub species shall be planted within the open space easement near Foothill Boulevard as part of a habitat restoration plan following removal of the existing structures and completion of road improvements. m) All existing structures, concrete foundations, plumbing and associated utility structures, and associated debris shall be removed from the site prior to recordation of a final map for the subdivision. 2.AGRICULTURE RESOURCES. Would theproject: A) Convert Prime Farmland,Unique Farmland,.or Farmland of ` =X- Statewide_Importance(Farmland),as shown onthemaps pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program ofw -,;the Caiifornta Resources Agency,to_non agncultural use?, E' lr) `'Conflict with existing,zonng for.agricultural use'or a -Williamson Act contract? c) ,rinvolve other changes m the existing euvuonme'ot which,due to,' 5,13 -=X- -thew locafion or nature,could result•in convers op or-xAbgand �x .td tton-a ricdlturatuse?: Evaluation The existing site and vicinity is not shown as prime farmland on California Resources Agency maps, however the property is identified as grazing land. Due to close proximity to existing residential properties and moderate slopes, the property is not considered a high quality or significant grazing area. The property is not currently utilized for grazing purposes and has not been used as such in recent years. Property adjacent to the proposed development site to the west has historically been utilized for cattle grazing and is more suitable given its slope and distance from sensitive residential properties. Potential impacts to cattle grazing operations could occur by placing residential structures too close to grazing areas. In accordance with General Plan Policy a minimum 50-foot buffer should occur between residential structures and active cattle grazing uses. Conclusion: Less than significant impacts to agricultural resources are anticipated to occur with development of the project site if the project is modified to comply with the following proposed mitigation measure: Mitigation Measures: Agricultural Resources 1.A minimum 50-foot buffer shall be retained between proposed residential structures and active cattle grazing areas outside of the City's Urban Reserve Line. 3. AIR QUALITY. Would theproject: °a) r Violate any air quality standard or contribute`§tibitanttally.�to ai'V =X= existing or pro3ected aur gitality violation-. r ` b) Conflicf with orobstrucf implementation of the apphcab1E. X s "qualrtyplan x ' c§ Expos ensittve receptors t6 substantialpoltutant s G `, "X- u d ?,Cieate objectionable mors affecting a substanttalaumber©f „ 28 =X;= CITY OF SAN LUIS OBlspo 6 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKusT 2005 L _S Attac Issues, Discussion and Supportii,, in.__,nation Sources Sources Pott. _dy Potentially Less Than No Bishop Knoll GP/R/fR 124-03 Significant Significant Significant impact ER# 124-03 Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Inco rated people? Vie) Result in a cumulatively considerable net,increase of any criteria =X?= `.:pollutant for-which the project region is non-attainment under an l ` applicable federaor state ambient air quality staiidard „ (including releasing emissions which exceed qualitative thresholds for ozoneprecursors)? Evaluation Impacts from the actual development, including but not limited to excavation and construction of the site, has the potential to create dust and vehicle emissions that may exceed air quality standards for a temporary and intermittent periods unless mitigation measures are incorporated. Following completion of construction, the proposed project is anticipated to create less than significant impacts to air quality. Naturally Occurring Asbestos has been identified by the state Air Resources Board as a toxic air contaminant. Serpentine and ultramafic rocks are very common in the City of San Luis Obispo and may contain naturally occurring asbestos. Under the State Air Resources Board Air Toxics Control Measure (ATCM) for Construction, Grading, Quarrying, and Surface Mining Operations, the applicant must comply with all applicable requirements outlined in the Asbestos ATCM, prior to any construction or grading activities at the site. Conclusion: Mitigation measures for dust control during construction phases are necessary in order to reduce potential project impacts to a less than significant level. Mitigation Measures: Air Quality The following dust mitigation measures are designed to reduce temporary and intermittent air pollution impacts associated with grading and construction of the site. They are required from the start, and are to be maintained throughout the duration of the construction or grading activity: a) Unless otherwise approved, an Asbestos Dust Mitigation Plan shall be submitted to the Air Pollution Control District for review and approval prior to the start of any construction or grading activity. The plan, if required shall be implemented during all phases of earthwork at the site. b) Construction vehicle speed at the work site must be limited to fifteen(15)miles per hour or less; c) Prior to any ground disturbance, sufficient water must be applied to the area to be disturbed to prevent visible emissions from crossing the property line; d) Areas to be graded or excavated must be kept adequately wetted to prevent visible emissions from crossing the property line; e) Storage piles must be kept adequately wetted, treated with a chemical dust suppressant, or covered when material is not being added to or removed from the pile; f) Equipment must be washed down before moving from the property onto a paved public road;and g) Visible track-out on the paved public road must be cleaned using wet sweeping or a HEPA filter equipped vacuum device within twenty-four(24)hours. 4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project: .4i-0, Have a substantial adverse effect ,either,drectlybr mdirec'dy.or,:,:, 11,10 X= throughhabitat modificauons on any,species identified as a i candtdate,sensitxve,or speraal statin species to IQpal'or regional � tans �ohcies,or tegulattons;°br by the Ca foNa Depattinent n �eo�Fish and Game'+bi=U S Fishand Wildlife Service? ;�-".: b) Have a substantial advise effect on any npanaa babfat ora 11,10 X- otheL sensttive,nat"community,identified in local oY aegionalM tans, h6W.or regulations ' ati s ' �o gui ,-�or..fiy the�ahfomta�apartme�nt �;; i3f Fish and,Game of ,S Fish„ nd Wildlife CrY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 9 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2005 "G ! Issues, Discussion and Supportir,, Intormation Sources Sources Pott .ply ' Potentially La Bishop Knoll GP/R/TR 124-03 Significant Significant Significant Impact ER# 124-03 Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated C) _Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting 28 X- biological resources,such as a tree preservation policy or .ordinance(e.g. Heritage Trees)? .d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident -X-= or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors,or impede the use of wildlife nursery sites? :e) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted habitat Conservation 28 —X-= Plan,Natural Community Conservation Plan,or other approved local,regional,or state habitat conservation plan? f) Have a substantial adverse effect on Federally protected --X-- wetlands as defined in Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including,but not limited to,marshes,vernal pools,etc.) through direct removal,filling,hydrological interruption,or other means? Evaluation A small seasonal creek bisects the southeast corner of the property as it exits a culvert beneath Foothill Boulevard. The drainage originates from a drainage area on the north side of Cerro San Luis. Although the drainage is relatively dry most of the year, it supports a dense area of native willow trees in the extreme corner of the property. The drainage area continues to the southwest beyond the property boundary, however the willow trees and any other vegetation have been eliminated due to extensive cattle grazing within this area. As part of the project, road widening improvements for Foothill Boulevard are required to allow for appropriate levels of service and safe access to the proposed residential neighborhood from Foothill.The road widening will require grading and removal of the willow trees and a small area of potential riparian habitat currently at the edge of the road. (See photo exhibit below). yp �� I Ile �. •�". 4 '� �jS _•. r,, 1. F q - The existing culvert below Foothill Boulevard would be extended approximately 35 feet and the drainage area would be diverted slightly to the north. Mitigation is necessary to ensure replacement of willow trees and to minimize the potential loss of riparian habitat. Improvements to the drainage culverts can be made to accommodate a wildlife corridor that will link the open space area on Cerro San Luis to the proposed open space area on the Bishop Knoll project and the remainder of Bishop eak22Peak- 22 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPo 10 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2005 "G _�C Issues, Discussion and Supportir,, Int, _.nation Sources Sources Pote ply Potentiallys 9 Bishop Knoll GP/R/TR 124-03 Significant Significant Significant Impact ER # 124-03 Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated Although the significant trees near Foothill Boulevard are proposed to remain with the current development plan, mitigation measures should be incorporated to preserve the significant trees. Significant tree species near Foothill Boulevard include cypress,redwood and other ornamental landscape trees near the existing residence. Tree preservation mitigation measures are discussed above in section 1,Aesthetics. Conclusion Mitigation measures are necessary in order to ensure grading and site development do not result in significant impacts to potential biological resources. Mitigation Measures: Biological Resources a) A creek enhancement plan shall be prepared by a qualified landscape professional for the area between Foothill Boulevard and the project site and the drainage swale area to the east of the project site. The plan shall include provisions to remove any non-native intrusive plant species,restore the drainage course of the Swale,and planting of native willow trees, sycamore trees, and appropriate shrubs and grasses. All work shall be performed during the dry season (between May 15th and October 15ih) and appropriate measures shall be prescribed in order to prevent erosion. b) During the construction and excavation phase of the road improvements, the construction boundary shall be clearly marked with orange construction fencing and silt fencing shall be installed between the building site and native soil areas. Willow trees and drainage areas outside of the construction boundary shall be protected and preserved during all phases of construction. Construction plans shall identify measures to prevent concrete waste,construction debris, or construction equipment from entering drainage area or interfering with remaining willow trees. c) Permits to work within the creek area will be required from the Department of Fish and Game and the Army Corp of Engineers. Such permits shall be secured prior to any grading or vegetation removal within the creek vicinity. d) The culverts beneath Foothill Boulevard will need to be replaced and upgraded as part of the project and shall be designed to accommodate a wildlife corridor. 5.CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would theproject: a) ,Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a --X-- historic resource?(See CEQA Guidelines 15d64.55 b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an ' 20 archaeological resource?resource?(See CEQA Guidelines 15064.5) c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleoptological resource "X_ or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains,including those interred outside of —X— formal cemeteries? Evaluation Bertrando &Bertrando, a qualified archeology firm, performed a phase 1 surface examination of the property and a research of historic records associated with the site and vicinity. The property was not known to contain any known historic resources or former historic structures. The results of the historical research and archaeological investigation found no potentially significant cultural resources present on the parcel.The site does contain a barn and a small residence, one of which appears to be representative of early to mid 1940's construction. The residence is not considered a contributing historic residence and research of City records has not revealed any significant information about the residence or site. The residence is not shown on the City's historic resource maps, and is absent from early records of the area. The barn, however is indicative of an earlier period of construction and is similar to agricultural barns constructed in the area between 1910 and 1920. The barn was constructed of redwood siding, a corrugated metal roof and a foundation of local Bishop Peak rock (two quarries on Bishop Peak provided a form of granite known as Dacite during the early 1900's). The former known use of this property and surrounding vicinity is grazing. As is common with sites adjacent to creeks, the site may contain archeological resources associated with Native Americans. No known archeological sites exist on or CITY OF SAN Luis Oeispo INITIAL STuOY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2005 Aftachment 9 Issues, Discussion and Supportirry inforrliation Sources Sources Pote. ply Potentially Less Than No Bishop Knoll GP/R/TR 124-03 Significant significant significant Impact ER # 124-03 Issues Unless lmpact Mitigation Incorporated adjacent to the project site. No known paleontological sites exist within the project site or vicinity. The site contains geologic features that consist of serpentine rock and shallow soils. The areas containing extensive serpentine rock are within the slopes above the proposed building sites. No significant impacts are anticipated to occur to existing geologic features. Conclusion: Mitigation measures are necessary in the event that archeological resources are discovered during the construction phase of the project. Mitigation Measures: Cultural Resources a) During construction, in the event that subsurface cultural or historic material is discovered on the property, all activities shall cease in the affected area until the area is surveyed by an archeologist/historian approved by the City. At that time a subsurface testing program shall be initiated in order to determine the presence or absence of any historic or pre-historic materials on the site. Under the direction of the archaeologist/historian, a mitigation plan shall be developed and approved by the environmental coordinator. b) Prior to removing or demolishing the existing residence at the property, all provisions of the City's Building Demolition and Relocation codes shall be utilized. This may include a 90-day notice advertised in a local newspaper offering the existing residence for re-location. c) Salvageable material from the bam or residence shall be recycled or re-used whenever possible. The Dacite rock foundation(from Bishop Peak Quarry)from the barn shall be preserved and incorporated into an approved feature of the site development. 6. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would theproject: a) Conttict:with adopted energy conservation plan§? a µ, -X=- .. - _ .,. a ....,, b) .,Lfse non re newabletresources in a wasteful and efficient —X--- c) Result n the loss of availability of a known mmerat resource —X= that would',be of value to the region and the residents of the w a _. -:.:Statea Evaluation This project is a proposal to construct a housing development with a total of eleven residences and several secondary residences. The proposed project does not conflict with the City's energy conservation plan and new construction would be reviewed for consistency with current building codes which require energy compliance standards. Conclusion No known mineral resources are known to the project site or immediate vicinity other than a very small rock quarry that was abandoned in the early 1900's. No impacts to energy and mineral resources are anticipated. 7. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would theproject: �)t Exposi:,people or structuaes,to,potenaal substantial adverse '� _X_ effects,anet44I ng,risk of toss,injury or death involving I Rupture of a knovgn earthquake fault,as delineatec�xn-the" X= x .� `M osi recent Alquist-Priolo Eardi4itak Fault "rung 1v1ap r s issued;by the State Geologist foithe area oz�based on other,:,:4, d a5*Y�'] 'T.:i�...tr .q•;k substimaal evtdeni;6,b,a known,fault� .ri' r�� $ k s ". Strong seismic'grouciidliakmg� `.4r r r- -K r �,. _X— r IIL Seismic rela#ed ground failure,including liquefacaon�`K a,> -. = iTZV�Landsi des or mudtlows,! � + , >1 �, K` S Yap 11,28 X b) "Resultan._suti tanualsocl,erosion"r'theioss,oi�topsoil?: ,M 11,28 X: CITY OF SAN LUIS OwsPO 12 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2005 � 'G.(L Attachment 9 Issues, Discussion and Supportir,y information Sources Sources Pote. ply Potentially t ess Tuan No Bishop Knoll GP/R/TR 124-03 Significant Significant Significant Impact ER# 124 03 Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Inco orated c) ,Be located.on a geologic unit or soil,that is unstable,or that 11,28 X would become unstable as a result of the project,;and potentially,,'. result4n on or-offsite landslides,lateral spreading,subsidence, u., liquefaction,or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil,as defined to TANG 18-1-B of"the the,: = X== Uniform Building Code(1994),creating substantial risks to life Or-Property?!, Evaluation A registered professional engineer(Mid Coast Geotechnical)prepared a comprehensive Geotechnical Engineering Report for the proposed project. The report concluded that the site appears to be suitable to support the proposed residential tract if developed consistent with the engineer's recommendations. The soils within the project site were found to be medium expansive clay material. The soils are underlain with low expansive clay soils and weathered rock at 3.5 to 6 feet below grade. The engineering report formulated a series of grading,drainage and construction recommendations which will need to be incorporated into the project. There are no known fault lines on site or in the immediate vicinity. However, the City of San Luis Obispo is in Seismic Zone 4, a seismically active region of California and strong ground shaking should be expected during the life of proposed structures. Structures must be designed in compliance with seismic design criteria established in the Uniform Building Code. Moderately expansive soils are common in the project vicinity. All new construction will require a City building permit, and therefore require construction that will meet or exceed building code standards for these soils. Conclusion As proposed, the project is not likely to create significant impacts to area geology or soils when the geotechnical engineers recommendations are incorporated into the project plans. Mitigation Measures: Geology and Soils 1. The recommendations of the engineering geotechnical report prepared by Mid Coast Geotechnical on February 10,2003, shall be incorporated into the project unless superior design alternatives are approved by the City Public Works Director subject to approval of a State registered geotechnical engineer. 8. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the ro'ect: aj' Create a sigmficapf hazard to,ihe publid or the environment --X- r through the^rouune'use,transport or dispbs4 of hazardous � IIlatena(Sq-,;i b) Ciente a significant`fiazai d.torthe public or the efiyironment r 1` -X-- throu$h�reasgna6iy'foreseeabte upset and aceidefif conditions ra involSing.the release of hazardous-materials into die -'„� en3iionment� 4.x � ,4 J}Z 6 6 :Eiih azardous emissions or handle'hazardous orwacutely '- ' hiizanious'materials,,substances,or waste within one cjCiaiter =.' r 'mile of ati existing'or proposed school?�, ' I a d) i'E tpose pe6ple a structures:to exisiwg;soucrzs of hazardous X gr emissions?t r.tiazardous or acutely hazardous`.matenals; 9'� a x v ,St'1bStallCeSy 6P waste.? 't4� Y gyre+ ';,N 1 Jay' q 3ocated on,a site wlueh is in&luEded on a lisle o hazardous x + =X s�� �. sem. w �d ,c _.•ca 'po-t ca..” .:'. rr mate 'rials sites dampiled pursaatrt 6 6overrnnet► ode Section t,639622 and,a a resnit;jt,-wdtdd createl significant hszard'to '�_ ' the public or the environment ... y � ora project located' thm anatrport land uspkan,�IWithrn ` -X- G y. d yWtv+r t m'y' 3 tont ya an tl 1 c r ?`whazard'foi tie Pe% lee. &� ing orworjat ;in Hie raj cf ren ~�;> CITY OF SAN Luis OBispo 13 INmAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CNECKUST 2005 to Attachment 9 Issues, Discussion and Supportir,y im.,mation Sources Sources Fie. Ily Potentially Less Than No Bishop Knoll GP/R/TR 124-03 Significant Significant Significant Impact ER# 124-03 Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated 46 Impair implementation of,or physically interfere with, adopted;emergencyresponse plan or-emergency evacuation e. e .plane t : h) =Expose people or structures to a significant risk of lose, jury, 4 X-= :or death,.'involving:wlldland,fires,including where wildlddds are:' �a-Jaceptto urbanized areas or where'iesldents,are intermixed fy. th_wildland� Evaluation The project proposal does not involve hazardous materials or hazardous conditions. The project involves a land use change, subdivision and the development of a residential housing project at the urban edge of the City adjacent to an existing residential neighborhood. Conclusion Since the project proposes residential structures at the urban edge, adjacent to vacant rangeland, a mitigation measure to ensure appropriate treatment of the wildland interface is necessary. No other known hazards exist within the project site. Mitigation Measures: Hazards 1. Appropriate buffer zones shall be established between residential structures and existing native vegetation, subject to the review and approval of the City Fire Marshal and the Community Development Director. Annual maintenance of native vegetation and appropriate planting of drought tolerant and fire suppressive landscape plants shall be incorporated into the ro'ect and into the CC&R's for the project. 9. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the ro'ect: a) Vtolate any,waterqualiry standards pr-waste discharge -X'— , ,.�,. b) Substantially deplefe groiindwater suppLes or interfere y =X=_ substantially with groundwaterrechargesuch`ttiatthere would be` L r a net deflcrt m aquifer volume:or a lowering of the Local � £. grpiindwater table level(e g s');tte productron rate,of pre-extsUng" -lr� riearby,welis would drop to alevel which would'nots�port d °��.: �. x t ' existing land tiles for which perms have beengranted)� c) 1Cieate or contribute runoff water whtchjwou7d exceed the'Y' a 28,15 --X— ��;�capat:ity of existmg'or planned stone water dra>,page systems or 1 '[, }r. ,> y s i. �. Yyrx p.>g - AhY'p ptrovtde addmonal sources of runt3ff into Surface seaters.',t- `{tncludtng;ibut not titiiited t8;wetlan'ds,, parian areas;p ndsx E springs creeks streams rivers,Ukds,,estuaries tidal areas;bays,; M xd)"��5`litistanuallyaltertthe eiusting;dranage'paIJ ttern q(the uCe or`°°' =X:= r 4 area in a riianner`whicl would result in substantial erosion o�x "-' pSubstantrally W'ter;tfieb*istrngidrainage pattern of thestte gra =X_` - ? rea m a manrier wliic'hwouldiresuit in;su`bstanUal.flooding k-,4 x.7ty11S[[C OC pffSite� r � a`e- ; ����"� z � a ✓�- Tfiaa`cehousmg wit i-1710,04d-u,flood.4iazard area as mapped on -� a-Federal-Flood HazaidBoundary 6r-' dYInk#11;Qcee Rate r.xn M . c. '£— 'OUOthbLflOod:hSZard deItneatipn mai?�r�3"w iz , t. ,i w :4 Mat vPlace vyithin a 100 ye9r flood h_a2aRI-.46 tir's Cures.which- — — � would ug edeior reCIUW flood flo m 'i, X tet.: ,�cz � 5,�„yvt �, .s..� � k'� rr.rr„u ^""�4ia ''3cFs ✓°�,,,�,�''F',c h) ,Will the prolggt mtroduceitypjcal st rm water pol utants into X= x.7 r r3 s 4 c ES ; tlUnd or surfaee Ovate s?�;�`; i)i rst1114 tttez�rv7o„rea,.cargrund' ltaterorsstita -AEM5' > c 5s r Tempera e,dtssby omen,or tuidtry,?� x £ys CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 14 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2005 � _ Attachment 9 Issues, Discussion and Supportir,y information Sources Sources Pote. .,ly Potentially Less Than No Bishop Knoll GP/R/fR 124-03 Significant Significant Significant Impact ER# 124-03 Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Inco orated Evaluation The project site is not within an area designated as a floodplain and is within a hillside area elevated from adjacent roadways or drainage areas. A preliminary hydrologic and hydraulic analysis has been prepared for the project. The analysis has concluded that the proposed development will have negligible or minimal effects on the runoff tributary to downstream facilities. Downstream peak flows, including 2-, 10-, 25-, and 100-year events, are well below the 5 percent maximum increase allowed by City Policy at and immediately downstream of the project site. As discussed in the Hydrologic Analysis prepared by EDA on October 6, 2004, the double 48 inch pipes below Foothill Boulevard are badly corroded and in need of replacement. Since the project will require significant improvements to Foothill Boulevard,these pipes will need to be replaced and lengthened. Conclusion Less than significant impacts are anticipated to occur with the proposed project if the existing storm culverts are repaired as discussed in the proposed mitigation measure below. Proposed storm drains and facilities have been reviewed and have been found to substantially comply with City requirements. As required by the Regional Water Quality Control Board the project will be required to utilize Best Management Practices in handling site drainage and runoff. Mitigation Measures: Hydrology and Water Quality 1. As discussed in the Hydrologic Analysis prepared by EDA on October 6, 2004, the double 48 inch pipes below Foothill Boulevard shall be repaired and upgraded to current standards and extended to accommodate the proposed road widening. All work shall be completed prior to recordation of the final tract map. 10. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the ro'ect: ',a) Conflict with applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of 1 -X-- an agency with jurisdiction over the project adopted for the . purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? b) Physically.divide an established community? -X— ,c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural 1 --X— community conservationplans? Evaluation The majority of the development site is shown as Interim Open Space on the City's General Plan Map. A small portion of the development site is identified as Open Space on the General Plan Map. The property does not contain a City's zoning designation since it is not currently within the City Limits. The General Plan recognizes Interim Open Space as an area that should not be developed until development constraints can be overcome. The recognized development constraints of this property are access, safety, visual impacts, neighborhood connectivity, and development compatibility with slope. The proposed development plan achieves some of the General Plan Policy objectives for this site and utilizes the portions of the site that are most conducive to development. However, the proposed development plan potentially conflicts with General Plan policy in terms of the following: 1. Development and grading is proposed for areas currently shown as Open Space on the General Plan Map. However,other land within the Interim Open Space area near Foothill (the creek and tree area)is proposed to be preserved as open space in exchange of developing the open space area at the rear of the site. The area proposed for permanent open space is greater in area than the area currently designated as open space, therefore the potential impact of this adjustment is less than significant and is consistent with the intent of General Plan Policy. 2.The proposed distance between building footprints and the edge of the Urban Reserve Line is 25 feet rather than 50 feet as recommended by General Plan policy (Open Space Element Policy 13.2.1: Urban Reserve Line). General Plan policy suggests a 50-foot buffer between the urban reserve and development in order to reduce impacts to open space and agricultural areas outside of the URL and to create a soft transition to the City Limits (this issue has been discussed, and mitigation is proposed in Agricultural Resources section above). CITY OF SAN Luis OBISPO is INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHEcKusT 2005 ce - �as _ Attachment Issues, Discussion and Supportin, information Sources Sources Pote. lly Potentially Less Than No Bishop Knoll GP/R/I'R 124-03 significant Significant Significant Impact ER# 124-03 Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Inco orated 3.The project does not provide for neighborhood connections(General Plan Policy LU 2.1.4:Neighborhood Connections and Housing Element Policy 7.2.4: New Development's Relationship to Neighborhoods) and provides for a cul-de-sac street intersecting with an arterial roadway. No streets or pedestrian paths will link the proposed subdivision to adjacent neighborhoods. Conclusion To reduce potential land use and planning impacts to a less than significant level, the following mitigation measures need to be incorporated into the project design: Mitigation Measures: Land Use and Planning 1.See Agricultural Resources section above for mitigation regarding a 50-foot buffer zone at the URL. 2. A pedestrian path shall be incorporated into the project to allow a neighborhood connection between the proposed project site and the existing residential neighborhood to the east. 11.NOISE. Would the project result in: a) Exposure_of people to or generation'of''unacceptable','Abise =X-= levels As defined bythe San Luis Obispo General'Plan Noise r Element,"or geiierahnoise levels to excess of standards ' �estabitshed in the Noise Ofdi iance� w b) A substantial teniporazy,periodic orpermanent increase'irt �ambientnotse levels in the project'vicinhy.above levels exisung without theeproject2 r c) Ezposure'of persons.to or generation-of excessive groundborne' _X_ vibration.or groundbome noise levels'? d) For a project located wtthm an auport'iand use plan,or within X- miles of apublic az;por[-oi publm two _ise atiport wouldthe = , .{project:expose people residing or worlang m the prolec 'area to r excessive.notselevets� Evaluation The project is not anticipated to expose persons to unacceptable noise levels as defined by the San Luis Obispo General Plan Noise Element. The proposed project places housing adjacent to other residential areas and hillside open space. The proposed location of new housing will maintain a significant setback from existing traffic lanes on Foothill Boulevard(greater than 150 feet). Conclusion Following completion of site construction, the proposed use is not anticipated to generate excessive noise levels. Other than short-term construction noise the completed project will not place residents within close proximity of excessive noise levels. Less than significant impacts to noise exposure is anticipated with the proposed project. 12. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would thero'ect: a) Induce substantial population growth'in an area-either directly` =I{= A i (for gxample 15y, proposing =new;fiomes;o ♦businesses) °or= i _indirectly,.kfor example,,through extensiod of iioads or other ! 6 y �y{ mffashvCture1W .t v ib) 'Displace substantuil'numbers bf eiusang housing or:people- ,} ...necessiiattng' the ti constructions off" repl5cement `housutg, Evaluation The proposed project will amend the City's General Plan, to allow housing on a site that is currently identified as Interim Open Space. The proposed development plan will allow housing with densities equivalent to adjacent residential areas in this vicinity. A total of 11 residential lots are proposed on a 9.5 acre site. This amount of new housing,in combination with other CrrY OF SAN Luis OBISPo 16 INITIAL STuOY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECIO_[ST 2005 (e —&, Gl Attachment 9 Issues, Discussion and Supportir.y trn�mation Sources sources Pott Ay 'Potentially Less Than Ko Bishop Knoll GP/R/TR 124-03 significant Significant Significant Impact ER# 12403 Issues Unless Impact Mitigatin Incorporated known separate residential projects, is not considered substantial population growth, and is consistent with growth rates contained in the City's General Plan. The proposed project will provide affordable housing units (consistent with General Plan policy)in the form of secondary dwelling units. Conclusion Less than significant impacts are anticipated to occur to Population and Housing with annexation and development of the project site. 13.PUBLIC.SERVICES. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision,or need,of new or physically altered government 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? --X-.= 6) Police protection? -X 'c)' Schools? 7 =X=- d) ~Parks? r =X ej Roads and.other transportation infrastructttre?. X— fj Other-'public facilities? =X— Evaluation The project will not create significant impacts to local public services since it is currently adjacent to a developed residential area of the City that is currently served by City utilities and associated infrastructure. The development of the project will require the installation of new water mains and sewer connections. The City Fire and Police Departments have indicated that the new site can be served with adequate response times. The project will be subject to impact fees that will cumulatively offset any increased demands on roads and other public services. As discussed in the traffic section, the project will be subject to road improvements in order to create safe and adequate circulation to the site. Conclusion Less than significant impacts are anticipated to Public Services. 14.RECREATION. Would theproject: a) -increase the use of,ezrsttng neighborhood or regional park's or --X— `: 'other.recreational facilities such thai'subsiantialsphysical „ iletenoration of the facilitywould occur or beaccelerateda k b) Include recreational facilities or regwre ihe,constructioti of --X- iexpansion of recreationalffacilities,,which might have an adverse:: ' physical effect,on the•enyironinent?v=.; Evaluation The project will be constructed adjacent to City Open Space known as Bishop Peak. No trail access or connection to the open space has been proposed. The existing property is not currently utilized for recreation or passive recreation/open space uses and the proposed project is not likely to impact future open space uses of the Bishop Peak area. The project conditions will require open space dedication and trail access to open space areas.The subdivision of the property will be subject to Park In- Lieu fees that will offset any increase in facility use. Conclusion No significant impacts to recreation facilities are anticipated. 15. TRANSPORTATIONfMFFIC. Would theproject: -a) `:Cause an crease Ji Itraffic which is substanfial to relation to ttie, ==X== `w.+ �ex,rsung tr��oad and capact}t of thestree;,system� �, ��,.� -� li$m Ezceed,'eitlidr_rndtviilttallyoir,�trtnufatyely,�1ev�Laf-service -�){ -�'�`.;'sfandard esta"b� hed;by the county_co>�esh►5na�ianag�ii►�ent.-�,��- CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPo 17 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CMECKLST 2005 'G z? / Attachment Issues, Discussion and Supportit,, information Sources Sources Pote. _tly' 'Potentially Less Than No Bishop Knoll GP/R/TR 124-03 significant significant Significant Impact ER # 124-03 Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated agency for designated roads and highways? c) Substantially"increase hazards due to design features(e.g.sharp =X= curves or dangerous intersections)or incompatible uses(e.g. farm equipment)? d) Result in inadequate emergency access? =X- -e) "-Result in inadequate parking capacity onsite or offsite? =X= f) Conflict with adopted policies supporting alternative 2 =X--, transportation(e.g.bus turnouts,bicycle racks)? g) Conflict with the with San Luis Obispo County Airport Land -X-= Use Plan resulting in substantial safety risks from hazards,noise, or a change in air trafficpatterns? Evaluation The project will introduce 11 residential lots on a new cul-de-sac street that will intersect with Foothill Boulevard. An existing single-family residence currently accessed via a short driveway from Foothill Boulevard will be removed from the site. In accordance with City Standards for new residential subdivisions,Foothill Boulevard is proposed to be widened along the entire project frontage. The Public Works Department Transportation Division has reviewed the project and believes that traffic impacts will be less than significant with implementation of the following street improvements: Complete street improvements along Foothill Blvd are required and shall be constructed in accordance with the most current City regulations, City of San Luis Obispo Engineering Standards and Standard Specifications (improvements include but are not limited to: curbs, gutters & 2m sidewalks, full width street pavement, signing, striping,barricades,street trees,street lights,etc.). As proposed, the new road is narrower than a standard City Street and would require approval of an alternative street standard. The narrow pavement surface is adequate for the proposed use and estimated volume and speed of traffic. Reducing the width of the street will also reduce other potential environmental impacts associated with Aesthetics and Biological Resources. The narrower standard will require additional vehicle parking spaces to be provided within the public right of way or within private property within the project. The City Fire Department has reviewed the proposed access to the site and agrees that the proposed development will result in adequate emergency access. As discussed in the Land Use and Planning section above,the project does not provide a pedestrian or bicycle link to adjacent neighborhoods. In order to reduce impacts to a less than significant level, a path to allow pedestrians and bicyclists to navigate between the proposed project area and existing neighborhoods and schools without entering an arterial roadway, needs to be incorporated into the project. Section 10 above contains appropriate recommended mitigation. The proposed project site is outside of the San Luis Obispo County Airport Land Use Plan area. Conclusion The project is anticipated to result in less than significant impacts to transportation and traffic when built in accordance with City Standards and when mitigation measures are incorporated to ensure the development of a pedestrian connection to the existing neighborhood to the east(See Section 10 for applicable mitigation). 16.UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the ro'ect: s).-•.Exceed,wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable . X= Regional_Water Quality Control Board? ` b) :Reg*e Or result in the construction or expansion of now water X_; treatment,waste water treatment,water quality control,or storm , •drainage facilities,the construction of which could cause:' significant environmental effects? — c) -.Have sufficient water suppliesavailable to serve-the project -X= fi oa►i xistng entitlements and resources,or are mew and ,expanded-water resources Reeded? d , Result fiCi determination by tvastewater treatment rovic =X,= � a 7 ^Z whici serves:of may serve theproject that�t itas,acleg ate r ' r; Crry OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 18 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHEcKusT 2005 `'G (� Affachment Issues, Discussion and Supportil.y tnforirrlation Sources Sources Pot(.. dly Potentially less That No Bishop Knoll GP/R/TR 124-03 Significant Significant Significant lmpact ER # 124-03 Issues Unless tmpa`t Mitigation Inco orated capacityto serve the projects projected demand-in addition to ;_ the:provider's existing commitment? ; e) $e served by a Lmdfill°with suf 1.ictent permitted capacity to X== accomrt odate the project'ssohd waste disposal needs f) Comply with federal,' late,-and localsiaiutes`and regulations X-= r— related to solid'waste?, Evaluation The project has been analyzed by the City's Utilities division with the following comments: The City currently has water to allocate, and does so on a"first-come, first-served" basis. A water allocation is required,due to the additional demand on the City's water supplies. Water is allocated at the time building permits are issued and the Water Impact Fee is paid. Both the Water and the Wastewater Impact Fees are charged on a per unit basis. Section 13.08.130B of the Municipal Code states that no polluted water may be discharged to a drainage system that flows to any creek or to the City storm drain system. Typically, mitigation measures are necessary to prevent polluted discharge. However, the proposed residences are designed to capture water in individual catchment basins that will satisfactorily mitigate potential impacts. Conclusion In Summary the utilities division has concluded that the project is anticipated to create less than significant impacts to utilities and service systems when the site is developed consistent with City standards and in accordance with code requirements recommended by the City Utilities,Department. 17.MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a) does the pjMat.hiiv&the ipotenual to degrade tfie`. ity of the rf_ X-- environment,substantially .... the habttaUofsa fish or>wildhfe,, 4;� species,cause a fist :oi.wildlife population to drop below Sustaining levels,Threaten to;eltmmatela plant or animal 1 cotrtmuinity„reduce flue nutrilier or resiriCt the range offs rare-0r endan erect taut or animal or ehmmate. rtant exam les of , K .: thi ltia or' nods of Cahforriia histo `,10, A ehisfo N/A Does tNe,#0ject have_-mzpacts!tttat are tndividtWIyJiruite&u 7u n cumulatively consideFablei ( Cuunularively considerable = r means that the rticrementai?effects of a proJett`are`constderable r f when viewed�n connection 7wfith the effects of the'past projects r: w ttie effects:of other current pi6jects,and'the effects of probable ture- rO N/A LDoes the protect haveegvtronmental effects vhiclt wi7ec`!) ? _X ; sub tantial adverse effects orr"humau beings;eiiherdiZ - x'�� iridt ectl N/A CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 19 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2005 _& Attachment 9 18.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 150,63 (c)(3).(D). In this case a discussion should identify the following items: a) Earlier analysis used Identifyearlier analyses and state where they are available for review. N/A 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 an sis. N/A c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are"Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions of theproject. N/A 19. SOURCE REFERENCES. 1. City of SLO General Plan Land Use Element,July 2002 2. City of SLO General Plan Circulation Element,November 1994 3. City of SLO General Plan Noise Element, May 1996 4. City of SLO General Plan Safety Element,July 2000 5. City of SLO General Plan Open Space Element,January 1994 6. City of SLO General Plan Energy Conservation Element,April 1981 7. City of SLO Water and Wastewater Element,July 1996 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. USDA,Natural Resources Conservation Service,Soil Survey of San Luis Obispo County 13. Website of the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency: http://www.co srv.ca. ov/dl /FMMP/ 14. Clean Air Plan for San Luis Obispo County,Air Pollution Control District, 1995 15. Preliminary Hydrologic&Hydraulic Analysis prepared for Bishop Knoll by EDA October 6,2004 16. City of San Luis Obispo Noise Guidebook,May 1996 17. 2001 City of San Luis Obispo Water Resources Report 18. City of San Luis Obispo,Historic Resource Preservation Guidelines, on file in the Community Development Department 19. Cultural Resource Inventory prepared by Bertrando&Bertrando Research Consultants,August 27,2003 20. City of San Luis Obispo,Archeological Resource Guidelines 21. City of San Luis Obispo Burial Sensitivity Ma 22. City of SLO Source Reduction and Recycling Element,on file in the Utilities Department 23. San Luis Obispo Quadrangle Map,prepared by the State Geologist in compliance with the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act,effective January 1, 1990 24. 1 Flood Insurance Rate M (Community Panel 0603100005 C)dated July 7, 1981 25. San Luis Obispo County Airport Land Use Plan 26. San Luis Obispo Community Design Guidelines 27. 1997 Uniform Building Code 28. Project plans 29. Geotechnical Engineering Report prepared by Mid-Coast Geotechnical Services February 10,2003. 4 - 70 - Attachment 9 Issues, Discussion and Supportir.v Information Sources Sources Pott. rly -Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Initial Study GP/R/TR/ER 124-03 Issues unless Impact 36 W. Foothill Mitigation Incorporated All documents listed above are available for review at the City of San Luis Obispo Community Development Department,990 Palm Street,San Luis Obispo,California(805)781-7522. REQUIRED MITIGATION AND MONITORING PROGRAMS Aesthetics 1. The development area shall be designated as a"Sensitive Site" and shall require architectural review. Site plans and elevations shall be reviewed for consistency with the City's Community Design Guidelines, Chapter 7.2, Hillside Development, Monitoring Program: An application for architectural review shall be submitted to the City prior to preparation of construction documents for residential site development. Plans submitted for architectural review shall provide justification for compliance with the Community Design Guidelines. Compliance with the architectural plans shall be verified through construction plan check. 2. All new construction shall be limited to a 25-foot maximum height limit as measured from existing natural grade and based on an average between the highest and lowest points below the footprint of the proposed structure. Monitoring Program: An application for architectural review shall be submitted to the City prior to preparation of construction documents for residential site development. Plans submitted for architectural review shall provide justification for compliance with property development standards, including height. Compliance with the architectural plans shall be verified through construction plan check and field inspections of finished construction. 3. Site development shall be restricted to building footprints that shall be provided on an exhibit to be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Director. Monitoring Program: An exhibit identifying building envelopes shall be submitted prior to approval of a final map. The building envelope exhibit shall be kept on file at the Community Development Department (within the project Tract Map file)to guide future residential development. All proposed development shall be reviewed for consistency with the exhibit. 4. For building sites that exceed 15% slope or greater (native slope prior to grading), slab on grade construction shall be prohibited. Structures shall utilize stem walls, raised foundations, retaining walls or other construction methods in order to reduce or eliminate site grading outside of the building footprint. Monitoring Program: All residential sites shall require an application for architectural review and the plans submitted for review shall identify existing natural grade, proposed grading plans, and type of construction. The building plan check submittal shall be checked for consistency with approved architectural plans. 5.. Grading outside of the building footprint to create level yard areas shall be limited to a maximum of 15% of the lot area or 10%of the lot area for lots over 15,000 square feet in area. Monitoring Program: All residential sites shall require an application for architectural review and the plans submitted for review shall identify existing natural grade, proposed grading plans, and type of construction. The building plan check submittal shall be checked for consistency with approved architectural plans. 6. Manufactured cut and fill slopes shall not exceed 3:1 in slope and shall be contoured to appear as natural slopes. Monitoring Program: All residential sites shall require an application for architectural review and the plans submitted for review shall identify existing natural grade, proposed grading plans, and type of construction. The building plan check submittal shall be checked for consistency with approved architectural plans. CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 21 INmAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2005 6 - 7/ Attachme Issues, Discussion and Supportir.y Int�..oation Sources Sources Pote. ily -'Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact. Initial Study GP/RfrR/ER 124-03 . Issues unless Impact 36 W. Foothill Mitigation Incorporated 7. Graded slopes shall be appropriately landscaped with native and drought tolerant grasses, ground covers and shrubs. Monitoring Program: A final landscape plan will be reviewed and approved as part of the construction plan check. Installed landscape will be reviewed prior to occupancy release. 8. Existing cypress and redwood trees shall remain in place and be protected during all phases of site construction. Other trees shall remain on site unless otherwise approved by the Community Development Department and the City Arborist for removal. Eucalyptus trees shall remain on site and shall be safety pruned to remove dead or hazardous growth. . Monitoring.Program: Tree protection fencing(temporary construction fencing) shall be securely installed at the drip line of all trees to be preserved. The fencing shall be installed prior to beginning of any earthwork, utilities, public improvementsor other construction work and shall be inspected by City staff prior to issuance of construction permits. 9. If new street lighting or other public space lighting is proposed, a photometrics plan that shows how the light does not create substantial glare and maintains views of the night sky shall be required. Monitoring Program: Plans submitted for architectural review shall provide a required setbacks and site dimensions. Compliance with the site plan shall be verified through construction plan check and site review. A lighting photometric plan shall be submitted for review and approval by the Community Development Department as part of the construction plan check. 10. An open space easement that prohibits structures, grading, and removal of native vegetation (for purposes other than fire fuel management) shall be established at and above the 327-foot elevation contour as shown on the Tentative Tract Map. Monitoring Program: The final map shall include an open space easement that provides for open.space as shown on the tentative map. The easement shall be;recorded with appropriate language to preserve the open space as a native habitat,with no grading, structures, or other improvements unless associated with pedestrian access or erosion control improvements. 11.. An open space easement shall be established between the edge of Foothill Boulevard and proposed development sites. The easement shall be designed to preserve the cypress trees and redwood trees, the drainage area area, and any existing native trees. No grading, construction, or structures shall be placed within the open space easement carless approved as part of a creek enhancement plan or recreation path through the open space area. The open space easement shall be a minimum width of 120 feet beginning at the east edge of the new road and a minimummidth of 200 feet at the west end of the property. Monitoring Program: The final map shall include an open space easement that provides for open space as shown on the tentative map. The easement shall be recorded with appropriate language to preserve the open space as a native habitat,with no grading, structures, or other improvements unless associated with pedestrian access or erosion control improvements. 12. Native sycamore trees, willows, blackberries,and other approved native tree and shrub species shall be planted within the open space easement near Foothill Boulevard as part of a habitat restoration plan following removal of the existing structures and completion of road improvements. CITY OF SAN Luis OBlspo 22 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2005 4 - �a _� Att_ achment 9 Issues, Discussion and Supporting information Sources Sources Pote. Aly Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Initial Stud GP/R/TR/ER 124-03 saes unless Impact Study Mitigation 36 W..Foothill incorporated Monitoring Program: A landscape plan shall be submitted along with final improvement plans. The landscape plan and associated improvements shall be implemented prior to recordation of the final map. Landscape improvements shall be subject to final inspection by the Community Development Department. 13. All existing structures, concrete foundations, plumbing and associated utility structures, and associated debris shall be removed from the site prior to recordation of a final map for the subdivision. Monitoring Program: The public improvement plans and required landscape plans shall include plans for removal of existing concrete, utilities and other items mentioned above. The Community Development Department shall inspect compliance with this measure prior to recordation of the final map. Aericultural Resources 14. A minimum 50-foot buffer shall be retained between proposed residential structures and active cattle grazing areas outside of the City's Urban Reserve Line. Monitoring Program:. The final map shall indicate building envelopes for all parcels, consistent with the 50-foot buffer zone requirement. Plans submitted for architectural review shall indicate required setbacks and site dimensions for each structure.Compliance with the site plan shall be verified through construction plan check and site review. Air Quality 15. The following dust mitigation measures are designed to reduce temporary and intermittent air pollution impacts associated with grading and construction of the site. They are required from the start, and are to be maintained throughout the duration of the construction or grading activity: a) Unless otherwise approved, an Asbestos Dust Mitigation Plan shall be submitted to the Air Pollution Control District for review and approval prior to the start of any construction or grading activity. The plan, if required shall be implemented during all phases of earthwork at the site. b) Construction vehicle speed at the work site must be limited to fifteen(15)miles per hour or less; c) Prior to any ground disturbance, sufficient water must be applied to the area to be disturbed to prevent visible emissions from crossing the property line; d) Areas to be graded or excavated must be kept adequately wetted to prevent visible emissions from crossing the property line; e) Storage piles must be kept adequately wetted, treated with a chemical dust suppressant, or covered when material is not being added to or removed from the pile; f) Equipment must be washed down before moving from the property onto a paved public road;and g) Visible track-out on the paved public road must be cleaned using wet sweeping or a HEPA filter equipped vacuum device within twenty-four(24)hours. Monitoring Program: An asbestos dust mitigation plan shall be submitted to the City and approved by the Air Quality District prior to issuance of a construction permit. City staff shall ensure compliance with standards through site inspections. Biological Resources 16. A creek enhancement plan shall be prepared by a qualified landscape professional for the area between Foothill Boulevard and the project site and the drainage swale area to the east of the project site. The plan shall include provisions to remove any non-native intrusive plant species, restore the drainage course of the swale, and planting of native willow trees,sycamore trees,and appropriate shrubs and grasses. All work shall be performed during the dry season (between May 15th and October 15th) and appropriate measures shall be prescribed in order to prevent erosion. CrrY OF SAN Luis OBISPo 23 INITIAL STuOY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2005 7,3 Issues, Discussion and Supporting tn._,mation Sources Sources Pote. Jy_-:Significant ntially Less Than No Significant Significant impact Initial Study GP/R/TR/ER 124-03 Issues gt Impact g36 W. Foothill porated Monitoring Program: A final landscape plan will be reviewed and approved as part of the construction plan check for public improvements prior to recordation of the final map. Installed landscape will be reviewed by the Community Development Department prior to prior to recordation of the final map. 17. During the construction and excavation phase of the road improvements, the construction boundary shall be clearly marked with orange construction fencing and silt fencing shall be installed between the building site and native soil areas. Willow trees and drainage areas outside of the construction boundary shall be protected and preserved during all phases of construction. Construction plans shall identify measures to prevent concrete waste, construction debris, or construction equipment from entering drainage area or interfering with remaining willow trees. Monitoring Program: The Community Development Department will inspect construction fencing prior to commencement of any earthwork or other construction. A pre-construction meeting to include representatives from the Community Development Department and City Natural Resources Manager shall occur prior to commencement of construction. 18. Permits to work within the creek area will be required from the Department of Fish and Game and the Army Corp of Engineers. Such permits shall be secured prior to any grading or vegetation removal within the creek vicinity. Monitoring Program: The applicant shall provide evidence to the City of approval of creek modification permits from applicable agencies prior to commencement of construction. 19. The culverts beneath Foothill Boulevard will need to be replaced and upgraded as part of the project and shall be designed to accommodate a wildlife corridor. Monitoring Program: A preliminary design plan for a natural bottomed drainage culvert that can accommodate a wildlife corridor sha11 be reviewed and approved by the City's Natural Resources Manager. The new culvert and wildlife corridor shall be installed as part of the subdivision improvement plans. Cultural Resources 20. During construction, in the event that subsurface cultural or historic material is discovered on the property, all activities shall cease in the affected area until the area is surveyed by an archeologist/historian approved by the City. At that time a subsurface testing program shall be initiated in order to determine the presence or absence of any historic or pre-historic materials on the site. Under the direction of the archaeologist/historian, a mitigation plan shall be developed and approved by the environmental coordinator. Monitoring Program: The project manager, contractor and subcontractors shall be responsible for continued monitoring of grading and excavation operations for compliance with this mitigation measure. Prior to construction,the applicant shall consult with a qualified archeologist(from the City's list of archeologists)who may be called upon in the event of a discovery. The final construction plans shall indicate the name and contact information of the archeologist to be contacted, including a list of procedures as indicated in the mitigation measure. In the event of a discovery, the City and archeologist shall be notified immediately. 21. Prior to removing or demolishing the existing residence at the property, all provisions of the City's Building Demolition and Relocation codes shall be utilized. This may include a 90-day notice advertised in a local newspaper offering the existing residence for re-location. Monitoring Program: CnY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 24 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKusT 2005 Issues, Discussion and Supportirry in,_.mation Sources Sources Pott. .jly-_ Potentially s han o Significant Significant Significant Impact Initial Study GP/R/TR/ER 124-03 Issues unless Impact 36 W. FoothillMitigation Incorporated The final subdivision improvement plans shall include a demolition plan and permit.submittal for the existing residence. At that time evidence of compliance with the City's Building and Demolition and Relocation code shall be submitted. 22. Salvageable material from the barn or residence shall be recycled or re-used whenever possible.The Dacite rock foundation (from Bishop Peak Quarry) from the barn shall be preserved and incorporated into an approved feature of the site development. Monitoring Program: The final improvement plans shall contain a plan for use of the rock foundation. Implementation of the plans shall be verified by the Community Development Department. Geoloey and Soils 23. The recommendations of the engineering geotechnical report prepared by Mid Coast Geotechnical on February 10, 2003,,shall be incorporated into the project unless superior design alternatives are approved by the City Public Works Director subject to approval of a State registered geotechnical engineer. Monitoring Program: The engineering geotechnical report recommendations shall be incorporated into the project plans to be submitted for construction permits. The applicable construction methods shall be incorporated into the final project and inspected as part of the building inspection process during construction. Hazards 24. Appropriate buffer zones shall be established between residential structures and existing native vegetation, subject to the review and approval of the City Fire Marshal and the Community Development Director. Annual maintenance of native vegetation and appropriate planting of drought tolerant and fire suppressive landscape plants shall be incorporated into the project and into the CC&R's for the project Monitoring Program: All residential sites shall require an application for architectural review and the plans submitted for review shall identify existing natural grade, proposed grading plans, and type of construction. The building plan check submittal shall be checked for consistency with approved architectural plans. Hvdroloey and Water Ouality 25. As discussed in the Hydrologic Analysis prepared by EDA on October 6, 2004, the double 48 inch pipes below Foothill Boulevard shall be repaired and upgraded to current standards and extended to accommodate the proposed road widening. All work shall be completed prior to recordation of the final tract map. Monitoring Program: Construction plans, including a grading and drainage plan, shall reflect direction of drainage and identify any proposed detention or retention. Public improvement plans for Foothill Boulevard shall implement any necessary upgrades and modifications.to the drainage pipes below the roadway. All improvements shall be inspected by the Public Works Division for compliance with the public improvement plans prior to recordation of the final map (unless a bond is approved by the Public Works Division). Drainage systems and applicable installations shall be incorporated into the site prior to final inspection. Land Use and Plannine 26. A pedestrian path shall be incorporated into the project to allow a neighborhood connection between the proposed project site and the existing residential neighborhood to the east. Monitoring Program: Required public improvements shall include incorporation of a pedestrian path. The path shall be constructed prior to recordation of a final map to the satisfaction of the Community Development Department. Ongoing maintenance of the path shall be a responsibility of the homeowners association. Ctry OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 25 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2005 iii — 7✓ Attaehrr�ent 9 Issues, Discussion and Supporting In,. :nation Sources Sources Pote.. ,-iy Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Initial Stud GP/R/TR/ER 124-03 Issues unless Impact Study Mitigation 36 W. Foothill Incorporated Attachment 1: Vicinity Map Attachment 2: Reduced scale project plans Available in the project rile: Cultural Resources Inventory, Preliminary Hydrologic Analysis, Geotechnical Engineering Report. CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 26 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2005 Attachment 10 General Plan Policies Each policy is shown below in italics, with staff's response following. Land Use Element LU 1. 9.2:Means of Protection Open space is to be preserved either by dedication of permanent easements or transfer of fee ownership to the City, the County, or a responsible, nonprofit conservation organization. Staff response: Conditionally consistent: Project conditions require proposed open space areas to be preserved as open space in perpetuity by means of easements over private property. LU 1.9.3: Public Access Areas preserved for open space should include public trail access, controlled to protect the natural resources, to assure reasonable security and privacy of dwellings, and to allow continuing agricultural operations. Public access through production agricultural land will not be considered, unless the owner agrees. Staff response: Consistent: The plan includes public open space areas with trail access. LU 1.13.2:Annexation Purpose and Timing' Annexation should be used as a growth management tool, both to enable appropriate urban development and to protect open space. Areas within the urban reserve line which are to be developed with urban uses should be annexed before urban development occurs. The City may annex an area long before such development is to occur, and the City may annex areas which are to remain permanently as open space. An area may be annexed in phases, consistent with the city-approved specific plan or development plan for the area. Phasing of annexation and development will reflect topography, needed capital facilities and funding, open space objectives, and existing and proposed land uses and roads. Staff response: Potentially consistent: Application proposes annexation as partial development and partial open space. General Plan Policy (LU 1.13.5 below) directs potential development/annexation for this property. LU 1.13.5: Open Space Each annexation shall help secure permanent protection for areas designated Open Space, and for the habitat types and wildlife corridors within the annexation area that are identified in LU Policy 6.1.1. Policies concerning prime agricultural land shall apply when appropriate. The following standards shall apply to the indicated areas: F) Foothill Annexation: The northern portion of the Foothill property (Open Space Element Site Map, Site #3) and the creek area shall be annexed as open space. Development on this site should be clustered or located near Foothill Boulevard, with the northern portion of the site and the creek area preserved as open space. Attachment 10 Staff response: Consistent: The proposed application identifies open space for the creek area and the hillside area at the north end of the property. Proposed development is clustered near the center of the site, since the creek area is located nearest Foothill. LU 2.1.4:Neighborhood Connections All areas should have a street and sidewalk pattern that promotes neighborhood and community cohesiveness. There should be continuous sidewalks or paths of adequate width, connecting neighborhoods with each other and with public and commercial services to provide continuous pedestrian paths throughout the City. Staff response: Not consistent: No neighborhood connections .have been proposed to allow a link to the adjacent neighborhood or adjacent open space areas. LU 2.I. . Neighborhood Open Links The City should treat streets, sidewalks, and front setbacks as a continuous open link between all areas of the City and all land uses. These features should be designed as amenities for light, air, social contact, and community identity. Staff response: Not consistent: No open link is proposed between the project site and the adjacent neighborhood or proposed open space areas.. LU 2.2.6.Neighborhood Pattern All residential development should be integrated with existing neighborhoods. Where physical features make this impossible, the new development should create new neighborhoods. Staff response: Not consistent: Proposed development is not integrated with the existing neighborhood and is too small (11 residential lots) to create its own neighborhood. LU 2.2.8:Natural Features Residential developments should preserve and incorporate as amenities natural site features, such as land forms, views, creeks, wetlands, wildlife habitats, and plants. Staff response: Consistent: Proposed development provides for hillside open space and open space for the existing creek area. LU 2.2.11:Site Constraints Residential developments shall respect site constraints such as property size and shape, ground slope, access, creeks and wetlands, wildlife habitats, native vegetation, and significant trees. Staff response: Potentially Consistent:Development respects site constraints such as the creek, significant trees and significantly sloped areas. However, development does not have superior access and proposed road improvements will modify the existing creek area. LU 2.4.3:Density Reductions The allowed density of residential development shall decrease as slope increases. The City may require a residential project to have fewer units than generally allowed for its density category (Table 4), upon finding that the maximum density would have adverse environmental impacts or Attachment 10 cause significant adverse impacts on the health, safety, or welfare of future residents of the site, neighbors, or the public generally. Staff response: Consistent LU 6.1.1: Open Space and Greenbelt Designations The City shall designate the following types of land as open space: A) Upland and valley sensitive habitats or unique resources, as defined in the Open Space Element, including corridors which connect habitats.. B) Undeveloped prime agricultural soils which are to remain in agricultural use as provided in LU Policy 1.8.2. C) Those areas which are best suited to nonurban uses due to: infeasibility of providing proper access or utilities; excessive slope or slope instability; wildland fire hazard; noise exposure;flood hazard, scenic value; wildlife habitat value, including sensitive habitats or unique resources as defined in the Open Space Element;agricultural value;and value for passive recreation. D)A greenbelt, outside the urban reserve, that surrounds the ultimate boundaries of the urban area, and which should connect with wildlife corridors that cross the urbanized area. E) Sufficient area of each habitat type to ensure the ecological integrity of that habitat type within the urban reserve and the greenbelt, including connections between habitats for wildlife movement and dispersal.. Staff response: Potentially Consistent: The development site is not considered prime ag land, however it could be said that there is an infeasibility of providing proper access. LU 6.1.4.Interim Open Space Designation The General Plan Land Use Element Map shows desired future uses for most land within the urban reserve line. However, the City has not decided the best eventual use for some areas. Such areas are designated Interim Open Space, indicating that they will be suitable for urban development when certain conditions are satisfied. Examples of such conditions include demonstrated need for further urban development that cannot be satisfied on already urbanized land, provision of proper access and utility service, and environmentally acceptable reduction of flood hazards. The Interim Open Space designation is to be changed to an urban classification only when the conditions necessary for development can be satisfied and a certain type of development is approved. After further study, it may be found that permanent Open Space is an appropriate classification for areas initially classified as Interim Open Space. Staff response: Not Consistent: The development plan has not overcome conditions that would allow the development site to be suitable for development. LU 6.1.5:Interim Open Space Uses and Parcel Sizes Uses within Interim Open Space areas should be the same as in Open Space areas (LU Policies 6.1.1 and 6.1.2). Interim Open Space areas should not be further subdivided until a development plan or a specific plan is approved(pursuant to LU Policy 1.13.3), except to separate land to be dedicated in fee to the City, or other responsible public or nonprofit agency,for permanent open space. Staff response: Potentially Consistent: If the Council and Commission approve of a development plan that responds to the potential site constraints the property may be further subdivided. Attachment 10 LU 6.2.0: Hillsides As discussed in the open space section, San Luis Obispo wants to keep open its steeper, higher, and most visible hillsides. Some of the lower and less steep hillside areas, however, are seen as suitable for development, particularly where development is coupled with permanent open space protection of the more sensitive areas. This section focuses on where and how some hillsides may be developed. The City establishes comprehensive standards and policies for hillside development for the following reasons: A) To protect and preserve scenic hillside areas and natural features such as the volcanic Morros, ridge lines, plant communities, rock outcroppings and steep slope areas that function as landscape backdrops for the community. B) To set the limits of commercial and residential development in hillside areas by establishing a permanent open space green belt at the edge of the community. C) To protect the health, safety and welfare of community residents by directing development away from areas with hazards such as landslides, wildland fires,flooding and erosion. Staff response: Potentially Consistent: The plan proposes development of a hillside area, however it is coupled with permanent open space protection of the upper portion of the hillside and the creek area. LU 6.2.2:Development Standards Development -including buildings, driveways,fences and graded yard areas- on hillside parcels shall: A) Be entirely within the urban reserve line or development limit line, whichever is more restrictive. B)Keep a low profile and conform to the natural slopes; C) Avoid large, continuous walls or roof surfaces, or prominent foundation walls, poles, or columns; D)Minimize grading of roads; E)Minimize grading on individual lots; generally, locate houses close to the street; minimize the grading of visible driveways; F) Include planting which is compatible with native hillside vegetation and which provides a visual transition from developed to open areas; G) Use materials, colors, and textures which blend with the natural landscape and avoid high contrasts; H)Minimize exterior lighting. Staff response: Potentially Consistent: The applicant has not indicated specific site development, therefore staff is not able to determine consistency with this policy. LU 6.33:Designating Sensitive Sites Subdivision approval in hillside planning areas will include designation of "sensitive sites," which are subject to architectural review. Staff response: Potentially Consistent: If the Commission supports approval of the project, project conditions should require designation of the development sites as Sensitive Sites, requiring architectural review. `� 0 Attachment 10 LU 6.4.4.Amenities and Access New public or private developments adjacent to the lake, creeks, and wetlands must respect the natural environment and incorporate the natural features as project amenities, provided doing so does not diminish natural values. Developments along creeks should include public access across the development site to the creek and along the creek, provided that wildlife habitat, public safety, and reasonable privacy and security of the development can be maintained, consistent with the Open Space Element. Staff response: Potentially Consistent:The project incorporates the creek area and hillside areas as amenities, however no public access has been proposed. Housing Element H 4.2.1:New Development Within newly developed neighborhoods, housing that is affordable to various economic strata should. be intermixed rather than segregated into separate enclaves. The mix should be comparable to the relative percentages of very-low, low, moderate and above-moderate income households in the City's quantified objectives. Staff response: Potentially Consistent H'7.2.4.New Development's Relationship to Neighborhoods Within expansion areas, new residential development should be an integral part of an existing neighborhood or should establish a new neighborhood, with pedestrian and bicycle linkages that provide direct, convenient and safe access to adjacent neighborhoods, schools and shopping areas. Staff response: Not Consistent H 7.2.5: Walled-Off Residential Enclaves The creation of walled-off residential enclaves, or of separate, unconnected tracts, is discouraged because physical separations prevent the formation of safe, walkable, and enjoyable neighborhoods. Staff response: Not Consistent: H 7.2.7: Physical Design The physical designs of neighborhoods and dwellings should promote walking and bicycling, and should preserve open spaces and views. Staff response: Not Consistent H 11.2.2: Location of New Development Prevent new housing development on sites that should be preserved as dedicated open space or parks, on sites subject to natural hazards such as unntitigatable geological or flood risks, or wild fire dangers, and on sites subject to unacceptable levels of man-made hazards or nuisances. including severe soil contamination, airport noise or hazards, traffic noise or hazards, odors or incompatible neighboring uses. r--, f Attachment 10 Staff response: Potentially Consistent Open Space Element OS 2.1.1: Geologic Features Preserve mountains and hills, ridgelines, scenic rock outcroppings, and other important geologic features as open space. Staff response: Consistent OS 2.1.3: Hazards and Views Protect hill and mountain properties from potentially hazardous or visually degrading development conditions Staff response: Potentially Consistent OS 2.2.3: Foothill Annexation The northern portion of the Foothill property (see site #3, Site Map) and the creek area shall be annexed as open space. Development on this site should be clustered or located near Foothill Boulevard, with the northern portion of the site and creek area preserved as open space. (p14,2b) Staff response: Consistent OS 2.2.4:Public and Private Development A) Structures, accessory structures, paving, and grading will be located at the base of a hill or mountain (generally that area below 20 percent slope)'unless: (1) no practicable alternative is available, (2) the location on a greater slope or at a greater elevation provides more aesthetic quality, or (3) the location is necessary to protect public health and safety, or (4) otherwise provided for in the Land Use Element (see Figure 3). B) Design, construction, and maintenance techniques are to: (1) minimize disturbance of, and enhance, hill or mountain resources; (2) ensure that development near or on portions of a hill or mountain do not cause, or make worse, natural hazards (such as erosion, sedimentation,fire, or water quality concerns); (3) include erosion and sediment control practices including temporary vegetation sufficient to stabilize disturbed areas; (4) minimize risk to life and property from slope failure, landslides, and flooding; (5) maintain the character and visual quality of the adjacent hill or mountain resource; and(6) be consistent with Section 11 of this element. C) Recreation and public access are to be included on or near hills and mountains consistent with this Section 11 of this element. D)Hills and mountains are to be protected: 1) Through easements or dedications. Subdivision parcel lines or easements shall be located to optimize resource protection. Easements as a condition of discretionary development approvals shall be required in hill and mountain areas only for structural additions or new structures, not for accessory structures or tree removal permits. If portions of a hill or mountain are covered by an easement or an open space parcel, allowed uses and maintenance responsibilities within the "e — �� �.� Attachment 10 parcel or easement should be clearly defined and conditioned prior to map or project approval. (Easements or dedications shall be required in a manner consistent with the acquisition policies contained in Section 15 of this element.) 2) By designating such easement or dedication areas (enumerated in I above) as open space or agriculture (assuming the land is suited for an agricultural use and such a use will not cause erosion or degradation of the hill or mountain resource). 3) By: (a) maintaining natural amenities (such as creeks, sensitive habitat, unique resources); (b) using native plant species that have drought tolerant and fire retardant qualities (unless the hill or mountain will be used for agriculture); and (c) avoiding tree removals on hills or mountains except when determined necessary by the City Arborist. (p.14-15) Staff response: Potentially Consistent OS 6.2.2:Development Practices for Sensitive Habitat Areas A)Sensitive habitat areas and associated habitat buffers should be preserved as open space. B)Sensitive habitat should be protected by requiring public or private development to: 1) Preserve such resource areas and associated habitat buffers through easements . or dedications. Subdivision parcel lines or easements shall be located to optimize resource protection. Easements as a condition of development approval shall be required only for structural additions or new structures, not for accessory structures or tree removal permits. If the resource area is within a proposed open space parcel or easement, allowed uses and maintenance responsibilities within that parcel or easement should be clearly defined and conditioned prior to map or project approval. 2)Designate easements or dedications (as enumerated in 1 above)as open space. Staff response: Potentially Consistent OS 10.2.3 Buffers Urban uses adjacent to agricultural lands shall provide an agricultural buffer. This requirement may be eliminated or modified only if there are significant topographical differences, a barrier of vegetation capable of eliminating potentially adverse impacts associated with agriculture on adjacent development, or existing physical barriers between the urban development and the agricultural land. If a developer cannot provide an adequate agricultural buffer between urban uses and agricultural land, the developer shall pay a mitigation fee to purchase agricultural protection elsewhere within the Greenbelt. A) Where the parcel proposed for development is within the URL, and the agricultural land is outside the URL, an agricultural buffer shall be provided on the developing parcel within the URL and maintained indefinitely until the URL is expanded to encompass the agricultural parcel or the City determines that:(]) there is no likelihood agriculture will occur on the agricultural land in the future , and (2) removal of the buffer will not adversely impact other agricultural lands in the general area. (see Figure 8) B) Where the parcel proposed for development is within the URL or city limits and the agricultural parcel is within the URL or city limits, an agricultural buffer located on the developing parcel shall be provided, however, once the agricultural land is developed with urban uses this agricultural buffer may be removed at the discretion of the City. (see Figure 8) If a mitigation fee has been paid instead of providing the agricultural buffer, this fee should not be- refunded since it provides compensation for short-term impacts to agriculture. (p65, 2) Affachmen' t 10 Figure 5: Ag Buffers Within and Outside the URL and City Limits within Parcel A ParcelA I TL F��ZZ ZZ Z Z/_/j....... .... ... .. ............... outside URL Parcel B Parcel B L Present Future ......... Urban Reserve Line(URL) .... Urban Reserve Line(URL) Parcel A Parcel proposed Parcel A Developed parcel for urban development Parcel E Existing agricultural land Parcel B Agricultural operation ceases LZZ Buffer Required Buffer Remains Staff response: Not Consistent OS 11.2.3:Development Practices for Protecting Scenic Resources Public or private development should be required to protect scenic resources by: A) Prohibiting structures along ridgelines, steep slopes, or in other highly visible locations unless no practicable alternative is available, otherwise provided for in the Land Use Element, or such a location is necessary to protect public health and safely. B) Utilizing natural landforms and vegetation for screening structures, access roads, building foundations, and cut and fill slopes. C) Including landscaping which: (1) provides a landscape transition between developed areas and adjacent open space or undeveloped areas; and (2) is compatible with the scenic resource being protected D) Incorporating sound Soil Conservation Service practices and minimizing land alterations. Land alterations should be minimized.by: (1) keeping cuts and fills to a minimum; (2) limiting grading to the smallest practical area of land; (3) limiting land exposure to the shortest practical amount of time; (4) replanting graded areas to insure establishment of plant cover before the next rainy season; and(5) creating grading contours that blend with the natural contours on site or look like contours that would naturally occur. E) Designing roads, parking, and utilities to minimize visual impacts. If possible, utilities should be underground Roadways and parking should fit the natural terrain. F) Designing projects to fit the site's scale and character. Structures should be designed and located so: (1) they do not silhouette against ridgelines, mountaintops, or hilltops, (2) roof lines and vertical architectural features blend with and do not detract from the natural background or ridge outline, (3) residential density and massing is decreased with increased elevation where it would mar the scenic quality of the scenic resource, (4) they fit the natural terrain, and (5) they utilize building materials, colors, and textures that blend with the natural landscape and avoid the creation of high-contrast situations. Staff response: Not Consistent ee i Attachment 10 OS 13.2.1: Urban Reserve Line Within the city limits the City will, and outside the city limits, the City will encourage the State and County to: A)Require that: (1) urban uses locate within the City's Urban Reserve Line, and(2)suburban uses locate within the County's Village Reserve Lines or existing suburban development areas. B)Not allow major expansions of the URL, as the existing line provides adequate capacityfor new housing and employment up to the City's desired maximum. C)Require projects that would involve minor expansions of the Urban Reserve Line to secure open space or agricultural land(either by easement or in fee to the City)on land adjoining but outside the new URL location. The open space or agricultural land secured should be sizeable enough to serve as a meaningful buffer to additional urban development. D)Preserve important natural urban edges(such as creek corridors, hills, mountains, agricultural lands, and scenic areas)consistent with the policies within this Element. E)Require proposed urban uses located adjacent to the Urban Reserve Line to provide a transition to open space or Greenbelt areas. Transition areas should add to the preservation of open space lands.or resources.At a minimum a 50 foot transition area(preserved in essentially a natural state)should be provided within theproiect alonz the project boundary with the.URL(unless the transition area is defined elsewhere in this Element). F)Maintain the Greenbelt and the Outer Planning Area primarily for rural uses, agriculture, watershed, and as a separator between urban communities. (p88, 1) Staff response: Not Consistent, project proposes 35 foot separation. OS 14.2.9:New Development Open Space Buffers The City shall require that development adjacent to existing open space provide: A buffer between proposed development and existing open space parcels/resources to minimize conflicts between development and existing open space lands. The buffer should provide for an extension of the open space holding. B) Gates,fences, or other deterrents when such facilities are deemed necessary to discourage prohibited or incompatible uses from entering open space lands. Staff response: Potentially Consistent Circulation Element CI 41: Walking to School, Work and Stopping Destinations Walking should be encouraged as a regular means of transportation for people who live within a 20-minute walk of school, work, or routine shopping destinations.(p15,4.1) Staff response: Not Consistent CI 4.2: Walking Network The City should complete a continuous network of sidewalks and separated pedestrian paths connecting housing areas with major activity centers and with trails leading into city and county open areas that avoid sensitive areas. (p15,4.2) Staff resvonse: Not Consistent Ze �S Attachment 10 CI 4.3:New Development New development shall provide sidewalks and pedestrian paths consistent with City policies, plans, programs and standards. (p15,4.3) Staff response: Potentially Consistent Attachment 11 DRAFT RESOLUTION NO. (2006 Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SAN LUIS OBISPO ACCEPTING A NEGOTIATED EXCHANGE OF PROPERTY TAX REVENUE AND ANNUAL TAX INCREMENT BETWEEN THE COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO AND THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO FOR THE BISHOP KNOLL ANNEXATION AT 36 WEST AND 4 FOOTHIILL; SLO COUNTY ANNEXATION# (CITY FILE#ANNEX 124-03) WHEREAS, in the case of a jurisdictional change which will alter the service area or responsibility of a local agency, Revenue and Taxation Code Section 99(b) requires that the amount of property tax revenue to be exchanged, if any, and the amount of annual tax increment to be exchanged among the affected local agencies shall be determined by negotiation; and WHEREAS, when a city is involved, the negotiations are conducted between the City Council and the Board of Supervisors of the County; and WHEREAS, Revenue and Taxation Code Section 99(b) requires that each local agency, upon completion of negotiations, adopt resolutions whereby said local agencies agree to accept the negotiated exchange of property tax revenues, if any, and annual tax increment and requires that each local agency transmit a copy of each such resolution to the Executive Officer of the Local Agency Formation Commission; and WHEREAS, no later than the date on which the certificate of completion of the jurisdictional change is recorded with the County Recorder, the Executive Officer shall notify the County Auditor of the exchange of property tax revenues by transmitting a copy of said resolution to him and the County Auditor shall therefore make the appropriate adjustments as required by law; and WHEREAS, the City of San Luis Obispo (City) and the County of San Luis Obispo (County) have previously agreed to a property tax exchange methodology pursuant to Joint Resolution No. 01-96 which provides that in the case of undeveloped property, all of the "base" property tax revenues will be retained by the County, with incremental property tax revenues to be apportioned between the County and City as follows: in the case of land pre-zoned for non- residential uses (such as retail, offices or manufacturing), the County will receive all of the incremental property tax revenues; and in the case of land pre-zoned for residential uses, the County will receive 66% of the incremental property tax revenues it would otherwise have received from the Tax Rate Area, and the City will receive the remaining 34%. WHEREAS, the negotiations have taken place concerning the transfer of property tax revenues and annual tax increment between the County and the City pursuant to Section 99(b) for the jurisdictional change designated as Annexation No._ to the City (Bishop Knoll Annexation); and Attachment 11 Resolution No. (2006 Series) Attachment I 1 Page 2 WHEREAS, the representatives of the negotiating parties have negotiated the exchange of property tax revenue and annual tax increment between such entities as hereinafter set forth; and WHEREAS, it is in the public interest that such negotiated exchange of property tax revenues and annual tax increment be consummated. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo, as follows: 1. The recitals set forth above are true, correct, and valid. 2. The City agrees to accept the following negotiated exchange of base property tax revenues and annual tax increment: The County will receive 66% of the incremental property tax revenues it would otherwise have received from the Tax Rate Area, and the City will receive the remaining 34%. 3. Upon receipt of a certified copy of this resolution and a copy of the recorded certificate of completion, the County Auditor shall make the appropriate adjustments to property tax revenues and annual tax increments as set forth above. 4. The City Clerk is authorized and directed to transmit a certified copy of the resolution to the Executive Officer of the San Luis Obispo Local Agency Formation Commission, who shall then distribute copies in the manner prescribed by law. On motion of seconded by and on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted on Mayor David F. Romero oo Attachment 11 Resolution No. (2006 Series) Attachment 11 Page 3 ATTEST: City C1erk.Audrey Hooper APPROVED AS TO FORM: City ney Jonathan P. Lowell G:\Pdunsmore\Rezoning&PDs\124-03 Bishop Knoll\124-03 Tax exchange reso.doc Exhibit A ANN GX k7ro,� ArrrlgXATioN BookL-AgY OPEN SPACE Edsting (C/OS-5) City Limit L �(P Open Space boundary at 327 foot contour Low Density Residential (R-1) New location OO� of City Limit line !. OPEN SPACE (C/OS-5) i Attachment 12 RESOLUTION NO. XXXX-06 A RESOLUTION OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO CITY COUNCIL APPROVING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, PREZONING, AND ANNEXATION FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 36 WEST FOOTHILL AND 4 FOOTHILL BOULEVARD TR/ER/GP/R/ANNX 124-03 (Tract 2568) WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on November 9, 2005, for the purpose of considering application TR/ER/GP/R/ANNX 124-03, a request to, annex a 9.76 acre property into the City, amend the General Plan Land Use Map, and pre-zone portions of the site R-1 and.0/OS and recommended approval of the project to the City Council; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on January 17, 2006, for the purpose of considering Application TR/ER/GP/R/ANNX 124-03; 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 and the mitigation monitoring program prepared 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 staff, presented at said hearing. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: Section 1. Findings. Based upon all the evidence, the Council makes the following findings to approve the proposed Annexation, General Plan Amendment and pre-zoning as shown in Exhibit A: 1. Amendment of the General Plan Map from Interim Open Space to Single-Family Residential is consistent with Open Space Policy OS 2.2.3- Foothill Annexation since the northem portion of the property and the creek area is proposed to be annexed as open space and the development plan is as close to Foothill Boulevard as possible while preserving the creek area as open space. 2. Amendment of the General Plan Map to allow development higher on the hillside within areas designated Open Space is consistent with the neighborhood development pattern and allows preservation of more sensitive areas within the creek. The amount of open space to be preserved is greater in area than the existing Interim Open Space designation and the development is logically located. GP/R/ER/TR/ANNX 124-03 Bishop Knoll Project City Council Resolution 01-17-06 Attachment 12 36 West Foothill Page 2 3. As proposed, the development plan meets the intent of General Plan policy and allows logical, low density residential lots, consistent with the development pattern found in the adjacent neighborhood. 4. As conditioned, a Low-Density Residential land use designation is appropriate for this site since it allows a transition between the existing neighborhood and open space areas to the east and north. 5. Allowing the Land Use Element map amendment will allow for development and road improvements that will enhance the safety and levels of service on Foothill Boulevard. 6. The subdivision, as conditioned, furthers the public interest and necessity by providing additional housing opportunities consistent with the community's desires as supported by survey results obtained during the 2005-07 City Budget Goal exercise and the City's General Plan. Section 2. Environmental Review. The Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project, with the following mitigation measures and monitoring program. Aesthetics 1. The development area shall be designated as a "Sensitive Site" and shall require architectural review. Site plans and elevations shall be reviewed for consistency with the City's Community Design Guidelines, Chapter 7.2, Hillside Development. Monitoring Program: An application for architectural review shall be submitted to the City prior to preparation of construction documents for residential site development. Plans submitted for architectural review shall provide justification for compliance with the Community Design Guidelines. Compliance with the architectural plans shall be verified through construction plan check. 2. All new construction shall be limited to a 25-foot maximum height limit as measured from existing natural grade and based on an average.between the highest and lowest points below the footprint of the proposed structure. Monitoring Program: An application for architectural review shall be submitted to the City prior to preparation of construction documents for residential site development. Plans submitted for architectural review shall provide justification for compliance with property development standards, including height. Compliance with the architectural plans shall be verified through construction plan check and field inspections of finished construction. 3. Site development shall be restricted to building envelopes that shall be provided on an exhibit to be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Director. Monitoring Program: An exhibit identifying building envelopes shall be submitted prior to approval of a final map. The building envelope exhibit shall be kept on file at the Community Development Department (within the project Tract Map file) to guide future GP/R/ER/rR/ANNX 124-03 Bishop Knoll Project City Council Resolution 01-17-06 J Attachment 12 36 West Foothill Page 3 residential development. All proposed development shall be reviewed for consistency with the exhibit. 4. For building sites that exceed 15% slope or greater (native slope prior to grading), slab on grade construction shall be prohibited. Structures shall utilize stem walls, raised foundations, retaining walls or other construction methods in order to reduce or eliminate site grading outside of the building footprint. Monitoring Program: All residential sites shall require an application for architectural review and the plans submitted for review shall identify existing natural grade, proposed grading plans, and type of construction. The building plan check submittal shall be checked for consistency with approved architectural plans. 5. Grading outside of the building footprint to create level yard areas shall be limited to a maximum of 15% of the lot area or 10% of the lot area for lots over 15,000 square feet in area. Monitoring Program: All residential sites shall require an application for architectural review and the plans submitted for review shall identify existing natural grade, proposed grading plans, and type of construction. The building plan check submittal shall be checked for consistency with approved architectural plans. r 6.. Manufactured cut and fill slopes shall not exceed 3:1 in slope and shall be contoured. to appear as natural slopes. Monitoring Program: All residential sites shall require an application for architectural review and the plans submitted for review shall identify existing natural grade, proposed grading plans, and type of construction. The building plan check submittal shall be checked for consistency with approved architectural plans. 7. Graded slopes shall be appropriately landscaped with native and drought tolerant grasses, ground covers and shrubs. Monitoring Program: A final landscape plan will be reviewed and approved as part of the construction plan check. Installed landscape will be reviewed prior to occupancy release. 8. Existing cypress and redwood trees shall remain in place and be protected during all phases of site construction. Other trees shall remain on site unless otherwise approved by the Community Development Department and the City Arborist for removal. Eucalyptus trees shall remain on site and shall be safety pruned to remove dead or hazardous growth. Monitoring Program: Tree protection fencing (temporary construction fencing) shall be securely installed at the drip line of all trees to be preserved. The fencing shall be installed prior to beginning of any earthwork, utilities, public improvements or other construction work and shall be inspected by City staff prior to issuance of construction permits. - T� GP/R/ER/rR/ANNX 124-03 Bishop Knoll Project City Council Resolution 01-17-06 Attachment 12 36 West Foothill Page 4 9. If new street lighting or other public space lighting is proposed, a photometrics plan that shows how the light does not create substantial glare and maintains views of the night sky shall be required. Monitoring Program: Plans submitted for architectural review shall provide a required setbacks and site dimensions. Compliance with the site plan shall be verified through construction plan check and site review. A lighting photometric plan shall be submitted for review and approval by the Community Development Department as part of the construction plan check. 10. An open space easement that prohibits structures, grading, and removal of native vegetation (for purposes other than fire fuel management) shall be established at and above the 327-foot elevation contour as shown on the Tentative Tract Map. Monitoring Program: The final map shall include an open space easement that provides for open space as shown on the tentative map. The easement shall be recorded with appropriate language to preserve the open space as a native habitat, with no grading, structures, or other improvements unless associated with pedestrian access or erosion control improvements. 11. An open space easement shall be established between the edge of Foothill Boulevard and proposed development sites. The easement shall be designed to preserve the cypress trees and redwood trees, the drainage area area, and any existing native trees. No grading, construction, or structures shall be placed within the open space easement unless approved as part of a creek enhancement plan or recreation path through the open space area. The open space easement shall be a minimum width of 120 feet beginning at the east edge of the new road and a minimum width of 200 feet at the west end of the property. Monitoring Program: The final map shall include an open space easement that provides for open space as shown on the tentative map. . The easement shall be recorded with appropriate language to preserve the open space as a native habitat, with no grading, structures, or .other improvements unless associated with pedestrian access or erosion control improvements. 12. Native sycamore trees, willows, blackberries, and other approved native tree and shrub species shall be planted within the open space easement near Foothill Boulevard as part of a habitat restoration plan following removal of the existing structures and completion of road improvements. Monitoring Program: A landscape plan shall be submitted along with final improvement plans. The landscape plan and associated improvements shall be implemented prior to recordation of the final map. Landscape improvements shall be subject to final inspection by the Community Development Department. 4 - 9 GP/R/ER/TR/ANNX 124-03 Bishop Knoll Project City Council Resolution 01-17-06'\ Attachment 12 36 West Foothill Page 5 13. All existing structures, concrete foundations, plumbing and associated utility structures, and associated debris shall be removed from the site prior to recordation of a final map for the subdivision. Monitoring Program: The public improvement plans and required landscape plans shall include plans for removal of existing concrete, utilities and other items mentioned above. The Community Development Department shall inspect compliance with this measure prior to recordation of the final map. Agricultural Resources 14. A minimum 35-foot buffer shall be retained between proposed residential structures and active cattle grazing areas outside of the City's Urban Reserve Line. Monitoring Program: The final map shall indicate building envelopes for all parcels, consistent with the 35-foot buffer zone requirement. Plans submitted for architectural review shall indicate required setbacks and site dimensions for each structure. Compliance with the site plan shall be verified through construction plan check and-site review. Air Ouality 15. The following dust mitigation measures are designed to reduce temporary and intermittent air pollution impacts associated with grading and construction of the site. They are required from the start, and are to be maintained throughout the duration of the construction or grading activity: a) Unless otherwise approved, an Asbestos Dust Mitigation Plan shall be submitted to the Air Pollution Control District for review and approval prior to the start of any construction or grading activity. The plan, if required shall be implemented during all phases of earthwork at the site. b) Construction vehicle speed at the work site must be limited to fifteen (15) miles per hour or less; c) Prior to any ground disturbance, sufficient water must be applied to the area to be disturbed to prevent visible emissions from crossing the property line; d) Areas to be graded or excavated must be kept adequately wetted to prevent visible emissions from crossing the property line; e) Storage piles must be kept adequately wetted, treated with a chemical dust suppressant, or covered when material is not being added to or removed from the pile; f) Equipment must be washed down before moving from the property onto a paved public road; and g) Visible track-out on the paved public road must be cleaned using wet sweeping or a HEPA filter equipped vacuum device within twenty-four(24) hours. Monitoring Program: An asbestos dust mitigation plan shall be submitted to the City and approved by the Air Quality District prior to issuance of a construction permit. City staff shall ensure compliance with standards through site inspections, Biological Resources Attachment 12 GP/R/ER/TR/ANNX 124-03 Bishop Knoll Project City Council Resolution 01-17-06 36 West Foothill Page 6 16. A creek enhancement plan shall be prepared by a qualified landscape professional for the area between Foothill Boulevard and the project site and the drainage swale area to the east of the project site. The plan shall include provisions to remove any non- native intrusive plant species, restore the drainage course of the swale, and planting of native willow trees, sycamore trees, and appropriate shrubs and grasses. All work shall be performed during the dry season (between May 15th and October 15th) and appropriate measures shall be prescribed in order to prevent erosion. Monitoring Program: A final landscape plan will be reviewed and approved as part of the construction plan check for public improvements prior to recordation of the final map. Installed landscape will be reviewed by the Community Development Department prior to prior to recordation of the final map. 17. During the construction and excavation phase of the road improvements, the construction boundary shall be clearly marked with orange construction fencing and silt fencing shall be installed between the building site and native soil areas. Willow trees and drainage areas outside of the construction boundary shall be protected and preserved during all phases of construction. Construction plans shall identify measures to prevent concrete waste, construction debris, or construction equipment from entering drainage area or interfering with remaining willow trees. Monitoring Program: The Community Development Department will inspect construction fencing prior to commencement of any earthwork or other construction. A pre-construction meeting to include representatives from the Community Development Department and City Natural Resources Manager shall occur prior to commencement of construction. 18. Permits to work within the creek area will be required from the Department of Fish and Game and the Army Corp of Engineers. Such permits shall be secured prior to any grading or vegetation removal within the creek vicinity. Monitoring Program: The applicant shall provide evidence to the City of approval of creek modification permits from applicable agencies prior to commencement of construction. Cultural Resources 19. During construction, in the event that subsurface cultural or historic material is discovered on the property, all activities shall cease in the affected area until the area is surveyed by an archeologist/historian approved by the City. At that time a subsurface testing program shall be initiated in order to determine the presence or absence of any historic or pre-historic materials on the site. Under the direction of the archaeologist/historian, a mitigation plan shall be developed and approved by the environmental coordinator. Monitoring Program: The project manager, contractor and subcontractors shall be responsible for continued monitoring of grading and excavation operations for compliance with this mitigation measure. Prior to construction, the applicant shall consult with a qualified archeologist (from the City's list of archeologists) who may be called upon in the event of a discovery. The final construction plans shall indicate the name and contact Attachment 12 GP/R/ERnWANNX 124-03 Bishop Knoll Project City Council Resolution 01-17-06 _ 36 West Foothill Page 7 information of the archeologist to be contacted, including a list of procedures as indicated in the mitigation measure. In the event of a discovery, the City and archeologist shall be notified immediately. 20. Prior to removing or demolishing the existing residence at the property, all provisions of the City's Building Demolition and Relocation codes shall be utilized. This may include a 90-day notice advertised in a local newspaper offering the existing residence for re-location. Monitoring Program: The final subdivision improvement plans shall include a demolition plan and permit submittal for the existing residence. At that time evidence of compliance with the City's Building and Demolition and Relocation code shall be submitted. 21. Salvageable material from the barn or residence shall be recycled or re-used whenever possible. The Dacite rock foundation (from Bishop Peak Quarry) from the bam shall be preserved and incorporated into an approved feature of the site development. Monitoring Program: The final improvement plans shall contain a plan for use of the rock foundation. Implementation of the plans shall be verified by the Community Development Department. Geolozy and Soils 22. The recommendations of the engineering geotechnical report prepared by Mid Coast Geotechnical on February 10, 2003, shall be incorporated into the project unless superior design alternatives are approved by the City Public Works Director subject to approval of a State registered geotechnical engineer. Monitoring Program: The engineering geotechnical report recommendations shall be incorporated into the project plans to be submitted for construction permits. The applicable construction methods shall be incorporated into the final project and inspected as part of the building inspection process during construction. Hazards 23. Appropriate buffer zones shall be established between residential structures and existing native vegetation, subject to the review and approval of the City Fire Marshal and the Community Development Director. Annual maintenance of native vegetation and appropriate planting of drought tolerant and fire suppressive landscape plants shall be incorporated into the project and into the CC& R's for the project Monitoring Program: All residential sites shall require an application for architectural review and the plans submitted for review shall identify existing natural grade, proposed grading plans, and type of construction. The building plan check submittal shall be checked for consistency with approved architectural plans. � - 97 Attachment 12 GP/R/ERrMANNX 124-03 Bishop Knoll Project City Council Resolution 01-17-06 36 West.Foothill Page 8 Hydroloey and Water Ouality 24. As discussed in the Hydrologic Analysis prepared by EDA on October 6, 2004, the drainage pipes below Foothill Boulevard shall be extended to accommodate the proposed road widening. All work shall be completed prior to recordation of the final tract map. Monitoring Program: Construction plans, including a grading and drainage plan, shall reflect direction of drainage and identify any proposed detention or retention. Public improvement plans for Foothill Boulevard shall implement any necessary upgrades and modifications to the drainage pipes below the roadway. All improvements shall be inspected by the Public Works Division for compliance with the public improvement plans prior to, recordation of the final map (unless a bond is approved by the Public Works Division). Drainage systems and applicable installations shall be incorporated into the site prior to final inspection. Land Use and Planninz 25. A pedestrian path shall be incorporated into the project to allow a possible future neighborhood connection between the proposed project site and the existing residential neighborhood to the east. Monitoring Program: Required public improvements shall include incorporation of a pedestrian path. The path shall be constructed prior to recordation of a final map to the satisfaction of the Community Development Department. Ongoing maintenance of the path shall be a responsibility of the homeowners association. Section 3. Recommendation. The City Council does hereby approve application ERfMGP/R/ANNX 124-03, subject to the following conditions and code requirements. 1. The project shall be forwarded to the Architectural Review Commission to review the project design for consistency with the Community Design Guidelines following approval of the General Plan Amendment, Prezoning, Tract Map and Annexation by the City Council, unless each lot is to be sold separately prior to development. If the lots are to be sold separately without development, each residential lot shall be deemed a sensitive site subject to architectural review. The level of architectural review shall be at the discretion of the Community Development Director. 2. An affordable housing agreement consistent with the draft affordable housing proposal shall be submitted for review and approval of the Community Development Director prior to proceeding to the Architectural Review Commission, following approval of the applicable entitlements by the City Council. The housing plan shall include at least two moderately affordable units and one low-income unit., 3. The project shall be developed with attention to sustainable construction features and contemporary energy reducing design as identified within the General Plan Housing Element. These features include, energy and water conservation methods, attention to preservation of native site conditions, and recyclable construction materials. GP/R/ER/TR/ANNX 124-03 Bishop Knoll Project City Council Resolution 01-17-06 Attachment 12 36 West Foothill Page 9 4. The subdivider shall dedicate a public easement to allow pedestrian access within trails identified on the tentative map. Easements shall include at least two potential future access points to open space properties to the east. The trails shall be constructed prior to recordation of the final map. The trail design shall include appropriate grades and surfacing to allow pedestrian access and reduce erosion potential. The design and finish construction of the open space trails shall be reviewed and approved by the Natural Resources Manager. 5. The project's pedestrian paths shall be privately owned and maintained by the Homeowners Association. 6. The subdivider shall dedicate an easement for all property above the 330-foot contour, to perpetually preserve the property as private open space. The easement shall be written to prohibit grading, construction and land disturbance other than pedestrian pathways or native landscape. Erosion control devices and wildland fire vegetation control may be allowed within the open space easement. 7. The subdivider shall dedicate an easement to preserve the creek area south of the proposed sewer line easement below proposed residential sites 1-4 as shown on the tentative tract map. The easement shall prevent vegetation removal, grading, and other site disturbance other than required demolition activities to remove the existing residence and other associated improvements and debris. 8. The building envelopes shall be adjusted to accommodate a 35-foot buffer between residential homesites and the urban reserve line. 9. All site construction shall be limited to area within established building envelopes as established on the Tentative Tract Map. 10. The applicant shall pay Park In-Lieu Fees prior to recordation of the Final Map, consistent with SLO Municipal Code Section 16.40.080. Credit may be given for areas dedicated as permanent open space subject to review and approval of the Finance Director and the Community Development Director. 11. 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. 12.. The demolition of the existing residence shall be subject to the City's demolition and building relocation code and may be subject to a 90-day newspaper advertisement prior to demolition or removal. Conditions and code requirements from other departments: The following code requirements are included for information purposes only. They serve to give the applicant a general idea of other City requirements that will apply to the project. This is not GP/R/ER MANNX 124-03 Bishop Knoll Project City Council Resolution 01-17-06 Attachment 12 36 West Foothill Page 10 intended to be an exhaustive list as other requirements may be identified during the plan check process. Public Right-of-way 1. Provide an expanded site plan to show both sides of Foothill Boulevard at the entire property frontage including all existing and proposed driveways, intersections, sidewalks and striping. Show all proposed road improvements or provide justification for lack of proposed improvements. The plan submitted does not provide enough detail for the opposite side of Foothill Boulevard to determine the location and extent of existing improvements. This project will be required to complete full width improvements to Foothill Blvd along it frontage per the section approved by Council and codified in section 17.74.100 of the City's Municipal Code. 2. Since curbside parking is not provided, alternate parking equivalent to one.space for each twenty-five feet of frontage shall be provided. Such alternate parking shall be provided within a public right-of-way, or on lots adjacent to the street, with convenient access to the street. An exception to the street development requirements per S.L.O. M.C. Section 16.36.140 is required if the alternative street section is used (per 16.36.030). 3. Provide a 1:1 taper structural pavement to existing pavement to the West. 4. The proposed cul-de-sac shall be a private street owned and maintained by a homeowners association. 5. Complete street improvements along Foothill Blvd are required and shall be constructed in accordance with the most current City regulations, City of San Luis Obispo Engineering Standards and Standard Specifications (improvements include but are not limited to: curbs, gutters & 2m sidewalks, full width street pavement, signing, striping, barricades, street trees, street lights, etc.). The improvements shall extend along the entire property frontage and transition back to reasonable location outside the project boundary as approved by the Public Works Director. 6. The subdivider shall dedicate a 2m wide public utility easement and a 3m wide street tree easement across the frontage of each lot. Said easement shall be adjacent to and contiguous with all public right-of-way lines bordering each lot. 7. The internal street and turnaround area curbs shall be panted red and properly signed and stenciled as a"Fire Lane" per the Fire Department's "Developer's Guide" in order to prohibit parking in unauthorized areas and preventing access in case of emergencies. Grading & Drainage 8. Provide a proposed storm water plan and hydrology calculations for site drainage including proposed culverts and bridge crossing at street entry. The rate of runoff from the site post development shall not significantly exceed (5-percent) that of predevelopment for the 2, 10, 100 year 24hour storm. Analysis and design of stormwater facilities shall be consistent with the City's Waterways Management Plan - Drainage GP/R/ERfMANNX 124-03 Bishop Knoll Project City Council Resolution 01-17-061 Attachment 12 36 West Foothill Page l l Design Manual. 9. In order to mitigate for a decrease in water quality, the stormwater runoff from all improved areas of the development site,except rooftops, shall be treated in accordance with the Best Management Practices published in the California Stormwater Quality Association's Best Management Practice Handbook, January 2003. For the purposes of water quality design, all water quality BMPs shall be designed to treat runoff from a25 mm/24-Hour storm event. 10. In order to mitigate for a decrease in water quality, the stormwater runoff from all improved areas of the development site, except rooftops, shall be treated in accordance with the Best Management Practices published in the.California Stotmwater Quality Association's Best Management Practice Handbook, January 2003. For the purposes of water quality design, all water quality BMPs shall be designed to treat runoff from a 25 mm/24-Hour storm event. 11. Prior to the approval of public improvement plans, the subdivider shall submit an updated report based on the final design in accordance with the City's Waterways Management Plan Drainage Design Manual Water, Sewer & Utilities 12. The proposed on-site sewer main will be privately owned and maintained by the Homeowner's Association. 13. The subdivider shall place underground, all existing overhead utilities along the public street frontage(s), to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director and utility companies. 14. It is necessary to be certain that all City facilities fall within proposed easements or property deeded to the City. The on-site sewer system shall be privately owned and maintained, up to the point of connection to the City sewer system. The tentative map shall clearly indicate that the sewer system is to be private. There shall be a joint ownership and maintenance agreement covering all common facilities. The City shall own and maintain the water system up to and including the water meter. 15. The sewer force main shall revert to gravity flow before entering the public right-of-way. This will require that the applicant get an easement from the owner of Lot 4 in Tract 1313, and the sewer force main shown within this easement outside of the Foothill Blvd right-of-way. The manhole receiving the discharge from the sewer force main shall be coated with Sancon 100, or approved equal, to protect against hydrogen sulfide corrosion. Transportation 16. The common mailbox location shall be relocated to the east side of the private street and shall be located in an area where on-street parking is provided. 17. Directional curb ramps shall be provided where Foothill Boulevard intersects the private street unless it can be demonstrated that at this location directional ramps cannot be L 7 /VV GP/R/ERlTR/ANNX 124-03 Bishop Knoll Project City Council Resolution 01-17-06 Attachment 12 36 West Foothill Page 12 17. Directional curb ramps shall be provided where Foothill Boulevard intersects the private street unless it can be demonstrated that at this location directional ramps cannot be designed to meet City standards. 18. Pedestrian access shall be provided between this development and the existing residential neighborhood to the east. On motion of , seconded by , and on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Mayor David F. Romero ATTEST: City Clerk Audrey Hooper APPROVED AS TO FORM: Cit omey Jonathan Lowell G:\Pdunsmore\Rezoning&PDs\124-03 Bishop Knoll\CC GPR-ANNEX reso 124-03 1-17-06.doc � -laa Attachment 13 DRAFT ORDINANCE NO. (2006 Series) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO AMENDING THE ZONING MAP IN CONJUNCTION WITH ANNEXATION FOR PROPERTY AT 36 WEST FOOTHILL AND 4 FOOTHILL BOULEVARD TO R-1 AND C/OS 5 TR/ER/GP/R/ANNX 124-03 (Tract 2568) WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on November 9, 2005 and recommended approval of Application TR/ER/GP/R/ANNX 124-03, a request to annex and pre-zone the property to Low Density Residential (R-1) and Conservation/Open Space (C/OS-5); and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on January 17, 2006, for the purpose of considering Application TR/ER/GP/R/ANNX 124-03; and WHEREAS, notices of said public hearings were made at the time and in the manner required by law; and WHEREAS, the Council has reviewed and considered the Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impact for the project; and WHEREAS, the Council has duly considered all evidence, including the recommendation of the Planning Commission, testimony of interested parties, and the evaluation and recommendations by staff, presented at said hearing. WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the proposed rezoning is consistent with the General Plan, the purposes of the Zoning Regulations, and other applicable City ordinances; and BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. Environmental Determination. The City Council finds and determines that the project's Mitigated Negative Declaration adequately addresses the potential environmental impacts of the proposed map amendment to the Zoning Regulations, and reflects the independent judgment of the City Council. The Council hereby adopts said Mitigated Negative Declaration. SECTION 2. Findings. The City Council makes the following findings: 1. The City Council finds and determines that the project's mitigated Negative Declaration adequately addresses the potential environmental impacts of the proposed project, and reflects the independent judgment of the Council. Attachment 13 Ordinance No. (2006 Series) TR/ER/GP/R/ANNX 124-03(Tract 2568) Page 2 2. Amendment of the Zoning Map to Single-Family Residential is consistent with Open Space Policy OS 2.2.3- Foothill Annexation since the northern portion of the property and the creek area is proposed to be annexed as open space and the development plan is as close to Foothill Boulevard as possible while preserving the creek area as open space. 3. As proposed, the development plan meets the intent of General Plan policy and allows logical, low density residential lots, consistent with the development pattern found in the adjacent neighborhood. 4. As conditioned, a Low-Density Residential land use designation is appropriate for this site since it allows a transition between the existing neighborhood and open space areas to the east and north. 5. The additional low density residential zoning in the City, as conditioned within the development plan, furthers the public interest and necessity by providing additional housing opportunities consistent with the community's desires as supported by survey results obtained during the 2005-07 City Budget Goal exercise and the City's General Plan. SECTION 3. Action. The Zoning Regulations Map Amendment (TR/ER/GP/R/ANNX 124-03) is hereby approved (Exhibit A). SECTION 4. A summary of this ordinance, together with the names of Council members voting for and against, shall be published at least five (5) days prior to its final passage, in the Telegram-Tribune, a newspaper published and circulated in this City. This ordinance shall go into effect at the expiration of thirty (30) days after its final passage. INTRODUCED on the 17th day of January, 2006, AND FINALLY ADOPTED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo on the _ day of , 2006, on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Mayor David F. Romero ATTEST: Atta hment 13 Ordinance No.(2006 Series) TR/ER/GP/R/ANNX 124-03(Tract 2568) Page 3 City Clerk Audrey Hooper APPROVED AS TO FORM: omey Jonathan Lowell GAPdunsmore\Rezoning&PDA 124-03 Bishop Knoll\GPR 124-03 cc ord.doc I Exhibit A OPEN SPACE Existing (C/OS-5) Clty Limit O N n Open Space boundary at 327 foot contour Low Density Residential (R-1) New location i O` of City Limit line �O l OPEN SPACE (C/OS-5) -16 Attachment 1`I RESOLUTION NO.XXXX-06 A RESOLUTION OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO CITY COUNCIL APPROVING A TENTATIVE TRACT MAP FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 36 WEST FOOTHILL AND 4 FOOTHILL BOULEVARD TR/ER/GP/R/ANNX 124-03 (Tract 2568) WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on November 9, 2005, for the purpose of considering application TR/ER/GP/R/ANNX 124-03, a request to, annex a 9.76 acre property into the City, amend the General Plan Land Use Map, and pre-zone portions of the site R-1 and C/OS to allow an 11-lot residential tract map, and recommended approval of the project to the City Council; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on January 17, 2006, for the purpose of considering Application TR/ER/GP/R/ANNX 124-03; 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 and the mitigation monitoring program prepared 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 staff, presented at said hearing. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: Section 1. Findings. Based upon all the evidence, the Council makes the following findings in support of the project approval as shown within the project exhibits: 1. As conditioned, the design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is consistent with the General Plan Map for Low Density Residential because each property is appropriately sized in response to slope, and the development would occur as part of the neighborhood pattern anticipated for the Low-Density Residential zone. 2. As conditioned, the site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development because the site is adjacent to an existing residential neighborhood and there are existing roadways and services available to serve the development in accordance with City standards. 3. The design of the subdivision, or the type of improvements, is not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and unavoidably injure fish or wildlife GP/R/ERrMANNX 12403 Bishop Knoll Project City Council Resolution 01-17-06 36 West Foothill Page 2 or their habitat because the development plan (as conditioned and as described in the proposed mitigation measures) contains provisions to preserve and protect the creek and sensitive hillside areas and the project mitigation measures reduce the likelihood of significant environmental impacts. 4. The design of the subdivision, or type of improvements, is not likely to cause serious public health problems because the development is of a similar scale to surrounding development. Additionally, new construction will be designed to meet existing building and safety codes. 5. 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 no such easements exist. 6. The subdivision provides sufficient access to the neighborhood and satisfies General Plan policies for neighborhood connectivity and access. 7. The existing windrow of trees, site topography, and the fact that General Plan policy is written with the term "should provide a minimum of 50 feet" (rather than shall) supports the use of a lesser setback for proposed homesites adjacent to the Urban Reserve Line. 8. The Mitigated Negative Declaration as approved via separate Council Resolution # for the project adequately identifies and evaluates the potential impacts associated with this project and where impacts are potentially significant, mitigation measures are provided to reduce these impacts to less than significant levels. 9. The subdivision furthers the public interest and necessity by providing additional housing opportunities consistent with the community's desires as supported by survey results obtained during the 2005-07 City Budget Goal exercise and the City's General Plan. Section 2. Recommendation. The City Council does hereby approve application ER/TR/GP/R/ANNX 124-03, subject to the following conditions and code requirements. 1. The project shall be subject to all conditions and mitigation measures adopted with Council Resolution # for approval of the annexation and General Plan Amendment. 2. The project shall be forwarded to the Architectural Review Commission to review the project design for consistency with the Community Design Guidelines following approval of the General Plan Amendment, Prezoning, Tract Map and Annexation by the City Council, unless each lot is to be sold separately prior to development. If the lots are to be sold separately without development, each residential lot shall be deemed a sensitive site subject to architectural review. The level of architectural review shall be at the discretion of the Community Development Director. 3. An affordable housing agreement consistent with the draft affordable housing proposal shall be submitted for review and approval of the Community Development Director prior to proceeding to the Architectural Review Commission, following approval of the applicable entitlements by the City Council. The housing plan shall include at least two moderately affordable units and one low-income unit. Attachment 14 GP/R/ER/rWANNX 124-03 Bishop Knoll Project City Council Resolution 01-17-06 36 West Foothill Page 3 4. The project shall be developed with attention to sustainable construction features and contemporary energy reducing design as identified within the General Plan Housing Element. These features include, energy and water conservation methods, attention to preservation of native site conditions, and recyclable construction materials. 5. The subdivider shall dedicate a public easement to allow pedestrian access within trails identified on the tentative map. Easements shall include at least two potential future access points to open space properties to the east and one access point to the west for potential access to La Loma Court. The trails shall be constructed prior to recordation of the final map. The trail design shall include appropriate grades and surfacing to allow pedestrian access and reduce erosion potential. The design and finish construction of the open space trails shall be reviewed and approved by the Natural Resources Manager. 6. The subdivider shall secure a bond in an amount sufficient to purchase easements and construct a pedestrian path through off-site private properties at La.Loma Court. 7. All on site or off site pedestrian paths shall be privately owned and maintained by the Homeowners Association. 8. The subdivider shall dedicate an open space/conservation easement for all property above the 330-foot contour, to perpetually preserve the property as public open space. The easement shall be written to prohibit grading, construction and land disturbance other than pedestrian pathways or native landscape. Erosion control devices and wildland fire vegetation control may be allowed within the open space easement. 9. The subdivider shall dedicate an easement to preserve the creek area south of the proposed sewer line easement below proposed residential sites 1-4 as shown on the tentative tract map. The easement shall prevent vegetation removal, grading, and other site disturbance other than required demolition activities to remove the existing residence and other associated improvements and debris. 10. The building envelopes shall be adjusted to accommodate a 35-foot buffer between residential homesites and the urban reserve line. 11. All site construction shall be limited to area within established building envelopes as established on the Tentative Tract Map. 12. The applicant shall pay Park In-Lieu Fees prior to recordation of the Final Map, consistent with SLO Municipal Code Section 16.40.080. Credit may be given for areas dedicated as permanent open space subject to review and approval of the Finance Director and the Community Development Director. 13. 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 Attachment 14 GP/R/ER/rR/ANNX 124-03 Bishop Knoll Project City Council Resolution 01-17-06 36 West Foothill Page 4 aside, void or annul, the approval by the City of this subdivision, and all actions relating thereto, including but not limited to environmental review. 14. The demolition of the existing residence shall be subject to the City's demolition and building relocation code and may be subject to a 90-day newspaper advertisement prior to demolition or removal. Conditions and code requirements from other departments: The following code requirements are included for information purposes only. They serve to give the applicant a general idea of other City requirements that will apply to the project. This is not intended to be an exhaustive list as other requirements may be identified during the plan check process. Public Right-of-way 1. Provide an expanded site plan to show both sides of Foothill Boulevard at the entire property frontage including all existing and proposed driveways, intersections, sidewalks and striping. Show all proposed road improvements or provide justification for lack of proposed improvements. The plan submitted does not provide enough detail for the opposite side of Foothill Boulevard to determine the location and extent of existing improvements. This project will be required to complete full width improvements to Foothill Blvd along it frontage per the section approved by Council and codified in section 17.74.100 of the City's Municipal Code. 2. .Since curbside parking is not provided, alternate parking equivalent to one space for each twenty-five feet of frontage shall be provided. Such alternate parking shall be provided within a public right-of-way, or on lots adjacent to the street, with convenient access to the street. An exception to the street development requirements per S.L.O. M.C. Section 16.36.140 is required if the alternative street section is used (per 16.36.030). 3. Provide a 1:1 taper structural pavement to existing pavement to the West. 4. The proposed cul-de-sac shall be a private street owned and maintained by a homeowners association. 5. Complete street improvements along Foothill Blvd are required and shall be constructed in accordance with the most current City regulations, City of San Luis Obispo Engineering Standards and Standard Specifications (improvements include but are not limited to: curbs, gutters & 2m sidewalks, full width street pavement, signing, striping, barricades, street trees, street lights, etc.). The improvements shall extend along the entire property frontage and transition back to reasonable location outside the project boundary as approved by the Public Works Director. 6. The subdivider shall dedicate a 2m wide public utility easement and a 3m wide street tree easement across the frontage of each lot. Said easement shall be adjacent to and contiguous with all public right-of-way lines bordering each lot. 7. The internal street and turnaround area curbs shall be panted red and properly signed and Attachment 14 GP/R/ERfMANNX 124-03 Bishop Knoll Project City Council Resolution 01-17-06 36 West Foothill Page 5 stenciled as a "Fire Lane" per the Fire Department's "Developer's Guide" in order to prohibit parking in unauthorized areas and preventing access in case of emergencies. Grading & Drainage 8. Provide a proposed storm water plan and hydrology calculations for site drainage including proposed culverts and bridge crossing at street entry. The rate of runoff from the site post development shall not significantly exceed (5-percent) that of predevelopment for the 2, 10, 100 year 24hour storm. Analysis and design of stormwater facilities shall be consistent with the City's Waterways Management Plan - Drainage Design Manual. 9. In order to mitigate for a decrease in water quality, the stormwater runoff from all improved areas of the development site, except rooftops, shall be treated in accordance with the Best Management Practices published in the California Stormwater Quality . Association's Best Management Practice Handbook, January 2003. For the purposes of water quality design, all water quality BMPs shall be designed to treat runoff from a 25 nu /24-Hour storm event. 10. In order to mitigate for a decrease in water quality, the stormwater runoff from all improved areas of the development site, except rooftops, shall be treated in accordance with the Best Management Practices published in the California Stotmwater Quality Association's Best Management Practice Handbook, January 2003. For the purposes of water quality design, all water quality BMPs shall be designed to treat runoff from a 25 mm/24-Hour storm event. 11. Prior to the approval of public improvement plans, the subdivider shall submit an updated report based on the final design in accordance with the City's Waterways Management Plan Drainage Design Manual Water,Sewer & Utilities 12. The proposed on-site sewer main will be privately owned and maintained by the Homeowner's Association. 13. The subdivider shall place underground, all existing overhead utilities along the public street frontage(s), to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director and utility companies. 14. It is necessary to be certain that all City facilities fall within proposed easements or property deeded to the City. The on-site sewer system shall be privately owned and maintained, up to the point of connection to the City sewer system. The tentative map shall clearly indicate that the sewer system is to be private. There shall be a joint ownership and maintenance agreement covering all common facilities. The City shall own and maintain the water system up to and including the water meter. 15. The sewer force main shall revert to gravity flow before entering the public right-of-way. This will require that the applicant get an easement from the owner of Lot 4 in Tract 1313, and the sewer force main shown within this easement outside of the Foothill Blvd Attachment 14 GP/R/ER MANNX 124-03 Bishop Knoll Project City Council Resolution 01-17-06 36 West Foothill Page 6 right-of-way. The manhole receiving the discharge from the sewer force main shall be coated with Sancon 100, or approved equal,to protect against hydrogen sulfide corrosion. Transportation 16.The common mailbox location shall be relocated to the east side of the private street and shall be located in an area where on-street parking is provided. 17. Directional curb ramps shall be provided where Foothill Boulevard intersects the private street unless it can be demonstrated that at this location directional ramps cannot be designed to meet City standards. 18. Pedestrian access shall be provided between this development and the existing residential neighborhood to the east. On motion of seconded by and on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Mayor David F. Romero ATTEST: City Clerk Audrey Hooper APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Attorney Jonathan Lowell GAPdunsmore\Rezoning&PDs\124-03 Bishop Knoll\CC Subdivision reso 124-03 1-17-06.doc _ Atta.,hment 15 RESOLUTION "B" RESOLUTION NO.XXXX-06 A RESOLUTION OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO CITY COUNCIL DENYING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT,PREZONING,AND ANNEXATION FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 36 WEST FOOTHILL AND 4 FOOTHILL BOULEVARD TR/ER/GP/R/ANNX 124-03 (Tract 2568) WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on November 9, 2005, for the purpose of considering application TR/ER/GP/R/ANNX 124-03, a request to, annex a 9.76 acre property into the City, amend the General Plan Land Use Map, and pre-zone portions of the site R-1 and C/OS and recommended approval of the project to the City Council; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on January 17, 2006, for the purpose of considering Application TR/ER/GP/R/ANNX 124-03; 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 and the mitigation monitoring program prepared 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 staff, presented at said hearing. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: Section 1. Findings. Based upon all the evidence, the Council makes the following findings to deny the proposed Annexation, General Plan Amendment and prezoning: 1. The request to annex the property and amend the General Plan map from Interim Open space to open space is not consistent with General Plan Land Use Element Policy 2.14 and 2.15 since the project does not provide for a neighborhood connection. 2. The project is not consistent with Land Use Element policy 6.1.4 since the development plan does not satisfy the conditions necessary to support urban development. 3. The project would diminish the aesthetic value of the Bishop Peak open space area adjacent to the property and would require road improvements that would result in potentially significant impacts to the environment. 4. The annexation and General Plan Amendment does not .further the public interest and necessity by providing significant additional housing opportunities since the number and /� Atta.hment 15 GP/RJERfMANNX 124-03 Bishop Knoll City Council Denial Resolution`B"01-17-06 36 West Foothill Page 2 type of housing provided will not significantly add to the needed housing 'supply in the City and the project impacts outweigh the benefits of the provided housing. On motion of seconded by , and on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Mayor David F. Romero ATTEST: City Clerk Audrey Hooper APPROVED AS TO FORM: Cirmtorney Jonathan Lowell G:\Pdunsmorc\Rczoning&PDs\124-03 Bishop Knoll\CC GPR-ANNEX mso 12403 1-17-06.doc January 17,2006 San Luis Obispo Council Members City of San Luis Obispo 990 Palm Street �`I San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Re: January 17,2006 Agenda Item—36 West Foothill Boulevard- GPIR,ANNX and TRIER 124-03 Dear City Council Members, My name is Horace Morana and I live at 56 La Loma Court.Also know as lot 6 of tract 1313. My house is next to vacant lot's 5 and 4. 1 would like to read a paragraph from the Council Agenda report prepared by Phil Dunsmore. It is on page 6, the second paragraph: °The Community Development Department has reviewed many proposals for this property during the last twelve years.Almost all of these proposals failed to become applications because of incompatibilities with the General Plan. It has been difficult for potential developers to design a development that is financially successful given the open space requirements and the need to preserve habitat and buffer areas near the developable part of the site. This does not mean, however,that the City must approve this residential development or any other project at this property.The Planning Commission's decision was that this project has gone as far as reasonably possible to create a housing project at this site." I disagree with the last sentence. I do not think that this project as it is being as presented tonight should be approved by the city council.And here are five reasons: First The applicant believes that that the existing eucalyptus tree row will act to augment the proposed 35 foot buffer. The opposite is true. Eucalyptus trees can cause a great fire danger and if anything the URL should be increased because of the trees. Second:When we built our home there was a height restriction based upon the views of adjacent homes. The way this project is being proposed there is 25-foot maximum height limitus measured from existing natural grade.The natural grade is not consistent with tract 1313. Third:The housing density of this project is not consistent with the density in tract 1312.Although 9.76 acres are being annexed, if you take away the open space,the land needed to build streets, sidewalks and common areas there the average lot size for this project is much smaller than tract 1313. Fourth:The width of the streets to not allow for sufficient parking to accommodate the 11 homes. If cars do park in the streets do emergency vehicles have the ability to reach all the homes? Fifth: The entrance to this project on Foothill Boulevard presents a real danger to the residents of this project and to all the people that commute on this road.Although the Transportation Division of the Public Works Department has reviewed the project,there was no mention of the amount of traffic and the speed of the traffic on Foothill. During commute times students travailing to Cal Poly and Cuesta along with workers coming from Los Osos Valley road make Foothill Boulevard one of the busiest streets in San Luis Obispo. I know because many mornings when I am leaving my house at 8:00 AM I am forced to make a left hand tum on Patricia versus Los Cerros because there is a light on Patricia.The folks in this neighborhood will not have that ability. In conclusion I like to repeat what Phil Dunsmore stated'This does not mean, however,that the City must approve this residential development or any other project at this property." I believe that the City Council should reject this project- Horace rojectHorace Morana 56 La Loma Court San Luis Obispo, CA cc Pam Zweifel c � 1218 Vista Del Lago San Luis Obispo, Ca. 93405 805-543-1825 - - WVTLV Public Input to SLO City Council Agenda Item 7 January 17, 2006 Honorable members of the City Council, As you consider tonight the annexation of ten acres of Interim Open Space and the proposed development at the Southwest entrance to our city,I ask that you take great care to insure against the compromise of the unique character and beauty of our city. The particular site being considered tonight embodies many of the unique characteristics of our rural hillside area that should be protected. The highly unique visual and aesthetic qualities of this property in the interim open space include but are not limited to,the scenic view shed up Bishop's Peak, the occasional creek and the riparian area. The Interim Open Space designation is a unique category that demands a development proposal that protects scenic visual access,buffers adjoining open space,addresses site constraints and is compatible with the neighborhood. Annexation of property adjacent to open space and at the City's urban edge for the purposes of development is a significant request that should not be granted until it can be adequately justified that the contribution of the development outweighs the potential environmental impacts. Does it? I am concerned about five issues: 1. Maintaining a minimum of 50 ft. between this project and the Urban Reserve Line: The Staff report of July 27th suggests that a project in this location should have buffers that vary between a minimum of 50 and 75 ft. between residential home sites and active grazing areas outside the urban reserve line. The fact that there are trees and shrubs on this property does not exempt the developer from this very clear requirement. 2. Land use and neighborhood compatibility: In the existing, adjoining development building has been restricted to the 320 ft. contour to preserve view shed. The proposed project should adhere to the same requirement and should not be permitted to build to the 327 ft contour. In addition,the existing adjoining lots are 1/3 to '/z acre parcels and up, allowing view corridors between residences. The proposed project should increase the size of the parcels and decrease the number of parcels to provide similar view corridors between residences. 3. Traffic concerns: Even with the proposed reworking and widening of Foothill to allow ingress and egress to the proposed development,traffic safely making the turns is still a concern because of the hill and the curve approaching the property from the west. And, unless you want future enclaves each punching out onto Foothill Boulevard, traffic access for future development in the urban reserve should be planned and provided from this development. You must also insure that 1 there is adequate parking on site for all of the residents and their visitors. I question the availability of adequate parking particularly on the flag lot drive. 4. Future neighborhood connectivity to the West: Neighborhood connectivity to the east can be easily accommodated on the existing Foothill sidewalk along the lush riparian way faithfully maintained in part by the Parker Family. What about future connectivity to the west. Formal plans should address such a connecting pedestrian pathway. 5. Sewers infringing on neighbors: Sewer lines, lift stations and manhole access ways from the proposed development should be accommodated within the proposed development and within in the public right of way in the street and should not require easements from adjoining private properties. I submit that the City is under no obligation to approve annexation of these ten acres from the urban reserve and the proposed Bishop Knoll development tonight. There is no great urgency at this time for settling for a force fit with so much at stake at an important and unique property at the City entrance. You must exercise great care that this location remains a very special place. Is this the best possible design solution for these ten acres? Please,take your time and make sure all concerns have been put to rest before approving this annexation and development. Page 1 of 1 Allen Settle-36 W. Foothill - From: <WERPARKER@aol.com> To: <pbrown@slocity.org>, <dromero@slocity.org>, <jewan@slocity.org>, <cmulholI@slocity.org>, <asettle @ slocity.org> Date: 1/12/2006 8:44 PM Subject: 36 W. Foothill Dear Councilmembers: We own Lot 4 in Tract 1313 which would be greatly impacted IF this development gets approved. The inconsistency with the General Plan should mean that annexation into the City NOT be supported by you. In addition,it has just come to our attention that an easement is required to put privately owned sewer through our property, Lot 4 in Tract 1313. We would like to seek legal advice on this matter and request additional time before this item gets the attention of the City Council. Your support is greatly appreciated and a response to this email is kindly requested. Respectfully, Larry and Nancy Parker RED FILE RECEIVED MEETING AGENDA JAN 13 2006 DATE ` /� acdTEM #-M6 SLO CITY CLERK B COUNCIL -.;z CDD DIR ® CAO aFIN DIR ®ACAO (, FIRE CHIEF QATTORNEY PW DIR ZCLERK/ORIG POLICE CHIP ❑ DEPT HEADS B REC DIR 12 UTIL DIR U HR DIR file://C:\Documents%20and%2OSettings\slouser\Local%2OSettings\Temp\GW}000O1.HTM 1/13/2006 Page 1 of 1 i Allen Settle- Lot 4 Tract 1313 From: <WERPARKER@aol.com> To: <pbrown@slocity.org>, <dromero@slocity.org>, <jewan@slocity.org>, <cmulholl@slocity.org>, <asettle @ slocity.org> Date: 1/16/20061:31 PM Subject: Lot 4 Tract 1313 Dear councilmembers: We own Lot 4 Tract 1313 in SLO. You are voting on annexing 11 acres directly behind our property. We have several concerns about the possible annexation. In our concerns we also have some questions that we would appreciate being answered by you, the City Council. -the 3' easement for a walkway and the easement for a private sewer line would reduce the size of our building pad and render this lot useless for our current house plans -this developer has never approached us for an easement for the required private sewer that is printed in Attachment 6, page 39 -any house plan would include putting bedrooms away from Foothill for less noise and privacy, but this walkway easement brings back these 2 concerns -the private sewerline would be the 3rd easement on our property and the walkway would be the 4th, with the first 2 being agreed upon at purchase. -We would not have bought the property with these additional sewer and walkway easements -We don't believe the private sewer has the slope to go from the new development to the city sewer without a pump on our property. This required easement has never been presented to us. -income tax laws say that homeowners can keep$500,000 tax free in selling their house. If we are forced to sell our property it would cost a minimum of$200,000 in taxes that we were going to use for retirement. Purchasing another comparable lot would quadruple our property tax.We should not incur any hardship in granting easements to this development. -What are the concerns for a manhole covered in Sancon 100 to protect against hydrogen sulfide corrosion? -if we say no to the private sewer easement, does the project stop? -if this sewer breaks who do we go to for repair damages? We hope that you would not consider/approve a project without a complete plan that is consistent with the City General Plan? Thank you for your time in this matter and we appreciate your response. Respectfully, 7JAN ED Larry and Nancy Parker San Luis Obispo RED FILE 006 MEETING AGENDA LERK DATE�C�TEM # _ rM'qrL. JQ_ COUNCIL J C CDD DIR CAO Pj FIN DIR ACAO FIRE CHIEF ATTORNEY E? PW DIR SPCLERK/ORIG F41,POLICE CHF ❑ DEPT HEADS I�w REC DIR [� PL31 [P UTIL DIR ICS 7�/�tac� SpHR DIR file://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\slouser\Local%20Settings\Temp\GW}OOOOI.HTM 1/17/2006 Allen Settle- bishop knoll tract 2508 i From: John Balderston <jlbpainbng@yahoo.com> To: <asetde@slodty.org> Date: 1/12/20068:21 AM Subject bishop knoll tract 2568 Dear Mr. Settle, RECEIVED We are writing you with our concerns regarding the January 17th city council meeting regarding public JAN 13 2006 hearing item #6. We, unfortunately, will be out of SLO CIN CLERK town and unable to attend the meeting. If this f( project is approved, it will be the new entrance to San Luis Obispo. There are several issues with this project we are concerned about. At the present time, the city has a 50 foot minimum set back between open RED FILE space and urban development. This development plans MEETING AGENDA for a 25 and 35 foot set back, and we feel this is not an adequate bufferand does not conform to the city's DATE l 7 dla ITEM # general plan. This project also has no connectivity to existing neighborhoods. The planning commission spoke at length on this subject and there still is no connectivity in place. Finally, and most important, rA70RNEY is the traffic and parking of this development. We IL f CDD DIRare concerned with the size of the the available parking of the flag street of lots 2, 3, 4, 5, &6. L9 FIRE CHIEF At the present time,only 4 spaces of off street Ptd D;R ORIG POLICE CHF parking is available. This leads us to believe that EADS � REC DIR guests and residents will be using Foothill Blvd. at a-UTIL DIR times for parking. Also, traffic from this area would p n — - z p R j be directly onto Foothill Blvd. With Foothill Blvd. being so busy, we feel this would be a danger to the residents as well as the motorist on Foothill. Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://maii.yahoo.com file://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\slouser\Local%20Settings\Temp\GW}00002.HTM 1/13/2006 -moi of 1 Allen Settle - bishop knoll,tract 2568 , From: John Balderston <jlbpainting@yahoo.com> , • To: <asettle@slodty.org> Date: 1/12/2006 8:49 AM Subject: bishop knoll,tract 2568 Allen, this is the conclusion of the email I accidentally sent, and lost. My wife and I urge you to vote for denial of this project as proposed because it does not conform with the cities general plan. The general plan calls for a 50 foot setback, which this project does not provide. The general plan calls for neighborhood connectivity, which this project does not provide. Finally, this project will create a dangerous traffic situation at its intersection with Foothill Blvd. We thank you for your consideration of our concerns, and apologize for my lack of email skills (if you only knew). Sincerely, John & Donna Balderston, S.L.O. residents since 1970 31 La Loma Court Lot#3,Tract 1313 Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com file://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\slouser\Local%20Settings\Temp\GW}00002.HTM 1/13/2006 i-U IK COUNCIL Y� CDD DIR RECEIVED 11 CAO H1 FIN DIR ACAO rp FIRE CHIEF JAN I 1 1006 'E7 ATTORNEY W' PW DIR $l CLERK/ORIG Fr POLICE CHF SLO CITY CLERK January 2,2006 0 DEPT HEADS i� REC DIR IPPB Fz7 UTIL DIR San Luis Obispo City Council Memb HR DIR Dave-Romero,Mayor Allen Settle,Vice Mayor RED FILE John Ewan,Council Member Christine Mulholland,Council Member MEETING AGENDA Paul Brown,Council Member DATE31L6 ITEM # Lo City of San Luis Obispo 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo,CA 93401 Re:January 17,2006 Agenda item- 36 West Foothill Boulevard.Annx,GP/R,TR and ER 124-03 Dear City Council Members, We are writing regarding the 36 West Foothill Boulevard proposed annexation to expand the city boundary because of its direct impact to our adjoining property in La Loma Court. This is where we plan to build our family home.Our specific request is that you follow the Planning Commission's recommendation and NOT consider employing the use of eminent domain powers as proposed by the City Planning staff to force a redundant pedestrian path through to La Loma Court.At the November 9,2005 Planning Commission public meeting, this body unanimously recommended(5-0)against this connection requirement because of its redundancy to an existing,parallel City sidewalk that more adequately serves this purpose. Our current concern is that in spite of the results of the Planning Commission vote and their additional verbal admonition for the staff to more carefully consider the circumstances in which they recommend application of eminent domain powers, the planning staff continued to give the impression this option should be pursued through.the City Council. This project's density and layout configuration cause serious scenic visual and vehicular access concerns that question its value to be annexed to the City in the first place.A non-paved pedestrian pathway at this particular location is unnecessary and results in multiple negative consequences,economic and otherwise,to property owners not associated with this development(see attached). It is an unnecessary condition that should be dropped. Public testimony and the Planning Commission's vote have affirmed that the staff's insistence on a path connection condition AND their continued recommended use of the threat to loan the City's eminent domain powers to the developer were bad ideas.They remain so and should be put to rest.We urge you to do so. Sincerely, j&dAd amit 44�A_ Richard and Pamela Zweifel 1218 Vista Del Lago San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 Attachments: 1)Negative Consequences of path connections,2)Planning Commission Minutes 11/9/05 C:John Mandeville,Community Development Director November 9,2005 Planning Commissioners Michael Boswell, Chairperson Jim Aiken,Vice Chairperson Alice Loh Carlyn Christianson Orval Osborne Andrew carter Re:Influence to La Loma project of"Bishop Knoll"project Annex 124-03 and argument against the requirement for pedestrian access across existing lots 4&5 in Track 1313 and the threat of condemnation contained in the staff report The existing planning designation for the property associated with the proposed Bishop Knoll project is identified as "interim open space"and"conservation open space". The highly unique visual and aesthetic qualities of this area clearly demonstrate why this property has been designated as`open space". Yet at this time, the approval decision does not tum on maintaining this high order of scenic and aesthetic benefit for the public but rather the extraction of personal contribution from adjoining property owners for arbitrary, forced and redundant pedestrian connection demanded by planning staff through threat of condemnation. It is to this point that my family and I are directly affected and urge your abandonment of the condition for pathway connection across or influencing our property. The following are offered as examples of why the requirement for easement access across lots 4 & 5 of Tract 1313 should be abandoned as a development condition for Bishop Knoll project: •Proposed pathway location is redundant with the existing city sidewalk on Foothill Blvd Foothill Blvd. sidewalk runs parallel to proposed pathway location and is less than a 25-30 second walk away(70-80 feet)to gain access to an existing,hard surface(all weather)walkway. As a related question, why would the development be asked to extend the existing sidewalk along its Foothill frontage if it was determined to be an unsafe location per the staff report?The hundreds of the residents along the rest of Foothill to Santa Rosa are already accommodated on the existing sidewalks,what is it about the 11 home sites in this development that cause them to be different? • Theoretical use of pathway and lack of basis The significance,purpose and requirement of a pathway"logical connection"in this location is not clearly established. —to where and for what purpose?There is not a meaningful time, distance or direction saving for the pedestrian in using this proposed pathway. According to the staff report, a condition of development for Tract 1313 was the inclusion of the Los Cerros walkway. No additional walkway connections were apparently envisioned as necessary for subdivision approval for Tract 1313 and therefore no others were required. After the fact, there is now a planning reversal and the westerly pathway is somehow now seen as an essential condition for the Bishop Knoll development. If it is so important—why wasn't it a condition of the Tract 1313 approval? The proposed Bishop Knoll walkway is very different in-terms of purpose and circulation benefit as compared to the walkway connecting the end of Los Cerros Dr. and Bishop Peak School. It is not the same situation at all. In the Los Cerros case,there is direct and immediate connection to the school and the potential of serving as a walking"short cut"from Los Cerros Drive. Similar conditions do not exist for the proposed Bishop Knoll walkway to justify its inclusion as a project requirement. • Without a destination connection, establishing a pathway to the edges of adjoining properties (Tract 1313 Lots 4&5)is an irresponsible promotion of trespassing and additional liability exposure. Directing pedestrian traffic to a"dead end"at private property exposes the individual property owner to additional liability through the invitation for public traffic and use occurring on non- public property. •Formalizing this pathway connection to La Loma Court presents an "attractive nuisance" and promotes un-safe conditions for the residents and path users La Loma Court is a downsized Cul de sac. Having a pedestrian connection in this location focuses attention and apparent legitimization of use for additional vehicular parking on La Loma for hiking access to Bishop Peak. Additional traffic and parking demand has the potential to block already limited fire access and puts the homes on La Loma at additional risk. Night use of an unpaved pathway in this location adds use risks associated with an isolated public travel way between residences and unclear sight lines for routine police surveillance. •Condemnation to force pathway location in this location will cause significant personal financial cost and compromise to the existing adjoining properties that are not a part of the development proposal. There is highly restricted site access to existing Lots 4&5 on La Loma Court due to the size of the Cul de sac and steep slopes. On lot#5,the side walk/top of slope cross-section ranges from over a 12+'vertical difference(2:1 slope)at the border with Lot#6,to a 2+' vertical difference at the border with Lot#4. Access frontage that will allow safe slopes for driveway access to the site is severely limited. Any infringement will cause significant additional cost to the grading,retaining walls and slope stabilization required for development. A significant and direct financial burden is placed on the affected adjacent property owners through the loss of use devaluation of property with the forced inclusion of a pedestrian walkway across lots 4&5 in Tract 1313. Summary The proposed Bishop Knoll walkway is a forced, plan view solution, without functional or design merit relative to the specific location. Its proposed location will cause personal loss of real property value,privacy, and development configuration options for both lots 4&5 in Tract 1313. The operative term in the planning justification document for this pathway is"should"and not "must". The Planning Commissioners are urged to say no to this condition because of the focused and severe consequences to the adjoining property owners. There are direct and real consequences of this decision to two families. Why is it,that as individual property owners are we threatened by condemnation to absorb a significant personal financial loss AND potentially the restrict the ability to build our own dream home in order to allow an out-of-town developer to make a profit on 11 units? Given the sentiment expressed by the Planning Commissioners at the last hearing, we were shocked to find the revised staff report returning to forcing a redundant and unnecessary trail connection across existing properties. The arbitrary and capricious use of the threat to"loan"the city's power of eminent domain to the developer in order to force an easement is at best poor planning reasoning and could be viewed as an abusive use of power and disregard of consequence. Sincerely, K let 64AX d 3"# 1140U-1146;� K. Richard Zweifel, Pamela Zweifel Attachment 2: Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 11/9/05 Planning Commission Meeting Update November 9, 2005 Wednesday 7:00 p.m. CALL TO ORDER/PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL: Commissioners Carlyn Christianson, Alice Loh,Andrea Miller, Orval Osborne, Andrew Carter, Chairperson Michael Boswell and Vice-Chair Jim Aiken. ACCEPTANCE OF AGENDA: MINUTES: Minutes of October 12, 2005. Approve or amend. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1. 36 W. Foothill Boulevard. ANNX, GP/R, TR, and ER 124-03; Request to annex approximately 10 acres of land into the City; prezone the property to R-1 (low-density residential); consideration of a tentative tract map to create 11 lots from one lot; and environmental review; Jay Poindexter, applicant. (Phil Dunsmore) Following extensive discussion and public testimony regarding a proposed pedestrian path to the existing neighborhood at tract 1313, the Planning Commission voted 5-0 to recommend approval of the annexation and tract map to the City Council. Commissioners voted to remove staff recommended conditions that required a pedestrian path to connect the proposed neighborhood to existing neighborhoods and to remove conditions that required an urban reserve line buffer of 50 feet. Public testimony generally opposed the project and adjacent property owners strongly opposed the use of eminent domain to allow a path through private vacant lots. The recommendation of approval included the addition of findings to support the subdivision without the path, and without a 50-foot setback from the URL.. Page 1 of 1 Allen Settle-Lot 4 Tract 1313 —. From: <WERPARKER@aol.com> To: <pbrown@slocity.org>, <dromero@slocity.org>, <cmulholl@slocity.org>, <asettle@slocity.org> Date: 1/17/2006 9:59 PM Subject: Lot 4 Tract 1313 Dear councilmembers: Thank you for your attention to details on the matter of annexing the 11 acre&at 36 Foothill. The decision you made is in the best interest of all parties and especially the city of SLO. Respectfully, Larry and Nancy Parker RECEIVED CC ' C0wr,.e� JAN 1 49 2`1fu CA-O i4CW 0 SLO CITY CLERK MPgri DE 1 LSF L.a wEu 1)V41-1 SrV-LO file://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\slouser\Local%20Settings\Temp\GW}000O1.HTM 1/18/2006 kw eve cc Pam Zweifel b 1218 Vista Del Lago7� San Luis Obispo,Ca. 93405 805-543-1825 t Public Input to SLO City Council Agenda It January 17,2006 Honorable members of the City Council, As you consider tonight the annexation of ten acres of Interim Open Space and the proposed development at the Southwest entrance to our city,I ask that you take great care to insure against the compromise of the unique character and beauty of our city. The particular site being considered tonight embodies many of the unique characteristics of our rural hillside area that should be protected. The highly unique visual and aesthetic qualities of this property in the interim open space include but are not limited to,the scenic view shed up Bishop's Peak,the occasional creek and the riparian area. The Interim Open Space designation is a unique category that demands a development proposal that protects scenic visual access,buffers adjoining open space,addresses site constraints and is compatible with the neighborhood Annexation of property adjacent to open space and at the City's urban edge for the purposes of development is a significant request that should not be granted until it can be adequately justified that the contribution of the development outweighs the potential environmental impacts. Does it? I am concerned about five issues: 1. Maintaining a minimum of 50 ft. between this project and the Urban Reserve Line: The Staff report of July 27th suggests that a project in this location should have buffers that vary between a minimum of 50 and 75 ft. Between residential home sites and active grazing areas outside the urban reserve line. The fact that there are trees and shrubs on this property does not exempt the developer from this very clear requirement. 2. Land use and neighborhood compatibility: In the existing,adjoining development building has been restricted to the 320 ft. contour to preserve view shed The proposed project should adhere to the same requirement and should not be permitted to build to the 327 ft contour. In addition,the existing adjoining lots are 1/3 to '/2 acre parcels and up,allowing view corridors between residences. The proposed project should increase the size of the parcels and decrease the number of parcels to provide similar view corridors between residences. 3. Traffic concerns: Even with the proposed reworking and widening of Foothill to allow ingress and egress to the proposed development,traffic safely making the turns is still a concern because of the hill and the curve approaching the property from the west. And,unless you want future enclaves each punching out onto Foothill Boulevard,traffic access for future development in the urban reserve should be planned and provided from this development. You must also insure that there is adequate parking on site for all of the residents and their visitors. I question the availability of adequate parking particularly on the flag lot drive. 4. Future neighborhood connectivity to the West: Neighborhood connectivity to the east can be easily accommodated on the existing Foothill sidewalk along the lush riparian way faithfully maintained in part by the Parker Family. What about future connectivity to the west Formal plans should address such a connecting pedestrian pathway. 5. Sewers infringing on neighbors: Sewer lines, lif3 stations and manhole access ways from the proposed development should be accommodated within the proposed development and within in the public right of way in the street and should not require easements from adjoining private properties. I submit that the City is under no obligation to approve annexation of these ten acres from the urban reserve and the proposed Bishop Knoll development tonight. There is no great urgency at this time for settling for a force fit with so much at stake at an important and unique property at the City entrance. You.must exercise great care that this location remains a very special place. Is this the best possible design solution for these ten acres? Please,take your time and make sure all concerns have been put to rest before approving this annexation and development. c� CtjualctJt r �Iutkd C@ January 17,2006 San Luis Obispo Council Members City of San Luis Obispo �r 990 Palm Street �Iv San Luis Obispo,CA 93401 Re:January 17,2006 Agenda Item—36 West Foothill Boulevard- GP/R,ANNX and TR/ER 124-03 Dear City Council Members, My name is Horace Morana and I five at 56 La Lorria Court Also know as lot 6 of tract 1313. My house is net to vacant lot's 5 and 4. I would tike to read a paragraph from the Council Agenda report prepared by Phil Dunmore. It is on page 6, tfie second paragraph: 'The Community Development Department has reviewed many proposals for this property during the last twelve years.Almost all of these proposals failed to become applications because of incompatibilities with the General Plan. It has been difficult for potential developers to design a development that . ancialy suc oessttd given the open space requirements and the need to preserve habitat and buffer areas neer the developable part of the site.This does not mean,however,that the City musLapprove this residential development or any''d er project at this.property.The Planning.Commission's decision was that this project has gone as far as reasonably possible to create a housing project at this site' I disagree with the last sentence. I do not think that this project as it is being as presorted tonight should be approved by the city council.And here are five reasons First The applicant believes that that the existing eucalyptus tree row will ad to augment the proposed 35 foot buffer_The opposite is true.Eucalyptus trees can cause a great fire danger and if anything the-URL should be increased because of the trees. Second:When we built our home there was a height restriction based upon the views of adjacent homes. The way this project is being proposed there is 25400t maximum height limit as measured from existing. natural grade.The natural.grade is not consistent with tract 1313. Third:The housing density of this project is not consistent with the density in tract 1312.Although 9.76 acres are being annexed, if you take away the open space,the land needed to build streets,.sidewalks and common areas there the average lot size for this project is much smaller than tract 1313. Fourth:The width of the streets to not allow for sufficient parking to accommodate the 11 homes. If cars do park in the streets do emergency vehicles have the abTdy to reach all the homes? Ffftfi The entrance to this project on Foothill Boulevard presents a real danger to the residents of this project and to all the people that commute on this road Although the Transportation Division of the Public Works Department has reviewed the project there was no mention of the amount of traffic and the speed of the traffic on FooNfl. During commute times students travailing to Cal Poly and Cuesta along with workers corning from Los Osos Valley road make Foothill Boulevard one of the busiest streets in San Luis Obispo. I know because many mornings when I am leaving my house at 8:00 AM I am forced to make a left hand tum on Patricia versus Los Cerros because there is a light on Patrice The folks in this neighborhood will not have that ability. In conclusion I tike to repeat what Phil Durrurwre stated'This does not mean,however,that the City must approve this residefitial development or any other project at this property.'I believe that the City Council should reject this project Horace Morana 56 La Loma Court San Luis Obispo,CA .a• �, 7J O TJ t rO CD ` m � CD (D j v CJS --t, f O • of � y n r �.,. ,'T W � o �. O I :3 x G � � � � o. O s Z _ V :. CD ° C- 0 CD � C7 X11 CD Sly (D �G ;• (n cn CD m _+ O � Q t4 r = o — Z3 CD r < �■ 133 O ° D N Y . 71CD Q Cf) CD ° � ^` < Q = CD O 0- 0 o m D - o °' N l � PIL CD n Q 1. i. X (D ` �� 3 cn !■F Sm 1� �j 0 O OCD � O Q D D ch N Cf) m 1 CD cD O (D •� - m Cf) CD e r r+ i a,r , ►- < CD CD Cl) 1 . cL CD Sv rF iCD Q O r TI _ `• O ' > � p 2 0- CD X o �, co C.. O. m CD 77 � �I '1 s-a- y \A '•rte ! Awl All rj fob ICh ' � rn Or 'A kA MMMI��1). J t �,a4-11 i � ijzt� �vA N cr , l et„sy .-� ") ��� ,� ,,.' '•rv�x*11C�,Y711.1JI 't 1;, �,L�, S t f p, {, to 1 tf y 15�` r cD 0 y D (D 0 o o CDCD 75 ZY. (D C/) 0 0 0 0 ■ II-13-02 T GSGO?95� _ II-13 40 .a. k � � � ` 11 Yw�y�`.•'r7yi ,7I[�• .a �•± 'ate \ �'• 11��.: `. r,,1 • .r y�T' �'`�• : rte,:'. 1 Ya ,�, ,r...`. h O ( • /D M MON rn.44 CD /. .'� 1 ..!(:"r • -r - rvP•7 5 Irl al.; Cl) o ' J t. �� _ „�,'��YY..•• . .fir.r s-.'. CD (D 144 y +r \� �Y! aMr 1 ~ti �w' L..�isr.{,71_• • - (D y V f ♦ f T F c I P l Y /� k r. T /�� Q. CD 0 o Cl) cD o � CD Z cD W ♦/y 1 � ., CD 0') j .--t z � � r i� IIC i t c`�• Q O O l; fl a tir CD C7 CD 3 j r+ p Cf) fink - � ---r • ',, F 1 !F (D. -0 Cn (n l c —. - \_V p 5..1_ � rF (VT CD Q I 1 !" O CD i! 4 liltV CD `,..� ...:•�,�:.•; rte^ 90 0 QCf) DZTIC -0 0 Pool. (D r CD (D 2) Cf) po (D = am �D Q - o r. CD CCD O . �- _. I r, Cf) _ o � O Cl) co O - n n C_ C7 O tiJ 77� .• ' C.. p DCD +1'. .. cf)' o cn /CD/�� O CD G rj) CD W Ln. . z cD o 0 (c U) (C) o d�+ ¢ Co � p -- Cl) _. :o c 0 •,' (ii. :•�� art rales �c�+7fst'''.ty vs U .y (D T i `.`i.-e• it r._M(_ -• CD O 0— r\)N CA) 0 CmD - 0 0 S CD K f •• 1 & - i N Wyk l+ ti �■ IL CD zs. . •y}„'-� • ��., `rte n-. d -t, w^ ;. ^ �■ �1 v 4 `�i � `f tr�'�•'rrr ..' � A� CD r Q _. 4; � � ..7 est O �F ■ ■ � �Cy \ � --- � � � § � , ® 2 § 2 0 _ � , % � \ � § & ■ � ■ ® � o � ■ �' e j � , . © , e ® , � co 0 ® , 2 § 2 ® ' �7 ' e � Mot � �� J � � �•� � / ■■ ik �' o ' c ) � � ® a E ■ & � � § ■ \ / �`ff. ��}�''��•. a� ��� 'ate ��=M m ����� MEN mm a vigil s cD CD _. CAW-1 cr xcn CD 0 CD � O U) O cD 3' < cD C- O w O X. CD O Cl) Q cD W cQ cD S c � cD CD CD oCD- O 3 o ��..� �►rl� cn. (D 0 cn Q cD CD � cn < C (E W 07 O CD C(D CD 007O O n CD CD Q CD C() i - T y ` CD a t 1 � .1 n V cn CD M i♦ �1 \ O S . j Z 1 O O O 0 � = Z r cD cQ cm CD 0 0 o eft (D L t. 0 CD �. � r = S O .-� r+ (Q 3P.* CIDO CCD � a cn N I NCDm CID o o O _ l ♦ N O S O N N ' N M O- U O O O O Q T• to 1 + r 4 r C i .�J � ,lr t1` Ok tr ` •� III `t� II 'l�+y �� � ✓"'i 3Jir�� -4jT�• t••,i ', r 4e t Y b a'•,. �rr4 Ill,. f?`:•s'�,0 'r ll/ v �i V� .A�l A•t F � 'T R�� is CD 0) j n G. 7 fD r-4. < CD +,Jom0 C7 CD " n 1 i v S a_ 0 X Q fD 3 Q !�� aB N 3 r. CD 0 � Q CD a ° Q t. ! a o � F� � 'l' •~ 0 � O i.f. (D T • � 4ily��vr. I T� F - r CD cn ca O m N 0CD - XCD 0 0 -, Coo o Q. o _ o .� i o o- cD — � �' � LL Co � U __ �r n l .'f �. C �_ CD E -0 — 1 CD CD Q -Z�, ." , .Y •_ 4�P' N • ti� �I a o f = o O (D ` cD C D o N C CD p � C (D D Z C(). i z C ' C �4c • m e D ) IF \\T ' i o LJ 'm mo OmM ?m m r • m $� m co� �5' z • r rC y2 2� 0 Z. o � O 0 IF 4 $ r c x m � y t r Fi / W o ,x` � O V mL S, O � P � � Irc{� � • ;1 y A 3 �f O PO" 'Tr d l✓ F1G� n o 'a .� ' i 1 ��f, y.•t^ a 1 I 18 s \ � e � � t D I — n 0 CL 22 CL lit a cr r' ` QO CD • O� m 0 0 - c� CD • cD � : Cl) D ��FpJ�J� .� f •��1 • �t It � � �,�J '�''- 1' .�: l � • t r ` y ��� " '�-.� �� '. III �, I I I J. i�� • llrC .l o a I, -1f ,161 I ;; i 00 --Ij 0') (3l -P W N ii i�• o o camD C cn < G -cn cn r+ l' O O < p p cn CD cn ._. 1, O :3 OCID cn CD 0 Q Q CD cQ a o �+ cn a` Y CD Q 4 A) A) c7 cQ — (D r O p Q CD -: Qm C� cn _ CID Ch CID CD O cD cn , r--_ (D o �D o o � .I c0 O O fes, O C o (D c . r�. � : ; � h • r C 3i CEJ N mac) >--h m o — --% —. -p CD `< CD O< O< 7` � Q O W W A� CD N ID Z37 0 = Sv N - =- U CD 2) CL 0 CCD UD (31 -0 T O N Q < CD o CL C O (n O CD CD =~ (D p Q CD = Q n ti.. . .. CD CL O Q m 3 ,.+ _. F CD p t? _ 3 Al r+ co CD �. cD \V � cD CD _. < — CD 0 cD M CD C) -0 3 CD D cn � CQ r+ Of Q n CD ,� �, N F ►= n Q CD Q c� CD 0CD O r-r \ 0 CD n CQD O S CCD :. CD -0— Z3.V•. r • .: << N O _ C7 O CD TI o - (Q O O O O 0 CD . : m r: cn � CD < p Q 7c -+, Q 3 CD fD CD n CD CD cn C --% O N O CD < CD N N cCT /,C,Ce. VIA, -- �vs , l ( _ - -- - o _ a�_L_ - - -� Ay - q - - Ted Franke Looking Iowa — - 682 Higuera St -- Son Luis Obis;:) ` Store: l8�54i Fax:(805)Sd 1-1 c� Orr":(818)36 Fax:(8 18)368.3 S.L.O. mow.tomstoysonline.c; • Santa Barbara • Montrose • g,