The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About03/07/2006, PH2 - CONSIDERATION OF THREE VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAPS FOR THE PORTION OF THE MARGARITA AREA SPECIFIC councit j acEnaa RepoRt CITY OF SAN LUIS O B I S P O FROM: John Mandeville, Community Development.Direct Prepared By: Mary Beatie, Senior Contract Planner, & Pam Ricci, Senior City Staff Planner SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF THREE VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAPS FOR THE PORTION OF THE MARGARITA AREA SPECIFIC PLAN KNOWN AS THE "WESTERN ENCLAVE", LOCATED BEYOND THE WESTERLY END OF MARGARITA AVENUE AND ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE EASTERLY EXTENSION OF PRADO ROAD, BETWEEN SOUTH HIGUERA AND BROAD STREETS (CITY FILE NOS. ER/TR 63-05 (COWAN, 392 PRADO), ER/TR 65-05 (KING, 3000 CALLE MALVA), AND ER/TR 66-05 (DEBLAUW, 408 PRADO). CAO RECOMMENDATION As recommended by the Planning Commission, take the following actions regarding the three Vesting Tentative Maps (VTMs): 1. With respect to VTM 63-05 (Cowan, County File #2342), adopt Draft Resolution "A'', which adopts the Mitigated Negative Declaration, and approves the 67-lot VTM, based on findings, and subject to mitigation measures, conditions, and code requirements. 2.. With respect to VTM 65-05 (King, County File #2428), adopt Draft Resolution `B", which adopts the Mitigated Negative Declaration, and approves the 91-lot VTM, based on findings, and subject to mitigation measures, conditions, and code requirements. 3. With respect to VTM 66-05 (DeBlauw, County File #2353), adopt Draft Resolution "C", which adopts the Mitigated Negative Declaration, and approves the 133= lot VTM, based on findings, and subject to mitigation measures, conditions, and code requirements.. REPORT IN BRIEF For decades, the Margarita Area has been designated on the City's General Plan Land Use Element Map as one of the key areas for residential expansion. On October 12, 2004, a significant step toward realizing that additional residential capacity, as well as setting aside areas for various commercial uses, occurred with the adoption of the Margarita Area Specific Plan (MASP) and accompanying Program Environmental Impact Report. The annexation of the western portion of the specific plan area, referred to in this agenda report as the Western Enclave, was approved by LAFCO on July 17, 1997, after the City Council's approval of the annexation and pre-zoning. The first three subdivision maps within the MASP for the Western Enclave now ready for the Council's review and consideration, are: 1. VTM #2342 (Cowan/French, City file#TR/ER63-05); Council Agenda Report—'/ .rgarita Area.Specific Plan Vesting Tena .Ve Maps Page 2 2. VTM#2353 (Sierra Gardens/DeBlauw, City file#TRIER 66-05; and 3. VTM #2428 (King, City file#TR/ER 65-05).- The approximately 144-acre Wester Enclave (WE) project site is generally located in the southern part of San Luis Obispo. The WE properties are situated on the north side frontage of Prado Road, extending east about one-third mile from its current terminus as a public road near the southeast corner of the existing adjacent Rancho San Luis Mobile Home Park. The WE is also adjacent to other existing development, including the El Camino Estates (Tract 400) a residential subdivision along Margarita Avenue off South Higuera Street and the Chumash Village Mobile Home Park off South Higuera Street. Lands to the east of the WE properties, also within the MASP are undeveloped. The currently vacant project site is relatively flat, sloping slightly upward into the most northerly King map site, with the bulk of the proposed 71- acre open space lot being dedicated to the City extending north into the South Hills. (Please see Attachment 2 - Composite Map of Western Enclave Subdivision Maps). In reviewing the submitted VTMs, staff's directive has been to evaluate how they achieve the objectives of the MASP and whether they are consistent with the plan's development standards. Attached to this agenda report are copies of the Planning Commission agenda reports which- include a master agenda report plus reports for each of the three individual VTMs. The master agenda report provides general background on the projects and highlights how the three maps carry out the objectives of the MASP. These three developments have been planned in a coordinated fashion by the three applicants in order to better achieve the objectives and requirements of the MASP and are consequently being processed simultaneously. The adopting resolutions and conditions have been crafted so that the Council is able to make a decision on any one or all of the projects without the need to approve or deny all at the same hearing. Likewise, the maps are also conditioned so that they may build out on their own schedules. More detailed information on the three maps, including the initial studies of environmental impact and discussion of issues unique to the specific maps, are included in the individual reports. Staff has evaluated the maps against the MASP and applicable ordinances and find they are in substantial compliance. Since the original submittals, the applicants have been working with staff to refine the details of their project design to further demonstrate compliance with the MASP. Where literal or precise compliance have not been met, conditions of approval are included to require the needed degree of compliance. The City Planning Commission conducted public hearings and received written and oral testimony from staff, the applicants and the public on these three maps and their respective environmental findings at a regularly scheduled hearing on January 25, 2006. As a result of this testimony the primary issues for the Planning Commission were: 1.) Neighborhood Compatibility 2.) Traffic Issues 3.) Mitigation Measures 4.) VTM #2428 (King) modified subdivision design for 91 lots instead of 148 lots and procedural issues related to that modified design. z -z Council Agenda Report' ergarita Area Specific Plan Vesting Tei. _..ive Maps Page 3 Below is a summary of the nature and extent of each of these issues. The summaries also indicate applicable requirements of the MASP that relate to that issue and how the issue was considered by staff and/or addressed by the map designs. Below the four summaries is a matrix which identifies the mitigation measures, conditions of approval or code requirements recommended for each of the four issues respective to each map. These mitigation measures, conditions of approval and code requirements are set forth in the attached draft resolutions recommended for adoption for each map. DISCUSSION 1. Neighborhood Compatibility: Given that the three VTMs involve the development of vacant property adjacent to existing development, testimony was provided at the Planning Commission hearing by neighbors with issues related to how the proposed development might adversely impact their privacy and overall quality of life. This testimony focused on concerns raised regarding the design of lots and homes adjacent primarily to Chumash Village Mobile Home Park lying west of the King map, and the design of lots and homes adjacent to the El Camino Estates residences along Margarita Avenue south of the King map and west of the DeBlauw map. One individual raised some concern about "predatory access" by the public through the large open space lot in the King map (to be dedicated to the City) to her property in.the Chumash Village Mobile Home Park and potential infestation of rodents and other pests resulting from construction-related ground disturbances. (Also raised were concerns about circulation within the tracts and within the MASP area in general. These latter issues are covered together under "Traffic"below.) Marearita Area Specific Plan Vision and Objectives Addressing Neighborhood Compatibility; • Provide for the appropriate integration of future development with existing residences in the area to create a cohesive new neighborhood by: a) The Plan's arrangement of allowed land uses and by its planned circulation system. b) Street extensions as well as pedestrian and bicycle linkages, and by open space connections between new and existing development. c) Extending the sense of place rather than dividing by assuring proposed uses are similar or compatible in use and scale with existing adjacent development. How this issue is addressed: Staff evaluated these general issues extensively with the applicants and their engineering representatives, and a series of revisions to each of the maps ultimately improved upon the subdivisions' design, in particular, reducing grading and elevation differences between the existing and proposed development to the extent reasonably possible. Mitigation measures, conditions of approval, and code requirements as recommended by the Planning Commission identified in the matrix below also serve to further protect privacy, view sheds and neighborhood compatibility issues as raised at the Planning Commission hearing as follows: a. Impacts related to light and glare will be mitigated by the requirement to submit a lighting plan that demonstrates compliance with lighting requirements of the Council Agenda Report' Argarita Area Specific Plan Vesting Ten _..ve Maps Page 4 MASP and the adopted City Design Guidelines to be implemented through review and approval by the Architectural Review Commission. b. The 71-acre hillside open space area adjacent to existing development is intended to be available for public use in perpetuity and would ultimately be owned by the City who would manage its use. In the short-term while there is a conservation easement over this open space area, the Master Home Owners Association would be responsible for necessary annual fire hazard abatement in accordance with City fire regulations. c. All grading is subject to conditions requiring compliance with the City's adopted grading ordinance; compliance with adopted design guidelines related to, but not necessarily limited to, hillside grading; and compliance with soils engineer's recommendations regarding slope stability, debris flows, erosion control and the like as specified in the final soils or geo-technical reports. Conditions of Approval further recommend that development of lots adjacent to Chumash Village Mobile Home Park or El Camino Estates where pad elevations differ by four or more feet shall be limited to single-story development and increased rear yard setbacks of a minimum of 10 feet, or equivalent design techniques that maximize privacy protection for the adjacent lot as approved by the ARC. Lots with slope banks of 3:1 or steeper adjacent to property lines and drainage structures in the rear yards will require deed restrictions such that the entire slope bank is covered by an easement to be maintained by the MHOA and with a 6-foot privacy fence installed and maintained at the top of the slope d. Control of dust and fumes related to construction activities will be limited to the greatest degree required through permitting requirements of the local Air Pollution Control District for compliance with all applicable rules and regulations including, but not necessarily limited to PM-10, NOx emissions, Best Available Control Technologies, construction activity management plans, and phasing techniques. The Commission did not feel the rodent/pest concern was significant enough to require conditions of approval, noting the potential would likely be transitory in nature, limited only to the temporary construction activities, and felt the "predatory access" concern was unfounded due to the fact of slopes being extremely steep in that area of the Open Space lot (southwest comer) and therefore making it sufficiently difficult for the public to be able to gain access to the subject mobile home property. Existing fencing was seen as a reasonable additional deterrent. In discussions with the County Environmental Health Department, it would likely reduce the rodent /pest concern somewhat if the grading for the tract adjacent to the mobile home park begins nearer the mobile home park and moves outward toward the open space. The Draft Resolution for the King map includes Condition No.45 to note this requirement.. 2. Traffic Issues: This issue before the Planning Commission encompassed concerns related to timing and phasing of the construction of Prado Road between South Higuera and Broad Street and interconnection of the subject three sites with each other and with existing adjacent development. These issues have some context with the Neighborhood Compatibility issue discussed above, but are combined here and addressed due to their common relation to "traffic"in general. —y Council Agenda Report= . argarita Area Specific Plan Vesting Tei. Ave Maps Page 5 Margarita Area Specific Plan Vision and Objectives, Addressing Prado Road and Circulation within MASP: • Facilitate walking, biking, and the use of transit. • Provide for the appropriate integration of future development with existing residences in the area and create cohesion between new and existing neighborhoods (see above). • Encourage "in-fill" development within the City's urban reserve boundary and further the goal of transit oriented development. • Complete a new east-west connection in the south area of SLO through the extension of Prado Road between South Higuera and Broad Street. How this issue is addressed: Staff and the applicants worked on these issues extensively, particularly the conditions of approval regarding development of Prado Road Extension from South Higuera to Broad Street. The recommended condition of approval has been developed cooperatively by staff with input and feedback from the applicants. It essentially provides for a logical phasing of the design and construction components and with consideration for financing in a way that is amenable to both the City and the applicants. The resulting condition, as recommended by the Planning Commission, carries out the intent of the MASP. With respect to other elements of the MAS13 Circulation Plan, the maps all interconnect with each other and to existing adjacent development as specified by the Plan. The one exception is the addition within the DeBlauw Map (VTM #2353) of a second permanent access to Prado Road. While only one access to Prado Road from the Western Enclave Development area was envisioned by the Plan, both staff and the applicants, and now Planning Commission, concur that a second access to Prado Road through the DeBlauw site is beneficial to overall circulation ease, especially with regard to transit, and does not conflict with attainment of any other provisions or stipulations of the Plan. Further it does not generate any new environmental impacts. This secondary access connection to Prado Road is provided by "M" Street, for permanent access, and on an interim basis, if necessary, by "D" Street. 3. Mitigation Measures: The Commission expressed some concern that mitigation measures as expressed in the Program EIR for the MASP seemed more detailed with respect to references to and potential mitigation for specific species, but that the mitigations now proposed for the three maps seemed less detailed. How this issue is addressed: Staff noted that the nature of impact analysis in the Program EIR for the entire Specific Plan area was necessarily broad and therefore not site specific. As a result of the Program EIR mitigation measures, site specific biological reconnaissance and studies were subsequently performed for the three tract map sites in order to more accurately determine the applicability of the suspected areas and extent of specie- or habitat-specific impacts. As a result of these studies, certain impacts identified as "potential" in the MASP Program EIR were able to be ruled out in site specific instances. Further the Program EIR noted various mitigations related to protocol surveys that could be required by State and Federal Agencies (notably the California Department of Fish and Game, and US Fish & Wildlife Service, and US Army Corps of Engineers). The Commission agreed with this strategy, but recommended that additional z-s� Council Agenda Report= jrgarita Area Specific Plan Vesting Ten,__ xe Maps Page 6 wording be added with respect to needed protection for raptor species. As a result, recommended Mitigation Measure No. 2 in the attached draft resolutions, dealing with the potential impact to nesting raptors, was modified to include an appropriate setback of 300 feet, as recommended by the City Natural Resource Manager. 4. Modified May for VTM#2438 (Kine): Dave Watson, representative for John and. Carole King, applicants, submitted to Planning Commission at the hearing a request to consider an alternative design proposal for the site (Attachment 3). The alternative design essentially consisted of a proposal to reduce the number of over-all lots from 148 to 91. This would consolidate 51 of the originally proposed lots generally surrounding the central lot proposed for the affordable housing development, into 4 larger lots with the ultimate intention of submitting revised tentative map(s) for these areas that would achieve a higher density of development. (These 4 larger lots, in the alternative design scheme are numbered 81, 82, 83 & 84.) Mr. Watson felt such an approach would better achieve the intent and "spirit" of the MASP. Mr. Watson indicated in his proposal to the Commission, the applicant's intention of the alternative design was to take better advantage of the density bonus allowances of the MASP to achieve more units at a higher density and hopefully increase moderate- income housing opportunities. Mr. Watson indicated that perhaps a Planned Unit Development-style plan could accommodate 80-100 units within the central area of the site, an increase over the original proposal of 61 units. How this .issue is addressed: In response to Mr. Watson's proposal, staff pointed out to the Commission at the hearing that this alternative proposal, although acceptable in theory, would require submittal of new tentative map(s) and companion environmental reviews pursuant to CEQA in order for the higher density lot design to be considered. As presented there was some risk, albeit remote perhaps, that approval of the 4 lots in place of the originally designed 51 lots, could result in the sale of each of the 4 lots and development of each with'only one single-family home. Further, issues were raised by individuals involved in a contractual relationship with Mr. King regarding breach of promised development rights for the subject site if the alternative design was approved, the Commission was advised by the Assistant City Attorney that since the City is not a party to said contract, the Commission should disregard the issue because it concerns a private dispute. Seeing the benefit of the opportunity to reach higher densities and the potential to achieve an increase in moderately priced housing, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the King VTM #2428 with the proposed modified design. While staff agrees with the intention to be achieved by the applicant and the Commission with the alternative design, we do have concerns about the finding that the revised map is consistent with the specific plan requirement that the subdivision achieve a minimum density of seven units per acre for low-density residential and eight units per acre for the medium-density residential. In light of this, staff is recommending that the Council approve the VTM #2428 (King) map as recommended by the Planning Commission with an added condition to require that lots 81, 82, 83, and 84 be developed with no less than 70 units total, which will bring the medium-density area up to eight units per acre. This will not effectively change the potential outcome desired by the applicant and the Commission, will guard against the unintended, but still possible, outcome of only one single family residence being built on each of the four larger parcels (# 81-84), and Council Agenda Report=/ argarita Area Specific Plan Vesting Tei. Jve Maps Page 7 will allow specific plan conformity and CEQA procedures to be carried out more precisely as they are intended by law. Table 1 -Matrix of Issues and Related Mitigation Measures, Conditions of Approval and Code Requirements applicable to Each Proposed VTM Main Issues VTM# 2342 VTM# 2428 VTM# 2353 Cowan/French Kin DeBlauw Neighborhood Light/Glare: Light/Glare: Light/Glare: Compatibility (light MM #1; COA #48 MM #1; COA #47 MM #1; COA #55 & glare, lot privacy, Privacy/Grading: Privacy/Grading: Privacy/Grading: construction COA #16, 36, 37; COA #19, 25, 33-35, COA #17, 41, 42, 53, dust/fumes, etc.) CR #5 49, 53, 55; CR #5 54; CR #5 Air Quality: Air Quality: Air Quality: MM #7, 8; COA #43 MM #9,10; COA #43 MM #8, 9; COA #49 Master HOA: Master HOA: Master HOA: COA #8, 38, 39, 40 COA 48, 9, 36-38 CoA #9, 10, 43-45 Traffic Issues Prado Road: Prado Road: COA #1 Prado Road: COA #1 COA #1 Traffic, Circulation & Traffic, Circulation & Traffic, Circulation & Street Connections: Street Connections: Street Connections: COA #3-7, 10, 20, COA #3-7, 19-25, 27- COA #3-7, 17, 21- 22-25, 40-43, 47, 48 32, 46-48 24, 26, 27, 41, 46, 47 Mitigation Impacts to Other Impacts to Other Impacts to Other Measures Nesting Birds. Nesting Birds. Nesting Birds. MM #4 MM #6 M #4 King's Modified N/A Street Re-design and. N/A Map Density Control: COA #10, 11, 12, 46 Notes: MM =Mitigation Measure, COA = Condition of Approval, CR = Code Requirement CONCURRENCES This item was distributed to various City departments and comments received have been included as conditions and code requirements where appropriate. Council Agenda Report` _ .argarita Area Specific Plan Vesting Tet,__ive Maps Page 8 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. Accordingly, since the proposed project is consistent with the General Plan and the Margarita Area Specific Plan, it has a neutral fiscal impact. ALTERNATIVES 1. The Council may approve the project with modified findings and/or conditions. 2. The Council may deny the proposed subdivision, based on findings of inconsistency with the General Plan as specified by the Council. 3. The Council may continue review of the project, if more information is needed. Direction should be given to staff and the applicants. ATTACHMENTS: Attachment 1: Vicinity Map Attachment 2: Composite Map of Western Enclave Subdivision Maps Attachment 3: Revised King Map (VTM#2428, City File No. TR/ER 65-05) Attachment 4: 1-25-06 Planning Commission Master Agenda Report Attachment 5: 1-25-06 Planning Commission Report for TR/ER 63-05 with approved Planning Commission Resolution No..5441-06 (Cowan) Attachment 6: 1-25-06 Planning Commission Report for TR/ER 65-05 with approved Planning Commission Resolution No. 5442-06 (King) Attachment 7: 1-25-06 Planning Commission Report for TR/ER 66-05 with approved Planning Commission Resolution No. 5443-06 (DeBlauw) Attachment 8: Draft 1-25=06 Planning,Commission Minutes Attachment 9: Letters from the public received on the maps Attachment 10:Draft City Council Resolutions AVAILABLE FOR REVIEW IN THE COUNCIL OFFICE Attachments to Initial Study ER63-05 (Cowan) including: Attachment 3: Focused Biological Studies & Wetland Delineation, Rincon Consultants, Inc., June, 2005 Attachment 4: 90-Day Vernal Pool Branchiopod Dry Season Survey Report for Tract 2342 Proiect Site of the Margarita Specific Plan Area, City of San Luis Obispo, California. Recovery Permit TE090804-01 David Wolff Environmental (DWE), November 11, 2005 Attachment 5: Addendum and Update to Hydrologic and Hydraulic Analysis Report for the Margarita Area, San Luis Obispo County, TEC, Civil Engineering Consultants, October 20, 2005 (Technical Appendices available for inspection at City Hall, Community Development Department, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA) - 0 Council Agenda Report= irgarita Area Specific Plan Vesting Ten-. .,ve Maps Page 9 Attachments to Initial Study ER 65-05 (King) including: Attachment 3: Biological Assessment for King Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 2428 APN: 076-3317015, City of San Luis Obispo, San Luis_ Obispo County, California, Althouse &Meade, Inc., July, 2005 . Attachment 4: Wetland Declination for King Vg Tract Map No. 2428 APN: 076-331-015, City of San Luis Obispo, San Luis Obispo County, California, Althouse & Meade, Inc., July, 2005. Attachment 5: Addendum and Update to Hydrologic and Hydraulic Analysis Report for the Margarita Area, San Luis Obispo County, TEC, Civil Engineering Consultants, October 20, 2005 (Technical Appendices available for inspection at City Hall, Community Development Department, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA) Attachments to Initial Study ER 66-05 (DeBlauw)including: Attachment 3: Biological Assessment for Sierra Gardens Vesting Tentative.Tract Map No. 2353 APN: 076-341-010 & 076-341-011, City of San Luis Obispo, San Luis Obispo County, California, Althouse & Meade, Inc.,July, 2005. Attachment 4: Wetland Delineation for Sierra Gardens Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 2353, APN: 076-341-010& 076-341-01 1,City of San Luis Obispo, San Luis Obispo County, California, Althouse & Meade, Inc., July, 2005. Attachment 5: Addendum and Update to Hydrologic and Hydraulic Analysis Report for the Margarita Area, San Luis Obispo County, TEC, Civil Engineering Consultants, October 20, 2005 (Technical Appendices available for inspection at City Hall, Community Development Department, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA) Attachment 6: Historical Evaluation for a House at 408 Prado Road. City of San Luis Obispo, California. the Terra/DeBlauw Property, APN 076-341-011, Bertranado & Bertranado Research Consultants, April, 2005 L:MASP\Ftnal Council Agenda report for MASP maps s _ r SAN I 11 milli 11111 111111 ��all��[��1�1111111111 • II tin : main t1■■■t111tttt■ tt■■tt111ttt■■ tt11111t1111110■ � _� tt111111t11111■■ ■ Itt■tt Itt■t■■ ttt■tt Itt■t■■ ■' �t■t■t■tttt■1■tom a Mon M . I -�`�� ;11 If1/IIIII 1111 •,• ..`` �� ./1 �111'IIj ME VICINITY _� nu MAP Maps Margarita • Specific Plan ' 717E acres Attachment 2 OPEN SPACE City of fo the \ 91 City 01 SOn LuTII Oblepo for Open - 19 3] 1° ]9 Space II 20 31 22 35 36 - 40 IIIII�N\111 ,, 23 24 S x 41 1� 2 27 28 Z9 30 31 2 �1 f8 \ 42 ' 17 � 82 43 16 _ is — 2428 14 King) 3 45 12 8t \ 4°47 48 10 4° 84 \50 ° 83 63 51 52 7 - ° 53 I — 8 5 { ] 2 1 80 79 78 77 76 5 74 73 72 65 59 58 54 71 70 89 68 67 66 57 58 55 104 x SSJ al!1,.••✓ 68 103 13I S9,36 .'' I 69 102 105 1 12 1 "'� I 70 101 1 71 43 42 41 40 100 1 30 72 I 99 _ 29 73 98 29 44 67 7a 97 106 130 III(' 27 I I 45 66 I ' 75 96 I 107 129 I .. - 26 I I `i 85 85 I I 10B 127 25 84 1 94 4D 3 ' 93 I ' 109 126 f75 25 13l _ I 111 124 1 z4 a _ 23 1 116 15 14 13 12 I' 11 10 9 8 7 B 6 4 3 2`1 23 r 62 1}I } \ 5 . 50 I 81 BO r 91 r 117 ----�---- -_- 51 60 81 90 11� 122 .1., 62 °9 113 121 I 1 18 19 2 2122 23 126117 28 ' 29 30]1 32 3S 4 I1 }} 58 83 88 114 12019 1 x s7 84 87 I 115 198 41 4019 83 3 t8 20 55 58 85 IIe 116 117 A B C 0 E I C N I J L K L M M •� I �_ 1 S T U t8 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 _ I -- O P O 8 T , ^% T 1 2 4 S,[y 4j� 5 6 1 1 s I n r _ I 1 1 1 I1 ----- ------- J - CRY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO uv VIIOPOSm BitIOOPI�iT _ a ®� a �9a z Y.=a.ABL p Attachment 3 8a �I00 € k �A e•g ESE ��tl�� E-`.,'g �N6"��i8 � A y61Q •a + i s I n I_ . I I p Gp I A 1 I j • A q / n 1 q I n 1� 1 q I.� I_ I q I , \ q . fl l�J un CNtlI a �a Attachment 4 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION MASTER AGENDA REPORT rr]MS#1-3 BY: Mary Beatie, Sr. Contract Planner, TPG Consulting MEETING DATE: January 25, 2006 FROM: Ron Whisenand, Deputy Director, Development Review SUBJECT: Consideration of three Vesting Tentative Tract Maps to create a total of 348 residential lots, 43 business park lots including 27 lots that allow residential mixed use, and 12 open space lots on approximately 144 acres for the area of the Margarita Area Specific Plan (MASP)known as the"Western Enclave" (WE), located beyond the westerly end of Margarita Avenue and on the north side of the easterly extension of Prado Road, between South Higuera and Broad Streets. (Please refer to Attachment 1 "Vicinity Map") SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION Review the three attached subdivision reports with environmental documents and make recommendations to the City Council on each individual subdivision as appropriate. BACKGROUND Situation The MASP was approved by the City Council on October 12, 2004. The annexation of the western portion of the specific plan area was approved by LAFCO on July 17, 1997, after the City Council's approval of annexation and pre-zoning. The first three subdivision maps within the MASP for the Western Enclave, now ready for the Commission's review and consideration,are: Vesting Tentative Map (VTM)#2342 (Cowan/French, City file#TR/ER63-05);VTM#2353 (Sierra Gardens/DeBlauw,City file #TR/ER 66-05; and VTM#2428 (King, City file#TR/ER65-05). (Please see Attachment 2—Composite Map of Western Enclave Subdivision Maps). This master agenda report provides general background on the projects and highlights how the three maps carry out the objectives of the MASP. These three developments have been planned in a coordinated fashion by the three applicants in order to better achieve the objectives and requirements of the MASP and are consequently being processed simultaneously. More detailed information on the three maps, including the initial studies of environmental impact and discussion of issues unique to the specific maps, are included in individual reports attached to this master report. Staff has evaluated the maps against the MASP and applicable ordinances and find that they are in substantial compliance. Since the original submittals; the applicants have been working with staff to refine the details of their project design to further demonstrate compliance with the MASP. Where literal or precise compliance may still be in question in minor instances, conditions of approval are included to require the needed degree of compliance. General Site Location and Description The approximately 144-acre Western Enclave (WE) project site is generally located in the southern part of San Luis Obispo. The WE properties are situated on the north side frontage of Prado Road,extending east about one-third mile from its current terminus as a public road near the southeast corner of the existing adjacent Rancho San Luis Mobile Home Park. The WE is also adjacent to other existing development, including the El Camino Estates (Tract 400) a residential subdivision along Margarita a -i3 Master Agenda Report for MA:._ Western Enclave Tract Maps Attachment 4 Page-2 Avenue off South Higuera Street and the Chumash Village Mobile Home Park off South Higuera Street. Lands to the east of the WE properties, also within the MASP are undeveloped. The currently vacant project site is relatively flat, sloping slightly upward into the most northerly King map site, with the bulk of the proposed 71-acre open space lot being dedicated to the City extending north into the South Hills. MARGARITA AREA SPECIFIC PLAN (MASP) OBJECTIVES The key Margarita Area Specific Plan objectives, which are achieved by the coordinated design and simultaneous processing of these three maps,are as follows: L Transit Oriented Development One of the over-arching objectives of the MASP was the establishment of a land use and circulation concept that promoted "transit oriented development". Generally, this is development that strives to reduce the use of single-occupant vehicles by increasing opportunities for trips by walking, bicycling, car/van pooling, bus etc. Some of the trip-minimizing tools that the MASP promotes include: a. Aland use scheme that allows and promotes higher density development Comment: The subject subdivisions propose lot designs toward meeting density requirements set forth in the MASP for residential housing options b. Land use designations that allows for a mixture of residential and business or commercial uses to encourage people to live closer to where they may work Comment: 27 of the total 43 business park-office lots within the Cowan and DeBlauw maps implement the residential mixed use designation (these lie outside the Prado Road. noise setback) thereby providing opportunities for people to live near where they may work.. c. Provisions for developed transit stops which incorporate rider safety and convenience amenities Comment: A fully developed transit stop,technically designated and proposed within the DeBlauw property by the MASP,'is further accommodated by the coordinated design of the Cowan/French map which provides the needed full length transitional area for the west-bound standard bus turnouts. A transit route is provided for on "C" Street and east/west bound bus stop turnouts will be provided on either side of"D" Street. d. Travel way systems and designs that make walking and bicycle travel more safe and convenient. Comment: A safer environment for pedestrians and bicyclists is accommodated through incorporation of such traffic calming devices as roundabouts, bulb-outs at street intersections, raised "table tops" crossings at open space lots, and diversion of some traffic off public streets to private alleys. Roadways throughout the subdivisions incorporate bike lanes and sidewalks where required by the plan and street cross-sections. Paths or sidewalks that will be narrowed by the Public Works Director and Natural Resource Manager for resource protection purposes will still function adequately. e. Designated locations for pedestrian and bicycle trails Master Agenda Report for MAL,_ Western Enclave Tract Maps Attachment 4 Page-3 Comment: The subject subdivisions also propose 12-foot wide Class I bicycle/pedestrian paths as designated in the MASP, achieving desired inter-connections to adjacent developments and linkages ultimately to existing graded roads providing hilltop access to the South Hills. 2. Development of Prado Road The MASP stipulates as one of its goals the completion of the east-west connection of Prado Road between Broad Street and South Higuera Street at the earliest possible stage of development of the Plan. The MASP recognized the complexity of accomplishing this with multiple property owners - each with their own objectives of developing their properties under differing timelines and scenarios. Because access to the Western Enclave properties exists on both Prado Road and Margarita Avenue, the MASP did not establish an absolute requirement that the Prado Road extension to Broad Street be completed prior to their development. However, recognizing the importance of making this connection at the earliest stage possible, the Western Enclave property owners, along with many of the other Margarita Area property owners want to work towards implementation of the connection sooner rather than later. If necessary right-of-way (ROW) can be acquired, the Western Enclave property owners have expressed a willingness to implement the Prado Road connection as part of their phased development. According to the MASP, one option to finance the connection is that the City will credit (or pro-rate) the design and construction costs of the agreed-upon minimum cross section against Margarita Area impact fees to be collected with each respective development until the amount of fees equals the amount of construction costs. If the costs of the roadway exceed fee amounts, another financing mechanism, such as a facilities financing district, may be necessary to complete the project. PRE-WE t ,{,' I 1° Fi gure 1 - Prado Road Extension Segments Comment: How Will Prado Road Extension Be Completed? The Western Enclave applicants, who are each dependent on access to Prado Road, have devised and sought early consensus with the Public Works Dept. on an acceptable comprehensive approach to satisfying the phasing concept of the MASP relative to their developments and in anticipation of future development of the Unocal and Martinelli properties to the south and the Damon-Garcia properties to the east. A Condition of Approval is proposed which represents this consensus. Master Agenda Report for Ms___ Western Enclave Tract Maps Attachment 4 Page-4 In summary, the condition requires, and the Western Enclave developers have agreed, to fulfill the MASP Prado Road extension requirements in two segments: The first being the design and construction of a new roadway consisting of the full width (4 lanes, bike paths and lanes, sidewalks, utilities, storm drainage, landscaping and median improvements and other necessary street appurtenances, or as otherwise approved by the PW Director) from the present easterly terminus (City boundary) of Prado Road extending easterly to the intersection of"M" Street on Tract 2353 (the "Siena Gardens"-DeBlauw property ( this segment is referred to as the Prado Road Extension — Wester Enclave "PRE-WE" segment). Subject to availability of right-of- way, the construction of this first segment shall be completed prior to the occupancy of the 50`" unit within the Western Enclave. Attachment 3 shows the timeline for completion and milestones of the PRE-WE segment. The second segment will consist of submittal of, at the time of the first final map, schematic designs for the full width improvement of the Prado Road Extension from proposed "M" Street east to Broad Street(referred to as the "PRE-MB" segment) along with, at the time of recording the final map, a bond for the completion of the engineering plans and specifications, environmental review, if necessary,and associated construction for this segment. Construction drawings and specifications for the PRE-MB segment shall be completed prior to occupancy of the 100`s unit with initiation of construction of the northern half of the PRE-MB segment (or some modified section as approved by the PW Dir.) prior to the occupancy of the 200`'unit in the Western Enclave. Completion of the northern half prior of the PRE-MB segment will occur prior to occupancy of the 300'h unit in the Western Enclave area. Depending on the final design of the PRE-MB project, construction of the southern half of this easterly Prado Road segment (if not completed initially) will be accomplished through development of the adjacent properties south of the roadway alignment. The northerly half cross section of Prado Road can function adequately as a two-lane two-way roadway until development occurs to the south until the remainder of the full width roadway (4 lanes and median) is constructed. Attachment 3 also shows the timeline for completion and milestones of the PRE-MB segment. 3. Development of a Sub-Regional Drainage Plan Another goal of the MASP is to minimize the infrastructure costs so as to help keep cost of housing production down and consolidate infrastructure needs where possible. Recognizing the difficulty in establishing a region-wide retention facility early in the implementation of the MASP, the Plan allows for stormwater detention for each project on an individual basis of development. In essence, developments can retain stormwater discharge on lots contained within their development project area. However, recognizing that individual retention areas are cumulatively more expensive, and may limit the total dwelling units in the Plan area, the MASP allows for combination of stormwater retention in a combined facility in the mid to long-term development of the Plan. Comment: The Western Enclave applicants have coordinated their resources and development plans to propose an off-site "sub-regional" solution to drainage from their three properties, as well as other adjacent properties that ultimately will develop, at this initial stage of development of the Plan area. This sub-regional drainage provides a unique solution to a variety of issues and concerns—both existing and future.(Please see Attachment#4.) First, not only does it serve to achieve the cost economies envisioned by the MASP policy,but it also accommodates mitigation for biological resources required by the MASP FEIR. Further, the key feature of the proposed sub-regional drainage solution is the elimination of localized a -ale Attachment 4 Master Agenda Report for MAS, Western Enclave Tract Maps Page-5 historical flooding along Prado Road that has resulted from deficient drainage systems associated with prior development in the area. To accommodate this, the sub-regional drainage solution proposes the acquisition, enhancement, and provision for long-term maintenance of the existing basin area naturally occurring off-site on the property south of Prado Road owned by Chevron (Unocal). This area can accommodate a detention basin large enough to not only accommodate additional run-off from the Western Enclave (based upon their addition to the 100-year storm event) but allows the entire system of the Western Enclave to be designed to accommodate all pre-development flows, as well. The basin can also be designed to address future development of adjacent properties so that developable area is maximized.. Although the applicants are in negotiations with Chevron (Unocal) that they believe will ultimately be successful in acquiring the area needed for this basin, there is a possibility that the sub-regional solution may requite the assistance by the City to acquire the needed off-site detention area as designated by the MASP if it cannot be acquired from the property owner in fee title or by easement rights.The City concurs with this objective as the best way to deal with area- wide stormwater mitigation but also recognizes that each map in the Western Enclave has the ability to proposed individual stormwater mitigation on-site. Thus, the Condition of Approval regarding stormwater mitigation is proposed to address either circumstance as the tracts complete their final maps and infrastructure design. 4. Programmatic Biological Mitigation Plan per.the MASP FEIR Another MASP goal is the protection of open space and sensitive biological resources via designating the upper area of the South Hills, the four main drainage swales within the Western Enclave properties, and the 80-foot PG&E high-power line easement be retained in their natural state or with appropriate induced landscaping as "Open Space-Hills"and "Open Space-Riparian", and "Greenway"respectively. The objectives of the MASP's various open space designations are multi-faceted: ➢ Protecting scenic qualities and existing utilities from development encroachment ➢ Preserving hill-top access for needed public open—space use and telecommunications facility maintenance ➢ Protecting natural drainage ways for achieving logical drainage solutions,and Preserving a natural habitat for its intrinsic environmental resource value and as a naturally occurring amenity that will contribute to future residents' overall "quality of life"within the development. Comment: The applicants have coordinated their subdivision designs to utilize these natural features as integrated functional aspects in their development designs to achieve drainage solutions, habitat protections, as well as passive recreation and scenic amenities. Rather than a piecemeal approach that would not have resulted in the greater benefits of such a comprehensive solution,the coordinated efforts of the Biological Mitigation Program(more fully described in the attached individual reports and accompanying Environmental Initial Studies allow effective utilization of the drainage ways in their natural states for achievement of the above-stated multiple objectives. The King map indicates a dedication to the City of a 71-acre parcel of the South Hills for future public open space use. 5. Integrated Internal Circulation System and Pedestrian Friendly Environment The MASP Circulation Plan designates the principal street/circulation layout for the Plan area. However, it does not detail all the roadways needed internal to site specific developments. The coordinated efforts of the three applicants has allowed designs that achieve logical "inter- C2_ /7 Master Agenda Report for M .ot�Western Enclave Tract Maps -- Attachment 4 Page-6 connectivity"of street patterns within and between the three sites and that avoids over-use of cul- de-sacs which would have been more prevalent in each property had such willing coordination not taken place. The coordinated designs also achieve other MASP objectives for a more desirable neighborhood ambiance through safe and convenient environment for pedestrians and bicycles and for safe and convenient movement within and between the three Western Enclave developments through incorporation of a variety of "traffic calming" devices. The three proposals achieve a unified"feel"between their subdivisions by offering compatible hierarchy of street types, including private alleys; roundabouts, table-tops, choke-downs, bulb-outs, Class I bicycle&walking paths and Class Il bicycle lanes. 6. Airport Compatibility Since the MASP has been determined to be consistent with the County Airport Land Use Plan (ALUP), the project is therefore compatible with the provisions of the airport plan due to its consistency with the MASP. Development proposed by the subject subdivisions conforms to the density limits established by the MASP pursuant to restrictions of the various over-flight zones. No uses, heights of structures, or intensity of uses will be incompatible with the ALUP. The combined count of dwelling units within the Western Enclave development will not exceed the dwelling unit limits as depicted in Figure I 1 of the MASP: 7. Affordable Housing Program The direction for affordable housing in the Margarita Area comes from the City's Inclusionary Housing Ordinance and the MASP. The MASP indicates the preferred means of compliance is dedication of land or construction of dwellings in each increment of development, rather than payment of in-lieu fees. Dedication of land to the Housing Authority of sufficient size to accommodate the required number of dwellings is specifically required in the MASP. The Specific Plan and Housing Element contain policies to ensure that affordable dwellings are of the same design quality and architecturally compatible with the market-rate homes in the neighborhood. Comment: An affordable housing plan proposed by the three applicants has been recommended for approval by the Community Development Director and involves land dedication to the Housing Authority of sufficient size to accommodate the required number of Inclusionary units. However, depending on the final number of residential lots approved by the City Council, the number of affordable housing units and the size of the lots within which they would be accommodated,could be adjusted prior to recordation of the Final Maps. 8. Growth Management The City's residential growth management phasing schedule provides for 235 nonexempt units in the 2005-07 time frame and 310 units in the 2008-10 time frame. Because it was anticipated that the Margarita area would begin residential development by 2001 and that has not happened, the phasing schedule will be reviewed in the Spring of 2006 with staff recommendations for revision as part of the 2005 General Plan Annual Report. The review will include recognition that the Orcutt Area Specific Plan is also behind schedule and the population per household has fallen over the past 15 years, both of which could result in higher recommended totals for the Margarita area over the next 10 years. 9. Reclaimed Water The MASP requires provisions for irrigating common areas, parks, detention basins, and other a Ir Master Agenda Report for MWestern Enclave Tract Maps _ Attachment(1@(lt 4 P. Page-7 large landscape areas with recycled water. Appropriately sized reclaimed water mains are to be designed and constructed from the City's trunk system to these irrigation areas. If other use areas exist beyond the proposed subdivision, the mains would be appropriately sized to provide for future use areas and extended to the boundary of the tract. If reclaimed water is not available at the time the recycled water is needed, the system will be designed and constructed to reclaimed water standards, and temporarily connected to the City's potable water system in the area of the anticipated connection to the reclaimed water system. Attachments: Attachment 1 -"Vicinity Map" Attachment 2-"Composite Map of Westem Enclave Subdivision Maps" Attachment 3-"Prado Road Extension-Timeline" Attachment 4-"Public Benefit of Prado Road Sub-regional Basin" C:\DOCUME—I\slouser\LOCALS-1\Temp\#6 Master Report 2 MEB 1-18-06.doc S:\Projects\05-91AMASTER STAFF REPORT 1-13-06 md\#7 Final Master to City 1-19-06.doc ■__ �W\��\� \s — [FOR �� 10 Attachment 1 Aftachnn- I HIM • �� i I11 1t-t TIN Is# V �� ■= N := :' �I� 2a �M �� unn I .0wx � MW■ �� amaam aMM MW� -� �■■■■ 111■■■■■ ■�■■■■11a■■■■■ 1111100 minim_� ��111111■11111■■ It■■�� 1■i■i■■ C 1��■tl 1■i■i■■ ■ /■■�■■■■■■■■g■■�. . in IWO all 111111 Walk WIN *in - � .,� a�� x moi= =111 �� //IL111111►1� � 71 .-:- Memel! vim �� 1■ -_ 11� - Rttarhment Attachment 2 718 acres Dedicated to the City of San Win 19 S7 38 39 Obtspo for Open 20 Space 21_ 36 40 2 7324 3}6� 4t IB i 2728293031 2 \ - 7 -/- 12112 123 24 421 18 98 _= c IZS a] 7 99 _ _ 97 100 . tw °1 • rR .ju.8 12 146 B� 13 ➢6 101 itl t(ta 728 127 M.6 •n f 102 1 w ••' IO 29 45 11 94 103 135 170 87`\ 49 q 68 48 10 83 104 136 1 131 6g - 6 49 g 82 109 • 8 91 108 107 $S u � v r u w�"i JO ] 72 7] 83 6 74 6 5 6 S Z 1 00 99 all 07% 5 M 83 62 70 59 58 54 BI 80 7B 78 76 Y57 56 55 371 !B 36 71 109 56 ' ` 72 1 /0 1 1 40 41 / 10 110 35 I I 7S- 106 S! {5 W 63 62 4 IOS- 33 _ 75 10� 32 A-1 17I 6 .103 1 i 2 Itl - I 31 I l6 ]0 I n 102 111`12 1S5 30 1 4. 7 69 1 78 101 13' 9 137 1 ' •. 29 I I b 65 1179 1� a0 ' 136 1 116 _ 27 48 67 BDW.9 J '- 133 1+ �'yr •ree 1" 50 661 I11115 134 �- �. • • � I-�1i 116 1 1S3 1 � 9 4 • • • _ _ _ _ _._X 1 '_ __ _. • •17 B7 17 It7 133 1 i / • S7 • I6 t5 14 13 IZ 11 10 9 8 7 6 -5 6 S 2 1 •26f3 a f0 1 7 64 1 ➢6 r�-- • • _- ..-_ ........ 1 37 I�63/ 64 95 life 17 _ ,._.. i 128 57 6¢ ' 85 94 1 1 119 ra/2➢ t ! i X18 19 30 21_-IS ----6 27 26 i 29 30 31 32 33-- 4.1 1 57 61 1 I 1�8-87-{9�3�]t I 120 .127 (41 ] X69 80 tB7�8t ➢O�9llg7t IN u u u 1 fi{ B C O C f C H I J 1. �wwLL..))11 II WW�r doff J•� NP 2 y__ _ _ _ _ \___. _ - _ y�S an renehI I iS T U'IV W f1 20 9161 6 S a 312 1110 9181 6 7 6 5 6 3 2 1 ji O P O R i 2 T 144 143 162 1U 140 139 T a i C Z O D 1� i 4CIFTIF o9 SM Lum OBISPO 19 f�eUrM WMATC H tm 4R6 E CONSULTANTS / ,-kT .chrrient 4 - P(Attachment 3 T1 Tmd TetsAa4aC p a� II acme s� mwk armmtrr�r P0. B 14roaWROW '0 m — Rmra•aa.arvae 9 -- fvssz me • " -- ,n FbWMCGK Ono S&P hP ) IF u f s y lbmp�te FRE a _ 1AE g— Ompeb PRP�AB Pwra" 2 — (by 10p4 em"rpyPWRm N d PREAM ' 1' lC.9Cn Y t cwabucbmad J s FRE31a re.� g `a �cenanrLnn a. d FRES mr>aaE�omn.�a Faa a s� z MASK Western Enclave Tract Map e PRADO ROAD EXTENSION -TIME LINE San�sobispo,CA A=ilment J Attachment 4 January 19, 2006 Mr. Tim Bochum Deputy Director PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT City of San Luis Obispo 955 Morro Street San Luis Obispo, California 93401 Re: Prado Road Subregional Drainage Basin; VTM#2428 - City File #TR-65-05 MARGARITA SPECIFIC PLAN AREA, San Luis Obispo, California Dear Mr. Bochum: In follow-up to our many meetings and correspondence concerning a more comprehensive and regional approach to drainage improvements presented as a part of the Western Enclave property owners in Margarita, please accept this letter as our position concerning the advocacy of this system. We have been working with the Cowan and DeBlauw ownerships to present a plan for constructing new storm water conveyance facilities in our respective tracts adjoining the existing developed areas along South Higuera and Margarita. By intercepting the runoff from the South Street Hills, we can divert significant runoff away from the existing neighborhoods. Existing drainage swales along the eastern edge of the developed Margarita neighborhood would have the dual benefit of seeing reduced flows (by redirecting water within our tracts) and some physical improvements (such as the flat and meandering channel south of Prado Road). At Prado Road we have proposed to convey these waters southerly to a new sub-regional basin (some 6 acres in area) that would collect and detain runoff from not only our projects, but also from existing Margarita developments (commonly referred to as Tracts 400, 476, 1210, 76-175, 76- 560), before continuing to San Luis Creek and ultimately, ocean disposal. As you know, the city's original Specific Plan called for the consolidation of drainage improvements within both the Margarita and Airport Areas as a means to comprehensively deal with storm water management in this growing area of San Luis Obispo. This concept represents a long range perspective, one that undoubtedly takes into consideration balancing the needs of existing developed residents and businesses (and in many cases substandard drainage systems) with the resources of new projects. By utilizing new projects to improve, refine and in some cases reconstruct existing storm water conveyance facilities, existing and new property owners collectively benefit from improved management systems. , 2 Bochum/Public works Transn ; �' Attachment 4 Margarita specific Plan Area Drainage 01/19/2006 Page 2 But unfortunately, as we have discussed, implementation of comprehensive solutions on an incremental basis can result in complicated and sometimes out-of-sequence opportunities. In order to insure a logical sequence to these storm water improvements, we have indicated that if we are unable as private land owners to secure the lands necessary from other private property owners to complete the conveyance and storm basin improvements, we will support the city's acquisition of those lands through exercise of your eminent domain powers. We recognize that to pursue such a course, the city must act in a manner that meets a high threshold of public necessity, and that the taking is not an unreasonable hardship to the burdened property owner. In this context, we would submit: There is a great necessity for the taking of lands to complete the subregional drainage basin. El Present drainage patterns have resulted in unrestricted flows over the Western Enclave properties from the South Hills, causing flooding in adjoining residential developments. 1K Drainage collection and conveyance channels constructed along the eastern edge of the existing Margarita neighborhoods are undersized to accommodate storm water flows from the Western Enclave, contributing to the flooding problems experienced in this portion of the city. El The Tract 400 underground storm drainage piping systems are undersized in the vicinities of Calle Malva and Calle Jazmin streets, resulting in further upstream damming of runoff. 0 The Prado Road box culvert has a present hyrdologic capacity of about 237 cubic feet per second, as compared to pre-development flows of approximately 552 cfs as experienced during a 100-year storm event. El Storm flows that are discharged south of Prado Road meander over private lands and discharge at various locations along Tank Farm Road. Depending on the storm event, these flows will often flood portions of Tank Farm and contribute to downstream flooding. 0 By intercepting and redirecting storm water runoff through the Western Enclave properties, runoff into the existing Margarita channels, Tract 400 drainage pipes and Prado culvert can be significantly reduced to allow those hydrologic capacities to function properly. IM Proposed improvements to Tract 400's piping system will further enhance the conveyance system. O By effectively slowing down runoff, upstream and downstream detention basins will be needed to manage the outflow of higher volume storms. 0 Simply slowing down runoff north of Prado Road, within the Western Enclave, will not resolve downstream ponding and flooding south of Prado. Bochum/Public Works Transm, i Attachment 4 Margarita Specffic Plan Area Drainage 01/19/2006 Page 3 The location of the proposed basin easement affords the most reasonable service to the affected properties and represents the least damaging alternative for the burdened property. 0 The proposed basin and conveyance channel are located in a position consistent with the Margarita Specific Plan. O The proposed conveyance channel abutting the eastern edge of Tracts 1165 and 1362 (south of Prado Road) has historically conveyed runoff in that location. 0 The location of the basin and channel will serve the burdened property's storm water management needs. I] The proposed basin and channel are located on the low sides of the property, providing the optimal location for collecting and conveying runoff. The hardships_ of the affected properties outweigh the burden of the property providing the basin. I] Presently, the existing Margarita vicinity tracts and developments suffer from storm water runoff from the South Street Hills. I] Previous storm water management facilities are in some instances seriously undersized to accept Western Enclave pre-development runoff flows. 0 Storm waters that inundate the existing Margarita tracts and developments cause property damage to residents and owners that can be effectively mitigated through the proposed basin and channel improvements. 1XI Impacts to city services caused by flooding in these areas include financial, manpower; utility and general health and safety concerns for public and private lands inundated by flood waters. 91 Habitat values in the vicinity of Margarita are impacted by flooding and standing waters to varying degrees. 0 The burdened property will benefit from an integrated plan for habitat enhancement, storm water flow management, and improvements that will accommodate their runoff needs. I trust this clarifies our view of the key issues, and we believe we have the support of city staff on this approach. In the mean time, please do not hesitate to call to review any questions you may have on these comments or the development project. Sincerely, David Watson, AICP cc: Pam Ricci . Western Enclave Owners MARannaxpIng02pwdm1nage � I /Attachment 5 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT rrEM# t BY: Mary Beatie, Contract Sr. Planner,TPG Consulting, Inc. MEETING DATE: Jan. 25,2006 FROM: Ron Whisenand, Development Review Manage FILE NUMBER: TR/ER 63-05, Vesting Tentative Tract Map No.2342-Cowan/French PROJECT ADDRESS: 392 Prado Road, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 SUBJECT: Consideration of Vesting Tentative Tract Map (VTM) #2342 to create a total of 67 lots on approximately 15 acres located on the north side of the easterly extension of Prado Road, between South Higuera and Broad Street, east of and adjacent to the Rancho San Luis Mobile Home Park. RECOMMENDATION Recommend to the City Council approval of vesting tentative tract map #2342, and mitigated negative declaration of environmental impact for the project, based on the findings, and subject to the mitigation measures, conditions, and code requirements included in the attached resolution. BACKGROUND Situation/Previous Review On October 12, 2004 the City Council certified the Final EIR for and approved the Margarita Area Specific Plan (MASP), by Resolution No. 9615 (2004 Series). This action by the City Council included approval of both text and map amendments to the City's General Plan, rezoning the subject site to R-I-SP (Low Density Residential-Specific Plan Overlay), R-2-SP (Medium Density Residential-Specific Plan Overlay), O-SP (Office-Specific Plan Overlay) and C/OS/SP (Conservation/Open Space-Specific Plan Overlay). The MASP Final EIR contained numerous mitigation measures which are required be brought forward and incorporated into the tiered environmental assessment prepared for this site specific project. The applicant is now requesting that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council approval of the vesting tentative tract map showing a 67-lot subdivision. Data Summary Address: 392 Prado Road, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Applicant: Craig Alan Cowan Revocable Trust, owner/John French, developer Representatives: Westland Engineering, Inc., Rincon Consultants, Inc. Environmental status: A Final EIR for the Margarita Area Specific Plan, which included the subject site was certified by the City Council on October 12, 2004. A subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration, tiered to the prior FEIR is recommended for the site-specific project VTM#2342. n 1 Il Attachment 5 Tract#2342-Vesting Tentative Map(Cowan/French) Planning Commission Agenda Report Page 2 Proiect Description The applicant has submitted a.VestingTentative Map proposing a total of 67 lots designated for the following uses in accordance with the land use designations of the MASP and the adopted implementing zoning districts:. • 41 lots for single-family residential use; 34 of these lots are proposed for low density in the R-1-SP zone, and 7 lots are proposed for medium density in the R-2-SP zone; e 25 lots are proposed for business park-office uses, 15 of which will contain allowed "mixed use" office and residential uses, and the remaining 10 of which will be exclusively office uses; and • 1 lot for open-space/riparian use in the C/OS-SP zone. Approval of a vesting tentative map confers a "vested right" to develop in substantial compliance with the ordinances, policies and standards in effect when the application was determined complete on November 14, 2005 per Chapter 16.34 (Vesting Tentative Map) of the City's Municipal Code and Sections 66474.2 and 66498.1 of the California Government Code (Subdivision Map Act). The project also proposes bike/pedestrian ways throughout the subdivision and traffic calming features to promote the pedestrian friendly environment envisioned by the MASP. The proposed open space lot achieves biological and drainage mitigation required by the MASP FEIR, as well as incorporates opportunities for passive recreation amenities for the future residents of the subdivision as stipulated by the MASP. EVALUATION Land Use/Density The residential, business park-office,. mixed-use, and open space lots are located and sized in accordance with the low density, medium density residential, business park-office and open space land use designations and provisions of the MASP applicable to the subject site. Traffic and Circulation: VTM #2342 proposes primary access to the site from South Higuera Street via proposed extension of Prado Road easterly from its current terminus as a City public street roughly at the southeast comer of Rancho San Luis Mobile Home Park (southwest corner of proposed VTM #2342 (Cowan). Ultimately the site will have access to Broad Street after the full length of Prado Road is constructed pursuant to the recommended condition of approval in accordance with the MASP. OL -oZ t f Attachment 5 Tract#2342-Vesting Tentative Map(Cowan/French) Planning Commission Agenda Report Page 3 The subject site will directly access Prado Road via connection at proposed `B" Street. This intersection of Prado Road and `B" Street will be constructed as a roundabout as required by the Circulation Plan of the MASP. The location of this access to the site as well as other proposed streets to complete circulation internal to the subject VTM #2342 and to provide connection to adjacent existing and proposed developments, all located in accordance with the Circulation Plan (Figure 12) of the MASP. As mentioned, VTM #2342 proposes internal circulation as well as connection to the two other developments within the Western Enclave and to the existing El Camino Estates to the north with a system of public roadways and private alleys. The subject project will connect easterly to the Sierra Garden/DeBlauw VTM #2353 via "C" Street (public) and Alleys 2 and 3 (private). Connection to proposed VTM #2428 (King) will be achieved via connections to Calle Malva extending through the existing El Camino Estates residential subdivision along Margarita Avenue. The location of site access and internal circulation for TM #2342 is in accordance with the Circulation Plan of the MASP. Pedestrian and Bike Paths: Also proposed is a 12' Class I shared pedestrian/bicycle,paths within Open Space Lot Z. This path, situated along the westerly boundary of Lot Z, will connect bike lanes within Prado Road to "A" Street and ultimately, by way of Calle Malva, to the Class I path proposed within VTM #2428 (King) to the north, and from there to the proposed City-owned open space lot of the South Street Hills and its established trail system. Street Development: - All streets within the subdivision will be public streets; no private streets are proposed, except for alleys. - Construction of streets to access the northerly VTM #2428 (King) subdivision (Calle Malva in this subject map or "D" and "F" Streets within VTM #2353 (Sierra Gardens/DeBlauw) will be conditioned to occur in relation to timing of construction of the other subdivisions such that either Calle Malva or "D" Street and/or "F" Street will provide primary access to the King site initially. Geoloidc\Grading• The subject site is relatively flat and low-lying and as such will require minimal grading to accommodate lot development. Preliminary grading plans indicate cuts or fills likely no greater than 4 ft. at Road "C" and Road "A". Lot A will be approximately 3.5 ft. above the top of the bank of Lot Z Grades of pads for Lots 16 and 17 will be slightly lower in elevation (1-2 ft.) from grades of existing adjacent development to the west. Elevations of lots along the northerly edge of the site adjacent to the existing El Camino Estates will step up incrementally about 1/2 foot each from west to east, and each pad will be slightly lower than the adjacent lots to the north. The rear of Lots 1-6 of the existing El Camino Estates slope downward somewhat steeply toward their southerly lot lines adjacent to the proposed Lots 12-16. Fences for the existing Lots Attachment 5 Tract#2342-Vesting Tentative Map(Cowan/French) Planning Commission Agenda Report Page 4 2, 3 & 4 have been built at the top of the slope (according to Google Earth Aerials). Pad elevations for proposed Lots 12-16 will be approximately level with or slightly lower than the rear of their respective adjacent lots. (The elevations of the adjacent El Camino Estates lots are not precisely known, but they are presumed to be approximately 5 or more feet above the southerly property lines.) Moving easterly, the existing El Camino Estates lots appear to be more flat, and elevation differences between the rear of existing El Camino Estates Lots 7-13 and proposed Lots 1-11 will be less severe. Biological Resources: Biological impacts of the three Western Enclave projects fall into several categories: wetland impacts; impacts to other sensitive habitats, and impacts to sensitive species. These impacts and related mitigation measures are all discussed more site-specifically in the attached Environmental Initial Studies for the respective three maps. Oven.Syace/Recreation: In addition to biological and drainage benefits (described elsewhere in this report), the MASP envisioned all the natural drainage ways being preserved largely in their natural state to also achieve open space and passive recreation opportunities, both within the MASP generally, and within the Western Enclave area specifically. The one unnamed natural drainage Swale which traverses the central and southern portion of the site and carries run-off from the South Hills is proposed to be formally directed to a lot along the western edge of the site (Lot Z) and protected for multiple benefits pursuant to the "Open Space-Riparian" designation requirements of the MASP. Lot Z is proposed to be owned and maintained by a.Home Owners Association as set forth in the recommended conditions of approval. City staff debated at length in various meetings with the Western Enclave applicants the ramifications of private versus public ownership of the various open space lots proposed within the Western Enclave developments, There are compelling pros and cons with either option. It is the City's current policy to not take on ownership of creek areas because of the maintenance responsibilities and liability issues. The maps as submitted, with ownership and maintenance of the open space lots proposed to be the responsibility of a Home Owners Association, is consistent with this City policy. However, the Planning Commission may recommend and the City Council decide because of the important or unique habitat value of these drainages that it would be advisable for the City to own and maintain all or some of these 5 lots and make them part of the larger open space parcel (Lot 146 of VTM #2428). The Council will need to factor in added maintenance responsibilities that are currently unfunded. Some years ago, the City received fee title to the creek area adjacent to the Laguna Lake Mobile Estates property, as well as some additional open space on the other side of the creek from the mobile home park. The Public Works Department has previously indicated that City acquisition of this creek area has greatly increased their maintenance responsibilities. Based on this O, Attachment 5 Tract#2342-Vesting Tentative Map(Cowan/French) Planning Commission Agenda Report Page 5 experience and similar issues at other sites, the Public Works Department has real reservations with the City taking on maintenance responsibilities with the creek/drainage lots within the Western Enclave sites. Another factor in considering the ownership issue is the differing characteristics of each of the Western Enclave drainages and the circumstances surrounding the City acquisition of the creek at the Laguna Lake Mobile Estates. When the City acquired the Laguna Lake creek area adjacent to the mobile home park, there was a severe erosion problem with a degraded riparian corridor and many coaches installed very close to, or encroaching over, the top of bank. The subject Western Enclave project sites differs in that the health of the drainages' riparian quality is generally good at this time due to lack of disturbance and the proposed new development will be significantly set back from the drainage channel itself as required by the MASP and FEIR. A Class I pedestrian/bike path is also proposed along the easterly edge of Lot Z. Generally this trail will be 12-feet in width, with provisions, pursuant to recommended conditions of approval for the City Natural Resource Manager to reduce this width (to no less than 8 ft.) consistent with stipulations of the Biological Mitigation Program. This path will serve to provide access to Prado Road by facilitating a continuous linkage to Class I paths proposed in the King and DeBlauw maps, consistent with the MASP designations for "trails". The open-space Lot Z is also intended to provide a valuable open-space\aesthetic and recreational amenity to the future residents of this subdivision. Affordable Housing: For the subject VTM #2342, conditions of approval recommend, as a contingency, that in the event the land dedication and completion of associated access/infrastructure improvements for the other two tract maps cannot be accomplished, then the subject VTM #2342 shall reserve 6 lots for low-and moderate-income housing in the R-1 and R-2 zones. The condition stipulates that the contingency be null and void upon the successful completion of the land dedication and infrastructure improvements with each of the other two maps. Public Utilities/Services: 1. Infiastructure for all standard public services for telephone/data, electricity (including street lighting), gas, fire (including hydrants), domestic water and sewer, trash collection and storm drain will be constructed at the site by the subdividers. Although one cul-de-sac is proposed for the subject VTM#2342, accessibility to lots by fire trucks is eased by a proposed looped connection to Private Alley No. 2 via shared use of 12 ft alley section) (labeled as Public Alley No. 2B) adjacent to the 12-foot wide shared public bike/pedestrian path along the east edge of Lot Z. 2. All the private alleys are designated on the map as public utility easements. ,:�2 -3U Aftachlnent 5 Tract#2342-Vesting Tentative Map(Cowan/French) Planning Commis-don Agenda Report Page 6 Other Design Features: 1. The project design provides a residential building line setback of 157 feet from the centerline of Prado Road as a noise buffer from potential intrusive noise resulting from traffic on Prado Road. In other words, the lots designated for mixed uses including residences (Lots A-J & S-W) are situated such that there is adequate room within the lot to site axesidence outside the required setback. In addition to the required setback distance for residential uses, the establishment of business park office building uses and associated landscaping that would be allowed within that setback area will provide further noise attenuation for residential uses. 2. The subdivision proposes liberal use of private alleys as the primary means of access for a majority of the lots, accommodating "rear loading" into garages or access by way of parking lots. As a result of the use of alleys and the relatively flat slope of the site, shared driveways are not a key feature of the design. Except for the lots along the northerly frontage of the westerly cul-de-sac extension of"A" Street, all other public street frontages are restricted for access purposes. OTHER DEPARTMENT COMMENTS The comments and recommendations of various City departments are incorporated into the conditions and code requirements of the attached Resolution. ALTERNATIVES 1. The Commission may recommend approval of the project with modified findings and/or conditions. 2. The Commission may approve a resolution recommending that the City Council deny the proposed subdivision, based on findings of inconsistency with the Margarita Area Specific Plan as specified by the Planning Commission. 3. The Commission may continue review of the project, if more information is needed.. Direction should be given to staff and the applicants. Attachments: 1. Vicinity/Location maps 2. Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 2428 3. Initial Study (ER 63-05) w.a. u4-XLhmeP1+5 4. Draft Planning Commission Resolution Ap prvv e_aL No • 544 1 -O& SAPcojects\05-914.l\Staff Report\Cowan Final Staff Report#I MD edits by MEB 1-19-06.doc a3i REMAIN "Pc-Attachment ttachment 1 Attachment 5 11 1111111111R—ft 11 ----- 111111 .1 , 17 F IT • � .� :i WE Run = a a an too. MON am �� I■ �� 2MMW -� 1i/in■ —i ��111111�11111�� 1minim 1minim■ folio AN UNION .11l,t, • . in i �`•,`��•`nn inn nu''�fi x//1/1 � iC id c minion wwa— ® e ",Tia■. I I I � I � • I I r � , illlllll ��lill�l�l�l�l�b�llllll� v ©�. o - ' �rF^'`-I�' a Irrrrr �rrrirr rrr �ir�rrurriui ill �iiiiiii Willi °viii 1�Cila of '0 ''� �I�ilYl I ��II�IIIIIIui �n11111� illllll� �� o�, p:Q .. �IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII�IIIIIIII�IIIIIIII` E I o mid a0 B>o�00 Lnuunriirrililririrnrrrrrmu a�� ,IIt,�� >Er� i111111111111111111fifi1li1111011 � `illlllllllllllllllllllllllll111''1111 ' °�I MA i i %r h� —l:AYta�f1`. � 9a r n'r"� � I 1 IA- we'�.. P r tj� I'��''WIN j'j'pa�r�7dp�I� 'S�at�� /�nN _ k �r•e mill ' �'. IR .ECar,��a r' St��T ��u�Fa''•—�� C I�� d�/ i�►* �Y it i�oi1' ler�! '® N i3k31i%e®91�`�pur'�dI `.. 1 offnPOE e+•. SII. ��T � � T1:� I- - � I . I e are, T I f I III�� 1 , C q e tow W � �! 4 VA MOM- oil I W-Hro'll MR-1 :f. r� Attachment 5 '-GAttachment 3 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM For ER 63-05 1. Project Title: Vesting Tentative Map#2342 (Cowan/French) 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of San Luis Obispo 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Pam Ricci, Senior Planner Mary Beatie, Senior Planner(Contract Planner) City of San Luis Obispo TPG Consulting, Inc. 805-781-7168 222 N. Garden Street, Suite#100 Visalia, CA 93291 559-739-8072 4. Project Location: 392 Prado Road, San Luis Obispo, consisting of approximately 15 acres. (Please refer to Attachment 1 "Western Enclave Projects Vicinity Map".) 5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Owner: Craig Alan Cowan, Trustee of the Craig Alan Revocable Trust 675 Clarion Ct. San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Applicant: John French P.O. Box 1796 San Luis Obispo, CA 93406 6. General Plan Designation: The Land Use Element of the City General Plan designates the site for: Low Density Residential, Medium Density Residential, Business Park, and Open Space ktach`nent 5 The Margarita Area Specific Plan (MASP), which implements the City General Plan, designates the site f&: Business Park Office (mixed use, including residential) Low Density Residential Medium Density Residential Open Space-Riparian 7. Zoning: The site contains multiple zoning districts to implement the MASP land use designations, as follows: Applies to Land Use Designation Zoning VTM Lot#s Business Park Office O-SP(Office-Specific Plan Overlay) Lots A-Y Low Density Residential R-1-SP(Low-Density Residential-Specific Plan Overlay) Lots 1-34 Medium Density Residential R-2-SP(Medium Density Residential-Specific Plan Overlay) Lots 3541 Open Space-Riparian C/OS-SP(Conservation/Open Space-Specific Plan Overlay) Lot Z 8. Description of the Project: Proposed VTM #2342, a 67-lot subdivision, has been designed and is being processed in coordination with the processing of two adjacent developments, described below in order to better achieve the objectives and requirements of the MASP: • VTM #2353 (Sierra Gardens/DeBlauw) proposing 133 lots on approximately 30 acres; located immediately east of VTM #2342, and also adjacent to and east of the single-family development along Margarita Avenue, and south of proposed VTM#2428 described below. • VTM #2428 (King) proposing 148 lots on approximately 99 acres; located immediately north the existing El Camino Estates residential subdivision along Margarita, and east of the existing Chumash Village Mobile Home Park (accessed from South.Higuera.) This site is also generally situated along the lower lying slopes of the South Hills between South Higuera Street and Broad Street. Collectively these three tract map proposals are referred to as the "Western Enclave" (of the MASP) The applicant has submitted a vesting tentative map VTM #2342 proposing a total of 67 lots designated for uses in accordance with the overlaying land use designations of the MASP, as follows: • 41 lots for residential use (34 of these lots are proposed for low density residential use and 7 lots for medium density residential), 25 lots for business park-office use, 15 of which will contain allowed "mixed use" office and CRY OF SAN Luis OBISPO 2 INITIAL STuOY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKmT ER 63-05 (VTrM#2342-Cowan/French) CADocuments and SettingswouseADesktoffTNAL Initial Study 01-04-006.ddoc ✓6 Attachl-iient 5 residential uses, the remaining 10 of which will be exclusively office uses, and • 1 lot, for open-space/riparian use, and designated as wetland replacement, stormwater detention and biological mitigation. Approval of a vesting tentative map confers a "vested right"to develop in substantial compliance with the ordinances, policies and standards in effect when the application was determined complete on November 14, 2005, per Chapter 16:34 (Vesting Tentative Maps) of the City's Municipal Code and Sections 66474.2 and 66498.1 of the California Government Code (Subdivision Map Act). In order to obtain public road access, and as required by the MASP, Prado Road needs to be extended from its current easterly terminus (as a public roadway) from approximately the southeast corner of Rancho San Luis Mobile Home Park, east to Broad Street. A priority goal of the MASP is to establish the east-west connection of Prado Road between Broad Street and South Higuera Street at the earliest possible stage of development. Because the three proposed tract maps represent the first phase of proposed development in the MASP area, they are required to design and construct Prado Road to a minimum cross-section as agreed upon by the City Public Works Director, to provide the desired connection.. According to the MASP, one option to finance the connection is that the City will credit (or pro-rate) the design and construction costs of the agreed-upon minimum cross section against Margarita Area impact fees to be collected with each respective development until the amount of fees equals the amount of construction costs. If the costs of the roadway exceed fee amounts, another .financing mechanism, such as a facilities financing district, may be necessary to complete the project. The location of site access and internal circulation for TM #2342 is in accordance with the Circulation Plan of the MASP. VTM#2342 proposes a primary access into the site via a new Principal Collector (called "B" Street on the map) extending north from Prado Road. Prado Road is designated a "highway/regional route" by the City Circulation Element. This Principal Collector connects to an internal system of public roads and private alleys which are planned to both serve the subject site and connect to adjacent developments—the existing single-family residential development along Margarita Avenue to the north, and the proposed VTM #2353 (Sierra Gardens/DeBlauw) to the east. Also in accordance with the Circulation Plan of the MASP, a roundabout is proposed at the intersection of Prado Road with the proposed "B" Street Principal Collector access road into the site. In accordance with the MASP "B" Street aligns with the Commercial Collector roadway designation of the MASP extending southward from Prado Road into the Unocal property. Also proposed is a 12 foot Class I shared pedestrian/bicycle path within Open Space Lot Z. This pathway connects Prado Road to the proposed "A" Street, and from there to Calle Malva through the Margarita Avenue development to the proposed VTM #2428 and ultimately connecting to the existing public trail system along the upper slopes of the South Hills. Open Space Lot Z is proposed as partial wetlands mitigation area for the Western Enclave developments. Please refer to analyses below and in the Initial Studies for proposed VTM#2353 and VTMS #2428 for additional information. In addition to accomplishing mitigation for CRY OF SAN Lula OBISPO 3 INRIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST ER 63-05(VTTM#2342-Cowan/French) CADocuments and SettingswouserTesktopONAL Initial Study 01-04-06.doc ;2 -37 Attactment 5 biological resources, Lot Z also contributes to a proposed sub-regional drainage solution and as an aesthetic and passive recreation amenityfor the site and general public. 9. Surrounding Land Uses and Settings: The project site, 392 Prado Road, is located generally in the southern pan of San Luis Obispo. The site is situated on the north side of Prado Road east of South Higuera Street and lies just east of and adjacent to the Rancho San Luis Mobile Home Park and just south of the existing El Camino Estates residential subdivision around Margarita Avenue. Lands to the immediate east and south are primarily undeveloped lands within the Margarita Area Specific Plan used in recent history for agricultural (grazing). Lands to the south are owned by Unocal and by L. J. Martinelli. The lands to the east are proposed for development by VTM #2353 (Sierra Gardens/DeBlauw) being processed concurrently ,with the subject map. A variety of low intensity commercial uses front South Higuera Street and the stretch of Prado Road west of the Western Enclave. The currently vacant site lies in a low lying area below the toe of the South Hills within an area designated in the MASP/AASP EIR as "Perennial Grassland with Patches of Valley Needlegrass Grassland". The site transmits area runoff through flow across the central, western and southern areas of the site. The westerly edge of the site contains a drainage swale that is well-enough defined as to be designated by the MASP as "Open Space-Riparian" and is proposed for preservation in its natural state within the subdivision (Lot Z). This drainage contains habitat suitable to be enhanced and retained as replacement area for other wetlands losses resulting from development of the central portion of this site and other areas of the total Western Enclave developments. 10. Project Entitlements Requested: Approval of Vesting Tentative Tract Map#2342 Approval of Lot Line Adjustment 11. Other public agencies whose approval is required: Air Pollution Control District(Permit to Construct, Permit to Operate) Water Quality Control Board(NPDES permit-including Phase II&SWPPP) California Department of Fish and Game U. S.Army Corps of Engineers CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISpo 4 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST ER 63-05 (VTTM#2342-Cowan/French) C:\Documents and SettingsWouserTeshopTINAL Initial Study 01-04-06.doc a-3r Attachment 5 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a"Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. X Aesthetics Geolo /Soils Public Services Agricultural Resources X Hazards&Hazardous Recreation Materials Air Quality Hydrology/Water Quality X Transportation&Traffic X Biological Resources Land Use and Planning Utilities and Service Systems Cultural Resources Noise Mandatory Findings of Significance Energy and Mineral Population and Housing Resources 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 X 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)). CRY OF SAN LUIS 081SP0 5 INRIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST ER 63-05(VTTM#2342-Cowan/French) C Documents and SettingslslouserlDesktop\FINAL Initial Study 01-04-06.doc -2 -3 9 Attachment 5 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, X there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been 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 or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. loe S' true Date Ron Whisenand,Deputy Director For:John Mandeville, Printed Name Community Development Director CITY OF SAN Luis Ostspo 6 INRIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST ER 63-05(VTTM#2342-Cowan/French) CADocuments and Settingslslouser\Desktop\FINAL Initial Study 01-04-06.doc a-ya Atachment 5 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: I. 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 listed below) , "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 18 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. CITY OF SAN Luis OBISPO 7 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST ER 63-05(VTTM#2342-Cowan/French) C:Mocuments and SettingslslouserlDesktop\FINAL Initial Study 01-04-,0.6�.dooc Y / Alachment 5 Issues, Discussion and Suppok.._.d Information Sources Sources Pc_ntially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact ER#63-05 Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Inco rated 1.AESTHETICS. Would theproject: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? 1,2, X 3, 8,9 b) Substantially damage scenic resources,including,but not limited 1,2, X to,trees,rock outcroppings,open space,and historic buildings 3, 8,9 within a local or state scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of 1,2, X the site and its surroundings? 3,8,9 d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would 1,2, X adversely effect day or nighttime views in the area? 3, 8,9 Evaluation a) The primary scenic value from within and around the Western Enclave area is the view to the north and northeast of the South Hills. The prior MASP/AASP EIR determined that the implementation of the MASP would result inevitably in a change of character of the plan areas from a generally semi-rural to an urban developed setting. Urban development will cause irreversible changes in the visual character from that of undeveloped and low density semi-rural area to a more intensely developed, suburban area. The project site is situated within the relatively flat lower reaches of the South Hills, the upper elevations of which, together with the natural drainage ways out of the hills, are designated for"Open Space-Hills"by the MASP and restricted from development in order to protect these more significant visual (and associated biological) resources. The subject site does not contain any portion of the "Open Space-Hills"designation, is proposed to be developed in accordance with land use designations of the MASP. Thus this Proiect will result in no impact to views of the South Hills. b)It is part of the main objective of the prior MASP/AASP EIR to protect natural habitats, including creeks, hills, wetlands, and corridors between these habitats. As a result, the MASP & EIR determined that lands containing wetlands or sensitive habitats should be preserved as set forth by the "Open Space-Riparian" land use designations. The westerly edge of the subject site contains such designation and the proposed VTM does designate this area (proposed Lot Z) for "Wetland Replacement, Stormwater Detention and Biological Mitigation",and thereby is proposed to be retained (and enhanced) in its natural state so as to provide the required mitigation for losses of other habitat and wetlands elsewhere in the Western Enclave. The MASP specified upper slopes of the South Hills are designated for Open Space to protect visual and biological resource values there and a 71-acre parcel will be dedicated to the City of SLO for this purpose by proposed VTM#2428 (King). The project site area is not located on a local or state scenic highway and does not contain historic building(s), or other scenic resources. Therefore, the project complies with mitigation adopted with the MASP and MASP/AASP EIR and the impact is less than significant for this project. c) The existing visual character or quality of the site will change from semi-rural to urban developed as a result of urbanization of the area pursuant to and consistent with the objectives of the MASP. The VTM project is required to be consistent with the lay-out and distribution of land uses and design standards stated in the MASP to ensure that the appearance of the development is acceptable and that no new buildings block scenic views. Therefore, the project as proposed is consistent with the MASP and in this regard is self-mitigating. Through conditions of approval the project will be further required to comply with City codes and standards some of which impact aesthetics. Ultimately the design of both proposed housing and commercial buildings will require the review and approval of the Architectural Review Commission (ARC)to ensure consistency with the City's Community Design Guidelines as well as the MASP. Impacts resulting from the project will be less than significant. d) The prior MASP/AASP EIR acknowledges that future development pursuant to the MASP will introduce new sources of tight, glare and nighttime illumination, as is typical with residential and commercial development. However, the MASP/AASP EIR determined that such light and glare impacts (LU-7) can be mitigated to less than significant at the site specific project stage through compliance with lighting design standards set forth in the MASP and with other adopted standards as may be applicable by other City regulations. The new light source subject to mitigation will not adversely affect day or nighttime views in the urbanized area. Therefore impacts from new sources of light or glare will be less than Crry OF SAN LUIS OBISPO B INmAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST ER 63-05(VTTM#2342-Cowan/French) 00ocuments and Settings\slouser\Desktop\FINAL Initial Study 01-04-06.doc c;2-yam Attachment 5 Issues, Discussion and Support„ig Information Sources Sources Po—atially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact ER#63 05 Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated significant with mitigation LU-7.1 as specified in the MASP/AASP EIR to be implemented through compliance with the MASP Community Design standard of Section 3.3-Lighting and accompanying conditions of approval. Building and parking lot lighting for the commercial portions of the project would also be reviewed and approved by the ARC. 2.AGRICULTURE RESOURCES. Would theproject: a) Convert Prime Farmland,Unique Farmland,or Farmland of 11 X Statewide Importance(Farmland),as shown on the maps pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency,to non-agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a 6 X Williamson Act contract? c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which,due to 1,2,6 X their location or nature,could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use? Evaluation: a) According to the prior MASP/AASP EIR, the Margarita Area (including the Western Enclave area)does not contain any lands in the stated categories as shown on the maps pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, and consequently the project will not cause conversion of such lands to non-agricultural uses. Therefore there is no impact. b) There is no agricultural zoning or Williamson Act Contract in effect on the subject site. Consequently, there are no conflicts. Thus there is no impact. c) No lands within the Western Enclave (and thereby within the subject site) have been actively farmed recently, so this project will not result in any direct loss of productive farmland. Other lands in the vicinity of the project site are either already developed or if within the Margarita Area Specific Plan and in agricultural use(farmland/grazing or open space),are already slated by the Plan for eventual non-agricultural use whether this project proceeds or not; therefore there is no direct correlation from this project to any further planned conversions of farmland to non-agricultural uses. The impacts of conversion of these lands to non-agricultural uses have already been evaluated both in the environmental documents for the City's Land Use and Circulation Elements and the MASP as significant, irreversible, adverse impacts that could not be mitigated and the necessary Statement of Overriding Considerations adopted by Resolution No. 9615 (2004 Series) pursuant to CEQA. Nonetheless, policies of the Land Use Element were adopted to help compensate for, and thereby reduce the impacts from productivity lost as a result of the conversions to non-agricultural uses.This project complies with said policies by being consistent with approved land use designations for the site. Therefore, the project is self-mitigating and thus, the proiect impact is less than significant. 3. AIR QUALM. Would theproject: a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an 1,3 X existing or projected air quality violation? b) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air 1,3 X quality plan? c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant 1,3 X concentrations? d) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of 1,3 X people? e) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria 1,3 X pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed qualitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? CRY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 9 INITIAL STUDY EwRONMENTAL CHECKLIST ER 63-05(VTTM#2342-Cowan/French) C:\Documents and Settingslslouser\DesktoplFlNAL Initial Study 01-04-06.doc a-X2 r A'tachiient 5 Issues, Discussion and Supporta fy Information Sources, Sources Pott,aally Potentially 1: Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact ER#63-05 Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Inco orated Evaluation a-e) According to the prior MASP/AASP EIR, project construction will generate short-term emissions of air pollutants. Construction-related emissions would primarily be dust (particulates) generated from soil disturbance and combustion emissions generated by construction equipment. Such dust generation was determined to be a potentially short-term significant impact on air quality that could lead to exceedances of established state and federal thresholds for regional or local air quality or otherwise conflict with City and County air quality plans or program. In addition, the project site is situated near existing residential units thereby potentially exposing sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. The MASP/AASP EIR also noted long-term("operation")air quality impacts would result from on-going emissions generated by the project-related vehicular trips and development resulting in additional natural gas combustion for space and water heating and additional fuel combustion at power plants for electricity consumption. The MASP/AASP EIR concluded that implementation of the Plan, with mitigation measures AIR-1.1, 1.2, 1.3, and 2.1 set forth in the EIR brought forward to apply to individual projects, is consistent with the local Clean Air Plan. The EIR also determined that with adoption of the MASP and its accompanying EIR mitigation measures, further delays in attainment of state and federal air quality standards would not be expected and thus, air quality impacts resulting from build-out of the Plan were insignificant. The mitigation measures set forth in the prior MASP/AASP EIR were determined to reduce all the following impact areas to less than significant: 1) short-term construction-related vehicle emissions and fugitive dust(PMto), and 2.) long-term operation emissions, including increased vehicle trips resulting from new residential and commercial development in the MASP. During Early Consultation for the subject VTM project, the Air Pollution Control District of San Luis Obispo County commented in a letter dated August 2, 2005 that they support the in-fill nature of the proposed development noting that such development makes walking,bicycling and public transportation more viable,decreasing dependence on driving and therefore reducing emissions from motor vehicles. The letter states further that such development is consistent with the land use goals and policies of the District's Clean Air Plan,consistent with the finding of the MASP/AASP EIR. The SLO County APCD reiterated in its letter the site mitigations as set forth in MASP/AASP EIR for dust control, construction vehicle emission control, construction activity pollution controls, and on-gong project operation emission controls, and noted these measures be incorporated into the project in order to maintain project-related impacts to less than significant. These requirements will be enforced by the APCD through required Permit to Construct and Permit to Operate permits and by recommended conditions of approval. The proposed project is self-mitigating in these regards because the applicant has asserted his commitment by way of notation on the preliminary grading plans submitted for the project which states: "All provisions of the APCD letter dated 8/02/05 shall be complied with and incorporated into the project improvement plans." This component of the applicant's project description/proposal together with conditions of approval assure mitigation measures set forth in the prior EIR are brought forward to this project. Thus,the project is self-mitigating and the impact is less than significant. 4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would theproject: a) Have a substantial adverse effect,either directly or indirectly or 1,3, X through habitat modifications,on any species identified as a 12, 13 candidate,sensitive,or special status species in local or regional plans,policies,or regulations,or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect,on any riparian habitat or 1,3, X other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional 12, 13 plans,policies,or regulations,or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting 1,31 X biological resources such as a tree preservat on policy_or _ 12, 13 _. CRY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 10 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST ER 63-05(VTTM#2342-Cowan/French) C:\Documents and Settings\slouserlDesktop\FINAL Initial Study 01-04-06.doc .;2 -yy Attachment 5 Issues, Discussion and Supporb„g Information Sources sources Po4...aally Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact ER#63-05 Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Inco rated ordinance(e.g.Heritage Trees)? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident 1, 3, X or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native 12, 13 resident or migratory wildlife corridors,or impede the use of wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted habitat Conservation 1, 3, X Plan,Natural Community Conservation Plan,or other approved 12, 13 local,regional,or state habitat conservation plan? f) Have a substantial adverse effect on Federally protected 1,3, X wetlands as defined in Section 404 of the Clean Water Act 12, 13 (including,but not limited to, marshes,vernal pools,etc.) through direct removal,filling,hydrological interruption,or other means? Evaluation: c)There are no significant specimen or heritage trees on the property.Thus there is no impact from this Rroiect. d) The Margarita Area does not contain any waterways known to be important of viable fisheries, therefore there is not expected to be any effect on fish species. Due to the relatively poor soils,simple vegetation type(grassland),and general lack of vegetation diversity, the Western Enclave developments of MASP are not rich in wildlife species and do not form any kind of nursery or refugium for wildlife species. Therefore it is not expected that the development would interfere substantially with the movement of any native wildlife species. e) The City does not have an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local,regional,or state habitat conservation plan established in the City of San Luis Obispo.Thus there is no impact from this pML- a)- b), f) The prior EIR prepared for the MASP & AASP conducted extensive biological resource impact analyses and determined 19 areas of potential significant impact. Of these 19 impacts, 6 (BIO- 3,4, 10, 15, 18,& 19) were determined to not be significant and thereby, not requiring mitigation. BIO-9 was ruled out as an impact for the MASP territory, and therefore is not an impact for the three Western Enclave project sites. The balance of 12 Impacts(BIO-1, 2,5,6,7,8, 11, 12, 13, 14, 16 & 17) were subject to MASP/AASP EIR mitigation requiring further site specific surveys and mapping to determine if the specie of concern identified in the respective enumerated impacts might occur on the site. Mitigation Measure BIO-1.1 stated the performance criteria that if such specie was not found to exist then no further mitigation would be necessary, but if the specie was found or determined to exist then Mitigation Measure BIO-6.1 outlining the performance criteria to avoid, minimize, or compensate for significant impacts on those resources as specified by the site specific biological surveys would be required for affected projects. The MASP/AASP EIR-required site specific surveys were conducted for the Western Enclave properties during the winter, spring,and summer of 2005. As a result of these surveys,EIR Impacts BIO-1, 14,& 16 were determined to not be significant impacts requiring mitigation for the Western Enclave properties. The remaining impacts (BIO-2, 5, 6, 7, 11, 12, 13, & 17) were determined to be applicable to the Western Enclave properties, and in particular, with respect to the subject VTM #2428, that tipper portion of the site lying along the toe of the South Hills and the three drainage ways traversing the site. Consequently the site is subject to the performance standards to avoid, minimize,or compensate for the impact as set forth in Mitigation Measure BIO-6.1. In compliance with one of the performance standards of this mitigation,the Western Enclave applicants have already prepared and submitted as part of their project proposal a "Comprehensive Mitigation Program" that is applicable to all three of the Western Enclave sites (as opposed to three individual plans). By integrating all three projects as if they were one, impacts were able to be addressed by selectively applying mitigation where a beneficial habitat exists naturally and could thereby be dealt with on one site to the benefit of the other two, garnering a more holistic, rather than piecemeal, solution. The applicants propose to retain all existing natural drainage was in their current locations and in their natural state, as required CITY OF SAN LUIS 0stspo INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST ER 63-05 (VTTM#2342-Cowan/French) CADocuments and Settingslslouser\Desktop\FINAL Initial Study 01-04-06.doc a -�s Ala hit ent 5 Issues, Discussion and Suppon...g Information Sources Souroes Po,.,.,tially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact ER#63-05 Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Inco orated by the MASP. In addition, the applicants are already in communication with the agencies of jurisdiction (California Department of Fish and Game, US Fish&Wildlife Service,Army Corps of Engineers)regarding acquiring necessary permits for the mitigation of impacts to jurisdictional wetlands, (Section 404, etc.) and conditions of approval are recommended to assure compliance.The wetlands and drainages are afforded further protection as stipulated by the EIR performance criteria, by providing necessary buffer zones around the features to be protected/preserved. The findings and recommendations of the "Comprehensive Mitigation Program" as reviewed and modified by City staff are summarized below. Biological impacts fall into several categories: wetland impacts; impacts to other sensitive habitats, and impacts to sensitive species. These are discussed in more detail below for the site specific to the subject map: Wetland Impacts. All three subdivisions have some impacts to wetlands. Efforts have been made, especially in the King subdivision, to minimize these through redesign of the lot layout, but there will still be impacts that cannot be avoided if the project is to proceed as called for in the Margarita Area Specific Plan. The DeBlauw and Cowan subdivisions also have wetland impacts but these appear to be of a different nature, impacting wetlands that have resulted from grade and drainage changes caused by human activities in the past. The developers are working on a mitigation program for wetland impacts that would utilize a nearby property and would meet City, State,and federal mitigation requirements. Impacts to Sensitive.Species. Several species of concern will be impacted by the project: these are mostly plant species, but also include one potentially affected animal species. These are discussed individually below. Congdon Tarplant(Hemizonia parry)ssp congdoni). Up to several hundred individuals have been observed in disturbed,wet ground paralleling Prado Road on the Cowan and DeBlauw properties. This species is concentrated in the San Luis Obispo area in vernally wet areas that are routinely disturbed, such as by agricultural operations or livestock activities, and in vernal pools. Impacts to Other Nesting Birds. It is possible that construction activities during the nesting season could impact nesting birds,including inadvertent harassment of nesting pairs and destruction of nests. Mitigation Program. Miligation for wetland impacts. Mitigation for wetland impacts will be through a combination of on-and off-site mitigation, approved by the City, the DFG and the Corps. Further, in compliance with the MASP/AASP EIR, the subject VTM#2342 (Cowan) proposes the creation of Lot Z in an area designated by the MASP for "Open Space-Riparian" for the express purposes of achieving some of the necessary wetlands replacement mitigation area, as well as preservation of related biological habitat benefits. Mitigation for Impacts to Sensitive Species. None of these species are expected to be difficult to establish. City staff will work with the project sponsors in developing the details of the effort. Congdon Tarplant. Create compensating habitat in a suitable off-site location approved by the City. Mitigation for Impacts to Other Nesting Birds. Undertake surveys prior to initiation of construction activities; avoid construction activities within 100 feet of active nest sites until after young have fledged. Off Site Mitigation for Wetland Impacts. A further component of the biological mitigation program is the applicant's proposal to acquire (by fee, easement, or eminent domain) lands outside the bounds of the Western Enclave (designated by the MASP as "Open Space-Riparian" lands). The targeted property (lying south of Prado Road and owned by Unocal) is a low lying area that already naturally collects some area run-off and provides valuable habitat for certain special concern and R-T-E(rare,threatened,and endangered)species,and thus is beneficial to retain in its natural state. Pre-development run-off .has resulted in seasonal flooding of Prado Road due to the currently deficient collection/distribution system to this natural Crrr OF SAN LUIS Owspo 12 INITIAL SiunY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST ER 63-05 (VTTM#2342-Cowan/French) C:\Documents and Settings\slouser\Desktop\FTNAL Initial Study 01-04-06.doc —YC.P Attachment 5 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact ER#63-05 Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated drainage area south of Prado Road.. The Western Enclave applicants propose to acquire this off-site property designated for open space use by the MASP and utilize it beneficially for biological mitigation as well as a detention basin for pre-and post- Western Enclave development generated run-off. It is proposed that this basin be enhanced to accommodate the greater project-generated and pre-project run-off flows,and to increase its habitat value in the long term. The basin is proposed to be held and maintained by a Master Home Owners Association (MHOA)established initially for the Western Enclave area,and perhaps ultimately for the entire MASP as stipulated be done by the MASP. As noted, the developments have been designed so as to avoid any disturbance to the natural drainage channels. In order to accommodate this, a storm drainage system is proposed to capture all surface flow from the improvements and convey it on through the watershed. Naturally occurring drainage from the upper reaches of the watershed will be allowed to continue to flow through the developments via the existing natural drainage channels [proposed to be preserved in Open Space, particularly Lots 142-146& 148 in the subject maps. However,development-generated run-off will be conveyed via separate installed infrastructure & treatment facilities required for the subdivisions, and transported to the proposed off-site sub- regional drainage basin.] The proposed off-site detention basin and drainages (preserved in common by a MHOA as open channels) will be vegetated with local native, suitable grasses and other plant material, and with the assistance of composite turf reinforcement fabric,will allow for the formation of additional seasonal wetlands. As the channels and basin are lined with the turf reinforcement fabric,any additional bank stabilization that will be needed should be achieved. Additionally,outlets into the basin will have substantial energy dissipation structures, as required to remove any erosion and sedimentation potential. Once the wetlands within the channels and basin have been allowed to fully establish themselves,it is anticipated that some of the wildlife,which will take seasonal refuge within these wetlands,will assist with keeping growth of the vegetation under control. Inclusion of the above mitigations reduces the impacts to a level of less than significant. 5.CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the rgiect: a) Cause asubstantial adverse change in the significance of a 1,3, X historic resource?(See CEQA Guidelines 150645) 10, 19 b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an 1,3, X archaeological resource?(See CEQA Guidelines 15064.5) 10, 19 c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource 1,3, X or site or unique geologic feature? 10, 19 d) Disturb any human remains,including those interred outside of 1,3' X formal cemeteries? 10' 19 Evaluation: (a-b)The MASP and MASP/AASP EIR determined that further on-site surface surveys be done in conjunction with each site specific development proposal. Such further survey was conducted by Heritage Discoveries,Inc.of San Luis Obispo,CA for the entire Western Enclave area and a written report, dated May 31, 2005, was submitted to the City. The report found, and completed a site record for, a small archaeological site of unspecified significance within the survey area. The site found is not within or adjacent to the boundaries of this VTM#2342. A Phase II subsurface test is required for this off-site find, but such survey will not affect and therefore does not impact the subject project. Thus, the project impact is less than significant. c-d)The project site is located in an area that does not contain any unique geological feature and possesses no known unique paleontological resources. The project area has been part of two general cultural resource field surveys. As a result of these field surveys, there are no known historical or archaeological resources that are associated with the project site. Therefore there is no impact. 6. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would theproject: a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? 1,2, 3 X Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient___ ___.,_ 1,2, 3 X CrrV OF SAN LUIS OeISPO 13 INmAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST ER 63-05 (VTTM#2342-Cowan/French) Cc\Documents and Settings\slouser\Desktop\FINAL Initial Study 01-04-06.doc aor A`.tachment 5 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact ER#63-05 Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated manner? c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource 1,2,3 X that would be of value to the region and the residents of the State? Evaluation: a-b) The project will not conflict with adopted energy conservation plans nor will it promote the use of non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner. The future development of the site must comply with the policies contained in the General Plan Energy Element that states: "New development will be encouraged to minimize the use of conventional energy for space heating and cooling,water heating,and illumination by means of proper design and orientation,including the provision and protection of solar exposure." The project will also he subject to Architectural Review that will ensure consistency with City energy conservation goals,policies,and regulations. This impact is less than significant. c)There are no known mineral resources on the project site that would be of value to the region and the residents of the State. There is no impact. 7. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would theproject: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse 1,2, 3, X effects,including risk of loss,injury or death involving: 5,7, 17 I. Rupture of a known earthquake fault,as delineated in the 1,2, 3, X most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map 5,7, 17 issued by the State Geologist for the area,or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? II, Strong seismic ground shaking? 1,2, 3, X 5,7, 17 III. Seismic-related ground failure,including liquefaction? 1,2, 3, X 5,7, 17 IV. Landslides or mudflows? 1,2, 3, X 5,7, 17 b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? 1,2,3, X 5,7, 17 c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable,or that 1,2,3, X would become unstable as a result of the project,and potentially 5,7, 17 result in on or off site landslides,lateral spreading,subsidence, liquefaction,or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil,as defined in Table 18-1-B of the 1,2,3, X Uniform Building Code(1994),creating substantial risks to life 5,7, 17 or ro ? Evaluation: a)-d): The initial study prepared for the MASP/AASP projects found that all the above-stated effects from implementation of both plans would be less than significant and therefore the MASP/AASP EIR conducted no further evaluations. There is no new evidence to suggest there would be any site specific impacts that were not adequately anticipated or evaluated in the prior environmental documents. The preliminary grading plan prepared for the subdivision is consistent with City code. The final grading plan of the proposed subdivision will be in accordance with the Geotechnical Engineer's recommendations and the California Budding Code adopted by the City and modified by City regulations. Thus, the project impact is less than significant. 8. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the ro'ect: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the enrollment 1,3, X through the routine use,transport or diosal of hazardous 14 CRY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 14 INRIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST ER 63-05(VTTM#2342-Cowan/French) C:1Documents and SettingslslouserlDesktoplFINAL Initial Study 01-04-06.doc -;o Attachment 5 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact ER#63-05 Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Inco orated materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment 1, 3, X through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions 14 involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely 1, 3, X hazardous materials,substances,or waste within one-quarter 14 mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Expose people or structures to existing sources of hazardous 1,3, X emissions or hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, 14 substances,or waste? e) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous 1,3, X materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 14 65962.5 and,as a result,it would create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? f) For a project located within an airport land use plan,or within 1,2, X two miles of a public airport,would the project result in a safety 3, 14 hazard for the people residing or working in the project area? g) Impair implementation of,or physically interfere with,the 1,2, X adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation 3, 14 plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of lose,injury, 1,2, X or death,involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are 3, 14 adjacent to urbanized areas or where residents are intermixed with wildlands? Evaluation a), b),d): The prior EIR determined that historical agricultural activities and surrounding industrial activities of the Margarita Area may have released hazardous materials into the environment. Hazardous materials releases may have involved leaking underground or aboveground storage tanks, or similar events from other nearby properties that store or handle hazardous or toxic materials.Construction-related and ground disturbing activities may involve the use of materials that could contaminate nearby soils and water resources in the project area. Existence of such potential hazards could cause construction workers and other people to be exposed to dust or emissions containing such hazardous materials or to organic pesticides, herbicides, and other hazardous materials. The prior MASP/AASP EIR further determined impacts related to development of allowed business park land uses could result in operations-related exposures to hazardous materials and short-term surface water quality degradation from accidental release of hazardous materials during construction; areas of concern within the MASP included specific mention Acacia Creek. The prior MASP/AASP EIR required the following mitigation measures that would reduce such impacts to less than significant: HAZ-1.1:Implement a construction-related hazardous materials management plan HAZ-1.2:If presence of hazardous materials is suspected or encountered during construction-related activities, conduct a Phase I and possibly Phase II Environmental Site Assessment to determine soil or groundwater contamination. HAZ-2.1: Implement an operations-related hazardous materials management plan. With respect to required mitigation measure HAZ-1.1, the applicant already prepared and submitted the results of Phase I ESA for the subject site, as required by City application submittal requirements. Said Assessment, dated June 29, 2005, was prepared by Geo-Solutions, Inc., a firm qualified to prepare such assessments. The Assessment found that there are no recognized environmental conditions at the site or in connection with the site that could be affected by roadway or utility alignments, and in the author's expert judgment, no further inquiry regarding potential or recognized environmental conditions is expected for past uses of the site. The report commented that off-site environmental concerns are known to have CITY OF SAN LUIS OBIsPO 15 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST ER 63-05(VTTM#2342-Cowan/French) C:\Documents and Settings\slouser\Desktop\F1NAL Initial Study 01-04-06.doc 412-y9 - A-tachitient 5 Issues, Discussion and Support,..4 Information Sources Sources Pr,_.aally Potentially less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact ER#63-05 Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated existed in the area, but these have a low potential of affecting the site based upon results of recent testing soil and groundwater testing for concentrations of constituents of concern(such concentrations were either at non-detectable limits or did not exceed the risk-based screening levels or state required action levels.) The report recommended that "...all drums are removed from the property and properly disposed." Follow-up telephone contact with Shawn Lager, Environmental Specialist with Geo-Solutions, and co-author of the report, confirmed that with respect to the subject site, the reference to "drums" meant the single stainless steel 80-gal. tank located at the southwest corner of the site, as noted on page 3 of the Assessment. In this telephone conversation,Mr. Lager also mentioned that this tank or drum was empty,unmarked,odorless, apparently abandoned, showing some signs of possible vandalism, and that proper disposal would include removal to an approved landfill site. The conclusions of this professionally prepared Phase I assessment confirms there is no impact with regard to any existing known conditions at the site. However, as a further precaution, as noted by MASP/AASP EIR Mitigation HAZ-1.1, if during construction activities suspected or actual hazardous materials are encountered, then the mitigation stipulated by HAZ-1.2 is required. This impact is therefore less than significant with mitigation. Since the subject project involves development of business park-office uses there is, as stated in the MASP/AASP EIR potential for impacts related to business park office development or uses that would involve the handling or disposal of materials used onsite, or the delivery, use, manufacture and/or storage of various chemicals necessary to perform manufacturing and business park activities.Therefore,Mitigation Measure HAZ-2.1 above is applicable to thesubjectproject and therefore is required to be brought forward as a condition of approval. Thus, this impact is less than significant with mitigation. Although Acacia Creek does not lie within the Western Enclave area of the MASP, there are other natural drainage ways within this and the two other related Western Enclave development sites that contain biological resource values required by the MASP to be protected and preserved. Therefore,there is still potential for on-site construction of roadways,infrastructure and building sites to involve handling and disposal of materials used or produced onsite, such as petroleum products, concrete, and sanitary waste that have the potential to adversely impact these drainages if proper precautions are not implemented. Therefore, Mitigation Measure HAZ-1.1 above, is applicable to the subject site and is therefore required to be brought forward as a condition of approval. According to the MASP/AASP EIR, said Construction-Related Hazardous Materials Management Plan is required to outline specific protocol to identify health risks associated with presence and handling of chemical compounds and identify specific protective measures to be followed by the workers in the work area to prevent or avoid improper release or accidental disposals that would result in soil and/or groundwater contamination. By incorporating the stated mitigation HAZ-1.1 above as condition of approval, this impact will remain less than significant with mitigation. c)The project site is not located within a one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school. Thus there is no impact. e) The project site is not located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. Thus-there is no impact. f) The project site is located in the vicinity of the San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport, and is subject to the County Airport Land Use Plan(ALUP). In its adoption of the MASP,the City Council already found the MASP to be consistent with the ALUP. It follows, therefore, that because the subject project and proposed residential and office uses and densities are compliant with the MASP, the project is also compatible with the policies and objectives of the Airport Land Use Plan. Thus there is no impact. g)The project and its proposed circulation and land use plan has been reviewed by the Fire Marshall who has recommended conditions of approval which will assure compliance with adopted fire/emergency-related codes. The Fire Marshall has provided no expert evidence that the subject project will impair implementation of, or physically interfere with, the adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plans of the City. Thus the impact is less than significant. h)The project site is not in an area identified as subject to wildland fire hazards. Thus there is no impact. CITY OF SAN LUIS OBIsPO 16 INITIAL STUDY ENYIRONmENrAL CHECKLIST ER 63-05(VTTM#2342-Cowan/French) CADocuments and Settingslslouser\Desktop\FINAL Initial Study 01-04-06.doc ,;?- s(f 5 kttachi gent 5 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially [ess Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact ER#63-05 Issues unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated 9. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would theproject: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge 1,2, X requirements? 3, 16 b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere 1,2, X substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be 3, 16 a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level(e.g.The production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses for which permits have been granted)? c) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the 1,2, X capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or 3, 16 provide additional sources of runoff into surface waters (including,but not limited to,wetlands,riparian areas,ponds, springs,creeks,streams,rivers,lakes,estuaries,tidal areas,bays, ocean,etc.)? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or 1,2 X area in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or 3, 16 siltation onsite or offsite? e) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or 1,2, X area in a manner which would result in substantial flooding 3, 16 onsite or offsite? f) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on 1,2, X a Federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Instrance Rate Map 3, 16 or other flood hazard delineation reap? g) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which 1,2, X would impede or redirect flood flows? 3, 16 h) Will the project introduce typical storm water pollutants into 1,2, X ground or surface waters? 3, 16 i) Will the project alter ground water or surface water quality, 1,2, X temperature,dissolved oxygen,or turbidity? 3, 16 Evaluation: a) The project will not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. According to the prior MASP/AASP EIR,development associated with the project will require issuance of an NPDES general construction activity storm water permit by the Central Coast RWQCB. Completion of this project would ensure that construction-related discharges are limited or adequately accommodated by properly engineered infrastructure design. Thus, the impact is considered less than significant. b) The project will be served by the City's sewer and water systems and will not use or deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level. Thus,there is no impact. c), d), e) According to the prior MASP/AASP EIR, construction of the proposed project as part of the urbanization of the Western Enclave area would result in an increase of impervious surfaces that would cause the timing and amount of surface water runoff to increase. However,the project is subject to the revised City Storm Drain Master Plan/Waterway Management Plan that discusses the necessary improvements that would ensure adequate transmission and detention of storm water now created by any new development and thus potential impacts resulting from increased development—related run-off was determined by the MASP/AASP EIR to be less than significant, and no mitigation required. To ensure that runoff levels will be equal to or less than existing levels,all storm water runoff will be contained in detention basins and drained at a rate not to exceed the 2-year undeveloped flow rate. In addition, according to the MASP a series of basins will be constructed to detain storm water runoff within the area. In this instance the Western Enclave developers propose one off-site detention basin to CRY of SAN Luis Oam o 17 INMAL STUDY ENvtRONmENTAL CHEcimisT ER 63-05(VTTM#2342-Cowan/French) C:\Documents and SettingslslouserlDesktoplFINAL Initial Study 01-04-06.doc - — A,1achment 5 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact ER #63-05 Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated accept development-generated run-off from all three subdivisions, together with existing area run-off that historically creates flooding at the concrete box culvert under Prado Road that is insufficient to accept and transmit existing area run-off. The design, location, and maintenance of the detention basin will be subject to the approval of the City Engineer. In the event such off-site basin cannot be achieved, then, alternately, each subdivision will be responsible for providing its own on-site basin to the approval of the City Engineer as stipulated in the MASP. Thus,the impact of the project is less than significant. f), g) The project may place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a Federal Emergency Management Agency(FEMA)Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map(FIRM)or other flood hazard delineation map or may impede or redirect water flows that will cause a flood hazard to surrounding areas. This occurs only in the western half of the site. Although the Hydrologic and Hydraulic report prepared by TEC Civil Engineering did not analyze the existing flood plain as mapped,conditions of approval are recommended to avoid potential impacts requiring that 1.)The final subdivision design and off-site stormwater detention facility take into consideration the effects on the 100-year floodplain as mapped on the FEMA FIRM Panel prior to ground disturbing activities, 2.) Stormwater facilities be in compliance with City Waterways Management Plan requirements for Special Floodplain Management Zone, 3.)The base flood elevation line be established for the site so that no foundations be allowed to be built above this elevation. And 4.)The design of the stormwater facilities will be required to be such that it resolves historical flooding in this location of the site with no net loss of floodplain storage. Thus there is no impact. h), i) According to the prior MASP/AASP EIR, the project could potentially introduce typical storm water pollutants into ground or surface waters during construction activities and as a result of ongoing use of the project area. As a result, the development would require issuance of an NPDES general construction activity permit by the Central Coast RWQCB. Completion of this permit process would ensure that construction-related discharges were limited. Because ongoing use of the project area for residential and commercial uses would also increase the potential for discharge of chemicals, oils and fuels, and waste into projected waterways; the requirement for the implementation of Best Management Practices (BMPs) must be established to greatly reduce the potential for unwanted runoff. Therefore, implementation of the BMPs on the proiect will reduce impact to less than significant level. 10. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would theproject: a) Conflict with applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of 1, 2, 3 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? 1,2,3 X c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural 1,2,3 X community conservationplans? Evaluation a) The project is planned and designed to coincide with those areas designated by the MASP for low density residential, medium density residential, business park office and open space (riparian). The subdivision of the property into low density residential units and business park office does not conflict with any plan or policy adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. Thus,there is no impact. See also related discussion under Part 4.Biological Resources.) b) The project will not physically divide an established community, because the project is a logical and orderly extension of the planned land uses and development that are already established within the surrounding area. The project area will result in business park offices along Prado Road and low-density residential alongside existing residential units on the northern end of the project site,all as specified by the governing MASP. Thus there is no impact. c) The project site is not located within a habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan. Thus,there is no im act.(See related discussion above under Part 4.Biological Resources.) CRY OF SAN LUIS Oaispo is INMAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST ER 63-05(VTTM#2342-Cowan/French) C:\Documents and Settings\slouser\Desktop\F'INAL Initial Study 01-04-06.doc h*tachinent 5 Issues, Discussion and Suppontrtg Information Sources Sources Poaatially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact ER#63-05 Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated 11.NOISE. Would the project result in: a) Exposure of people to or generation of"unacceptable"noise 1,2,3 X levels as defined by the San Luis Obispo General Plan Noise Element,or general noise levels in excess of standards established in the Noise Ordinance? b) A substantial temporary,periodic,or permanent increase in 1,2,3 X ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? c) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne 1,2,3 X vibration or groundborne noise levels? d) For a project located within an airport land use plan,or within 1,2, 3 X two miles of a public airport or public use airport,would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? Evaluation a)According to the previous MASP/AASP EIR, the proposed project is located in an area zoned for residential and business land uses that are predicted to be exposed to traffic noise levels that exceed the Noise Element standard of 60 decibels(dB). This is particularly true for lots adjacent to Prado Road which will function, when fully built, as a major east-west arterial, connecting South Higuera and Broad Street and will carry large volumes of traffic. Consequently,to avoid the effects of such traffic related noise to sensitive residential receptors, the MASP established a setback for residential uses of 157 feet measured from the centerline of Prado Road, the projected location of the 60 dB CNEL noise level contour, considered the acceptable threshold for residential uses by the City Noise Element. Consequently, although the MASP would otherwise allow mixed use office and residential within the BP-O zone,the site specific project proposes no residential uses mixed with business park-office uses in the lots O-R, X and Y fronting on Prado Road, as nearly all portions of these lots lie within the 157 foot setback. The remaining Lots A-N and S-W will contain the desired mix of residential and office uses as they have suitable building areas that lie outside the required 157-foot setback. In this regard the project proposal and design is self- mitigating. Thus there is no imIzact. According to the MASP/RASP EIR, the proposed project is located in an area zoned for residential land uses that are predicted to be exposed to traffic noise levels resulting from new roadways within the development. Such traffic-related noise levels are expected to exceed the maximum exterior noise planning standard of 60 Ld„/CNEL dB (day-night average sound level;or 24-hour average community noise equivalent level, in decibels)or to exceed allowable thresholds of stationary noise sources as set forth in Table 2 of the Noise Element. However, the EIR concludes that this impact is less-than-significant since in order for a subdivision map to be approved it must be fully compliant with the entirety of the City's General Plan. As such the project is required to be consistent with the Specific Plan standards for road noise mitigation and outdoor noise reduction as well as subject to mitigation measures listed and already adopted in the City's General Plan Noise Element. The applicable mitigation measures are any or all of those listed in Policy 8 of the Noise Element which, based upon the conclusions of a site specific noise measurement, are shown by a qualified expert performing said study are necessary to achieve the 60 Ld /CNEL dB standard within the outdoor activity exposure area. Conditions of approval require that measures contained in the City's Noise Guidebook and as deemed necessary by the qualified acoustic consultant shall be incorporated into the design of the buildings to ensure that noise impacts are reduced to achieve the performance thresholds set forth herein and in the City Noise Element. Implementation of this condition will assure the impact remains less-than- significant. b) Site development will result in increases in ambient noise levels, but not to significant levels, since by operation of mitigation requirements set forth in a) above, noise increases that would affect ambient levels are to be reduced to thresholds determined to be acceptable in residential areas. Therefore, imnacts to permanent ambient noise levels are less than significant. Project construction or other temporary or periodic noise generation may result in temporary increases (spikes) in ambient noise levels. Since there is no way to predict the origin or duration of these types of noise sources for this development, it can CITY OF SAN Luis OBispo 19 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST ER 63-05 (VTTM#2342-Cowan/French) 00ocuments and Settings\slouserlDesktoplFINAL Initial Study 01-04-06.doc Attachment 5 Issues, Discussion and Suppor. , Information Sources Sources Po._,ally Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact ER#63-05 Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated only be regulated if found to be a nuisance by the City's Noise Ordinance. If noise levels exceed the Noise Ordinance thresholds,the property owner would be subject to possible citations and corrective actions to eliminate or reduce such noise to non-nuisance levels. The significance of this impact is too speculative to determine;compliance with the Noise Ordinance is presumed to adequately abate potential periodic nuisance noise. Thus,there is no impact. c) The project will not expose people to the generation of excessive groundborne noise levels or vibrations. Thus, there is no impact. d)The project is located in the vicinity of the San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport,and is subject to the County Airport Land Use Plan. According to the prior MASP/AASP EIR, the project is not within the 60 or 65 dBA-CNEL contour line. However, due to projected future aircraft over flight, the project is required by the MASP/AASP EIR and MASP to implement design features to ensure compatibility with the Airport and thereby control indoor noise levels. Design features must control for indoor noise to not exceed 45 dB Community Noise Equivalent Level, and a 60 dB maximum for aircraft single events. Implementation of mitigation as specified in the MASP/AASP EIR and Plan will result in the impact being less-than-significant. 12 POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would theproject: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly 1,2, 3 X (for example by proposing new homes or businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing or people 1,2, 3 X necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Evaluation: a)The added population growth caused by this project is within the General Plan's projection and will not result in population exceeding local and regional growth projections. Therefore, the impact of inducing substantial population growth to the planning area would be less than significant. b)The project site is currently vacant and undeveloped land; therefore, housing or people will not be displaced as a result of the project. Thus,there is no impact. 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 erformance objectives for any of the public services: a) Fire protection? 1,2,3 X b) Police protection? 1,2,3 X c) Schools? 1,2,3 X d) Parks? 1,2,3 X e) Roads and other transportation infrastructure? 1,2,3 X f) Other public facilities? 1, 2,3 X Evaluation a), b), d), e), & f) The MASP/AASP EIR determined that implementation and build out of the MASP will not result in any significant impacts related to any of the above-listed services due to the ability to off-set service needs through the City's Development Impact Fee program established via the City General Plan and augmented by the development fee program in MASP and concluded that no further mitigation was necessary. There is no new evidence that the subject project,proposed to carry out the development intended by the MASP as evaluated by the MASP/AASP EIR will result in any adverse impacts to these services. And further,the project will not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of, CRY OF SAN Luis OBISPO 20 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST ER 63-05(VTTM#2342-Cowan/French) CADocuments and Sertings\slouser\Desktop\FINAL Initial Study 01-04-06.doc 2 -Sf! h1lachment 5 Issues, Discussion and Suppoi.ig Information Sources Sources Puotially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact ER#63-05 Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated or need for, new or physically altered government facilities, the construction of which might have the potential to cause significant environmental impacts. In accordance with the MASP, the project is subject to City and MASP established Development Impact Fees that are charged in conjunction with approval of development projects to offset costs associated with increases in demand of public services. Thus, the impact is less than significant. c)The school districts in the state have the authority to collect fees at the time of building permits to offset the costs to finance school site acquisition and school construction, and said fees, when collected by local school districts, are deemed by State law constitute adequate mitigation for all school facility requirements.. Section 65955 of the Government Code prohibits the City from denying a subdivision or collecting any fees beyond those required by the school district to mitigate effects associated with inadequate school facilities. Any increases in demand on school facilities caused by the project are considered to be mitigated by the district's collection of adopted fees at the time of building permit issuance for each residence and commercial building.Thus, there is no impact. 14.RECREATION. Would theproject: a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood or regional parks or 1,2, 3 X other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Include recreational facilities or require the construction or 1,2, 3 X expansion of recreational facilities,which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Evaluation: a) & b) The build-out of the project will add to the demand for parks and other recreational facilities. The MASP has anticipated this demand by designating certain lands within the Plan area for "Sports Fields" (already built) and "Neighborhood Park"for active recreational use and other areas for"Open Space-Hills"or"Open Space-Riparian" for more passive recreation/aesthetic amenities (e.g. walking or bicycling paths and trails) intended more for use by adjacent or nearby residents.No portions of the subject site are designated by the MASP for either of the active recreation land use designations. The project is consistent with MASP insofar as said plan does designate a portion of the subject site for "Open Space- Riparian"which the proposal meets by designating that area(proposed Lot Z)for open space use. A proposed 12-foot Class I pedestriantbicycle path along the easterly edge of this lot is an integral feature for more passive recreation use. The MASP/AASP EIR determined that while build-out of the MASP will generate increased demand for recreational facilities,the impact is less than significant due to the adoption through the MASP of 533 acres of additional parks and open space land use designations(lying outside the Western Enclave development area.) The MASP also specifies that developers will contribute to the construction of public park facilities through the payment of City-,as well as,MASP-adopted Park Improvement Fees to offset costs associated with increases in demand and services as it relates to maintaining City-wide public park areas. Thus, the construction of the oroiect will have a less than significant impact on parks or other recreational facilities. 15. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would theproject: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the 1,2, X existing traffic load and capacity of the street system? 3,4 b) Exceed,either individually or cumulatively,a level of service 1,2,3, X standard established by the county congestion management 4 agency for designated roads and highways? c) Substantially increase hazards due to design features(e.g.sharp 1,2, 3, X curves or dangerous intersections)or incompatible uses(e.g. 4 farm equipment)? d) Result in inadequate emergency access? 1,2,3 X e) Result in inadequate parking capacity onsite or offsite? 1,2,3 X fj Conflict with adopted policies supporting alternative 1,2,3 X CRY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 21 INITIAL STUDY ENvutoNmEwAL CHEcKusT ER 63-05(VTTM#2342-Cowan/French) C:\Documents and Senings\slouser\Desktop\FINAL Initial Study 01-04-06.doc ✓` � 1 1'Stt L; YEIiLn` Issues, Discussion and Supportitty Information Sources sources Potendatly Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact ER#63-05 Issues Unless I`npact Mitigation Incorporated transportation(e.g.bus turnouts,bicycle racks)? g) Conflict with the with San Luis Obispo County Airport Land 1,2, 3 X Use Plan resulting in substantial safety risks from hazards,noise, or a change in air trafficpatterns? Evaluation: a), b)The subject project,as well as all other development that occurs in the future pursuant to the MASP and AASP and the City General Plan will increase traffic in the area, but not in relation to load and capacity of area streets, existing or planned, nor will increased traffic exceed established acceptable level of service (LOS) threshold (adopted at LOS "D" by the City General Plan) for San Luis Obispo as discussed in the MASP/AASP EIR, except for the Prado Road/South Higuera Street intersection. The Circulation Plan of the MASP(as well as the Circulation Plan of the AASP and Circulation Element of the City General Plan) identifies the essential primary road system that will be needed to accommodate development within the plan area and surrounding growth areas of the City at this threshold. The MASP/AASP EIR determined that the roadway plans of these planning documents are for the most part self-mitigating in that I.)Roadway alignments, road extensions, and new intersections are designed and will be built in response to traffic projected at build-out and, 2.)Development projects in the Airport and Margarita Specific Plan areas will also contribute their fair share either through adopted Traffic Impact Fees, MASP development impact fees, assessments or dedications to specified roadway improvements (EIR page 3D-29). The primary self-mitigating traffic feature of the MASP is the Plan's requirement that Prado Road be extended easterly, from its current terminus just east of South Higuera Street, all the way to Broad Street, thus providing a major new divided 4-lane east-west cross town arterial connector in the southerly area of San Luis Obispo. Conditions of approval are recommended that would require improvements to Prado Road as stipulated by the MASP and MASP/AASP EIR. The project will be conditioned to provide build-out of Prado Road commensurate with the development of the subject site together with the other two developments within the Western Enclave, as required by the MASP and as recommended by the City Public Works Dept In addition, the subject proposal's proposed street system internal to the subdivision conforms to the MASP Circulation Plan. The extension of Prado Road, as a designated "highway/regional route", together with AASP required roadway improvements (particularly Tank Farm Road) will accommodate cumulative traffic increases in the area and will mostly maintain at the acceptable LOS of"D" or better, except as noted above regarding the intersection of Prado Road and South Higuera Street. At the time of adoption of the Airport Area Specific Plan (Ref. Resolution 9726-2205 Series) adopted by the City Council August 23, 2005, almost a year after the adoption of the MASP, it was determined potential and proposed development circumstances had changed sufficiently in the Airport Area since the adoption of the MASP, such that Level of Service (LOS) at the intersection of Prado Road and South Higuera Street would decline from LOS "D" (as found in the MASP/AASP EIR) to LOS "E". As a result, the City Council Resolution No. 9726 (2005 Series) found that additional mitigation T-2.1 was necessary to lessen the effects of the significant impact at this intersection. This mitigation requires that the threshold for Transportation Demand Management(TDM)requirements shall be reduced to apply to employers with 25 or more employees. It is appropriate, therefore, that this mitigation measure applies to commercial development within the MASP to cumulatively contribute to the mitigation. In summary,the proposed project would add vehicular trips to streets that serve as entry/exit routes to the project site. These streets with the given improvements specified in the City's adopted planning documents and with the addition of new TDM requirements will serve to accommodate the added vehicular traffic. Thus, the impact from this project is less than significant. c), d)The Margarita Area Specific Plan will require that the project provides roadways that are designed and development in accordance with adopted city standards thereby assuring predetermined standards necessary to limit safety hazards and provide adequate emergency access. Thus,there is no impact as result of the proiect. e) The project is subject to the City's parking requirements as it is outlined in the Margarita Area Specific Plan for each varying land use. The project build-out is required to fulfill all necessary parking requirements and therefore there is no evidence of inability to comply with onsite or offsite parking standards. Thus,there is no impact. CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 22 INmAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST ER 63-05 (VTTM#2342-Cowan/French) 00ocuments and Settingsls1ouserlDesktoplF1NAL Initial Study 01-04-06.doc --57-6 Attachment 5 Issues, Discussion and Supponn ig Information Sources sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact ER#63-05 Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated f) The MASP/AASP EIR identified certain secondary impacts to pedestrians and bicyclists that could result from road improvements needed to achieve vehicular flow at intersections noted in Table 313-10 (namely, with respect to the Western Enclave developments,the intersections of Prado Road/South Higuera Street and Prado Road/Broad Street). Such secondary impacts relate to increased crossing distances from road widening at intersections and introducing conflicts at intersections with multiple turning lanes. The MASP/AASP EIR notes such impacts can be adequately avoided by implementation of Mitigations Measures T-LI Design Features which,in summary,incorporate the following: 1. Sidewalks along both sides of all newly constructed streets and reconstructed streets, 2. Crosswalks (pursuant to the City's adopted "Pedestrian Crosswalk Guidelines-2000") at new and reconstructed intersections, 3. Pedestrian signals at all new and reconstructed signalized intersections,and 4. Class II bike lanes on all new and reconstructed streets per the City Bicycle Transportation Plan and MASP. The three Western Enclave development projects are not directly responsible for the construction of the above described off- site intersections except through payment of City adopted Traffic and Development Impact Fees which contribute their respective calculated fair share of the cost. This funding source will contribute to the construction of said intersection improvements at a later time to be determined by the City. Thus,this impact is less than significant. g) The MASP has already been found to not conflict with the San Luis Obispo County Airport Land Use Plan (ALUP). Therefore, as the subject project complies with the pertinent requirements of the MASP regarding allowed land uses and development densities and standards,the project is not in conflict with the ALUP. Thus,there is no impact from this proiect. 16.UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the ro'ect: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable 1,2,3 X Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction or expansion of new water 1,2,3 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 supplies available to serve the project 1,2,3 X from existing entitlements and resources,or are new and expanded water resources needed? d) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider 1,2,3 X which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitment? e) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to 1,2, 3 X accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? f) Comply with federal,state,and local statutes and regulations 1,2, 3 X related to solid waste? Evaluation: a) b) The MASP/AASP EIR determined that implementation and build-out of the MASP will not result in any significant impacts related to delivery of domestic water, wastewater collection or treatment, or storm water drainage/retention and concluded that such impacts related to build-out of the MASP were less than significant and no mitigation was deemed necessary. The build-out under the MASP will be similar to that anticipated and projected in the City General Plan. The subject project proposes to provide all water, sewer and storm drain facilities necessary to adequately serve the subject project, including distribution, collection and other infrastructure capacity as required by the MASP facility master plan and the City's Storm Drain Master Plan/Waterway Management Plan. There is no new evidence that the subject project, as intended by the MASP will result in any adverse impacts to these service systems nor result in any exceedances of RWQCB wastewater treatment requirements. In addition to the on-site utility service infrastructure required with the development, the project is subject to City and MASP established Development Impact Fees that are charged in conjunction with approval of CRY OF SAN Luis OBISPO 23 INITIAL STUDY ENvIRONMFMAL CHECKLIST ER 63-05 (VTTM#2342-Cowan/French) C:\Documents and Settings\slouser\Desktop\FINAL Initial Study 01-04-06.doc —c!�77" -�lCici nle r Issues, Discussion and Supportiny Information Sources Sources Potenually Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact ER#63 05 Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated development projects to offset costs associated with off-site city-wide utility system impacts related to needed periodic maintenance and upgrades. Thus,there is no impact. c) Provisions in the City General Plan and MASP ensure that an adequate quantity of water will exist before any development is allowed. Moreover, the City has adopted the Water Allocation Regulations to insure that increased water use by new development will not cause inadequate water service to existing and future customers. Section 17.89.030 of the Water Allocation Regulation states that a water allocation shall be required to obtain a connection to the city water system for a structure or facility not previously connected. This project is also subject to water impact fees which were adopted to ensure that new development pays its share of constructing additional infrastructure needed to support additional facilities. More specifically, the project is subject to both the citywide water impact fees and the MASP-specific water add-on fees. Thus, compliance with the City and State standards and requirements will assure that impacts related to water supplies are less than significant. d) The City wastewater treatment plant and existing and proposed ewer lines in the vicinity and within the project site have sufficient capacity to serve the project site. The developer will be required to construct on-site sewer facilities according to the Uniform Plumbing Code standards. Impact fees are also collected when building permits are issued to pay for capacity at the City's Water Reclamation Facility. The fees are set to offset potential impacts associated with increases in demand and use by each new residential unit in the project. Thus,there is no impact. e)Solid waste collection within the City will be provided by a private operator under a City franchise and disposal is expected to continue at Cold Canyon Landfill until 2018. The project must be consistent with the City's Source Reduction and Recycling Element which requires that recycling facilities be accommodated on the project site and a solid waste reduction plan for recycling discarded construction materials must be submitted with the building permit application. The project is also required by the ordinance to include facilities for recycling to reduce the waste stream generated by the project. Thus, there is no impact. f) The project will fully comply with existing federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste. Thus, there is no impact. 17.MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the 1,2, X environment,substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife 3,12, species,cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- 13 sustaining levels,threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community,reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited,but 1,2, X cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" 3,4 means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of the past projects, the effects of other current projects,and the effects of probable futureprojects) c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause 1,2, X substantial adverse effects on human beings,either directly or 3,4 indirectly? CRY OF SAN Luis OBISPO 24 INmAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST ER 63-05(VTTM#2342-Cowan/French) C:1Documents and Settings\slouser\DesktoplFINAL Initial Study 01-04-06.doc ry �d Cliff i'1ent 5 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 15063 (c) (3) (D). In this case a discussion should identify the following items: a) Earlier analysis used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. In 2004 the City of San Luis Obispo certified an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Margarita Area Specific Plan (MASP), the Airport Area Specific Plan (AASP) and the related Facilities Master Plan. The subject proposed VTM #2342 property lies within the boundaries of the MASP. Therefore,this prior MASP/AASP EIR evaluation considered impacts and mitigation related generally to potential development of the subject site and others pursuant to the MASP and related Facilities Master Plan. The prior MASP/AASP EIR, certified by the City Council along with the adoption of the MASP and Facilities Master Plan on October 12,2004,by Resolution No.9615 (2004 Series),contained a variety of mitigation measures to be incorporated as discrete components of the MASP or as policies or development standards to be implemented through site specific development proposals. Further on August 23,2005,by Resolution No.9726(2005 Series),the City Council re- certified,with additional mitigation,the MASP/AASP EIR for the Airport Area Specific Plan (AASP),and adopted the Plan. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) allows Lead Agencies (the City) to use the analysis of general matters contained in a broader EIR, such as for a general or specific plan, with later EIRs or Negative Declarations on narrower projects; incorporating by reference the general discussions from the broader EIR, and concentrating the later EIR or Negative Declaration solely on the issues specific to the later project. The environmental assessment approach is refereed to as"tiering" The environmental analyses above for VTM#2342 take into account the environmental conclusions of the prior EIRs as they are applicable to the proposed site specific project. As such, mitigation measures adopted in the prior EIRs that are applicable to the subject site-specific project, and therefore must be incorporated into the proposed project to effectively mitigate the prior identified impacts, are listed below. Some of these mitigation measures are verbatim from the prior EIR, others have been refined to more specifically clarify how they are applicable to the site specific project by way of Conditions of Approval, in order to be properly implemented. Lastly many of the applicable mitigation measures required by provisions of the MASP have been incorporated by the applicant into the actual project subdivision design, making the project "self- mitigating"in these instances. The Airport Area and Margarita Area Specific Plans and Related Facilities Master Plans and Final Program EIR is available for review at the City of San Luis Obispo Community Development Department, City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo,CA 93402-3249. b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards,and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. The MASP/AASP EIR(prior EIR), (which included the sites of the three proposed subdivisions within the Western Enclave area,) was certified by the City Council on October 12, 2004, thereby determining that the EIR adequately analyzed the impacts listed in Column No. 1 and that mitigation was required for certain identified impacts,as noted. (If a potential impact was found by the MASP to not be significant, or has been found by the above-stated analyses to not be significant for the subject project, it is noted with strikethrough text. One impact/mitigation originating from the Certified EIR for the AASP— Impact T-2 regarding Transportation Demand Management for exceeding LOS"D",is also applicable to the MASP. Column No. 2 indicates whether mitigations were required due to the impact being significant. Column No. 3 indicates status of impact after mitigation specified in the prior EIR. Column No. 4 indicates if there is a specific provision of the MASP that serves to implement or achieve the required mitigation. Column No. 5 reflects whether the site specific VTM,as designed or proposed,complies with the MASP mitigation("complies")or whether a Condition of Approval("COA")is required to bring a required mitigation forward through the project approval or subsequent permits: a �"9 Alachment 5 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources potetmally potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact ER#63 05 Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated MASP/RASP EER-Identified Mitigation Impact after Areas of Potential Impact Required? Mitigation MASP Provision? Site Specific? 1.)Land Use and Aesthetics -LU-6 Change in Views "none feasible' SU Open Space&Parks complies -LU-7 Increased light&.glare yes L-T-S Lighting Said. 3.3 COA 2.)Hydrology and Water Quality -H4 Changes in course or "none feasible" SU Drainage 7.3 complies,COA direction of water move- ment 3.)Biological Resources -BIO-2 Valley Needlegrass yes L-T-S Open Space&Parks complies,COA -BIO-5 Open Water Habitat yes L-T-S Open Space&Parks complies,COA -BIO-6 Freshwater Marsh yes L-T-S Open Space&Parks complies,COA -BIO-7 Seasonal Wetlands yes L-T-S Open Space&Parks complies,COA -BIO-Tl Special-Status Plants yes L-T-S Open Space&Parks complies,COA -BIO-12 Non-listed Special-Status yes L-T-S Open Space&Parks complies,COA Wildlife -BIO-13 Calif.red-legged frog yes L-T-S Open Space&Parks complies,COA -BIO-17 Southwestern pond turtle yes L-T-S Open Space&Parks complies,COA 4.)Traffic and Circulation -T-1 Secondary Impacts: Peds/Cyclists yes(MASP EIR) L-T-S off-site,not specified COA -T-2 LOS in Excess of LOS"D" yes(AASP EIR) SU Chapter 6,new standard COA 5.)Aif Quality self-mitig.,COA self-mitig.,COA 6Tl+defse He L T S ger€. gtnd COA 7.)Hazardous Materials -HAZ-1 Construction Related yes L-T-S not specified COA -HAZ-2 Operations Related yes L-T-S not specified COA -HAZ-3 Accidental Releases yes L-T-S not specified COA 8.Aeblie Serviees ertd-Utilities rte L 'I' S COA n/a-VTM#2342 (Only applies to VTM 2353) Notes: SU=Significant&Unavoidable(Statement of Overriding Considerations adopted),L-T-S=Less than Significant Each of these impacts listed is also relative to the subject project. No new impacts for the subject project have been identified and no new mitigation measures are needed. 19. SOURCE REFERENCES. L Margarita Area Specific Plan/Airport Area.S ecific Plan,and Final EIR 2. The City of San Luis Obispo 2004 General Plan/EIR and all its adopted Elements 3. City Council Resolution#9615,2004 Series 4. City Council Resolution#9726,2005 Series 5. SLO Municipal Code 6. SLO Zoning Ordinance,2004 7. SLO Construction Codes,2002 8. SLO Community Design Guidelines,2003 9. SLO Subdivision Regulations,1985, 1993 10. SLO Archaeological Resources Preservation Guidelines, 1995 CRY OF SAN LUIS Oetspo 26 INMAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST ER 63-05(VTTM#2342-Cowan/French) C:\Documents and Settingslslouser\DesktopTWAL Initial Study 01-04-06.doc 01-eZ1 6 Attachment 5 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact ER#63-05 Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Inco orated 11. Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency 12. Focused Biological Studies&Wetland Delineation,Rincon Consultants,Inc.,June,2005 13. 90-Day Vernal Pool Branchiopod Dry Season Survey Report for Tract 2342 Project Site of the Margarita Specific Plan Area.City of San Luis Obispo,California.Recovery Permit TE090804-0,David Wolff Environmental, November,2005 14. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Prado Road Subdivision,APN:053-022-013,San Luis Obispo,California ftJect No.SL000713-2 GeoSolutions,Inc.,June,2005 I5. Affordable Housing Project:Margarita Annexation and Specific Plan Area,San Luis Obispo,California,Dave Watson,.AICP,June,2005 16. Addendum and Update to Hydrologic and Hydraulic Analysis Report for the Margarita Area,San Luis Obispo Corn ,TEC Civil Engineering Consultants,October,2005 17. Soil Engineering Report 392 Prado Road APN:076-341-004 San Luis Obispo,California,GeoSolutions,Inc., February, 1999 18. Progress Report of Geotechnical Services 392 Prado Road Subdivision, APN:053-022-13, San Luis Obispo, Catifornia,GeoSolutibns,Inc.,June,2005 19. An Archaeological Survey for the Margarita Area Specific Plan,Western Enclave Area,San Luis Obispo, San Luis Obisl2o County,California,Heritage Discoveries,.Inc.,May,2005 Attachments: Attachment 1: Vicinity Map Attachment 2: Vesting Tentative Tract Map No.2342(City File No.TR 63-05) Attachment 3: Focused Biological Studies&Wetland Delineation,Rincon Consultants,Inc.,June,2005 Attachment 4: 90-Day Vernal Pool Branchiopod Dry Season Survey Report for Tract 2342 Project Site of the Margarita Specific Plan Area.City of San Luis Obispo,California.Recovery Permit TE090804-0,David Wolff Environmental(DWE),November 11,2005 Attachment 5: Addendum and Update to Hydrologic and Hydraulic Analysis Report for the Margarita Area,San Luis Obispo County TEC,Civil Engineering Consultants,October 20,2005 (Technical Appendices available for inspection at City Hall, Community Development Department, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA) Other source documents listed above which are not included as attachments are available upon request from or may be viewed at City Hall,Community Development Department,990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo,CA,93401. REQUIRED MITIGATION AND MONITORING PROGRAMS 1. Reduction of Light and Glaze In order for MASP/AASP EIR Mitigation Measure LU-7.1 as implemented by the MASP to be carried through to lot- specific development stage,a lighting plan that demonstrates compliance with Community Design Section 3.3 Lighting requirements of the MASP shall be:submitted with other required plans for both the residential and commercial components of the project to the review and approval of the Architectural Review Commission(ARC). The lighting plan shall propose specific measures to limit the amount of light trespass associated with development within the project area including shielding and/or directional lighting methods to ensure that spillover light does not exceed 0.5 foot-candles at adjacent property lines. • Monitoring Program: The ARC will review development plans for both the residential and commercial components of the project. City staff, including Planning and other departments,will review plans to assure that all of the ARC's requirements related CRY of SAN LUIS OsisPo 27 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST ER 63-05(VTTM#2342-Cowan/French) CADocuments and SettingslslouserlDesktop\FINAL Initial Study 01-0406.doc �-6 tl A'tachment 5 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact ER#63-05 Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated to lighting and compliant with the MASP provisions have been incorporated into working drawings. City building inspectors will be responsible for assuring that all lighting is installed pursuant to the approved lighting plan. 2. Preparation and Implementation of"Comprehensive Biological Mitigation Program" Mitigation for wetland impacts. Mitigation for wetland impacts will be through a combination of on- and off-site mitigation, approved by the City, the DFG and the Corps. Further; in compliance with the MASP/AASP EIR, the subject VTM #2342 (Cowan) proposes the creation of Lot Z in an area designated by the MASP for "Open Space- Riparian" for the express purposes of achieving some of the necessary wetlands replacement mitigation area, as well as preservation of related biological habitat benefits. Mitigation for Impacts to Sensitive Species. None of these species are expected to be difficult to establish.City staff will work with the project sponsors in developing the details of the effort. Congdon Tarplant. Create compensating habitat in a suitable off-site location approved by the City. Mitigation for Impacts to Other Nesting Birds. Undertake surveys prior to initiation of construction activities;avoid construction activities within 100 feet of active nest sites until after young have fledged. Off Site Mitigation for Wetland Impacts. A further component of the biological mitigation program is the applicant's proposal to acquire (by fee, easement, or eminent domain) lands outside the bounds of the Western Enclave (designated by the MASP as "Open Space-Riparian" lands). The targeted property (lying south of Prado Road and owned by Unocal)is a low lying area that already naturally collects some area run-off and provides valuable habitat for certain special concern and R-T-E (rare, threatened, and endangered) species, and thus is beneficial to retain in its natural state. Pre-development run-off has resulted in seasonal flooding of Prado Road due to they currently deficient collection/distribution system to this natural drainage area south of Prado Road.. The Western Enclave applicants propose to acquire this off-site property designated for open space use by the MASP and utilize it beneficially for biological mitigation as well as a detention basin for pre- and post-Western Enclave development generated run-off. It is proposed that this basin be enhanced to accommodate the greater project-generated and pre- project run-off flows, and to increase its habitat value in the long term. The basin is proposed to be held and maintained by a Master Home Owners Association (MHOA) established initially for the Western Enclave area, and perhaps ultimately for the entire MASP as stipulated be done by the MASP. o Monitoring Program: Prior to approval of the final map, the applicant shall contact the City Natural Resource Manager for review and approval of the final lot and street design to assure that on-site natural resources are protected and preserved to the greatest extent required by the mitigation measures and consistent with requirements of the MASP and MASP/AASP EIR. Said design shall also be consistent with approvals required subsequent to this Tentative Map from State Dept. of Fish and Game and Army Corps of Engineers. Prior to any site preparation or construction activities,the applicant shall also initiate and complete for approval by the City pre-construction surveys for nesting birds and adhere to performance standard specified in the mitigation. Provisions for required off-site mitigation shall be coordinated with and approved by the City Natural Resource Manager prior to recordation of the Final Map.Periodic field inspections by City Staff during construction will be necessary to assure site development conforms to mitigation measures and conditions of approval. 3. Preparation and Implementation of"Traffic Reduction Program" In order for MASP/AASP EIR Mitigation Measure T-2.1 adopted with the certification of the MASP/RASP EIR in conjunction with the approval of the AASP in August, 2005 (Ref. City Council Resolution No. CRY OF SAN Luis OBISPO 28 INITIAL STUDY ENvIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST ER 63-05(VTTM#2342-Cowan/French) C:\Documents and Settings\slouser\Desktop\FINAL Initial Study 01-04-06.doc a_C/ea Attachlneflt 5 Issues, Discussion andSupporting Infomation Sources Sources potentially potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact ER#63-05 Issues unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated 9726, 2005 Series) to be brought forward to this site specific project stage, a transportation demand management program that demonstrates reduction of peak period travel by single-occupant vehicles shall be required of any employer within the subdivision with 25 or more employees. Said program shall incorporate all reasonably feasible measures or techniques, including those listed in the MASP/AASP EIR/General Plan Circulation, that encourage alternate modes other than single-occupant vehicles as the primary mode of transportation to the workplace and to travel during non-peak times. e Monitoring Program: Each business owner, upon employment of 25 or more employees, shall immediately prepare and submit, obtain approval from the City Public Works Director and implement the provisions of a Traffic Reduction Plan which demonstrates reduction of peak period travel consistent with requirements of the City General Plan Circulation Element Policies and Programs. City Staff shall periodically inspect the business to observe and assure that reduction techniques approved by the City are in place and adhered to by the business. Staff shall take any corrective or enforcement actions authorized by law to achieve compliance. 4. Preparation and Implementation of a "Construction-Related Hazardous Materials Manaeement Pian" As stipulated in the MASP/AASP EIR, this would be a plan identifying, when they are known, site/development- specific construction activities that will involve the hazardous materials. The plan shall be prepared before construction activities begin that involve hazardous materials and shall discuss proper handling and disposal of materials used or produced onsite, such as petroleum products, concrete, and sanitary waste. The plan will also outline a specific protocol to identify health risks associated with the presence of chemical compounds in the soil and/or groundwater and identify specific protective measures to be followed by the workers entering the work area. If the presence of hazardous materials is suspected or encountered during construction-related activities, the project proponent will cause Mitigation Measure HAZ-1.2 to be activated. Mitigation Measure HAZ-1.2.states: "The project proponent will complete a Phase I environmental site assessment for each proposed- public facility (e.g. streets, and buried infrastructure). If Phase I site assessments indicate a potential for soil andlor groundwater contamination within or adjacent to the road or utility alignments, a Phase II site assessment will be completed. The following Phase H environmental site assessments will be prepared specific to soil andlor groundwater contamination. a. Soil Contamination. For soil contamination, the Phase 11 site assessment will include soil sampling and analysis for anticipated contaminating substances. If soil contamination is exposed during construction, the San Luis Obispo Fire Department (SLOFD)will be notified and a work plan to characterize and possibly remove contaminated soil will be prepared, submitted and approved. b. Groundwater Contamination. For groundwater contamination, the Phase 11 assessment may include monitoringwell installation, groundwater sampling, and analysis for anticipated contaminating substances. If groundwater contaminated by potentially hazardous materials is expected to be extracted during dewatering, the SLOFD and the Central Coast RWQCB will be notified. A contingency plan to dispose of contaminated groundwater will be developed in agreement with the SLOFD and Central Coast RWQCB. Cry OF SAN Luis OBlspo 29 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKL1ST ER 63-05 (VTTM#2342-Cowan/French) C:\Documents and Settingslslouser\Desktop\FiNAL Initial Study 01-04-06.doc ;2_& 11 - Attachment 5 Issues, Discussion and.Suppori,,.g Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact ER#63-05 Issues unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated • Monitoring Program: The "Construction-Related Hazardous Materials Management Plan" will be required to be submitted to the City Community Development Department and Fire Department for review prior to commencement of any site preparation or construction work involving hazardous materials. No site preparation or construction work may commence before said plan has been approved by the City. Any site work commenced without City approval of said Plan will be subject to"Stop Work"(cease and desist)orders as may be issued under the authority of the City Fire Department. 5. Preparation and Implementation of an "Operations-Related Hazardous Materials Mana eg ment Plan" As stipulated in the MASP/AASP EIR, this would be a plan prepared by a project proponent identifying hazardous materials management practices as might be required by state and local laws and regulations regarding delivery, use, manufacture, and storage of any such regulated materials might be present on site for any operations-related activities. This plan would identify the proper handling and disposal of materials uses or produced onsite, such as petroleum products, concrete, and sanitary waste. By the filing of said Plan, the City Fire Department will be on notice to provide regular and routine fire and life-safety inspections to determine compliance with applicable health and safety codes. • Monitoring Program: The "Operations-Related Hazardous Materials Management Plan" will be required to be submitted by a project proponent to the City Community Development Department and City Fire Department for review prior to the establishment of any operations-related activities. CRY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 30 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST ER 63-05(VTTM#2342-Cowan/French) C:\Documents and Settingslslouser\Desktop\FINAL Initial Study 01-04-06.doc a -�y p��p pN p 'II Attachment 5 ��IIIIIII�IIIVIIII��I ��pll��p �IIIII III Clty Of SAn WIS OBISPO 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 February 2, 2006 . Craig Cowan 3580 Sacramento Drive, Suite 110 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 SUBJECT: TR and ER 63-05—392 Prado Road Consideration of a vesting tentative tract map to subdivide a 15-acre (approx.) site into 67 lots with 41 residential lots, 10 business park/office lots, 15 mixed use (residential and.office) lots, and 1 open space lot; and environmental review Dear Mr. Cowan: The Planning Commission, at its meeting of January 25, 2005, recommended that the City Council approve the vesting tentative tract map and mitigated negative declaration of environmental impact, based on the information noted in the attached resolution. The action of the Planning Commission is a recommendation to the City Council and, therefore, is not final. This matter has been tentatively scheduled for public hearing before the City Council on March 7, 2006. This date, however, should be verified with the City Clerk's office (805) 781-7102. . If you have any questions, please contact Pam Ricci at (805) 781-7178. Sincerely, Ronald Whisenan Deputy Community Development Director Development Review Attachment: Resolution No. 5441-06 cc: County of SLO Assessor's Office John French P.O. Box 1796 San Luis Obispo, CA 93406 OThe City of San Luis Obispo is committed to Include the disabled in all of its services,programs and activities. �� Telecommunications Device for the Deaf(805)781-7410. C.K RESOLUTION NO. 5441-06 A RESOLUTION OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF A VESTING TENATIVE TRACT MAP AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 392 PRADO ROAD (TR/ER 63-05; TRACT 2342) 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 January 25, 2006, for the purpose of considering TR/ER 63-05, a vesting tentative tract map subdividing an approximately 15-acre site into 67 lots; 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 bylaw; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed and considered the Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impact 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 vesting tentative tract map with exceptions, to the Subdivision Regulations: 1. The design of the vesting tentative tract map is consistent with the General Plan because the proposed subdivision respects existing site constraints (slope, creeks, wetlands, significant trees),will incrementally add to the City's residential housing inventory,result in parcels that meet density standards, and will be consistent with the density and lot sizes established by the Margarita Area Specific Plan. 2. The site is physically suited for the proposed type of development allowed in the R-1-SP, R- 2-SP,and O-SP zones: 3. The design of the subdivision will not conflict with easements for access through (or use of property within)the proposed subdivision. 4. The subdivision will.not have a significant adverse impact on the environment, subject to the mitigation measures of the Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) certified by the City Council on October 12, 2004 being incorporated into the project, the mitigation monitoring 02 --6/6 Planning Commission Rest )n No. 5441-06 1�-L i1i + �1 TR/ER 63-05 Page 2 program adopted with said EIR approval being followed and mitigation measures recommended herein. 5. A Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared by the Community Development Department on January 9, 2006. The Planning Commission finds and determines that the project's Mitigated Negative Declaration adequately addresses the potential significant environmental impacts of the proposed project. Section 2. Environmental Review. The Planning Commission does hereby recommend adoption of the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration with incorporation of the following mitigation measures: Mitigation Measures: 1. Reduction of Light and Glare In order for MASP/AASP EIR Mitigation Measure LU-7.1 as implemented by the MASP to be carried through to lot-specific development stage, a lighting plan that demonstrates compliance with Community Design Section 3.3 Lighting requirements of the MASP shall be submitted with other required plans for both the residential and commercial components of the project to the review and approval of the Architectural Review Commission (ARC). The lighting plan shall propose specific measures to limit the amount of light trespass associated with development within the project area including shielding and/or directional lighting methods to ensure that spillover light does not exceed 0.5 foot-candles at adjacent property lines. 2. Preparation and Implementation of"Comprehensive Biological Mitigation Program" Mitigation for wetland impacts. Mitigation for wetland impacts will be through a combination of on- and off-site mitigation,,approved by the City, the DFG and the Corps. Further, in compliance with the MASP/AASP EER, the subject VTM #2342 (Cowan) proposes the creation of Lot Z in an area designated by the MASP for "Open Space Riparian" for the express purposes of achieving some of the necessary wetlands replacement mitigation area, as well as preservation of related biological habitat benefits. Mitigation for Impacts to Sensitive Species. None of these species are expected to be difficult to establish. City staff will work with the project sponsors in developing the details of the effort. Congdon Tarplant. Create compensating habitat in a suitable off-site location approved by the City. Mitigation for Impacts to Other Nesting Birds Undertake surveys prior to initiation of construction activities; avoid construction activities within 100 feet of active nest sites, or within 300 feet for raptor nests,until after young have fledged.. Off Site Mitigation for Wetland Impacts. A further component of the biological mitigation program is the applicant's proposal to acquire (by fee, easement, or eminent a 67 A"Ac chilient 5 Planning Commission Res__Aon No. 5441-06 TRIER 63-05 Page 3 domain) lands outside the bounds of the Western Enclave (designated by the MASP as "Open Space-Riparian" lands). The targeted property (lying south of Prado Road and owned by Unocal) is a low lying area that already naturally collects some area run-off and provides valuable habitat for certain special concern and R-T-E (rare, threatened, and endangered) species, and thus is beneficial to retain in its natural state. Pre-development run-off has resulted in seasonal flooding of Prado Road due to they currently deficient collection/distribution system to this natural drainage area south of Prado Road. The Western Enclave applicants propose to acquire this off-site property designated for open space use by the MASP and utilize it beneficially for biological mitigation as well as a detention basin for pre- and post-Westem Enclave development generated run-off. It is proposed that this basin be enhanced to accommodate the greater project-generated and pre-project run-off flows, and to increase its habitat value in the long term. The basin is proposed to be held and maintained by a Master Home Owners Association (MHOA) established initially for the Western Enclave area, and perhaps ultimately for the entire MASP as stipulated be done by the MASP. 3. Preparation and Implementation of"Traffic Reduction Program" In order for MASP/AASP EIR Mitigation Measure T-2.1 adopted with the certification of the MASP/AASP EIR in conjunction with the approval of the AASP in August, 2005 (Ref. City Council Resolution No. 9726, 2005 .Series) to be brought forward to this site. specific project stage, a transportation demand management program that demonstrates reduction of peak period travel by single-occupant vehicles shall be required of any employer within the subdivision with 25 or more employees. Said program shall incorporate all reasonably feasible measures or techniques, including those listed in the MASP/AASP EIR/General Plan Circulation, that encourage alternate modes other than single-occupant vehicles as the primary mode of transportation to the workplace and to travel during non-peak times. 4. Preparation and Implementation of a "Construction-Related Hazardous Materials Management Plan" As stipulated in the MASP/AASP EIR, this would be a plan identifying, when they are known, site/development-specific construction activities that will involve the hazardous materials. The plan shall be prepared before construction activities begin that involve hazardous materials and shall discuss proper handling and disposal of materials used or produced onsite, such as petroleum products, concrete, and sanitary waste. The plan will also outline a specific protocol to identify health risks associated with the presence of chemical compounds in the soil and/or groundwater and identify specific protective measures to be followed by the workers entering the work area If the presence of hazardous materials is suspected or encountered during construction-related activities, the project proponent will cause Mitigation Measure HAZ-12 to be activated. Mitigation Measure HAZ-1.2 states: "The project proponent will complete a Phase 1 environmental site assessment for each proposed public facility (e.g. streets and buried infrastructure). If Phase 1 site assessments indicate a potential for soil and/or groundwater contamination within or adjacent to the road or utility alignments, a Phase 11 site assessment will be completed Planning Commission ResL ..on No. 5441-06 ktach e.nt 5 TR/ER 63-05 Page 4 The following Phase 11 environmental site assessments will be prepared specific to soil and/or groundwater contamination. a. Soil Contamination. For soil contamination, the Phase II site assessment will include soil sampling and analysis for anticipated contaminating substances. If soil contamination is exposed during construction, the San Luis Obispo Fire Department (SLOFD) will be notified and a work plan to characterize and possibly remove contaminated soil will be prepared submitted and approved. b. Groundwater Contamination. For groundwater contamination, the Phase II assessment may include.monitoring well installation, groundwater sampling, and analysis for anticipated contaminating substances. If groundwater contaminated by potentially hazardous materials is expected to be extracted during dewatering, the SLOFD and the Central Coast RWQCB will be notified. A contingency plan to dispose of contaminated groundwater will be developed in agreement with the SLOFD and Central Coast RWQCB. 5. Preparation and Implementation of an "Operations-Related Hazardous Materials Management Plan" As stipulated in the MASP/AASP EIF, this would be a plan prepared by a project proponent identifying hazardous.materials management practices as might be required by state and local laws and regulations regarding delivery, use, manufacture, and storage of any such regulated materials might be present on site for any operations-related activities. This plan would identify the proper handling and disposal of materials uses or produced onsite, such as petroleum products,concrete, and sanitary waste. By the filing of said Plan, the City Fire Department will be on notice to provide regular and routine fire and life- safety inspections to determine compliance with applicable health and-safety codes. Section 3. Recommendation. The Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council approval of application TR/ER 65-05 with incorporation of the following conditions and code requirements into the project: Conditions: Streets 1. Prior to recordation of the vesting final map, or any phase thereof, the subdivider shall present a detailed schedule and delivery "Plan", to be approved by the Public Works Director, for the improvement of Prado Road between its eastern terminus at the current City boundary and Broad Street. For the purposes of this condition, the Prado Road Extension (PRE) shall be referenced in two segments. The first segment shall be the new roadway from the present easterly terminus (City boundary) of Prado Road extending easterly to the intersection of proposed "M" Street on Tract 2353 (the "Sierra Gardens (DeBlauw) property as shown in the Margarita Area Specific Plan (MASP)). This first segment shall be referred to as the "Prado Road Extension - Western Enclave" segment (PRE-WE). The second segment shall be from the Prado Road/"M" Street intersection on Tract 2353, easterly, to Broad Street. This second segment shall be referred to as the "Prado Road Extension "M" .=;z 69 Planning Commission Resi,,,.don No. 5441-06 A"tRCiEi iPll# 5 TR/ER 63-05 Page 5 Street to Broad" segment (PRE-MB). At a minimum, the Plan shall address the following milestones for right-of-way acquisition, design and construction: a. At the time of submittal of any plans for final map and/or improvement plan checking: The subdivider shall submit construction drawings and specifications for the full width improvement of the "Prado Road Extension - Western Enclave" segment (PRE-WE), and shall submit schematic plans for the full width improvement of the "Prado Road Extension - "M" Street to Broad" segment (PRE-MB). The final map and improvement plans will follow approximately 6 months after the date of the approval of the Tentative Map. During this time the City as well as area property owners will be involved in the review of updated drafts and the selection of the proper engineering company as well as overseeing the design. Following Tentative Map approval, the Western Enclave Property Owners (WEPO) and the City will establish a Stakeholder Group comprised of MASP property owners and public utility companies, etc. to augment/expedite the conceptual design of the PRE-MB component of the Roadway.. b. The PRE-WE plans shall include 4 travel lanes, bike paths and lanes, sidewalks, utilities, storm drainage, landscaping, center median improvements and other necessary street appurtenances or as otherwise approved by the Director of Public Works. c. Off-site dedication of property for public right-of-way purposes is necessary to facilitate the construction of Prado Road. The subdivider shall exhaust all avenues available to acquire said public right-of-way dedication. In the event the subdivider is unable to acquire said property, the City Council will lend the subdivider its powers of condemnation to acquire the off-.site right-of-way dedication, including any necessary slope and drainage easements. If condemnation is required, the subdivider shall agree to pay all costs associated with the off-site right-of-way acquisition (including attorney and court costs). The subdivider is responsible for construction of the-necessary street improvements and striping,to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director.) d. Subject to the availability of necessary right-of-way, the subdivider shall complete construction of the PRE-WE segment prior to occupancy of the 50th unit within the subdivision. If right-of-way isnot available at the time of approval of the final map, the subdivider may submit a plan for providing interim, secondary access to the WEPO properties that is subject to approval by the Public Works Director. This secondary access shall be completed prior to granting of occupancy permits and may be required to be removed at a later time when additional access is provided from adjacent properties. e. At the time of recording the final map, the subdivider shall bond for the completion of the engineering plans and specifications, environmental review, if necessary, and associated construction permits for the PRE-MB segment. The subdivider shall complete the construction drawings and specifications for the PRE-MB segment on or before the 100th unit is occupied in the Western Enclave (approx. I year after Tentative Map Approval). If, at the time of Final Map approval, a detailed engineered cost estimate for the PRE-MB section of roadway has not yet been completed, the City may require that the developer (property owners) sign a waiver not opposing the possible future formation of a community facilities district or other such financing mechanism, that would fund any Planning Commission Resi on No. 5441-06 ii ��; TWER 63-05 Page 6 final project costs for the construction of PRE-MB that are not contained in the Margarita Area Specific Plan Impact Fee estimates. f. Subject to the availability of necessary right-of-way, the subdivider shall, at a minimum; (1)initiate the construction of the northern half, or some modified section of the roadway subject to approval by the Director of Public Works, of the PRE-MB segment prior to occupancy of the 200th residential unit in the Western Enclave (approx. 3 years after Tentative Map Approval) , and(2) complete construction of the northern half of the PRE- MB segment prior to occupancy of the 300th residential unit in the Western Enclave (approx. .5 years after Tentative Map Approval). If right-of-way is not available at the time of requests for occupancy, the City will determine if public acquisition of said right- of-way is necessary or the subdivider will be required to submit an interim plan for providing secondary access the Western Enclave that shall be approved by the Public Works Director. g. As a part of the submittal of the plan for improvements to Prado Road, the subdivider shall submit a reimbursement proposal and schedule for the costs associated with the environmental, engineering and construction of Prado Road in its entirety, as established by the MASP. Subject to final approval of the City, the proposal may include fee credits and/or other appropriate mechanisms that may be applied against non-TIF city-wide and MASP impact fees as development occurs, to facilitate completion of the Prado Road extension. h. A second access off Prado to service VTTM 2353 (DeBlauw) can be incorporated on an interim basis at the time of construction of PRE-WE and will remain in place until PRE- MB is completed and an additional access point is provided at an adopted MASP location. 2. Margarita Area Specific Plan Impact Fees, as adopted by the City of San Luis Obispo, shall be paid prior to issuance of each building permit subject to condition l.g. above. 3. The public improvement plans for VTTM 2353, VTTM 2428 and VTTM 2342 shall consider the proposed or required phasing to be completed by the combined development known as Margarita Area Specific Plan western enclave. The public improvement plans for each subdivision shall include any offsite improvements as considered necessary by the Director of Public Works to provide a reasonable transition between the subdivisions in the case that one project is developed before another. The scope of required improvements shall be approved to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director. 4. The final design, location, and number of traffic calming measures including bulb-outs, choke-downs, tabletops, roundabouts, neck-downs, etc. shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Director. Plans submitted for review shall include a truck turning diagram demonstrating a truck's ability to negotiate the traffic calming features. Additional or alternative traffic control measures may be required to comply with the Specific Plan objective to "foster traffic volumes and speeds that will be compatible with the neighborhood." 5. Pursuant to the Margarita Area Specific Plan, traffic volume and speeds shall be monitored after development. The subdivider shall retain a qualified traffic consultant to conduct traffic e-�L-7/ Planning Commission Resi_':.on No. 5441-06 Attachment 5 TR/ER 63-05 Page 7 counts throughout the subdivision at locations approved by the Public Works Director. If traffic speeds or volumes exceed City standards during counts taken by the subdivider one year after final occupancy of complete build-out of the subdivision or acceptance of public improvements whichever occurs later, the subdivider shall be responsible for installing additional traffic calming measures to the approval of the Public Works Director to reduce volume and speeds to comply with City standards. 6. The subdivision design shall include directional curb ramps wherever possible. The inclusion of bulbouts at directional curb ramp locations is encouraged to decrease the roadway width to be crossed by a pedestrian. 7. Prior to approval. of improvement plans, alternative paving materials proposed within the public right-of-way shall be approved by the Public Works Director. Alternative paving materials shall be maintained by the Homeowner's Association. 8. Common areas (except Lot Z-Wetlands Replacement), landscaped parkways and Class I pathways (other than Prado Road) shall be owned and maintained in perpetuity for public use by the Master Homeowner's Association. Water meters for common landscape areas including but not limited to parkways, medians, roundabouts and pathway corridors are subject to water impact fees and shall be paid for by the subdivider. On&Off-Site Improvements 9. With respect to all off-site improvements, prior to filing of the.Final Map, the Subdivider(s) shall either: a. Clearly demonstrate their right to construct the improvements by showing title or interest in the property in a form acceptable to the City Engineer;or b. Request in writing that the subdivider has exhausted all reasonable efforts to acquire. interest to the subject property and that the City assist in acquiring the property required for the construction of such improvements and exercise its power of eminent domain in accordance with Government Code Section 66462.5 to do so, if necessary. Subdivider shall also enter into an agreement with the City to pay all costs of such acquisition, including, but.not limited to, all costs associated with condemnation. Said agreement shall .be in a form acceptable to the City Engineer and the City Attorney. If condemnation proceedings are required, the Subdivider shall, no later that 90 days prior to recordation of the Final Map (final Parcel Map), submit, in a form acceptable to the City Engineer, the following documents regarding the property to be acquired; i. Property legal description and sketch, stamped and signed by a Licensed Land Surveyor or Civil Engineer authorized to practice land surveying in the State of California. ii. Preliminary title report including chain of title and litigation guarantee; iii. Appraisal of the property by a City approved appraiser. In the course of obtaining such appraisal, the property owner(s) must be given an opportunity to accompany the appraiser during any inspection of the property or acknowledge in writing that they �-- 7a Planning Commission Reson No. 5441-06 - i-^xChlil�(lt rJ TRIER 63-05 Page 8 knowingly waived the right to do so. iv. Copies of all written correspondence with off-site property owners including purchase summary of formal offers and counter offers to purchase at the appraised price. v. Prior to submittal of the aforementioned documents for City Engineer approval, the Subdivider shall deposit with the City all or a portion of the anticipated costs, as determined by the City Attorney, of the condemnation proceedings. The City does not and cannot guarantee.that the necessary property rights can be acquired or will, in fact,be acquired. All necessary procedures of law would apply and would have to be followed. 10. Should the final design for the stormwater detention basin require the installation of a stormwater pumping station in order to provide an outlet for the detention basin, the final pump station design shall be in accordance with Section 8 of the WWW-DDM and the following" a. The pump station shall be a triplex design. b. The pump station shall be designed to discharge at the 100 year pre-developed rate with all three pumps running, the 10 year pre-developed rate with two pumps running and the 2 year pre-developed rate with only one pump in operation. At no time shall the pump discharge rate exceed that of the pre-development flow rates for each of the design storms. Or the pump station shall consist for a variable speed drive that matches the required discharge regime. c. The pump discharge shall be designed such that no erosion damage will occur. d. The pump shall discharge into a natural waterway or into an easement to which the subdividers, their heirs and/or assigns have rights to. 11. The final subdivision design shall incorporate stormwater quality BMPs with the January 2005 edition of the Engineering Standards, shall be designed to treat the stormwater runoff from all developed surfaces excluding rooftops but including all private and public streets, and shall be subject to the approval of the City Engineer. 12. The final design of any stormwater detention or treatment facilities shall incorporate all recommendations from the final geotechnical report into the design of said facilities. The final geotechnical report shall address the effect, if any, of detaining stormwater in close proximity to the existing soil contamination. 13. The final design of the proposed off-site stormwater detention facilities shall also take into consideration the effects on 100 year floodplain (as identified as an undesignated "A Zone' on the FEMA FIRM Panel (as modified by the LOMR dated August 23, 2003) for San Luis Obispo County, from the unnamed tributary to the East Fork of San Luis Obispo Creek and shall establish the base flood elevation,process a CLOMR or CLOMR-F with FEMA prior to approval of any plans for ground disturbing activities; then process the final documents once Grading is complete. The design of any stormwater facilities shall be in compliance with the WVvW-DDM requirement for construction within a Special Floodplain Management Zone; a-73 Planning Commission ResL.-join No. 5441-06 Attachment 5 TRIER 63-05 Page 9 i.e.no significant net loss of floodplain storage. 14. The subdivider shall secure the rights for the regional stormwater detention basin prior to or concurrently with the final subdivision maps. Should the subdividers be unsuccessful in acquiring off' site property for the construction of the stormwater facilities, the subdivider shall either: a) revise the maps to reflect appropriately sized on-site detention of stormwater pursuant to the City's Waterway Management Plan Drainage Design Manual or, b) request in writing that the City assist in securing the property following procedures outlined above. All costs associated with securing said rights including the eminent domain process shall be borne by the subdividers. 15. Prior to the approval of the public improvement plans the subdivider(s) shall have received an approved grading permit from the County of San Luis Obispo a written waiver for the construction of any facilities outside the City's corporate limits. Should San Luis .Obispo County defer to the City for the processing of the grading permits for property outside the City corporate boundary, the subdivider(s) shall process the grading permit with the City Public Works Department concurrently with the improvements plans and pay all fees associated said grading in accordance with the Public Works Department Fee schedule for plan checking and inspection in effect at the time of permit processing. 16.Improvement plans shall show how project streets and sidewalks are connected with existing improvements on Calle Malva Calle Jazmin and Prado Road to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director. Plans shall also show how driveway access is maintained on adjacent lots on Calle Malva and Calle Jazmin. 17. The parking lot designs shown on the tentative map are not approved as part of the subdivision. Final design of parking lots shall be reviewed and approved by the City's Architectural Review Commission. Final maps shall establish reciprocal access to/from adjacent parking lots and shall be designed to comply with City standards. 18.The public improvement plans shall show Prado Road street lights shall be located within the center landscaped median rather than along each side of the roadway. 19.The public improvement plans shall show the fire hydrant shown within Prado Road shall be relocated outside of the roadway. 20. The public improvement plans shall show the landscaped roundabout proposed on Prado Road shall be designed to comply with Caltrans Standards Design Information Bulletin 80 and FHWA roundabout guidelines and address pedestrian and bicycle crossing areas. 21.The public improvement plans shall show the final design and location of the bus pullouts and transit facilities on "C" Street coordinated with Tract 2353 (DeBlauw) and approved by the Public Works Director. Plans submitted for review shall include a bus turning diagram demonstrating a bus's ability to negotiate the turnout. The final design shall also include bus stop improvements and indicate how access to adjacent parcels is provided. 22.The public improvement plans shall show the private alleys are designed to accommodate both garbage truck and emergency vehicle access, including requiredturnaround, structural section and geometrics. The subdivider shall show the alleys within a public access -7Y Planning Commission Resi.—ion No. 5441-06 Attac lir'te111 5 TR/ER 63-05 Page 10 easement on the Final Map. 23. Prior to final map approval, the proposed Class 1 pathway between "A" Street and Prado Road shall terminate at the Prado Road Class 1 pathway and not provide a direct connection to the Prado Road roadway. 24. A portion of the westerly half of the proposed subdivision is within the area shown on the San Luis Obispo County FEMA FIRM panel as being subject to inundation from flood waters due to the runoff from the 100 year storm. Since the area of inundation does not have a base flood elevation(BFE)established,the subdivider shall establish the 100 year BFE, and prior to the approval of plans for any ground disturbing activities. The subdivider shall process either a• CLOMR or CLOMR-F through FEMA to allow for construction of both residential and non-residential structures. The analysis required for the CLOMR/CLOMR-F shall show that the proposed finish floors of the structures are at least one foot above the 100 year flood elevation and does not significantly reduced the amount of floodplain storage per the WWMP-DDM. Once construction is complete, but prior to final occupancy, the subdivider/developer shall finalize the CLOMR with a final Letter of Map Change (LOMC) through FEMA. 25. Vehicular access rights along Prado Road shall be dedicated to the City. 26. The subdivider shall install private street lighting along the private internal streets per City standards and off-siteup blic street lighting along Prado Road leading to and from the development, as determined by the Director of Public Works. All public street lighting installed by the developer shall include the luminaires as well as all wiring and conduit necessary to energize the light standards from PG&E's point of service. Water, Sewer&Utilities 27. The subdivider's engineer shall submit water demand and wastewater generation calculations so that the City can make a determination as to the adequacy of the supporting infrastructure. If it is discovered that an off-site deficiency exists, the owner will be required to mitigate the deficiency as a part of the overall project. 28. Water meters shall be grouped in manifold pairs wherever possible, to the satisfaction of the Utilities Engineer. 29. The water mains, sewer mains, and sewer force mains when attached or included with a bridge, shall be sleeved and encased within the bridge structure or located above the lowest point so as to protect the pipelines from the high water flow. 30. Sewer backwater valves may be required on some lots. The subdivider's engineer shall apply the City's criteria to the design to determine which lots will need backwater valves on the sewer laterals,per City and UPC standards. 31. In areas where the pressure in the water system exceeds 80 psi, the service line shall include a pressure regulator downstream of the water meter, where the water service enters the building. -7s Planning Commission Resp. .Sn No. 5441-06 1=� +c?Cl'liilc^,ilt TR/ER 63-05 Page 11 32. The sewer and water mains shall be located approximately 2m on either side of the street centerline. All final grades and alignments of all public water, sewer and storm drains (including service laterals and meters) are subject to modifications to the satisfaction of the . Public Works Director and Utilities Engineer. 33. The subdivision layout and preliminary utility plans shall include provisions for irrigating common areas, parks, detention basins, and other large landscape areas with recycled water. Appropriately sized reclaimed water mains shall be designed and constructed from the City's trunk system to these irrigation areas. If other use areas exist beyond the proposed subdivision, the mains shall be appropriately sized to provide for future use areas and extended to the boundary of the tract. If reclaimed water is not available at the time the recycled water is needed, the system shall be designed and constructed to reclaimed water standards, and temporarily connected to the City's potable water system in the area of the anticipated connection to the reclaimed water system. 34. The well on Lot Q shall only be used for irrigation purposes on Lot Q or otherwise shall be properly abandoned in compliance with all applicable regulations. Grading &Drainage 35. The final grading plan shall include provisions to comply with the soils engineer's recommendations, including mitigating cut slopes, debris flows'uphill of the lots and truck access. The soils engineer shall supervise all grading operations and certify the stability of the slopes prior to acceptance of the tract and/or issuance of building permits. 36. Clearing of any portion of the existing creek and drainage channels, including any required tree removals, and any necessary erosion repairs shall be to done the satisfaction of the Public Works Director, Corp. of Engineers and the Dept. of Fish& Game. Certain trees may require safety pruning by a certified Arborist as determined by the City Arborist. Homeowners' Association 37.The subdivider shall submit CC&R's with the Final Map that establishes a "Margarita Area Master Homeowner's Association" (Master HOA). The Master HOA shall include the subdivider's tract, and provide for the automatic annexation of all subsequent potential tracts within the Margarita Specific Plan area. The subsequent tracts may, at their sole discretion, annex to the Master HOA, or demonstrate to the city's satisfaction how many they may form their own, independent HOA, to manage their common area improvements. The Master HOA, and any and all subsequent HOA's not a part of the Master HOA, shall provide for maintenance of all common area drainage channels, on-site and/or sub-regional drainage basins and conveyance improvements and the Margarita median landscaping and trail network. The Master HOA shall also annually maintain a 30' wide wildland fuel reduction zone along all open space lots abutting developments within the MASP. The CC&R's shall be approved by the City Attorney prior to recordation of the Final Map, or any phase thereof." 38.The Master Homeowners' Association (MHOA) shall own and maintain all that portion of the Lot Z designated as "Wetlands Mitigation". Maintenance responsibilities shall include maintenance of any cut or fill slopes required to make the swale and berm. The storm —74e Planning Commission Rero-._.ion No. 5441-06 TRIER 63-05 Page 12 drainage system within the private streets shall be privately owned and maintained by the MHOA (to be included in CC& R's). Those open space areas that accommodate trails intended for public use shall be maintained for public access in perpetuity. 39. Subdivider shall prepare conditions, covenants, and restrictions (CC&R's) to be approved by the City Attorney and Community Development Director prior to final map approval. CC&R's shall contain the following provisions that pertain to all lots: a. Creation of a master homeowners' association if none exists or annexation into an existing MHOA, if one exists. b. No parking except in approved,designated spaces. C. No change in city-required provisions of the CC&R's without prior City Council approval. d. Provision for all of the maintenance responsibilities outlined in various conditions below. e. The subdivider shall submit common driveway agreements for those lots with shared access including maintenance provisions, to the approval of the Community Development Director at the time of final map approval. Paths/Open Space 40. The multi-use paths should be 12 feet in width as called for in the Specific Plan, however the Natural Resource Manager and Public Works Director may approve a narrower path in locations that will only be used by pedestrians only or where environmental conditions warrant a narrower path based on in-the-field consideration. 41. Final design(including materials, location,width, bridging and lighting)of pathways shall be reviewed and approved by the Natural Resources Manager and Public Works Director. Air Quality 42. All activities associated with construction and operation for the subdivision map shall comply at all times with all current APCD Rules and Regulations as applicable, including but not limited to PM-10, NOx emissions, Best Available Control Technologies, construction activity management plans,and phasing techniques. Housing Programs 43. To provide one half of the required affordable units for Tentative Tract 2342,three units shall be constructed for low- and moderate-income households (2 moderate, 1 low income) in the R-1 and/or R-2 zones. These units shall be intennixed throughout Tmet.2342 rather than a separate enclave of three units. These "affordable" units shall be comparable in appearance and quality to the market-rate units. This condition shall become null and void upon the land dedication and completion of associated access/infrastructure improvements for Lot 105 of Tentative. Tract 2353. a -77 Planning Commission Reso,....on No. 5441-063ii'ent 5 TR/ER 63-05 Page 13 44.To provide the other half of the required affordable units for Tract 2342, three units shall be constructed for low-and-moderate-income households (2 moderate, 1 low income) in the R-1 and/or R-2 zones. These units shall be intermixed throughout Tract 2342 rather than a separate enclave of three units. These "affordable"units shall be comparable in appearance and quality to the market-rate units. This condition shall become null and void upon the land dedication and completion of associated access/infrastructure improvements for Lot 147 of Tentative Tract 2428. 45. The Inclusionary Housing requirement for the BPO property shall be met prior to final map approval. Planning Requirements 46.Bulb outs at `17' intersections need to be added to the straight leg "crossing the `T" and elongated such that pedestrian crossings are at 90 degrees to the opposing bulb out transitions for the intersecting street leg. 47. Bulb-outs shall be provided at alley access points to street to provide line of sight where red curbing would otherwise be needed. 48. All lighting within the subdivision shall comply with the lighting standards contained in the San Luis Obispo Community Design Guidelines and as further stipulated in the Mitigation Measures listed below. 49. In order to be consistent with the requirements of the Margarita Area Specific Plan and County Airport Land Use Plan, the property owner shall grant an avigation easement for the benefit and protection of the City of San Luis Obispo,the County of San Luis Obispo and the San Luis Obispo County Airport via an avigation easement document prior to the recordation of the final map. 50. In the event archaeological resources are discovered in conjunction with a constriction project, all activities shall cease and the Community Development Department shall be notified so that the procedures required by state law may be applied. 51.New development shall implement all feasible measures to minimize the use of conventional energy for space heating and cooling,water heating and illumination by means of proper design and orientation,including the provision and protection of solar exposure. 52. As set forth in the Margarita Area Specific Plan, there shall be a minimum setback of 157 feet for new residential uses from the centerline of Prado Road. 53. 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. 54. For interior streets (not Prado Road), a 15-foot public street yard shall be allowed for homes and a 20-foot street yard for garages with doors facing the public street. —7O Planning Commission Reso_ .in No. 5441-06 TWER 63-05 Page 14 Code Requirements: 1. Traffic impact and water and wastewater impact fees are required to be paid as a condition of issuance of building permits. 2. The property is tributary to the Laguna Sewer Lift Station. Appropriate Lift Station Fees shall be paid prior to the final map approval. 3. Appropriate backflow prevention will be necessary on any connection to the City water system if the property includes an active well. 4. EPA Requirement: General Construction Activity Storm Water Permits are required for all storm water discharges associated with a construction activity where clearing, grading and excavation results in land disturbance of five or more acres. Storm water discharges of less than five acres, but which is part of a larger common plan of development or sale, also require a permit. Permits are required until the construction is complete. To be covered by a General Construction Activity Permit, the owner(s) of land where construction activity occurs must submit a completed "Notice of Intent" (NOI) form, with the appropriate fee, to the State Water Board. 5. The subdivision design shall comply with the City's grading ordinance. 6. Street trees shall be planted along the private street per City Standards (the number of trees is determined by one tree per 35 linear feet of street frontage). 7. All boundary monuments, lot comers and centerline intersections, BC's. EC's, etc., shall be tied to the City's Horizontal Control Network. At least two control points shall be used and a tabulation of the coordinates shall be submitted with the final map or parcel map. All coordinates submitted shall be based on the City coordinate system. A 3.5" diameter computer floppy disk, containing the appropriate data compatible with AutoCAD (Digital Interchange Format, DXF) for Geographic Information System (GIS) purposes, shall be submitted to the City Engineer. 8. The final map, public improvement plans and specifications shall use the International System of Units(metric system). The English System of Units may be used on the final map where necessary (e.g. - all record data shall be entered on the map in the record units, metric translations should be in parenthesis),to the approval of the City Engineer. 9. Access shall be in accordance with Article 9 of the California Fire Code (CFC). Access roads shall have an unobstructed width of not less than 20 feet and an unobstructed vertical clearance of 13' 6". Access roads shall be designed and maintained to support the imposed loads of a 60,000 pound fire apparatus and shall be provided with a.surface so as to provide all-weather.driving capabilities. All cul-de-sacs shall be minimum 40 foot radius. 10. Approved address numbers shall be placed on all new buildings in such a position to be plainly visible and legible from the street fronting the property. Numbers shall be a minimum of 5"high x ''/:"stroke and be on a contrasting background. [UFC 901.4.4] 11. Water Supplies and fire hydrants shall be provided in accordance with applicable articles of the CFC. An approved water supply capable of providing the required fire flow for fire - 79 Planning Commission Reso._ on No. 5441-06 Al achfi ent 5 TR/ER 63-05 Page 15 protection is required. The fire flow shall be determined using applicable Appendices of the CFC. 12. Fire protection systems shall be installed in accordance with the CFC and the California Building Code. An approved NFPA system will be required for this project. 13. Rooms or areas in commercial buildings containing controls for air-handling systems, automatic fire-protection systems, or other diction, suppression or control elements shall be identified for use by the fire department and shall be located in the same area. A sign shall be provided on the door to the room or-area stating "Fire Sprinkler Riser" and "Fire Alarm Control Panel" 14. A Knox Box shall be provided on the outside of the Fire Sprinkler Riser Room with a key to the room for commercial buildings. 15. Portable fire extinguishers, rated 2A, 10 BC, shall be mounted within 75' of travel and at each exit within commercial buildings. 16. Fire hydrants shall be spaced per SLO-FD Guidelines (placement with Fire Department approval) and shall be capable of supplying the required fire-flows. On motion by Commissioner Loh, seconded by Commissioner Carter, and on the following roll call vote: AYES: Commrs. Loh, Carter, McCoy, Christianson, Miller NOES: None REFRAIN: Commr. Osborne VACANCY: One The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 25'h day of January 2006. onald4rhisenandAecretary Planning Commission .2 6 Attachment 6 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT rrEM# z BY: Mary Beatie, Contract Sr. Planner, TPG Consulting, Inc. MEETING DATE: January. 25,2006 FROM: Ron Whisenand,Deputy Director, Development Review FILE NUMBER: TR/ER 65-05, Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 2428-King PROJECT ADDRESS: 3000 Calle Malva, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 SUBJECT Consideration of a Vesting Tentative Tract Map #2428 to create a total of 148 lots on approximately 99 acres, located adjacent and to the north of existing single family development known as El Camino Estates along Margarita Avenue east of South Higuera Road and adjacent and easterly of the Chumash Village Mobile Home Park fronting on South Higuera Street. RECOMMENDATION Recommend to the City Council approval of the Vesting Tentative Tract Map VTM #2428, and mitigated negative declaration of environmental impact for the project, based on the findings, and subject to the mitigation measures, conditions, and code requirements included in the attached resolution. BACKGROUND Situation/Previous Review: On October 12, 2004 the City Council certified the Final EIR for and approved the Margarita Area Specific Plan (MASP), by Resolution No. 9615 (2004 series). This action by the City Council included approval of both text and map amendments to the. City's General Plan, rezoning the subject site to R-1-SP (Low Density Residential), R-2-SP (Medium Density Residential), R-3-SP (Medium High-Density Residential), C/OS/SP (Conservation/Open Space) and C/OS-40-SP (Conservation/Open Space-40-acre minimum). The MASP Final EIR contained numerous mitigation measures which are required be brought forward and incorporated into the tiered environmental assessment prepared for this site specific project. The applicant is now requesting that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council approval of the vesting tentative tract map showing a 148-lot subdivision. Data Summary Address: 3000 Calle Malva, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Applicant: John E. & Carole D. King (owner& subdivider) Representatives: TEC Civil Engineering Consultants; Althouse &Meade; Inc. Environmental status: A Final EIR for the Margarita Area Specific Plan, which included the subject site was certified by the City Council on October 12, 2004. A subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration, tiered to the prior FEIR is recommended for the site-specific project VTM#2428. a�� AttachMent 6 Tract#2428-Vesting Tentative Map(King) Planning Commission Agenda Report Page 2 Project Description: The applicant has submitted a Vesting Tentative Map VTM #2428 proposing to create a total of 148 lots designated as follows in accordance with the MASP and the adopted implementing zoning districts: • 141 lots for single family residential development; 14 at low density in the R-1-SP zone, 127 at medium density in the R-2-SP zone (the westerly-most 16 lots will be restricted to detached single-family residences) • 1 lot designated for condominium medium-high density residential development (a portion of the required Affordable Housing Program; the other portion is proposed in VTM #2353 (Sierra Gardens/DeBlauw) to be developed by the Housing Authority or other appropriate entity. • 5 lots for "Open Space-Riparian" (drainage ways) in the C/OS-SP zones for common ownership by a Home Owners Association, and • 1 lot for "Open Space" (upper area of South Street Hills) in the C/OS-40-SP zone (40 acre-minimum) dedicated to the City. Approval of a vesting tentative map confers a "vested right" to develop in substantial compliance with the ordinances, policies and standards in effect when the application was determined complete on November 14, 2005 per Chapter 16.34 (Vesting Tentative Map) of the City's Municipal Code and Sections 66474.2 and 66498.1 of the California Government Code (Subdivision Map Act). Lot 147, proposed for 24 units of affordable housing development, will be dedicated to the Housing Authority as soon as infrastructure (street access, utilities, etc.) is completed for that parcel, and before recordation of the Final Map. The precise development proposal for the condominium Lot 147 will be processed at a later date; however, such development is to be consistent with the Affordable Housing Program included with this VTM proposal as approved by the City Community Development Director(see below for further details.) The project also proposes bike/pedestrian ways throughout the subdivision and traffic calming features to promote the pedestrian friendly environment envisioned by the MASP. The proposed open space lots achieve biological and drainage mitigation required by the MASP FEIR, as well as incorporates opportunities for passive recreation amenities for the future residents of the subdivision as stipulated by the MASP. EVALUATION Land Use: The residential and open space lots are located and sized in accordance with the low density, medium density residential, medium-high density, and open space land use designations and provisions of the MASP applicable to the subject site. The overall medium density residential density of this subdivision is approximately 8 units per acre which is on the lower end of the a -�a Attachment 6 Tract#2428-Vesting Tentative Map(King) Planning Commission Agenda Report Page 3 range of 8-16 desired by the Plan and under the "target" density established of 12 units per acre. Staff has considered this aspect of the proposal against the competing demand of reducing grading and finds the lower density in this more sloping site to be acceptable. Higher density would result in more lots of a smaller size resulting in potentially more grading. Traffic and Circulation: VTM #2428 proposes access to the site from South Higuera Street via the planned northerly extension of Calle Malva from Margarita Avenue through the existing El Camino Estates subdivision adjacent to the south. After the easterly extension of Prado Road is constructed pursuant to the MASP and recommended conditions of approval, the site will ultimately have access to Prado Road via Calle Malva extending south through VTM#2342 (Cowan/French) and via "D', "F', and "M" Streets extending south through VTM #2353 (DeBlauw). Once Prado Road is constructed the site will also have access to Broad Street to the east. The location of, these accesses to the site as well as other proposed streets to complete circulation internal to the subject VTM#2428, are all located in accordance with the Circulation/ Plan of the MASP. Pedestrian and Bike Paths: Consistent with the MASP, Class I shared pedestrian/bicycle paths are proposed within Open Space Lots 144& 148 connecting across "G"Street to Lot 146, the 71- acre lot dedicated to the City for public open space. Conditions of approval require special treatments at "G" Street to demarcate the roadway crossings. The paths will thereby be linked to the established trail system along the South Hills. These paths may be narrowed in specified locations to no less than 8 feet based upon recommendations by the City Natural Resource Manager in order to accommodate protection of or avoidance of interference with special concern species, in accordance with the stipulations of Biological Mitigation Program for compliance with MASP FEIR mitigation. Street Develoament: - All streets within the subdivision will be public streets; no private streets are proposed, except those which may ultimately be proposed within the affordable housing Lot 147. - Construction of streets to access the subdivision (Calle Malva, "D"; and "F' Streets will be conditioned to occur in relation to timing of construction of "D" and "M" Streets in VTM #2353 (Siena Gardens/DeBlauw) such that either Calle Malva or "D" Street and/or "F' and "M" Street will provide primary access to the site initially. - Although bulb-outs are proposed fairly liberally throughout the proposed subdivision and are certainly an appropriate device to achieve traffic calming as required by the MASP, there may be an opportunity to utilize a small landscaped traffic circle at the intersection of "D" and "E" Streets within this tract instead of bulb-outs at the four comers. A condition of approval has been recommended to allow for this option. Geologic\Grading• The subject site (particularly that portion proposed for residential development) is essentially -�3 Attachment 6 Tract#2428-Vesting Tentative Map(King) Planning Commission Agenda Report Page 4 situated at the toe or lower lying inclines of the south-facing South Hills. It is the more steeply sloping site of the three proposed Western Enclave developments. As such, grading will likely be the most extensive on this site. To minimize grading, the lots and streets have been laid out to follow the natural gradient of the site. Also, the subject map proposes about 25% of the subdivision (about 40 lots) will utilize shared driveways, another means to minimize driveway cuts and thereby reduce grading. While the preliminary grading plan appears to conform to the City's essential grading requirements and standards, there is concern for potentially undesirable elevation differences between adjacent lots within the proposed subdivision or between proposed lots and adjacent development within the existing Chumash Village Mobile Home Park to the west or between proposed lots and development within the adjacent proposed VTM #2353 (DeBlauw). There is potential in the westerly and southerly boundary areas for adjacent lot pads to have elevation differences of 5 feet or more, creating an undesirable privacy situation where one neighbor may be able look down into the yards or windows of adjacent homes. To some extent this situation must be anticipated in hillside development where a balance must be made with needed elevation requirements for drainage, for instance, and elevations of previously existing or proposed adjacent development. In some instances the privacy issue can be remedied to some extent by the careful location of fences at the tops of the banks, particularly where the slope bank exceeds a ratio of 3:1 (3 ft. of vertical for every 1 foot horizontal.) Conditions of approval recommend that where such slope ratios will exist and elevation differences between adjacent lots exceed 4 feet, that privacy fences be established at the top of the bank and the remainder of the slope bank, including drainage structures, be owned and maintained by the Home Owners Association through deed restriction. The preliminary grading plan for the subject site also proposes to step construction pads within individual lots (Lots 19-22, 60-66, 114-188, and 121-122) to accommodate construction of split level houses, eliminating the need for a single larger cut for the entire pad area. Possible techniques to avoid potential privacy issues between proposed lots and adjacent existing development would be to require greater rear yard setbacks or only allow single-story structures on the higher elevation lot. A condition is recommended suggesting that the ARC consider such techniques with their review of specific development plans for the lots backing onto the mobile home park to the west and the lots backing onto the existing single family homes in the El Camino Estates development to the south. A sample cross section provided in the grading plans through proposed Lot 12 and the adjacent Chumash Village mobile home space indicates a downward slope with an elevation change of between 4.5 and 5 ft. from the property line to the mobile home pad. The elevation for Lot 12 pad is proposed at approximately one foot above existing grade at the property line. Construction of a 6 ft. masonry wall along the rear of Lot 12 would place the top of such wall approximately at the eave height of the mobile home and would essentially restrict a 6ft. tall person inside the home on Lot 12 from seeing inside a window in the mobile home. i Attachment 6 Tract#2428-Vesting Tentative Map(King) Planning Connnission Agenda Report Page 5 Another sample cross section provided through proposed Lot 78 and the adjacent proposed Lot 37 of VTM #2353 (DeBlauw) indicates potential worst case elevation difference of about 10.5 ft. with the higher pad being within VTM #2428 (King). The rear of Lot 78 is shown to decline to the property line shared with DeBlauw's Lot 37 at a max. slope no greater than 2:1. In this instance a 6 ft. fence built at the top of the slope in King Lot 78 would likely prevent a 6 ft. tall individual standing in a single story home on King Lot 78 from being able to see into a window on the DeBlauw lot providing said home is also only a single-story. However a 6 ft. fence built at the bottom of the slope at the property line between Lot 78 and the DeBlauw tract would not prevent a view from the upper lot into the lower lot. This scenario would likely be the same for proposed Lots 1-6 adjacent to El Camino Estates, and also for Lots 82-90 but perhaps to a lesser degree. A condition of approval is recommended requiring the fencing to be at the top of the slopes to avoid or minimize the potential privacy issue described. In the instance of a split level home, where the elevation difference shown in the sample cross section is just over 12 feet between upper floor elevation of proposed Lot 65 and the lower level floor of Lot 73, a standard 6 ft. fence at the shared property line could not prevent a view from the upper floor of Lot 65 into a window in the lower floor of Lot 73. Finally a sample cross section through proposed Lot 3 to the adjacent existing El Camino Estates lot indicates an elevation difference of about 5.6 ft. A six-foot fence at the top of the slope bank would provide adequate privacy providing the home on Lot 3 is limited to a single-story. Biological Resources: Biological impacts of the three Western Enclave projects fall into several categories: wetland impacts; impacts to other sensitive habitats, and impacts to sensitive species. These impacts and related mitigation measures are all discussed more site-specifically in the attached Environmental Initial Studies for the respective three maps. Oven SaacetRecreation: The three unnamed natural drainage swales running southward through the site out of the South Hills are proposed to be protected for multiple benefits pursuant to the "Open Space-Riparian" designation requirements of the MASP. In addition to biological and drainage benefits (described elsewhere in this report), the MASP envisioned these drainage ways being preserved largely in their natural state to also achieve open space and passive recreation opportunities, both within the MASP generally, and within the Western Enclave area specifically. The subject map proposes Lots 142, 143, 144, 145, and 148 to achieve these multiple purposes. These lots comply with the MASP specifications for "creeks". The proposed subdivision design shows a 20-foot setback from the top of creek bank or edge of riparian vegetation to building envelopes consistent with Section 17.16.025 of the zoning regulations (creek setback ordinance). a mss r ; Attachment 6 Tract#2428-Vesting Tentative Map(King) Planning Commission Agenda Report Page 6 These 5 open space lots are proposed to be owned and maintained by a Home Owners Association as set forth in the recommended conditions of approval. City staff debated at length in various meetings with the Western Enclave applicants the ramifications of private versus public ownership of these 5 and other Western Enclave open space lots. There are compelling pros and cons with either option. It is the City's current policy to not take on ownership of creek areas because of the maintenance responsibilities and liability issues. The map as submitted, with ownership and maintenance of these 5 lots by Home Owners Association is consistent with this City policy. However, the Planning Commission may recommend and the City Council may decide because of the important or unique habitat value of these drainages that it would be advisable for the City to own and maintain all or some of these 5 lots and make them part of the larger open space parcel (Lot 146). The Council will need to factor in added maintenance responsibilities that are currently unfunded. Some years ago, the City received fee title to the creek area adjacent to the Laguna Lake Mobile Estates property, as well as some additional open space on the other side of the creek from the mobile home park. The Public Works Department has previously indicated that City acquisition of this creek area has greatly increased their maintenance responsibilities. Based on this experience and similar issues at other sites, the Public Works Department has real reservations with the City taking on maintenance responsibilities with the creek area next to proposed lots on the project site. Another factor in considering the ownership issue is the differing characteristics of each of the three drainages and the circumstances surrounding the City acquisition of the creek at the Laguna Lake Mobile Estates. When the City acquired the Laguna Lake creek area adjacent to the mobile home park, there was a severe erosion problem with a degraded riparian corridor and many coaches installed very close to, or encroaching over, the top of bank. The subject VT M project site differs in that the health of the drainages' riparian quality is generally good due to lack of disturbance and new development will be significantly set back from the drainage channel itself as required by the MASP and FEIR. As noted above, Lots 144 and 148 will also incorporate Class I pedestrian/bike paths consistent with the MASP designations for "trails" within the Western Enclave area. Generally these trails will be 12-feet in width, with provisions, pursuant to recommended conditions of approval for the City Natural Resource Manager to reduce this width (to no less than 8 ft.) consistent with stipulations of the, Biological Mitigation Program. After considerable consideration, staff determined, based on the final locations of streets and open space lots resulting from the coordinated and integrated design with the adjacent VTM#2353, that moving the trail location to align with the more westerly drainage swale of the subject property made the best sense, instead of placing it within the central drainage as indicated by the Plan, where a.logical connection or extension through adjacent development could not be provided. These 5 open-space lots are intended to not only provide a valuable open-space\aesthetic and recreational amenity to the future residents of this subdivision, but will ultimately provide city- . Attachment 6 Tract#2428-Vesting Tentative Map(King) Planning Commission Agenda Report Page 7 wide benefits by accommodating inter-connection of existing and future pedestrian/bicycle trails and paths and bike lanes surrounding and within the remainder of the Margarita Specific Plan area. VTM#2428 also proposes Lot 146, a 71±acre parcel, to be dedicated to the City, as stipulated in the MASP. This lot is proposed to extend between residential lots to "G" Street in 4 locations, to achieve not only connection of this lot to the other Open Space-Riparian Lots 142, 143, 144, and 145 and 148, but also to allow connection of the subdivision to the existing dirt walking trail that traverses South Street Hills. Acquisition of Lot 146 by the City is an important feature of the MASP as it will provide a rich variety of habitat and potential passive recreational opportunities for the public. Inclusionary & Affordable Housing: The Planning Director is recommending approval of the proposed Affordable Housing Plan finding that it is consistent with the MASP and Housing Element. A recommended condition of approval stipulates that Lot 147 of this map as well as Lot 105 of VTM #2353 (DeBlauw) be dedicated to the Housing Authority prior to, or in conjunction with, recording the first phase of VTM #2353 and VTM #2428, respectively. Improvement plans for Phase I of the each VTM shall include complete access and infrastructure (roads, water, sewer, and utilities) to serve the Housing Authority site. Additional affordable housing requirements will be required if the average residential unit size of the entire VTM tract exceeds 2,000 sq. ft. Public Utilities/Services: - Infrastructure for all standard public services for telephone/data, electricity (including street lighting), gas, fire (including hydrants), domestic water and sewer, trash collection and storm drain will be constructed at the site by the subdividers. Although three cul-de-sacs are proposed for the subject VTM#2428 accessibility to lots by fire trucks is not compromised due to the cul-de-sacs providing the minimum radius of 40 ft. required by the Fire Department and considering the circulation for the affordable housing development will loop within Lot 146 and exit back to the ,r' Street cul-de-sac. Other Design Features: The subject maps proposes about 25% of the subdivision (about 40 lots) will utilize shared driveways in order to accommodate greater lengths of on-street parking availability, reduce grading, and minimize driveway cuts. According to the Statistics Table on the map sheet, a few of the comer lots may not currently meet minimum widths according to sub-part D. of Section 2.2.2 on page 16 of the MASP. A condition of approval is recommended that requires all lots meet the minimum lot design standards set forth in the Plan. A condition of approval recommends that "I" Street could be adjusted westerly in order to Attachment 6 Tract#242&Vesting Tentative Map(King) Planning Commission Agenda Report Page 8 keep it from impacting the setback area of the drainage Swale- - As a potentially more desirable traffic calming device, staff is recommending a condition of approval which requires that a traffic circle be utilized at the intersection of "D" and "E" Streets instead of bulb-outs at all four corners OTHER DEPARTMENT COMMENTS The comments and ,recommendations of various City departments are incorporated into the conditions and code requirements of the attached Resolution. ALTERNATIVES 1. The Commission may recommend approval of the project with modified findings and/or conditions. 2. The Commission may approve a resolution recommending that the City Council deny the proposed subdivision, based on findings of inconsistency with the Margarita Area Specific Plan as specified by the Planning Commission. .3. The Commission may continue review of the project, if more information is needed. Direction should be given to staff and the applicants. Attachments: 1. Vicinity/Location maps 2. Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 2428 3. Letter from Dave Watson, Dedicating Lot 146, a 71-acre Open Space Lot,to the City 4. Initial Study(ER 95-03) w.o• a+�n c4)Yrme1){15 5. BrPlanning Commission Resolution N o. 544? _06o �ProV�d SAProjects\05-914.3\Staff Repotts\King Final Staff Report#21-19-06.doc _ m■■ ter.PIP — - Attachment plemilillill �111111111111111111111111111111 a fill -� ■■■■■■111■■■■■ C ■■■■■■111■■■■■ C �� ■■11111■111111■■ C _� ■■111111■11111■■ p ■ 1■■■�■ 1■■■■■■ [ilii - � - _— - ----- - �� -lam .. oil loomfill man M :C ' =I,•��•`unnlllu' ln�'�� _ _ D till, i, _ ■ �///11 i\ moi= Lmwei Tract Maps I � Attachment 6 R' Attachment 2 E ] al ' C . t8 $�8 c Stgig sre P f dg P S d i Y ,• 3' P'Y f �E2aE��SY air Yg Y d� l $ggg �I II I Y � � I b 3 • i dd - / rr ' R r _ - -- 9 1 = R ! - I 4yy�. • } 8 ' - b ••`•y�,1 '�I Y -- ° � 1 8 I - I� I n I. I n I - a'i I a I « I p I IF}5�'r '• 1 t .� _ 9' I ^ I ^ I o I ^ I e n YY f � ■■ Y r Yf 7U I a I 1 e�Ga 1 F�i iplea i � � 9Ag a ae��p a7. �a= :IL�ais I:1: � W,IW�V�I �IIII�IYIIF� IIII��YI��II�IIYI�Y�I�I�II�Y1111 iiiVVViVVVV .311 7 aaa ,I 1M LM M ia�JJ��iV�VVVV�V1i ��V��dC�� VGV �t'�iiV�� VV� i�� V .VVVVOVVVVV61"16ViVV V i1`VVVVVrVVVVWVVMVVW6,11i �.esn�eeaa a pq Fl N N7 7 1 � I�11��1111� �iY��Y��le��a .. n� �u� �lIii Iilia �Ei`�nVniVV�VVVVVV��VVVYV�VViVi�VVV�VVVVVVVVViVVV�Iu�VVVVVVVVVVVVVViV�V�V�V�VVV r tE�tLL[tlLrLII�LLItI [LIILEL�LLtLtLLI�L [rtlLtLLlllL�L�tIILL�E �Miliiiin��ii�i��i�i��ii�� IiHIM., ild IIIIII' Iii'iiiiiiiii-iiiiiiiiiiiiiI r �a I �r' HIM iva�� 0��i��J��JW�� . ieu ^c a aa4 a� 2ZMy 7 r'P �' n Peaq@Pey a� sa gP�gr�aaaas � a�'r�d�'' � C a eek a al� 9Pu�9r1 e`9a P r aCE-1122EIR'.REr iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiifiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii F - Attachment 6 4 z3bil a °j/R,ppw lj gg ��ggqila 8 R U F F Sa� a b ° ; , POP- tltlY 01Jf4 s _ � _ r I SA 91 ?A ♦ V I I J r r r7 v ,ice y° - .. J' �., ♦ ♦ f T ( ��/r rte. "♦II =L♦ � � I /// i I"/ IIr ♦ /fir 1 ,r . fey/ /,.. - ♦. 01 / I ``. I - ♦ /II Attachnipnt 6 s �• , � doe �� —�� J Ab •. I �' � d1 e�, Gi of 1 R A R / A ` R L a / / x I - a I F � R cr _- ♦♦ � qq I A I L 1 A.I:... i L 1 Attachment 6 i 666 pppp S82Y /�� I I �, CICS 9� ' @J6i QE-4 !I� � ��; m s. � /• n 6 I 1 - wj 50 is 1.4 I tool :60' M m } b ® ® a -9S �r Attachment 6 say " f bg } WSF N 3€ zy x . 5 :Bpp E?9_ a h tgg §g a �pYy je: caro 58ya8 � � a 37aa$ U Nac B„ Z `§C"3 8 V Z.lx C 4 '6 e a49 af$. _ E 9 yQ xY '• � �� IJpPk K�� ao_ U U¢ O Z¢N U 1 (Y 11 5 Qv IN j Z U I O J(r O F w Z ¢ DOm IV/1.V i 1 F N i O= U ¢J F I N N K O U 1-N� K s I I I I f I I � ' p I ii " }GEG CEE6:}BiE }aPtg30}RE II I I I it l� II y g L_ ?aa_igp ax?ari I _ } Umw- V o 2 B Z G N U O¢ JN II I G U~ F Q 4 > _ %Sx Oww— > Na ZU = I I W}5 Z ¢N U F 4— I II I A?fSi S9 Attachment 6 �e � y v g E '_j Is aoo Sb B y S a_.- UUP Oks 4 4532 fit Goop 1 f i B Cpt u ; h 1 • 1 /a � FW qq 6 6 Ei8lY89�l9li193iiY49l9QE3�!l49�g�S1!�?Qb8Q�S9i6��8aESEgAFli Is is 451: ip- :ia F is E�EffQ E�`:£2.f2StE::4B�F::i�gE:E��`Q`E::SiS36 . ....:::: : CttiiOtiiiet68i88EtB6U8:=aC3!!S.CRxg2xFl.A2Ai75EEA2t2977yi tits Jai �I IngPg�i9$39��i�:6�9�Q13Q3Pi!@�6�8lQi3l�1�9QlF,Ei�4;43��Eii1i6QQiQfl1a4F�9;10�3�&Q: IIill§§§"11111111 P�;-"••••^ [!SSC!:!!WiBAiitP2FB:y0ipBAFty;07i7yRiiY:BLiifypiti B2EiiiltRFFF'nFF[FFY:2239 • ' Y ' P '?7 Attachment 6 - PGAttachment 3 KING VENTURES 285 Bridge Street San Luis Obispo, CA. 93405 January19, 2006 Hon. David F. Romero, Mayor City of San Luis Obispo 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA. 93401 RE: KING VESTING TENTATIVE MAP (#2428)—OFFER OF DONATION Dear Mayor Romero: This letter is to confirm our willingness to donate approximately 71 acres of land in fee to the City of San Luis Obispo for open space purposes as an integral part of the above-captioned project, and identified as Lot 146 on Tentative Tract Map #2428. The land in question is shown as open space in City documents, and its permanent preservation has long been a goal of our community. Since there are certain private obligations that we have on Lot 146 for a time (including mitigation requirements associated with the subdivisions), and since we wish to ensure that the land in question remains in open space in perpetuity, we would like to make this donation in two steps. The first step would be the donation of a conservation easement covering the land in question, subject to city indemnification and maintenance assurances associated with public access of the lands sought by the city. Following installation of mitigation measures from the subdivision and clarification of certain access issues to a communication site on an adjacent property, we would donate fee title to the City within a three to five year period, on the express condition that the conservation easement be transferred by the City to a qualified third parry. We are prepared to immediately execute an easement in a mutually satisfactory form. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, John E. King Aftachrncnt 6 `RAttachment 4 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM For ER#65-05 1. Project Title: Vesting Tentative Map#2428(King) 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of San Luis Obispo Community Development Department 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Pam Ricci, Senior Planner Mary Beatie, Senior Planner(Contract Planner) City of San Luis Obispo TPG Consulting, Inc. 805-781-7168 222 N. Garden Street, Suite#100 Visalia, CA 93291 559-739-8072 4. Project Location: 3000 Calle Malva, San Luis Obispo, consisting of approximately 99 acres. (Please refer to Attachment 1 "Western Enclave Projects Vicinity Map"). 5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Owner: John E. and Carole E. King 290 Pismo Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Applicant: John D. & Carole E. King 6. General Plan Designation: The Land Use Element of the City General Plan designates the site for.- Low-Density or.Low-Density Residential, Medium-Density Residential, and Open Space 2 -W Attachment 6 The Margarita Area Specific Plan (MASP), which supersedes the Land Use Element. designates the site for the following land uses: Low Density Residential Medium Density Residential Medium Density Residential SF(detached) Open Space—Riparian Open Space—Hills 7. Zoning: The site, contains multiple zoning districts to implement the MASP land use designations, as follows: Applies to Land Use Designation Zoning VTM Lot#S Low Density Residential R-1-SP(Low-Density Residential-Specific Plan Overlay) 1-5, 82-90 Medium Density Residential R-2-SP(Medium Density Residential-Specific Plan Overlay) 6-81, 91-141, 147 Open Space-Riparian C/OS-SP(ConservationlOpen Space-Specific Plan Overlay) 142-145, 148 Open Space- Hills C/OS-40-SP(Conservationl0pen Space40-acre min.) 146 8. Description of the Project:. Proposed VTM #2428, a 148-lot subdivision, has been designed and is being processed in coordination with the processing of two adjacent developments, described below in order to better achieve the objective and requirements of the MASP: • VTM .#2342 (CowanlFrench) proposing 67 lots on approximately 15 acres; located immediately south of the existing El Camino Estates residential subdivision along Margarita Avenue and east of the Rancho San Luis Mobile Home Park, generally northeast of the current easterly terminus of the City maintained portion of Prado Road, east of South Higuera Street. • VTM #2353 (Sierra GardenslDeBlauw) proposing 133 lots on approximately 30 acres; located immediately east of VTM #2342, adjacent to and east of the single-family development along Margarita Avenue, and south of proposed VTM #2428 (King), subject map. Collectively these three tract map proposals are referred to as the "Western Enclave" (of the MASP.) The applicant has submitted vesting tentative map VTM #2428 showing a total of 148 lots designated for uses in accordance with the overlaying land use designations of the MASP as follows: • 141 lots for single family residential development(Lots 1-141) • 1 lot designated for condominium development (Lot 147); a proposed portion of required CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 2 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2003 ER 65-05(VTTM#2428-King) CADOCUR1ENTS AND SETTINGS\.SLOUSER\DESKTGP\FINAL INITIAL STUDY KING 01-04-06.DOC a :gab Attachment 6 Affordable Housing Program to be dedicated to and developed by the Housing Authority or other appropriate entity. The other portion of Affordable Housing Program is proposed for Lot 105 of VTM#2353(Sierra Gardens/DeBlauw.) • 5 lots for "Open Space-Riparian"for permanent biological protection and drainage purposes under common ownership by a Home Owners Association (Lots 142-145, & 148), and • I lot for "Open Space-Hills" to be dedicated to the Cityfor permanent public access (Lot 146). Approval of a vesting tentative map confers a "vested right"to develop in substantial compliance with the ordinances, policies and standards in effect when the application was determined complete on November 14, 2005, per Chapter 16.34 (Vesting Tentative Maps) of the City's Municipal Code and Sections 66474.2 and 66498.1 of the California Government Code (Subdivision Map Act). In order to obtain public road access, and as required by the MASP, Prado Road needs to be extended from its current easterly terminus (as a public roadway) from approximately the southeast corner of Rancho San Luis Mobile Home Park, east to Broad Street. A priority goal of the MASP is to establish the east-west connection of Prado Road between Broad Street and South Higuera Street at the earliest possible stage of development. Because the three proposed tract maps represent the first phase of proposed development in the MASP area, they are required to design and construct Prado Road to a minimum cross-section as agreed upon by the City Public Works Director, to provide the desired connection. According to the MASP, one option to finance the connection is that the City will.credit (or pro-rate) the design and construction costs of the agreed-upon minimum cross section against all Margarita Area impact fees to be collected with each respective development until the amount of fees equals the amount of construction costs. If the costs of the roadway exceed fee amounts, .another financing mechanism, such as a facilities financing district, may be necessary to complete the project. VTM #2428 map proposes primary access to the site from South Higuera Street through the existing El Camino Estates subdivision adjacent to the south via the planned extension of Calle Malva from Margarita Avenue. Alternate access is proposed to Prado Road through planned street connections within the two proposed adjacent developments of the Western Enclave (VTM #2342-Cowan and#2353-DeBlauw). The location of these accesses to the site as well as other proposed streets ,to complete circulation internal to the subject subdivision, are all located in accordance with the Circulation Plan of the MASP. Also proposed are 12' Class I shared pedestrian bicycle paths within Open Space Lots 144 and 148 with roadway crossings at `G' Street for connection to the Open Space Lot 146 and its established trail system along the South Hills. These bikeways may be narrowed in specified locations based upon recommendations by the City Natural Resource Manager in order to accommodate protection of or avoidance of interference with special concern species, in accordance with the stipulations of Biological Mitigation Program for compliance with MASP/AASP EIR mitigation. Five open space lots are also proposed for the multiple purposes of biological and drainage CITY of SAN Luis OBISPO 3 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2003 ER 65-05 (V7rM#2428-King) CADOCUMENTS AND SEMNGS1SLOuSEROESKTOPTINAL 1NITIAL STUDN'KING 01-04-06.DOC Attacf�Ina�t 6 mitigation. These lots are sized so as to accommodate the natural drainage Swale and appurtenant set-backs for buffer protection. As specified in the MASP, the Affordable Housing objectives of the plan are to be achieved by two separate parcels within the Western Enclave in order-to provide a total of 47 units; Lot 147 of the subject map is proposed to provide 24 of the units. Lot 147 is being created for dedication to the San Luis Obispo County Housing Authority or equivalent entity once the units are built. Lot 105 of proposed VTM #2353 (DeBlauw) will accommodate the other 23 units in similar fashion, on a lot to be dedicated to the Housing Authority or equivalent once the units are built. 9. Surrounding Land Uses and Settings: The project site, 3000 Calle Malva, is located generally in the southern part of San Luis Obispo. The site is situated north of the northerly termini of Calle Malva and Calle Jazmin extending from El Camino Estates, the existing single family development along Margarita Avenue off South Higuera Street. The subject site also lies adjacent to and immediately east of the Chumash Village Mobile Home Park which also fronts on South Higuera Street. A variety of low intensity commercial uses front South Higuera Street and along the south side of Prado Road west of the Western Enclave frontage. The currently vacant site lies generally along the lower, shallower slopes of the South Street Hills within an area designated in the MASP/RASP EIR as primarily "Serpentine Bunchgrass Grassland" (in the upper slopes) with some smaller areas of "Annual Grassland" and "Perennial Grassland with patches of Valley Needlegrass Grassland" plant communities in the lower areas of the site. The site transmits area runoff through three channels or swales fairly well-enough defined as to be designated by the MASP as "Open Space- Riparian" and proposed for preservation in their natural state-within the subd tv�Sion. -These-- drainages also contain habitat for several special plant and animal species and will be preserved in "open space" lots so as to contribute to a "regional drainage plan" and "biological mitigation program" devised for this and,two other Western Enclave developments proposed in coordination with the subject project. Lands to the east and south also lie within the MASP and are currently used agriculturally or are undeveloped. 10. Project Entitlements Requested: Approval of Vesting Tentative Map VTM#2428 It. Other public agencies whose approval is required: Air Pollution Control District(Permit to Construct, Permit to Operate) Water Quality Control Board(NPDES permit-including Phase II &SWPPP) California Department of Fish and Game U.S. Army Corps of Engineers CRY OF SAN Luis OBISPO 4 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHEcKuST 2003 ER 65-05 (VTrM#2428-King) CADOCUMENTS AND SETTINGS�SLOUSL-R\DGSKTOP\FINAL INITIAL STUDY KING 01-04-06.DOC r a AttachrnPnt 6 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 Aesthetics Geolo /Soils Public Services Agricultural Resources X Hazards&Hazardous Recreation Materials Air Quality Hydrology/Water Quality X Transportation&Traffic X Biological Resources Land Use and Planning Utilities and Service Systems Cultural Resources Noise Mandatory Findings of Significance Energy and Mineral Population and Housing Resources 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. The project has potential to impact fish and wildlife resources and shall be subject to the payment of Fish X 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 X 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)). CRY OF SAN Luis OBIsPO 5 INRIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKusT 2003 ER 65-05 (VTTM#2428-King) C:\DOCUMENTS AND SE-MNGS\SLOUSER\DESKTOP\FINAL INMAL STUDY KING 01-04-06,DOC a -/63 Attac,rnent S 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, X there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been 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 reared. 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. S' afore Date Ron Whisenand,Deputy Director For:John Mandeville, Printed Name Community Development Director CITY OF SAN LUIS OeISPO 6 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENT/LL CHECKLIST 2003 ER 65-05 (VTTM#2428-King) CADOCUMENTS AND SETTINGS\SLOUSER\DESKTOP\FINAL INITIAL STUDY KING 01-04-06.DOC a ��y Aftachment 6 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 listed below),"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 18 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. CrrY OF SAN LUIS Onspo 7 INMAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2003 ER 65-05(VTTM#2428-King) C:DOCUMENTS AND SL-'rr[NGSISLOUSERIDESKTOP\FINAL INMAL STUDY KING 01-04-06.DOC a/aS- Attachment 6 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact ER#65-05 Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated 1.AESTHETICS. Would theproject: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? 1,2, X 3, 8,9 b) Substantially damage scenic resources,including,but not limited 1,2, X to,trees,rock outcroppings,open space,and historic buildings 3, 8,9 within a local or state scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of 1,2, X the site and its surroundings? 3, 8,9 d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would 1,2' ,2, X adversely effect day or nighttime views in the area? 3, 8,9 Evaluation a) The primary scenic value from within and around the Western Enclave area is the view to the north and northeast of the South Hills. The prior MASP/AASP EIR determined that the implementation of the Specific Plan would result inevitably in a change of character of the plan areas from a generally semi-rural to an urban developed setting. Urban development will cause irreversible changes in the visual character from that of undeveloped and low density semi-rural area to a more intensely developed, suburban area. The project site is situated alongside a portion of the south face of the South Hills, the upper elevations of which,together with the natural drainage ways out of the hills, are designated for"Open Space"by the MASP in order to protect these more significant visual (and associated biological) resources. The project complies with aesthetic- related stipulations of the MASP affecting scenic resources by designating 71±acres of the upper elevations of the tract trap site as a single open space lot to be dedicated to the City for permanent preservation in open space. The subject project further designates 5 other lots (Lots 142-145, & 148) alongside the drainage ways as open space lots for protection in their natural state for drainage, biological, and aesthetic/passive recreation purposes and will be owned and maintained by a Home Owners Association also as stipulated by the MASP. Adopted zoning requirements will further ensure compliance with existing design standards set by the City to protect the visual resource that is the South Hills. Thus, the impact is less than significant as a result of the proposed project design. b)See discussion in a)above. There are no historic buildings within a local or state scenic highway in the project vicinity that will be impacted by the proposed development. Thus, this impact is less than significant as result of the proposed proiect design. c) The existing visual character and quality of the site will change from semi-rural to urban developed as a result of urbanization of the area pursuant to and consistent with the objectives of the MASP. The VTM project is required to be consistent with the lay-out and distribution of land uses and design standards stated in the MASP to ensure that the appearance of the development is acceptable and that no new buildings block scenic views of the upper South Hills. The project as proposed, together with conditions of approval, is consistent with the MASP and in this regard is self-mitigating. Through Conditions of Approval the project will be further required to comply with City codes and standards some of which impact aesthetics. Ultimately the design of both proposed housing and commercial buildings will require the review and approval of the Architectural Review Commission(ARC)to ensure consistency with the City's Community Design Guidelines as well as the MASP. Thus,the project impact is less than significant. d) The prior MASP/AASP EIR acknowledges that future development pursuant to the MASP will introduce new sources of light, glare and nighttime illumination, as is typical with residential and commercial development. However, the MASP/AASP EIR determined that such light and glare impacts (LU-7) can be mitigated to less than significant at the site specific project stage through compliance with lighting design standards set forth in the MASP and with other adopted standards as may be applicable by other City regulations. The new light source subject to mitigation will not adversely affect day or nighttime views in the urbanized area. Therefore impacts from new sources of light or glare will be less than sip-nificant with mitigation LU-7.1 as specified in the MASP/AASP EIR to be implemented through compliance with the MASP Community Design standard of Section 3.3-Lighting and accompanying conditions of approval. CRY OF SAN LUIS OBISPo 8 INmAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2003 ER 65-05 (VTTM#2428-King) C:\D000MENTS AND SETTINGS\SLOUSERIDESKTOPIFINAL INITIAL STUDY KING 01-04-06.D00 �~tachin¢nt U Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potc,.nally Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact ER#65 05 Issues Unless impact Mitigation Incorporated 2.AGRICULTURE RESOURCES. Would theproject: a) Convert Prime Farmland,Unique Farmland,or Farmland of 11 X Statewide Importance(Farmland),as shown on the maps pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency,to non-agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a 6 X Williamson Act contract? c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which,due to 1,2, 6 X their location or nature,could result in conversion of Farmland to non-a ricultural use? Evaluation: a) According to the prior MASP/AASP EIR, the Margarita Area (including the Western Enclave area) does not contain any lands in the stated categories as shown on the maps pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, consequently, the project can not result in conversion of such lands to non-agricultural uses. Therefore,there is no impact. b)There is no agricultural zoning or Williamson Act Contract in effect on the subject site. Therefore there is no impact.. c) No lands within the Western Enclave, (and thereby within the subject site) have been actively farmed recently, so this project will not result in any direct loss of productive farmland. Other lands in the vicinity of the project site are either already developed or if within the Margarita Area Specific Plan and in agricultural use (farmland/grazing or open space), are already slated by the Plan for eventual non-agricultural use whether this project proceeds or not; therefore there is no direct correlation from this project to any further planned conversions of farmland to non-agricultural uses. The impacts of conversion of these lands to non-agricultural uses have already been evaluated both in the environmental documents for the City's Land Use and Circulation Elements and the MASP as significant, irreversible, adverse impacts that could not be mitigated and the necessary Statement of Overriding Considerations adopted(Resolution No. 9615 (2004 Series)pursuant to CEQA. Nonetheless,policies of the Land Use Element were adopted to help compensate for,and thereby reduce the impacts from, productivity lost as a result of the conversions to non-agricultural uses. Specifically, city policy requires direct dedication of open space areas or payment of in-lieu fees. As noted above, the subject project proposes Lot 146 as a 71±acre open space lot to be dedicated to the City for protection as permanent open space and Lots 142-145& 148 as open space lots to be owned and maintained by the proposed Home Owners Association, pursuant to the requirements of the MASP. Therefore,the proiect is self-miti¢atintl and thus,the project impact is less than significant. 3. AIR QUALITY. Would the project: a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an 1,3 X existing or projected air quality violation? b) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air 1,3 X quality plan? c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant 1,3 X concentrations? d) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of 1,3 X people? e) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria 1,3 X pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed qualitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? Evaluation a-e) According to the prior MASP/AASP EIR, project construction will generate short-term emissions of air pollutants. CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 9 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2003 ER 65-05(VTI'M#2428-King) CADOCUMENTS AND SETTINGS\SLOUSER\DESKTOP\FINA.L INMAL STUDY KING 01-04-06.DOC a X67 Attacht17Pnt SU Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact ER#65-05 Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated Construction-related emissions would primarily be dust (particulates) generated from soil disturbance and combustion emissions generated by construction equipment. Such dust generation was determined to be a potentially short-term significant impact on air quality that could lead to exceedances of established state and federal thresholds for regional or local air quality or otherwise conflict with City and County air quality plans or program. In addition, the project site is situated near existing residential units thereby potentially exposing sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. The MASP/AASP EIR also noted long-term (`operation") air quality impacts would result from on-going emissions generated by the project-related vehicular trips and development resulting in additional natural gas combustion for space and water heating and additional fuel combustion at power plants for electricity consumption. The MASP/AASP EIR concluded that implementation of the Plan, with mitigation measures AIR-1.1, 1.2, 1.3 and 2.1 set forth in the EIR brought forward to apply to individual projects, is consistent with the local Clean Air Plan. The EIR also determined that with adoption of the MASP and its accompanying EIR mitigation measures, further delays in attainment of state and federal air quality standards would not be expected and thus, air quality impacts resulting from build-out of the Plan were insignificant. The mitigation measures set forth in the prior MASP/AASP EIR were determined would reduce all the following impact areas to less than significant: I) short-term construction-related vehicle emissions and fugitive dust (PMta), and 2.) long-term operation emissions, including increased vehicle trips resulting from new residential and commercial development in the MASP. During Early Consultation for the subject VTM project, the Air Pollution Control District (APCD) of San Luis Obispo County commented in a letter dated August 2, 2005 that they support the in-fill nature of the proposed development noting that such development makes walking,bicycling and public transportation more viable,decreasing dependence on driving and therefore reducing emissions from motor vehicles. The letter states further that such development is consistent with the land use goals and policies of the District's Clean Air Plan,consistent with the finding of the MASP/AASP EIR. The SLO County APCD reiterated in its letter the site mitigations as set forth in MASP/AASP EIR for dust control, construction vehicle emission control, construction activity pollution controls, and on-gong project operation emission controls, and noted these measures be incorporated into the project in order to maintain project-related impacts to less than significant. These requirements will be enforced by the APCD through required Permit to Construct and Permit to Operate permits and by recommended conditions of approval. The proposed project is self-mitigating in these regards because the applicant has asserted his commitment by way of notation on the preliminary grading plans submitted for the project which states: "All provisions of the APCD letter dated 8/02/05 shall be implemented" This component of the applicant's project description/proposal together with Conditions of Approval assure mitigation measures set forth in the prior EIR are brought forward to this project. Thus, the nroiect is self-mitigating and the impact is less than significant. 4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would theproject: a) Have a substantial adverse effect,either directly or indirectly or I, 3, X through habitat modifications,on any species identified as a 12, 13 candidate,sensitive,or special status species in local or regional plans,policies,or regulations,or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect,on any riparian habitat or 1,3, X other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional 12, 13 plans,policies,or regulations,or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting 1,3, X biological resources,such as a tree preservation policy or 12, 13 ordinance(e.g.Heritage Trees)? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident 1,3, X or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native 12, 13 resident or migratory wildlife corridors,or impede the use of CITY OF SAN Luz OBISPO 10 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2003 ER 65-05(VTTM#2428-King) C:\1)000MENTS AND SE nNGS�SLOUSERIDESKTOP\FINAL INTnAL STUDY KING 0011-044--006.Doc (U k At¢achment 6 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Pott"tially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact ER#65-05 Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation 1,3, X Plan,Natural Community Conservation Plan,or other approved 12, 13 local,regional,or state habitat conservation plan? f) Have a substantial adverse effect on Federally protected 1, 3, X wetlands as defined in Section 404 of the Clean Water Act 12, 13 (including,but not limited to,marshes,vernal pools,etc.) through direct removal,filling,hydrological interruption,or other means? Evaluation: c)There are no significant specimen or heritage trees on the property.Thus there is no impact from this project. d) The Margarita Area does not contain any waterways known to be important of viable fisheries, therefore there is not expected to be any effect on fish species. Due to the relatively poor soils,simple vegetation type(grassland),and general lack of vegetation diversity,the Western Enclave developments of MASP are not rich in wildlife species and do not form any kind of nursery or refugium for wildlife species. Therefore it is not expected that the development would interfere substantially with the movement of any native wildlife species. e) The City does not have an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan,Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local,regional,or state habitat conservation plan established in the City of San Luis Obispo.Thus there is no impact from this rp oiect. a) b), f) The prior EIR prepared for the MASP & AASP conducted extensive biological resource impact analyses and determined 19 areas of potential significant impact. Of these 19 impacts, 6(BIO-3, 4, 10, 15, 18,& 19) were determined to not be significant and thereby, not requiring mitigation. BIO-9 was ruled out as an impact for the MASP territory, and therefore is not an impact for the three Western Enclave project sites. The balance of 12 Impacts(BIO-1,2,5,6,7,8, 11, 12, 13, 14, 16 & 17) were subject to MASP/AASP EIR mitigation requiring further site specific surveys and mapping to determine if the specie of concern identified in the respective enumerated impacts might occur on the site. Mitigation Measure BIO-1.1 stated the performance criteria that if such specie was not found to exist then no further mitigation would be necessary, but if the specie was found or determined to exist then Mitigation Measure BIO-6.1 outlining the performance criteria to avoid, minimize, or compensate for significant impacts on those resources as specified by the site specific biological surveys would be required for affected projects. The MASP/AASP EIR-required site specific surveys were conducted for the Western Enclave properties during the winter, spring, and summer of 2005. As a result of these surveys,EIR Impacts BIO-1, 14,& 16 were determined to not be significant impacts requiring mitigation for the Western Enclave properties. The remaining impacts (BIO-2, 5, 6, 7, 11, 12, 13, & 17) were determined to be applicable to the Western Enclave properties, and in particular, with respect to the subject VTM #2428, that upper portion of the site lying along the toe of the South Hills and the three drainage ways traversing the site. Consequently the site is subject to the performance standards to avoid, minimize, or compensate for the impact as set forth in Mitigation Measure BIO-6.1. In compliance with one of the performance standards of this mitigation,the Western Enclave applicants have already prepared and submitted as part of their project proposal a "Comprehensive Mitigation Program" that is applicable to all three of the Western Enclave sites (as opposed to three individual plans). By integrating all three projects as if they were one, impacts were able to be addressed by selectively applying mitigation where a beneficial habitat exists naturally and could thereby be dealt with on one site to the benefit of the other two, garnering a more holistic, rather than piecemeal, solution. Key to the avoidance criteria, the applicants propose to retain all existing natural drainage ways in their current locations and in their natural state, as required by the MASP. In addition, the applicants are already in communication with the agencies of jurisdiction(California Department of Fish and Game, U.S.Fish&Wildlife Service,US Army Corps of Engineers)regarding acquiring necessary permits for the mitigation of impacts to jurisdictional wetlands, (Section 404, etc.) and conditions of approval are recommended to assure compliance. The wetlands and drainages are afforded further protection as stipulated b CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO I INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2003 ER 65-05(VTTM#2428-King) C:\D000MENTS AND SETTTNGS\SLOUSER\DESKTOP\FINAL INITIAL STUDY KING 01-04-06.DOC a�-/6 9 Attac rrer# 6 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Inforfriation Sources Sources Potenually Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact ER#65-OS Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated the EIR performance criteria,by providing necessary buffer zones around the features to be protected/preserved. The findings and recommendations of the "Comprehensive Mitigation Program" as reviewed and modified by City staff are summarized below:- Biological elow:Biological impacts fall into several categories: wetland impacts; impacts to other sensitive habitats, and impacts to sensitive species. These are discussed in more detail below for the site specific map: Wetland Imoacts. All three subdivisions have some impacts to wetlands. Efforts have been made, especially in the King subdivision, to minimize these through redesign of the lot layout, but there will still be impacts that cannot be avoided if the project is to proceed as called for in the Margarita Area Specific Plan. The DeBlauw, and Cowan subdivisions also have wetland impacts but these appear to be of a different nature, impacting wetlands that have resulted from grade and drainage changes caused by human activities in the past. The developers are working on amitigation program for wetland impacts that would utilize a nearby property and would meet City,State,and federal mitigation requirements. Impacts to Creek Habitats. Impacts to creek habitats are minor, following the realignment of the project to try to minimize such impacts. There will be some impacts as a result of creek crossings,however, these will be minor and mitigation will be dictated by Corps and DFG requirements. Impacts to Serpentine Grassland Habitat. The project lot design results in approximately 1.75 acres of loss of serpentine bunchgrass habitat. To significantly reduce or avoid this impact would require substantial changes to the project's layout which would frustrate another important community goal, specifically housing development in this area. It is important to note that this community extends well onto the hill at the northern boundary of the project for some distance,thus the habitat will be reduced but not lost. There will in fact be a significant area of serpentine bunchgrass habitat that will be conserved as part of the project. Impacts to Sensitive Species. Several species of concern will be impacted by the project:these are mostly plant species, but also include one potentially affected animal species. These are discussed individually below. Palmer Spineflower (Chorizanthe palmeri). This species is found throughout the South Hills. A small portion of the population will be lost through development;however,the open space dedication of the project will secure a much larger area of occupied habitat. Brewer Spineflower(Chorizanthe breweri). The situation for this species is the same as for the above. Obispo Indian Paintbrush (Castilleja densiflora ssp. obispoensis). In 2005 this species was found in large numbers both within the Margarita area(including the open space lot) and on the Unocal Tank Farm property nearby. Hoover reports this subspecies as occurring from about Ragged Point on the northern boundary of:San Luis Obispo County to the San Luis Obispo area. It is not certain whether the subspecies was observed in the more northerly areas or not, but it is reasonable to assume so, as conditions in the North County area have not changed much in the 35 years since publication of the Vascular Plants of San Luis Obispo County. Miles Milkvetch (Astragalus didymocarpus var. milesianus). This rare variety is reported from locations in coastal San Luis Obispo and Santa Barbara Counties. Hoover reports it as found in clay soils, usually derived from serpentine; from Morro Bay to San Luis Obispo. The approximately 25 individuals found in the survey were observed within the project development envelope. Obispo dudleya(Dudleya abramsii ssp. murina). There are eight individuals of this species that will be lost to development. The species has considerable habitat in the South Hills. Obispo Mariposa Lily (Calochortus simulans). Approximately 25 individuals of this species will be lost to development. The species has additional occupied habitat in the South Hills. The open space dedication of the project will secure much of CRY OF SAN Luis OBISPO 12 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2003 ER 65-05(VTTM#2428-King) C:IDOCUMENTS AND SL• TINGS\SLOUSERIDESKTOP\FTNAL INITIAL STUDY KING 01-04-06.Doc CV -//D Attachment G Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact ER#65 05 Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Inco omted that habitat(some is already secured). The bulbs may be hard to find,could be damaged while being searched for, and could be time-consuming to replant. The relocation of these individuals may be considered and undertaken if it can be accomplished at low cost. Adobe Sanicle (Sanicula maritima). Approximately 500 individuals of this species have been found within the project area and they would be lost due to the development. This species is considered very rare and San Luis Obispo may be the only area where it is found, according to the Jepson Manual. A small population is known from a.seep in Laguna Lake Park within the City. Congdon Tarplant(Hemizonia parryi ssp congdoni). Up to several hundred individuals have been observed in disturbed; wet ground paralleling Prado Road on the Cowan and DeBlauw properties. This species is concentrated in the San Luis Obispo area in vernally wet areas that are routinely disturbed, such as by agricultural operations or livestock activities, and in vernal pools. Loggerhead Shrike (Lanus ludovicianus). One active loggerhead shrike nest was found in the myoporum tree which occurs in the project area. State law prohibits the destruction of nests in which young are being fledged. There is ample suitable habitat for loggerhead shrikes in the area, including the South Hills, and the loss of a nest site should not be a significant impact. In order to obviate the utilization of the nest next season, the myoporlun should be cut to eliminate the nest at this time when it is unoccupied. Impacts to Other Nesting Birds. It is possible that construction activities during the nesting season could impact nesting birds,including inadvertent harassment of nesting pairs and destruction of nests. Mitigation Program Mitigation for wetland impacts. Mitigation for wetland impacts will be through a combination of on-and off-site mitigation, approved by the City, the DFG and the Corps. Further, in compliance with the MASP/AASP EIR, the subject VTM#2342 (Cowan) proposes the creation of Lot Z in an area designated by the MASP for "Open Space-Riparian" for the express purposes of achieving some of the necessary wetlands replacement mitigation area, as well as preservation of related biological habitat benefits. Mitigation for Impacts to Creek Habitats. Mitigation for impacts creek habitats will be through a combination of on- and off-site mitigation,approved by the City,the DFG and the Corps. Mitigation for Impacts to Serpentine Bunchgrass Habitat. A mitigation program involving restoration of serpentine bunchgrass habitat at an identified area in the so-called "saddle"in the King property's open space parcel,should be required. This area occupies between one-half and three-quarters of an acre. The program would at a minimum, replace the existing non-native.grassland in that area with a grassland containing a majority of native bunchgrass species including purple needlegrass,meadow barley, and California brome. In addition, a program for additional protection for the open space lands of the project will be developed. The goal of this program will be to provide protection for remaining areas of serpentine bunchgrass habitat and species within that habitat in the South Hills Open Space, through mechanisms such as fencing, trail realignments, and drainage improvements on the access road to the communication site on neighboring property. Finally, the project sponsors propose to donate fee title to the open space lot 146 to the City of San Luis Obispo as permanent open space as part of the project. Mitigation for Impacts to Sensitive Species. None of these species are expected to be difficult to establish. City staff will work with the project sponsors in developing the details of the effort. Palmer Spineflower. None required. Brewer Spineflower. None required. Obispo Indian Paintbrush. Collect seed or seed/soil mix for relocation to open.space lot enhancement site. Miles Milkvetch. Collect seed or seed/soil mix for relocation to open space lot enhancement site. CITY OF SAN LUIS Osispo 13 INmAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2003 ER 65-05(VTTM#2428-King) C:\DocUMENTS AND SETTINGS\SLOUSER\DESKTGP\FINAL INrr1AL STUDY KING 01-04-06.DGC Attachment 6 Issues, Discussion and Support ng Information Sources Sources Potendalty Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact ER#65-05 Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated Obispo dudleya. Due to the very small number of impacted individuals and the ease of transplanting, transplant these individuals to suitable sites within the project open space. Obispo Mariposa Lily. None required. Adobe Sanicle. Relocate some individuals to a suitable site within the project open space;consider transplanting the balance to a suitable site in Laguna Lake Park or other suitable off-site location approved by the City,or consider lot adjustments to protect the major portion near lots 121, 122,and adjacent multifamily lot. Congdon Tarplant. Create compensating habitat in a suitable off-site location approved by the City. Loggerhead Shrike. Remove myoporum tree before nesting season. Mitigation for Impacts to Other Nesting Buds. Undertake surveys prior to initiation of construction activities; avoid construction activities within 100 feet of active nest sites until after young have fledged. Off Site Mitigation for Wetland Impacts. A further component of the biological mitigation program is the applicant's proposal to acquire (by fee, easement, or eminent domain) lands outside the bounds of the Western Enclave (designated by the MASP as "Open Space-Riparian" lands). The targeted property (lying south of Prado Road and owned by Unocal) is a low lying area that already naturally collects some area run-off and provides valuable habitat for certain special concern and R-T-E(rare,threatened, and endangered)species,and thus is beneficial to retain in its natural state. Pre-development run-off has resulted in seasonal flooding of Prado Road due to they currently deficient collection/distribution system to this natural drainage area south of Prado Road.. The Western Enclave applicants propose to acquire this off-site property designated for open space use by the MASP and utilize it beneficially for biological mitigation as well as a detention basin for pre-and post- Western Enclave development generated run-off. It is proposed that this basin be enhanced to accommodate the greater project-generated and pre-project run-off flows,and to increase its habitat value in the long term. The basin is proposed to be held and maintained by a Master Home Owners Association (MHOA)established initially for the Western Enclave area, and perhaps ultimately for the entire MASP as stipulated be done by the MASP. As noted, the developments have been designed so as to avoid any disturbance to the natural drainage channels. In order to accommodate this, a storm drainage system is proposed to capture all surface flow from the improvements and convey it on through the watershed. Naturally occurring drainage from the upper reaches of the watershed will be allowed to continue to flow through the developments via the existing natural drainage channels [proposed to be preserved in Open Space, particularly Lots 142-146& 148 in the subject maps. However,development-generated run-off will be conveyed via separate installed infrastructure & treatment facilities required for the subdivisions, and transported to the proposed off-site sub- regional drainage basin.] The proposed off-site detention basin and drainages (preserved in common by a MHOA as open channels)will be vegetated with local native,suitable grasses and other plant material,and with the assistance of composite turf reinforcement fabric, will allow for the formation of additional seasonal wetlands. As the channels and basin are lined with the turf reinforcement fabric, any additional bank stabilization that will be needed should be achieved. Additionally, outlets into the basin will have substantial energy dissipation structures, as required to remove any erosion and sedimentation potential. Once the wetlands within the channels and basin have been allowed to fully establish themselves, it is anticipated that some of the wildlife,which will take seasonal refuge within these wetlands,will assist with keeping growth of the vegetation under control. Inclusion of the above mitigations reduce the impacts to a level of less than significant. Further, in compliance with the MASP,the subject map proposes the 71-acre Lot 146 as an Open Space lot to be dedicated to the City, and Lots 142, 143, 144, 145,& 148, as lots to be owned and maintained by a Master Home Owners Association all for the multiple purposes of achieving the required biological mitigation and the functioning components of the proposed sub- regional drainage plan and pedestrian/bicycle trail system. 5.CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would theproject: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a 1,3 X historic resource?(See CEQA Guidelines 15064.5) 10, 18 b) _ Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an 1,3, X CITY of SAN LUIS OBISPo 14 INITIAL STUDY ENv RONmENTAL CHEcKusT 2003 ER 65-05(VTTM#2428-King) C:\D000MENTS AND SETTINGASLOUSEMDESKTOPTINAL INITIAL STUDY KING 01-04-06.Doc r- I Alaachrnerit 6 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potem„dly Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact ER#65-05 Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated archaeological resource?(See CEQA Guidelines 15064.5) 10, 18 c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource 1,3, X or site or unique geologic feature? 10, 18 d) Disturb any human remains,including those interred outside of 1, 3, X formal cemeteries? 10, 18 Evaluation a-b)The MASP and MASP/AASP EIR determined that further on-site surface surveys be done in conjunction with each site specific development proposal. Such further survey was conducted by a Heritage Discoveries, Inc. of San Luis Obispo, CA for the entire Western Enclave area and a written report, dated May 31, 2005, was submitted to the City. The report found, and completed a site record for,a small archaeological site of unspecified significance within the survey area. The site found is not adjacent to or within the boundaries of this VTM#2428. A Phase II subsurface test is required for this off-site find,but such survey will not affect and therefore does not impact the subject project. Thus,the project impact is less than significant. c-d)The project site is located in an area that does not contain any unique geological feature and possesses no known unique paleontological resources. The project area has been part of two general cultural resource field surveys. As a result of these field surveys, there are no known historical or archaeological resources that are associated with the project site. Therefore there is no impact. 6. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would theproject: a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? 1,2,3 X b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient 1,2,3 X manner? c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource 1,2,3 X that would be of value to the region and the residents of the State? Evaluation: a-b) The project will not conflict with adopted energy conservation plans nor will it promote the use of non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner. The future development of the site must comply with the policies contained in the General Plan Energy Element that states: "New development will be encouraged to minimize the use of conventional energy for space heating and cooling,water heating,and illumination by means of proper design and orientation, including the provision and protection of solar exposure." The project will also be subject to Architectural Review that will ensure consistency with City energy conservation goals,policies,and regulations. This impact is less than significant. c)There are no known mineral resources on the project site that would be of value to the region and the residents of the State. Thus.there is no impact. 7. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would theproject: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse 1,2,3, X effects,including risk of loss,injury or death involving: 5,7, 17 1. Rupture of a known earthquake fault,as delineated in the 1,2,3, X most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map 5,7, 17 issued by the State Geologist for the area,or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? H. Strong seismic ground shaking? 1,2,3, X 5,7, 17 III. Seismic-related ground failure,including liquefaction? 1,2, 3, X 5,7, 17 IV. Landslides or mudflows? 1,2,3, X b) Result insubstantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? 5,7, 17 X CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 15 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2003 ER 65-05 (VTTM#2428-King) CADOCUMENfS AND SMINGS\.SLOUSER\DESKTOP\FINAL INITIAL STUDY KING 01-04-06.DOC 2//03 r Attachment 6 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources PotettudIly Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact ER#65-OS Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable,or that 1,2,3, X would become unstable as a result of the project,and potentially 5,7, 17 result in on or off site landslides,lateral spreading,subsidence, liquefaction,or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil,as defined in Table 18-1-B of the 1,2, 3, X Uniform Building Code(1994),creating substantial risks to life 5,7, 17 or property? Evaluation: a)-d):The initial study prepared for the MASP/AASP projects found that all the above-stated effects from implementation of both plans would be less than significant and therefore the MASP/AASP EIR conducted no further evaluations. There is no new evidence to suggest there would be any site specific impacts that were not adequately anticipated or evaluated in the prior environmental documents. The preliminary grading plan prepared for the subdivision is consistent with City code. The final grading plan of the proposed subdivision will be in accordance with the Geotechnical Engineer's recommendations and the California Building Code adopted by the City and modified by City regulations. Thus, the project impact is less than significant. 8. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the r('ect: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment 1, 3, X through the routine use,transport or disposal of hazardous 14 materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment 1, 3, X through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions 14 involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely 1,3, X hazardous materials,substances,or waste within one-quarter 14 mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Expose people or structures to existing sources of hazardous 1,3, X emissions or hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, 14 substances,or waste? e) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous 1,3, X materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 14 65962.5 and,as a result,it would create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? f) For a project located within an airport land use plan,or within 1,2, X two miles of a public airport,would the project result in a safety 3, 14 hazard for the people residing or working in the project area? g) Impair implementation of,or physically interfere with,the 1,2, X adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation 3, 14 plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of lose,injury, 1,2, X or death,involving wildland fires,including where wildlands are 3, 14 adjacent to urbanized areas or where residents are intermixed with wildlands? Evaluation a), b),d):The prior EIR determined that historical agricultural activities and surrounding industrial activities of the Margarita Area may have released hazardous materials into the environment. Hazardous materials releases may have involved leaking underground or aboveground storage tanks, or similar events from other nearby properties that store or handle hazardous or toxic materials. Construction-related and ground disturbing activities may involve the use of materials that could contaminate CITY OF SAN LUIS Osispo 16 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2003 ER 65-05(VTfM#2428-King) CADOCUMENTS AND SETTINGS�SLOUSER\DE•sKTDP\FINAL INITIAL STUDY KING 01-04-06.DOC 2,r-11Y - Attachment 6 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potw..rally Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact ER#65-05 Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated nearby soils and water resources in the project area. Existence of such potential hazards could cause construction workers and other people to be exposed to dust or emissions containing such hazardous materials or to organic pesticides, herbicides, and other hazardous materials. The prior MASP/AASP EIR further determined impacts related to development of allowed business park land uses could result in operations-related exposures to hazardous materials and short-term surface water quality degradation from accidental release of hazardous materials during construction;areas of concern within the Margarita Area included mention of Acacia Creek. The prior MASP/AASP EIR required the following mitigation measures that would reduce such impacts to less than significant: HAZ-1.1: Implement a construction-related hazardous materials management plan HAZ-1.2:If presence of hazardous materials is suspected or encountered during construction-related activities, conduct a Phase I and possibly Phase II Environmental Site Assessment to determine soil or ground water contamination. HAZ-2.1:Implement an operations-related hazardous materials management plan. With respect to required mitigation measure HAZ-1.1, the applicant already prepared and submitted the results of Phase I ESA for the subject site. Said Assessment, dated June 27, 2005, was prepared by Geo-Solutions, Inc., a firm qualified to prepare such assessments. The Assessment found that there are no recognized environmental conditions at the site or in connection with the site that could be affected by roadway or utility alignments, and in the author's expert judgment, no further inquiry regarding potential or recognized environmental conditions is required for past uses of the site (No Phase II ESA,required.). Since the subject project involves only development of residential uses there is no potential for the stated potential impacts related to business park office development or uses that would involve the handling or disposal of materials used onsite,or the delivery, use, manufacture and/or storage of various chemicals necessary to perform manufacturing and business park activities.Mitigation Measure HAZ-2.1 above is therefore not applicable to the subject project and therefore is not required to be brought forward as a condition of approval. Thus, there is no impact. Although Acacia Creek does not lie within the Western Enclave area of the MASP, there are other natural drainage ways within this and the two other related Western Enclave development sites that contain biological resource values required by the MASP to be protected and preserved. Therefore,there is still potential for on-site construction of roadways,infrastructure and building sites to involve handling and disposal of materials used or produced onsite, such as petroleum products, concrete, and sanitary waste that have the potential to adversely impact these drainages if proper precautions are not implemented. Therefore,Mitigation Measure HAZ-1.1 above is applicable to the subject site and is therefore required to be brought forward as a condition of approval. According to the MASP/AASP EIR, said Construction-Related Hazardous Materials Management Plan is required to outline specific protocol to identify health risks associated with presence and handling of chemical compounds and identify specific protective measures to be followed by the workers in the work area to prevent or avoid improper release or accidental disposals that would result in soil and/or groundwater contamination. By incorporating the stated mitigation HAZ-1.1 above as condition of approval, this impact will remain less than significant with mitigation. c)The project site is not located within a one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school. Thus, there is no impact. e) The project site is not located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. Thus there is no impact. f) The project site is located in the vicinity of the San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport, and is subject to the County Airport Land Use Plan(ALUP). In its adoption of the MASP,the City Council already found the MASP to be consistent with the ALUP. It follows, therefore, that because the subject project and proposed residential uses and densities are compliant with the MASP,the project is also compatible with the policies and objectives of the Airport Land Use Plan. Thus there is no impact. CRY OF SAN LUIS Owspo 17 INRIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2003 ER 65-05 (VTTM#2428-King) CADOCUMEN'TS AND SETT1NGS\SLOUsER\DESKTOP\FINAL INMAL STUDY KING 01-04-06.DOC 2//S' Attachment 6 issues, Discussion and Supporting information Sources Sources Potenuady Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact ER #65-05 Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated g)The project and its proposed circulation and land use plan has been reviewed by the Fire Marshall who has recommended conditions of approval which will assure compliance with adopted fire/emergency-related codes. The Fire Marshall has provided no expert evidence that said proposal will impair implementation of, or physically interfere with, the adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plans of the City. Thus,the impact is less than significant. h)The project site is not in an area identified as subject to wildland fire hazards. Thus there is no impact. 9. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the ro'ect: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge 1,2, X requirements? 3, 16 b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere 1,2, X substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be 3, 16 a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level(e.g.The production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses for which permits have been granted)? c) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the 1,2, X capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or 3, 16 provide additional sources of runoff into surface waters (including,but not limited to,wetlands,riparian areas,ponds, springs,creeks,streams,rivers,lakes,estuaries,tidal areas,bays, ocean,etc.)? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or 1,2 X area in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or 3, 16 siltation onsite or offsite? e) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or 1,2, X area in a manner which would result in substantial flooding 3, 16 onsite or offsite? f) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on 1,2, X a Federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map 3, 16 or other flood hazard delineation trap? g) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which 1,2, X would impede or redirect flood flows? 3, 16 h) Will the project introduce typical storm water pollutants into 1,2, X ground or surface waters? 3, 16 i) Will the project alter ground water or surface water quality, 1,2, X temperature,dissolved oxygen,or turbidity? 3, 16 Evaluation: (Feedback from Rob Livick indicated no changes for the following evaluations.) a) The project will not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. According to the prior MASP/AASP EIR, development associated with the project will require issuance of an NPDES general construction activity storm water permit by the Central Coast RWQCB. Completion of this project would ensure that construction-related dischirges are limited or adequately accommodated by properly engineered infrastructure design. Thus, the impact is considered less than significant. b) The project will be served by the City's sewer and water systems and will not use or deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level . c), e) According to the prior MASP/AASP EIR, construction of the proposed project as part of the urbanization of the Western Enclave Area would result in an increase of impervious surfaces that would cause the timing and amount of surface CRY OF SAN Luis OBISPO 18 INMAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CNECKusT 2003 ER 65-05(VTrM#2428-King) CADocuMENTS AND SM1NGS\.SLousE.R\DESKTOPTINAL 1NTTIAL STUDY KING 01-04-06.Doc *Z-114 Aachl-]�snt G Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact ER#65 05 Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated water runoff to increase.However,the project is subject to the revised City Storm Drain Master Plan/Waterways Management Plan that discusses the necessary improvements that would ensure adequate transmission and detention of storm water flow created by any new development and thus potential impacts resulting from increased development-related run-off was determined by the MASP/AASP EIR to be less than significant, and no mitigation required. To ensure that runoff levels will be equal to or less than existing levels,all storm water runoff will be contained in detention basins and drained at a rate not to exceed the 2-year undeveloped flow rate. In addition, according to the MASP a series of basins will be constructed to detain storm water runoff within the area. In this instance the Western Enclave developers propose one off-site detention basin to accept development-generated run-off from all three subdivisions, together with existing area run-off that historically creates flooding at the concrete box culvert under Prado Road that is insufficient to accept and transmit existing area run-off. The design, location, and maintenance of the detention basins will be subject to the approval of the City Engineer. In the event such off-site basin cannot be achieved, then, alternately, each subdivision will be responsible for providing its own on-site basin to the approval of the City Engineer as stipulated in the MASP.Thus,the impact of the project is less than significant. f),g)The project does not place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a Federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map nor will it impede or redirect water flows that will cause a flood hazard to surrounding areas.Thus,there is no impact. h), i) According to the prior MASP/AASP EIR, the project could potentially introduce typical storm water pollutants into ground or surface waters during construction activities and as a result of ongoing use of the project area. As a result, the development would require issuance of an NPDES general construction activity permit by the Central Coast RWQCB. Completion of this permit process would ensure that construction-related discharges were limited. Because ongoing use of the project area for residential and commercial uses would also increase the potential for discharge of chemicals, oils and fuels, and waste into projected waterways; the requirement for the implementation of Best Management Practices (BMPs) must be established to greatly reduce the potential for unwanted runoff. Therefore, implementation of the BMPs on the project will reduce impact to less than significant level. 10. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would theproject: a) Conflict with applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of 1,2,3 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? 1,2,3 X c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural 1,2,3 X community conservationplans? Evaluation a)The project is located in an area designated by the MASP for low density residential,medium density residential and open space-hill and riparian. The layout and intensity of residential development and open space lots proposed with VTM #2428 complies with the land use plan and density requirements of the MASP. The City's Open Space Element requires developments to include buffer areas next to wetlands and creeks to protect riparian habitat. The project proposes that the three drainage ways traversing the property, as well us the 7]-acre area of the South Hills along the northern band of the site, remain in their natural state, and as such are afforded the requisite protection by including them within separate lots designated for open space and, in the case of the drainage ways include the minimum required setbacks. These lots are proposed to be owned and maintained either by the City (the 71-acre parcel)or in common by a Home Owners Association. The subdivision of the property into low and medium density residential units does not conflict with any plan or policy adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. The proposal for affordable (condominium) housing within Lot 147 is also consistent with inclusionary and affordable housing policies of the City. To this extent the project is self-mitigating. Thus,there is no impact. (See related discussion above under Part 4.Biological Resources.) b)The project will not physically divide an established community, because by implementation of the MASP the project is a logical and orderly extension of the planned land uses and development that are already established and planned within the surrounding area. Thus,there is no impact. CRY OF SAN LUIS Obispo 19 INMAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2003 ER 65-05(VTTM#2428-King) CA)OCUMENTS AND SE-MNGS\SL0USER\DESKToP\FINAL INmAL STWY KING 01-04-06.DOC AftaOtf;rfl 'i7t j Issues, Discussion and Supporting information Sources Sources Potenuatly Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact ER#65-05 Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated c) The project site is not located within a habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan. Thus there is no impact. (See related discussion above under Part 4.Biological Resources.) 11.NOISE. Would the project result in: a) Exposure of people to or generation of"unacceptable"noise 1,2,3 X levels as defined by the San Luis Obispo General Plan Noise Element,or general noise levels in excess of standards established in the Noise Ordinance? b) A substantial temporary,periodic,or permanent increase in 1,2,3 X ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? c) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne 1,2,3 X vibration or groundbome noise levels? d) For a project located within an airport land use plan,or within 1,2,3 X two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? Evaluation According to the MASP/AASP EIR, the proposed project is located in an area zoned for residential land uses that are predicted to be exposed to traffic noise levels resulting from new roadways within the development. Such traffic-related noise levels are expected to exceed the maximum exterior noise planning standard of 60 LdWCNEL dB (day-night average sound level;or 24-hour average community noise equivalent level, in decibels)or to exceed allowable thresholds of stationary noise sources as set forth in Table 2 of the Noise Element. However, the EIR concludes that this impact is less-than-significant since in order for a subdivision map to be approved it must be fully compliant with the entirety of the City's General Plan. As such, the project is required to be consistent with the Specific Plan standards for road noise mitigation and outdoor noise reduction as well as subject to mitigation measures listed and already adopted in the City's General Plan Noise Element. The applicable mitigation measures are any or all of those listed in Policy 8 of the Noise Element which, based upon the conclusions of a site specific noise measurement, are shown by a qualified expert performing said study are necessary to achieve the 60 Lda/CNEL dB standard within the outdoor activity exposure area. Conditions of approval require that measures contained in the City's Noise Guidebook and as deemed necessary by the qualified acoustic consultant shall be incorporated into the design of the buildings to ensure that noise impacts are reduced to achieve the performance thresholds set forth herein and in the City Noise Element. Implementation of this condition will assure the impact remains less-than- significant. b) Site development will result in increases in ambient noise levels, but not to significant levels, since by operation of mitigation requirements set forth in a)above, noise increases that would affect ambient levels are to be reduced to thresholds determined to be acceptable in residential areas. Therefore, impacts to permanent ambient noise levels are less than significant. Project construction or other temporary or periodic noise generation may result in temporary increases (spikes) inn ambient noise levels. Since there is no way to predict the origin or duration of these types of noise sources for this development,it can only be regulated if found to be a nuisance by the City's Noise Ordinance. If noise levels exceed the Noise Ordinance thresholds, the property owner would be subject to possible citations and corrective actions to eliminate or reduce such noise to non-nuisance levels. The significance of this impact is too speculative to determine;compliance with the Noise Ordinance is presumed to adequately abate the periodic nuisance noise. Thus,there is no impact. c) The project will not expose people to the generation of excessive groundbome noise levels or vibrations.Thus,there is no impact. d)The project is located in the vicinity of the San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport, and is subject to the County Airport Land Use Plan. According to the prior MASP/AASP EIR, the project is not within the 60 or 65 dBA-CNEL contour line. CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 20 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2003 ER 65-05 (VTTM#2428-King) CAD000MENTS AND SErr[NGs\sLGUSER\DESKTGP\FINAL INmAL STUDY KING 01-04-06.Doc .Z--/1r r- P'.ftachlne1�t Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Po"..ally Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact ER#65 05 Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated However, due to projected future aircraft over flight, the project is required by the MASP/RASP EIR and MASP to implement design features to ensure compatibility with the Airport and thereby control indoor noise levels. Design features must control for indoor noise to not exceed 45 dB Community Noise Equivalent Level, and a 60 dB maximum for aircraft single events. Implementation of mitigation as specified in the MASP/AASP EIR and Plan will result in the impact being less-than-significant. 12. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would theproject: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly 1,2,3 X (for example by proposing new homes or businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing or people 1,2,3 X necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Evaluation: a)The added population growth caused by this project is within the General Plan's projection and will not result in population exceeding local and regional growth projections. Therefore, the impact of inducing substantial population growth to the planning area would be less than significant. b) The project site is currently vacant and undeveloped land; therefore,housing or people will not be displaced as a result of the project. Thus, there is no impact. 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? 1,2,3 X b) Police protection? 1,2,3 X c) Schools? 1,2, 3 X d) Parks? 1,2, 3 X e) Roads and other transportation infrastructure? 1,2,3 X Other public facilities? 1,2,3 X Evaluation a), b), d), e), & f) The MASP/RASP EIR determined that implementation and build out of the MASP will not result in any significant impacts related to any of the above-listed services due to the ability to off-set service needs through the City's Development Impact Fee programs established via the City General Plan and augmented by the MASP and concluded that no further mitigation was necessary. There is no new evidence that the subject project, proposed to catty out the development intended by the MASP as evaluated by the MASP/AASP EIR will result in any adverse impacts to these services. And further,the project will not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of, or need for, new or physically altered government facilities,the construction of which might have the potential to cause significant environmental impacts. In accordance with the MASP, the project is subject to City and MASP established Development Impact Fees that are charged in conjunction with approval of development projects to offset costs associated with increases in demand of public services. Thus,there is no impact. c)The school districts in the state have the authority to collect fees at the time of building permits to offset the costs to finance school site acquisition and school construction, and said fees, when collected by local school districts, are deemed by State law constitute adequate mitigation for all school facility requirements.. Section 65955 of the Government Code prohibits the City from denying a subdivision or collecting any fees beyond those required by the school district to mitigate effects associated with inadequate school facilities. Any increases in demand on school facilities caused by the project are CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPo 21 INmAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2003 ER 65-05 (VT M#2428-King) C:\D000MENTS AND SETTINGS\SLOUSER\DESKTOP\FINAL 1NTr1AL STUDY KING 01-04-06.DOC OZ-119 ikttR hrl ent 6 Issues, Discussion and Supporting-information Sources Sources potentially potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact ER#65-05 Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated considered to be mitigated by the district's collection of adopted fees at the time of building permit issuance for each residence.Thus,there is no impact. 14.RECREATION. Would theproject: a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood or regional parks or X other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Include recreational facilities or require the construction or X expansion of recreational facilities,which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Evaluation: a) & b) The build-out of the project will add to the demand for parks and other recreational facilities. The MASP has anticipated this demand by designating certain lands within the Plan area for "Sports Fields" (already built) and "Neighborhood Park"for active recreational use and other areas for"Open Space-Hills" or"Open Space-Riparian" for more passive recreation/aesthetic amenities(e.g. walking or bicycling paths and trails) intended more for use by adjacent or nearby residents.No portions of the subject site are designated by the MASP for either of the active recreation land use designations. The project is consistent with MASP insofar as said plan does designate a 71-acre-portion of the subject site (Lot 146) for "Open Space-Hills" (to be dedicated to the City for public use)and five other lots alongside natural drainage ways for"Open Space-Riparian" (Lots 142, 143, 144, 145, & 148. Proposed 12-foot Class I pedestrian/bicycle paths through Lots 144 and 148 are integral features for more passive recreation use. The MASP/AASP EIR determined that while build-out of the MASP will generate increased demand for recreational facilities, the impact is less than significant due to the adoption through the MASP of 533 acres of additional parks and open space land use designations(lying outside the Western Enclave development area.). The MASP also specifies that developers will contribute to the construction of public park facilities through the payment of City-,as well as,MASP-adopted Park Improvement Fees to offset costs associated with increases in demand and services as it relates to maintaining City-wide public park areas. Thus, the construction of the project will have a less than significant ficant impact on parks or other recreational facilities. 15. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would theproject: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the 1,2, X existing traffic load and capacity of the street system? 3,4 b) Exceed,either individually or cumulatively,a level of service 1,2, X standard established by the county congestion management 3,4 agency for designated roads and highways? c) Substantially increase hazards due to design features(e.g.sharp 1,2, X cures or dangerous intersections)or incompatible uses(e.g. 3,4 farm equipment)? d) Result in inadequate emergency access? 1,2,3 X e) Result in inadequate parking capacity onsite or offsite? 1,2,3 X f) Conflict with adopted policies supporting alternative 1,2,3 X transportation(e.g.bus turnouts,bicycle racks)? g) Conflict with the with San Luis Obispo County Airport Land 1,2,3 X Use Plan resulting in substantial safety risks from hazards,noise, or a change in air trafficpatterns? Evaluation: a), b) The subject project proposed in accordance to the MASP and AASP and the City General Plan will increase traffic in the area, but not in relation to load and capacity of project area streets, existing or as projected currently, nor will increased traffic exceed established acceptable level of service(LOS)threshold (adopted at LOS "D"by the City General Plan)for San CITY OF SAN Luis OBispo 22 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CNECKusT 2003 ER 65-05(VTTM#2428-King) C:\DocUMENTS AND SEMNGs\.SLOUSER\DEsKTOP\FINAL INMAL STWY KING 01-04-06.Doc g —,/a0 Affach:rcnt tj Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Pote,laally Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact ER#65-05 Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated Luis Obispo as discussed in the MASP/AASP EIR, except for the Prado Road/South Higuera Street intersection. The Circulation Plan of the MASP(as well as the Circulation Plan of the AASP and Circulation Element of the City General Plan) identifies the essential primary road system that will be needed to accommodate development within the plan area and surrounding growth areas of the City at this threshold. The MASP/AASP EIR determined that the circulation plans of these planning documents are for the most part self-mitigating in that 1.) Roadway alignments, road extensions, and new intersections are designed and will be built in response to traffic projected at build-out and, 2.) Development projects in the Airport and Margarita Specific Pian areas will also contribute their fair share either through adopted Traffic Impact Fees, MASP development impact fees, assessments or dedications to specified roadway improvements (EIR page 313-29). The primary self-mitigating traffic feature of the MASP is the Plan's requirement that Prado Road be extended easterly, from its current terminus just east of South Higuera Street,all the way to Broad Street,thus providing a major new divided 4-lane east- west cross town arterial connector in the southerly area of San Luis Obispo. Conditions of approval are recommended that would require improvements to Prado Road as stipulated by the MASP and MASP/AASP EIR. The project will be conditioned to provide build-out of Prado Road commensurate with the development of the subject site together with the other two developments within the Western Enclave, as required by the MASP and as recommended by the City Public Works Dept. In addition,the subject proposal's proposed street system internal to the subdivision conforms to the MASP Circulation Plan. The extension of Prado Road, as a designated "highway/regional route", together with AASP required roadway improvements (particularly Tank Farm Road) will accommodate cumulative traffic increases in the area and will mostly maintain at the acceptable LOS of"D" or better, except as noted above regarding the intersection of Prado Road and South Higuera Street. At the time of adoption of the Airport Area Specific Plan (Ref. Resolution 9726-2205 Series)adopted by the City Council August 23, 2005, almost a year after the adoption of the MASP, it was determined potential and proposed development circumstances had changed sufficiently in the Airport Area since the adoption of the MASP,such that Level of Service (LOS) at the intersection of Prado Road and South Higuera Street would decline from LOS "D" (as found in the MASP/AASP EIR) to LOS "E". As a result, the City Council Resolution No. 9726 (2005 Series) found that additional mitigation T-2.1 was necessary to lessen the effects of the significant impact at this intersection. This mitigation requires that the threshold for Transportation Demand Management(TDM)requirements shall be reduced to apply to employers with 25 or more employees. It is appropriate, therefore, that this mitigation measure applies to commercial development within the MASP to cumulatively contribute to the mitigation. In summary,the proposed project would add vehicular trips to streets that serve as entry/exit routes to the project site. These streets with the given improvements specified in the City's adopted planning documents and with the addition of new TDM requirements will serve to accommodate the added vehicular traffic. Thus, the impact from this project is less than significant. c)d)The Margarita Area Specific Plan will require that the project provides roadways that are designed and development in accordance with adopted city standards thereby assuring predetermined standards necessary to limit safety hazards and provide adequate emergency access. Thus,there is no impact as result of the project. e) The project is subject to the City's parking requirements as it is outlined in the Margarita Area Specific Plan for each varying land use. The project build-out is required to fulfill all necessary parking requirements and therefore there is no evidence of inability to comply with onsite or offsite parking standards. Thus,there is no impact. f) The MASP/AASP EIR identified certain secondary impacts to pedestrians and bicyclists that could result from road improvements needed to achieve vehicular flow at intersections noted in Table 313-10 (namely, with respect to the Western Enclave developments, the intersections of Prado Road/South Higuera Street and Prado Road/Broad Street). Such secondary impacts relate to increased crossing distances from road widening at intersections and introducing conflicts at intersections with multiple turning lanes. The MASP/AASP EIR notes such impacts can be adequately avoided by implementation of Mitigations Measures T-1.1.Design Features which,in summary,incorporate the following: 1. Sidewalks along both sides of all newly constructed streets and reconstructed streets, 2. Crosswalks (pursuant to the City's adopted "Pedestrian Crosswalk Guidelines-2000") at new and reconstructed intersections, CRY OF SAN LUIS OBISPo 23 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2003 ER 65-05 (VTTM#2428-King) CADOCUMENTS AND SETTINGS\SLOUSERIDESKTOp\FINAL INITIAL STUDY KING 01-04-06.Doc r, A:Ct3C� 1la 1t Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potenuauy Potentially Cess Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact ER#65-05 Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated 3. Pedestrian signals at all new and reconstructed signalized intersections,and 4. Class II bike lanes on all new and reconstructed streets per the City Bicycle Transportation Plan and MASP. 5. The three Western Enclave development projects are not directly responsible for the construction of the above described off- site intersections except through payment of City's Traffic and Development Impact Fees which contribute their respective calculated fair share of the cost. This funding source will contribute to the construction of said intersection improvements. At a later time to be determined by the City. Thus, this impact is less than significant. g) The MASP has already been found to not conflict with the San Luis Obispo County Airport Land Use Plan (ALUP). Therefore, as the subject project complies with the pertinent requirements of the MASP regarding allowed land uses and development densities and standards,the project is not in conflict with the ALUP. Thus,there is no impact from this project. 16.UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the ro'ect: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable 1,2,3 X Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction or expansion of new water 1,2,3 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 supplies available to serve the project 1,2, 3 X from existing entitlements and resources,or are new and expanded water resources needed? d) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider 1,2,3 X which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitment? e) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to 1,2,3 X accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? f) Comply with federal,state,and local statutes and regulations 1,2,3 X related to solid waste? Evaluation: a) b) The MASP/RASP EIR determined that implementation and build out of the MASP will not result in any significant impacts related to delivery of domestic water, wastewater collection or treatment, or storm water drainage/retention and concluded that such impacts related to build-out of the MASP were less than significant and no mitigation was deemed necessary. The build-out under the MASP will be similar to that anticipated and projected in the City General Plan. The subject project proposes to provide all water, sewer and storm drain facilities necessary to adequately serve the subject project, including distribution, collection and other infrastructure capacity as required by the MASP facility master plan and the City's Storm Drain Master Plan/Waterway Management Plan. There is no new evidence that the subject project, as intended by the MASP will result in any adverse impacts to these service systems nor result in any exceedances of RWQCB wastewater treatment requirements. In addition to the on-site utility service infrastructure required with the development, the project is subject to City and MASP established Development Impact Fees that are charged in conjunction with approval of development projects to offset costs associated with off-site city-wide utility system impacts related to needed periodic maintenance and upgrades. Thus,there is no impact. c) Provisions in the City General Plan and MASP ensure that an adequate quantity of water will exist before any development is allowed. Moreover, the City has adopted the Water Allocation Regulations to insure that increased water use by new development will not cause inadequate water service to existing and future customers. Section 17.89.030 of the Water Allocation Regulation states that a water allocation shall be required to obtain a connection to the city water system for a structure or facility not previously connected. This project is also subject to water impact fees which were adopted to ensure that new development pays its share of constructing additional infrastructure needed to support additional facilities. More CRY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 24 INmAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2003 ER 65-05(VTTM#2428-King) CADOCUMENTS AND SUMNGSISLOUSER\DESKTOP\FINAL INMAL STUDY KING 0011-04-06 'hC 402 ^ /4a;l A"tachrn�esj Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact ER #65-OS Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated specifically, the project is subject to both the citywide water impact fees and the MASP-specific water add-on fees. Thus compliance with the City and State standards and requirements will assure that impacts related to water supplies are less than significant. d) The City wastewater treatment plant and existing and proposed ewer lines in the vicinity and within the project site have sufficient capacity to serve the project site. The developer will be required to construct on-site sewer facilities according to the Uniform Plumbing Code standards. Impact fees are also collected when building permits are issued to pay for capacity at the City's Water Reclamation Facility. The fees are set to offset potential impacts associated with increases in demand and use by each new residential unit in the project. Thus,there is no impact. e)Solid waste collection within the City will be provided by a private operator under a City franchise and disposal is expected to continue at Cold Canyon Landfill until 2018. The project must be consistent with the City's Source Reduction and Recycling Element which requires that recycling facilities be accommodated on the project site and a solid waste reduction plan for recycling discarded construction materials must be submitted with the building permit application. The project is also required by the ordinance to include facilities for recycling to reduce the waste stream generated by the project. Thus, there is no impact. f) The project will fully comply with existing federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste. Thus, there is no impact. 17.MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the 1,2,3, X environment,substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife 12, 13 species,cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels,threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community,reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the maior veriods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited,but 1,2, 3, X cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" 4 means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of the past projects, the effects of other current projects,and the effects of probable future Projects, c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause 1,2,3, X substantial adverse effects on human beings,either directly or 4 indirectly? CITY OF SAN Luis OBISPO 25 INrnAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHEcKusT 2003 ER 65-05(VTTM#2428-King) CADOCUMENTS AND SEriTNGSISLOUSER\DFSKTOPIFINAL INITIAL STUDY KING 01-04-06.DDOOC w// 1. �7 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 15063 (c) (3) (D). In this case a discussion should identify the following items: a) Earlier analysis used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. In 2004 the City of San Luis Obispo certified an Environmental Impact Report for the Margarita Area Specific Plan (MASP), the Airport Area Specific Plan (AASP) and the related Facilities Master Plan. The subject proposed VTM#2428 property lies within the boundaries of the MASP. Therefore, this prior MASP/AASP EIR evaluation considered impacts and mitigation related generally to potential development of the subject site and others pursuant to the MASP and related Facilities Master Plan. The prior EIR, certified by the City Council along with the adoption of the MASP, AASP, and Facilities Master Plan on October 12, 2004, by Resolution No. 9615 (2004 Series)contained a variety of mitigation measures to be incorporated as discrete components of the MASP or as policies or development standards to be implemented through site specific development proposals. Further on August 23,2005,by Resolution No.9726(2005 Series),the City Council re- certified, with additional mitigation,the MASP/AASP EIR for the Airport Area Specific Plan(AASP),and adopted the Plan. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) allows Lead Agencies (the City) to use the analysis of general matters contained in a broader EIR, such as for a general or specific plan, with later EIRs or Negative Declarations on narrower projects: incorporating by reference the general discussions from the broader EIR, and concentrating the later EIR or Negative Declaration solely on the issues specific to the later project. The environmental assessment approach is refereed to as"tiering". The environmental analyses above for VTM#2428 take into account the environmental conclusions of the prior EIR as they are applicable to the proposed site specific project. As such, mitigation measures adopted in the prior EIR that are applicable to the subject site-specific project, and therefore must be incorporated into the proposed project to effectively mitigate the prior identified impacts, are listed below. Some of these mitigation measures are verbatim from the prior EIR, others have been refined to more specifically clarify how they are applicable to the site specific project by way of Conditions of Approval, in order to be properly implemented. Lastly many of the applicable mitigation measures required by provisions of the MASP have been incorporated by the applicant into the actual project subdivision design, making the project "self-mitigating" in these instances. The Airport Area and Margarita Area Specific Plans and Related Facilities Master Plan Final Program EIR is available for review at the City of San Luis Obispo Community Development Department, City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo,CA 93402-3249. b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. The MASP/AASP EIR (prior EIR), (which included the sites of the three proposed subdivisions within the Western Enclave area,) was certified by the City Council on October 12, 2004, thereby determining that the EIR adequately analyzed the impacts listed in Column No. 1 and that mitigation was required for certain identified impacts,as noted. (If a potential impact was found by the MASP to not be significant, or has been found by the above-stated analyses to not be significant for the subject project, it is noted with strikethrough text. One impact/mitigation originating from the Certified EIR for the AASP— Impact T-2 regarding Transportation Demand Management for exceeding LOS"D", is also applicable to the MASP. Column No. 2 indicates whether mitigations were required due to the impact being significant. Column No. 3 indicates status of impact after mitigation specified in the prior EIR. Column No. 4 indicates if there is a specific provision of the MASP that serves to implement or achieve the required mitigation. Column No.5 reflects whether the site specific VTM, as designed or proposed,complies with the MASP mitigation("complies")or whether a Condition of Approval("COA")is required to bring a required mitigation forward through the project approval or subsequent permits: 2-��y Attachment 6 Issues, Discussion and SupportirTg Information Sources Sources Potm-natly Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact ER#65-05 Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated MASP/AASP EIR-Identified Mitigation Impact after Areas of Potential Impact Required? Mitigation MASP Provision? Site Specific? l.)Land Use and Aesthetics -LU-6 Change in Views "none feasible" SU Open Space&Parks complies -LU-7 Increased light&glare yes L-T-S Lighting Stnd.3.3 COA 2.)Hydrology and Water Quality -H4 Changes in course or "none feasible" SU Drainage 7.3 complies,COA direction of water move- ment 3.)Biological Resources -BIO-2 Valley Needlegrass yes L-T-S Open Space&Parks complies,COA -BIO-5 Open Water Habitat yes L-T-S Open Space&Parks complies,COA -BIO-6 Freshwater Marsh yes L-T-S Open Space&Parks complies,COA -BIO-7 Seasonal Wetlands yes L-T-S Open Space&Parks complies,COA -BIO-11 Special-Status Plants yes L-T-S Open Space&Parks complies,COA -BIO-12 Non-listed Special-Status yes L-T-S Open Space&Parks complies,COA Wildlife -BIO-13 Calif.red-legged frog yes L-T-S Open Space&Parks complies,COA -BIO-17 Southwestern pond turtle yes L-T-S Open Space&Parks complies,COA 4.)Traffic and Circulation -T-1 Secondary Impacts:Peds/Cyclists yes(MASP EIR) L-T-S off-site,not specified COA -T-2 LOS in Excess of LOS"D" yes(AASP EIR) SU Chapter 6,new standard COA 5.)==F QUalit3` Awl Shen Terfn Eenstr'n Emiss. yes b T S net speei ied self-mitig.,COA —.�_!R 2 Deng–TeFfn 61.eratien Efniss---yes LT S net speeifi self-mitig.,COA 6.)Neise He L T S Peg-. Smd. 4.2.E. COA 7.)Hazardous Materials -HAZ-1 Construction Related yes L-T-S not specified COA -HAZ-2 Operations Related yes L-T-S not specified COA -HAZ-3 Accidental Releases yes L-T-S not specified COA 8.)publie-Serviees and 14ilities He 1. T S COA 9.)Gulawal Resetf£ees yes L T_ S net speed n/a VTM 2428 (Only applies to VTM 2353) Notes:SU=Significant,Unavoidable(Statement of Overriding Considerations adopted),L-T-S=Less than Significant Each of these impacts listed is also relative to the subject project. No new impacts for the subject project have been identified and no new mitigation measures are needed. 19. SOURCE REFERENCES. 1. Margarita Area Specific Plan/Airport Area Specific Plan,and Final EIR 2. The City of San Luis Obispo 2004 General Plan/EIR and all its adopted Elements 3. City Council Resolution#9615,2004 Series 4. City Council Resolution#9726,2005 Series 5. SLO Municipal Code 6. SLO Zoning Ordinance,2004 7. SLO Construction Codes,2002 CITY OF SAN Luis OsisPo 27 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2003 ER 65-05 (VTTM#2428-King) CADocUMENTS AND SETTTNGSISLOUSER\DESKTOP\FINAL INITIAL STUDY KING 01-04-06.Docc 1/ __/�✓ Attacht nt 6 Issues, Discussion and Support,._, Information Sources Sources Po, _..ally Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact ER#65-05 Issues Unless impact Mitigation Incorporated 8. SLO Community Design Guidelines,2003 9. SLO Subdivision Regulations, 1985, 1993 10. SLO Archaeological Resources Preservation Guidelines, 1995 11. Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency 12. Biological Assessment for Kine Vesting Tentative Tract Man No.2428 APN:076-331-015,City of San Luis ObisDo.San Luis Obispo County,California,Althouse&Meade,Inc.,July,2005 13. Wetland Declination for King Vesting Tract Map No.2428 APN:076-331-015,City of San Luis Obispo,San Luis Obis o County,California,Althouse&Meade,Inc.,July,2005. 14. Phase I Environmental.Site Assessment APN:053-022-016 San_Luis Obispo,California,Project No. SL04955-1, GeoSolutions,Inc.,June 27,2005. 15. Affordable Housing Project:Margarita Annexation and Specific Plan Area,San Luis Obispo,California,Dave Watson,AICP,June,2005 16. Addendum and Update to Hydrologic and Hydraulic Analysis Report for the Margarita Area,San LuisObispo Coun ,TEC Civil Engineering Consultants,October,2005 17. Soils Engineering Report,Tract 2428 Margarita Avenue Area,APN:076-331-015,San Luis Obispo,California, Proiect SL02258-1, GeoSolutions,Inc.,June 11,2005. 18. An Archaeological Survey for the Margarita Area Specific Plan,Western Enclave Area,San Luis Obisno,San Luis Obispo Coun California,Heritage Discoveries,Inc.,May 31,2005 Attachments: Attachment 1: Vicinity Map Attachment 2: Vesting Tentative Tract Map No.2342(City File No.TR 63-05) Attachment 3: Biological Assessment for King Vesting Tentative Tract May No. 2428 APN:076-331-015.City of San Luis Obispo,San Luis Obispo County,California Althouse&Meade,Inc.,July,2005 Attachment 4: Wetland Declination for King Vesting Tract Man No.2428 APN:076-331-015.City of San Luis Obispo, San Luis Obispo County,California,Althouse&Meade;Inc.,July,2005. Attachment 5: Addendum and Update to Hydrologic and Hydraulic Analysis Report for the Margarita Area, San Luis Obispo County,TEC,Civil Engineering Consultants,October 20, 2005(Technical Appendices available for inspection at City Hall, CommunRy Development Department, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA) Other source documents listed above which are not included as attachments are available upon request from or may be viewed at City Hall,Community Development Department,990 Palm Street,San Luis Obispo,CA,93401 REQUIRED MITIGATION AND MONITORING PROGRAMS 1. Reduction of Light and Glaze In order for MASP/AASP EIR Mitigation Measure LU-7.1 as implemented by the MASP to be carried through to lot- specific development stage, a lighting plan that demonstrates compliance with Community. Design Section 3.3 Lighting requirements of the MASP shall be submitted with other required plans for the project to the review and approval of the Architectural Review Commission(ARC). The lighting plan shall propose specific measures to limit the amount of light trespass associated with development within the project area including shielding and/or directional lighting methods to ensure that spillover light does not exceed 0.5 foot-candles at adjacent property lines. Cmr OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 28 INmAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2003 ER 65-05 (VTTM#2428-King) C:\DOCUMENTS AND SE••TTINGS)SLOUSE-R\DcsKTOP\FINAL INMAL STUDY KING 01-04-06.DOC - Attachment 6 Issues, Discussion and Suppor h,y information Sources Sources Pot.._.dlly Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact ER#65-05 Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated • Monitoring Program: The ARC will review development plans for the project. City staff, including Planning and other departments, will review plans to assure that all the ARC's requirements related to lighting and compliant with the MASP provisions have been incorporated into working drawings. City building inspectors will be responsible for assuring that all lighting is installed and maintained pursuant to the approved lighting plan. 2. Preparation and Implementation of"Comprehensive Biological Mitigation Program" Mitigation for wetland impacts. Mitigation for wetland impacts will be through a combination of on- and off-site mitigation, approved by the City, the DFG and the Corps. Further, in compliance with the MASP/AASP EIR, the subject VTM #2342 (Cowan) proposes the creation of Lot Z in an area designated by the MASP for "Open Space- Riparian" for the express purposes of achieving some of the necessary wetlands replacement mitigation area, as well as preservation of related biological habitat benefits. Mitigation for Impacts to Creek Habitats. Mitigation for impacts creek habitats will be through a combination of on- and off-site mitigation,approved by the City,the DFG and the Corps. Mitigation for Impacts to Serpentine Bunchgrass Habitat. A mitigation program involving restoration of serpentine bunchgrass habitat at an identified area in the so-called "saddle" in the King property's open space parcel, should be required. This area occupies between one-half and three-quarters of an acre. The program would at a minimum, replace the existing non-native grassland in that area with a grassland containing a majority of native bunchgrass species including purple needlegrass, meadow barley, and California brome. In addition, a program for additional protection for the open space lands of the project will be developed. The goal of this program will be to provide protection for remaining areas of serpentine bunchgrass habitat and species within that habitat in the South Hills Open Space,through mechanisms such as fencing, trail realignments, and drainage improvements on the access road to the communication site on neighboring property. Finally, the project sponsors propose to donate fee title to the open space lot 146 to the City of San Luis Obispo as permanent open space as part of the project. Mitigation for Impacts to Sensitive Species: None of these species are expected to be difficult to establish.City staff will work with the project sponsors in developing the details of the effort. Palmer Spineflower. None required. Brewer Spineflower. None required. Obispo Indian Paintbrush. Collect seed or seed/soil mix for relocation to open space lot enhancement site. Miles Milkvetch. Collect seed or seed/soil mix for relocation to open space lot enhancement site. Obispo dudleya. Due to the very small number of impacted individuals and the ease of transplanting, transplant these individuals to suitable sites within the project open space. Obispo Mariposa Lily. None required. Adobe Sanicle. Relocate some individuals to a suitable site within the project open space;consider transplanting the balance to a suitable site in Laguna Lake Park or other suitable off-site location approved by the City, or consider lot adjustments to protect the major portion near lots 121, 122,and adjacent multifamily lot. Congdon Tarplant. Create compensating habitat in a suitable off-site location approved by the City. Loggerhead Shrike. Remove myoporum tree before nesting season. Mitigation for Impacts to Other Nesting Birds. Undertake surveys prior to initiation of construction activities; avoid construction activities within 100 feet of active nest sites until after young have fledged. Off Site Mitigation for Wetland Impacts. A ftirther component of the biological mitigation program is the applicant's proposal to acquire (by fee, easement, or eminent domain) lands outside the bounds of the Western Enclave (designated by the MASP as "Open Space-Riparian" lands). The targeted property (lying south of Prado CRY OF SAN Luis OBISPO 29 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2003 ER 65-05(VTTM#2428-King) CADocumrNTS AND SErr[NGS\.SLUUSER\DESKTOPIFINAL INITIAL STUDY KING 01-04-06.Doc r' ttac inert 9 Issues, Discussion and Support,,.y Information Sources sources Pot....aally Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant impact ER#65-05 Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Inco orated Road and owned by Unocal)is a low lying area that already naturally collects some area run-off and provides valuable habitat for certain special concern and R-T-E (rare, threatened, and endangered) species, and thus is beneficial to retain in its natural state. Pre-development run-off has resulted in seasonal flooding of Prado Road due to they currently deficient collection/distribution system to this natural drainage area south of Prado Road.. The Wester Enclave applicants propose to acquire this off-site property designated for open space use by the MASP and utilize it beneficially for biological mitigation as well as a detention basin for pre- and post-Western Enclave development generated run-off. It is proposed that this basin be enhanced to accommodate the greater project-generated and pre- project run-off flows, and to increase its habitat value in the long term. The basin is proposed to be held and maintained by a Master Home Owners Association (MHOA) established initially for the Western Enclave area, and perhaps ultimately for the entire MASP as stipulated be done by the MASP. • Monitoring Program: Prior to approval of the final map, the applicant shall contact the City Natural Resource Manager for review and approval of the final lot and street design to assure that on-site natural resources are protected and preserved to the greatest extent required by the mitigation measures and consistent with requirements of the MASP and MASP/AASP EIR. Said design shall also be consistent with approvals required subsequent to this Tentative Map from State Dept. of Fish and Game and Army Corps of Engineers. Prior to any site preparation or construction activities,the applicant shall also initiate and complete for approval by the City pre-construction surveys for nesting birds and adhere to performance standard specified in the mitigation. Provisions for required off-site mitigation shall be coordinated with and approved by the City Natural Resource Manager prior to recordation of the Final Map. Periodic field inspections by City Staff during construction will be necessary to assure site development conforms to mitigation measures and conditions of approval. 3. Preparation and Implementation of"Traffic Reduction Program„ In order for MASP/AASP EIR Mitigation Measure T-2.1 adopted with the certification of the MASP/AASP EIR in conjunction with the approval of the AASP in August, 2005 (Ref: City Council Resolution No. 9726, 2005 Series) to be brought forward to this site specific project stage, a transportation demand management program that demonstrates reduction of peak period travel by single-occupant vehicles shall be required of any employer within the subdivision with 25 or more employees. Said program shall incorporate all reasonably feasible measures or techniques, including those listed in the MASP/AASP EIR/General Plan Circulation, that encourage alternate modes other than single-occupant vehicles as the primary mode of transportation to the workplace and to travel during non-peak times. • Monitoring Program: Each business owner, upon employment of 25 or more employees, shall immediately prepare and submit, obtain approval from the City Public Works Director and implement the provisions of a Traffic Reduction Plan which demonstrates reduction of peak period travel consistent with requirements of the City General Plan Circulation Element Policies and Programs. City Staff shall periodically inspect the business to observe and assure that reduction techniques approved by the City are in place and adhered to by the business. Staff shall take any corrective or enforcement actions authorized by law to achieve compliance. 4. Preparation and Implementation of a"Construction-Related Hazardous Materials Management Plan" As stipulated in the MASP/AASP EIR; this would be a plan identifying, when they are known, site/development- specific construction activities that will involve the hazardous materials. The plan shall be prepared before CITY OF SAN Luis OBISPO 30 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2003 ER 65-05 (VTTM#2428-King) CAtDGCUMENTS AND SErTINGS\.SL0USER0ESKTGP\FINAL INITIAL STUDY KING 01-04-06.Doc ✓'� �t 'vl Issues, Discussion and Suppon,..j Information Sources Sources Po,—dally Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant hnpact ER#65-05 Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated construction activities begin that involve hazardous materials and shall discuss proper handling and disposal of materials used or produced onsite, such as petroleum products, concrete, and sanitary waste. The plan will also outline a specific protocol to identify health risks associated with the presence of chemical compounds in the soil and/or groundwater and identify specific protective measures to be followed by the workers entering the work area. If the presence of hazardous materials is suspected or encountered during construction-related activities, the project proponent will cause Mitigation Measure HAZ-1.2 to be activated. Mitigation Measure HAZ-1.2 states: "The project proponent will complete a Phase 1 environmental site assessment for each proposed public facility(e.g. streets and buried infrastructure). If Phase I site assessments indicate a potential for soil and/or groundwater contamination within or adjacent to the road or utility alignments, a Phase II site assessment will be completed. The following Phase 11 environmental site assessments will be prepared specific to soil andlor groundwater contamination. a. Soil Contamination. For soil contamination, the Phase II site assessment will include soil sampling and analysis for anticipated contaminating substances. If soil contamination is exposed during construction, the San Luis Obispo Fire Department (SLOFD)will be notified and a work plan to characterize and possibly remove contaminated soil will be prepared, submitted and approved. b. Groundwater Contamination. For groundwater contamination, the Phase II assessment may include monitoring well installation, groundwater sampling, and analysis for anticipated contaminating substances. If groundwater contaminated by potentially hazardous materials is expected to be extracted during dewatering, the SLOFD and the Central Coast RWQCB will be notified. A contingency plan to dispose of contaminated groundwater will be developed in agreement with the SLOFD and Central Coast RWQCB. • Monitoring Program: The "Construction-Related Hazardous Materials Management Plan" will be required to be submitted to the City Community Development Department and Fire Department for review prior to commencement of any site preparation or construction work involving hazardous materials. No site preparation or construction work may commence before said plan has been approved by the City. Any site work commenced without City approval of said Plan will be subject to"Stop Work"(cease and desist)orders as maybe issued under the authority of the City Fire Department. 5. Preparation and Implementation of an "Operations-Related Hazardous Materials Management Plan" As stipulated in the MASP/AASP EIR, this would be a plan prepared by a project proponent identifying hazardous materials management practices as might be required by state and local laws and regulations regarding delivery, use, manufacture, and storage of any such regulated materials might be present on site for any operations-related activities. This plan would identify the proper handling and disposal of materials uses or produced onsite, such as petroleum products, concrete, and sanitary waste. By the filing of said Plan, the City Fire Department will be on notice to provide regular and.routine fire and life-safety inspections to determine compliance with applicable health and safety codes. Crry OF SAN Luis OBISPo 31 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2003 ER 65-05(MM#2428-King) CADocumENTS AND SETTINGS\SLOUSER\DESKTOP\FINAL INMAL STUDY KING 01-04-061.Doc /7y Attachrliant 6 Issues, Discussion and Suppor, Information Sources Sources Po. ..ally Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact ER#65-05 Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Inco orated • Monitoring Program: The "Operations-Related Hazardous Materials Management Plan" will be required to be submitted by a project proponent to the City Community Development Department and City Fire Department for review prior to the establishment of any operations-related activities. CRY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 32 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2003 ER 65-05 (VTTM#2428-King) CADOCUMENTS AND SETTINGS\SLOUSER\DESKTOP\FINAL INITIAL STUDY KING 01-04-06.DOC �-�3� Attachment 6 IIcrty of sAn luis oBispo 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 February 16, 2006 Revised John King King Ventures 285 Bridge Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 SUBJECT: TR and ER 65-05—3000 Calle Malva Consideration of a vesting tentative tract map to subdivide a 99-acre (approx.) site into 91 lots with 80 single-family, and 4 multi-family residential lots, 1 lot for an affordable housing project, and 6 open space lots; and environmental review Dear Mr. King: The Planning Commission, at its meeting of January 25, 2005, recommended that the City Council approve the vesting tentative tract map and mitigated negative declaration of environmental impact, based on the information noted in the attached resolution. The action of the Planning Commission is a recommendation to the City Council and, therefore, is not final. This matter has been tentatively scheduled for public hearing before the City Council on March 7, 2006. This date, however, should be verified with the City Clerk's office (805) 781-7102. If you have any questions, please contact Pam Ricci at (805) 781-7168. Sincerely, Ro Id Whisen nd Deputy Community Development Director Development Review Attachment: Revised Resolution No. 5442-06 cc: County of SLO Assessor's Office Dave Watson c/o King Ventures 285 Bridge Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 OThe City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services,programs and activities. �� Telecommunications Device for the Deaf(805)781-7410. ji Revised RESOLUTION NO.5442-06 A RESOLUTION OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF A VESTING TENATIVE TRACT MAP AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3000 CALLE MALVA (TR/ER 65-05; TRACT 2428) 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 January 25, 2006, for the purpose of considering TR/ER 65-05, a vesting tentative tract map subdividing an approximately 99-acre site into 91 lots as shown on the modified design presented at the meeting; 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 for the project; and WHEREAS, the project sponsor, King Ventures, Inc. has offered to donate a conservation easement at this time, and ultimately fee title, to the 71-acre open space lot of the project to the City of San Luis Obispo as an integral part of 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 vesting tentative tract map with exceptions to the Subdivision Regulations: 1. The design of the vesting tentative tract map is consistent with the General Plan because the proposed subdivision respects existing site constraints (slope, creeks, wetlands, significant trees), Will incrementally add to the City's residential housing inventory; result in parcels that meet density standards, and will be consistent with the density and lot sizes established by the Margarita Area Specific Plan. 2. The site is physically suited for the proposed type of development allowed in the R-1-SP, R- 2-SP, and R-3-SP zones. 3. The design of the subdivision will not conflict.with easements for access through(or use of property within)the proposed subdivision. Revised Planning Commissiu., Resolution No. 5442-06taChment 6 TRIER 65-05 Page 2 4. The subdivision will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment, subject to the mitigation measures of the Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) certified by the City Council on October 12, 2004 being incorporated into the project, the mitigation monitoring program adopted with said EIR approval being followed and mitigation measures recommended herein. 5. A Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared by the Community Development Department on January 9, 2006. The Planning Commission finds and determines that the project's Mitigated Negative Declaration adequately addresses the potential significant environmental impacts of the proposed project, as modified, determining there is no substantial evidence of new or further significant impacts not already identified. 6. The offer of donation of a conservation easement and ultimately, fee title,to the 71-acre open space lot is consistent with the General Plan of the City of San Luis Obispo. Section 2. Environmental Review. The Planning Commission does hereby recommend adoption of the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration with incorporation of the following mitigation measures: Mitigation Measures: 1. Reduction of Light and Glare In order for MASP/AASP EIR Mitigation Measure LU-7.1 as implemented by the MASP to be carried through to lot-specific development stage, a lighting plan that demonstrates compliance with Community Design Section 3.3 Lighting requirements of the MASP shall be submitted with other required plans for the project to the review and approval of the Architectural Review Commission (ARC). The lighting plan shall propose specific measures to limit the amount of light trespass associated with development within the project area including shielding and/or directional lighting methods to ensure that spillover light does not exceed 0.5 foot-candles at adjacent property lines. 2. Prevaration and Implementation of"Comprehensive Biological Mitigation Program" Mitigation for wetland impacts. Mitigation for wetland impacts will be through a combination of on- and off-site mitigation, approved by the City, the DFG and the Corps. Further, in compliance with the MASP/AASP EIR, the subject VTM .# 2428 (King) proposes the creation of Lot Z in an area designated by the MASP for "Open Space- Riparian" for the express purposes of achieving some of the necessary wetlands replacementmitigation area, as well as preservation of related biological habitat benefits. Mitigation for Impacts to Creek Habitats. Mitigation for impacts creek habitats will be through a combination of on- and off-site mitigation, approved by the City, the DFG and the Corps. Mitigation for Impacts to Serpentine Bunchgrass Habitat A mitigation program involving restoration of serpentine bunchgrass habitat at an identified area in the so-called "saddle" in the King property's open space parcel, should be required. This area occupies I Revised Planning Commissi._ Resolution No. 5442-06 At$c�Clii f1E:3�i u TR/ER 65-05 Page 3 between one-half and three-quarters of an acre. The program would at a minimum, replace the existing non-native grassland in that area with a grassland containing a majority of native bunchgrass species including purple needlegrass; meadow barley, and California brome. In addition, a program for additional protection for the open space lands of the project will be developed. The goal of this program will be to provide protection for remaining areas. of serpentine bunchgrass habitat and species within that habitat in the South Hills Open Space, through mechanisms such as fencing, trail realignments, and drainage improvements on the access road to the communication site on neighboring property. Finally, the project sponsors propose to donate fee title to the open space lot 91 to the City of San Luis Obispo as permanent open space as part of the project. Mitigation for Impacts to Sensitive Species. None of these species are expected to be difficult to establish. City staff will work with the project sponsors in developing the details of the effort. Palmer Spineflower. None required. Brewer Spineflower. None required. Obispo Indian Paintbrush. Collect seed or seed/soil mix for relocation to open space lot enhancement site. Miles Milkvetch. Collect seed or seed/soil mix for relocation to open space lot enhancement site. Obispo dudleya. Due to the very small number of impacted individuals and the ease of transplanting,transplant these individuals to suitable sites within the project open space. Obispo Mariposa Lily. None required. Adobe Sanicle. Relocate some individuals to a suitable site within the project open space; consider transplanting the balance to a suitable site in Laguna Lake Park or other suitable off-site location approved by the City, or consider lot adjustments to protect the major portion near lots 82, and adjacent multifamily lot. Congdon Tarplant. Create compensating habitat in a suitable off-site location approved by the City. Loggerhead Shrike. Remove myoponun tree before nesting season. Mitigation for Impacts to Other Nesting Birds. Undertake surveys prior to initiation of construction activities; avoid construction activities within 100 feet of active nest sites, or 300 feet from raptor nests, until after young have fledged. Off Site Mitigation for Wetland Impacts. A further component of the biological mitigation program is the applicant's proposal to acquire (by fee, easement, or eminent domain) lands outside the bounds of the Western Enclave (designated by the MASP as "Open Space-Riparian" lands). The targeted property (lying south of Prado Road and owned by Unocal) is a low lying area that already naturally collects some area run-off and provides valuable habitat for certain special concern and R-T-E (rare, threatened, and endangered) species, and thus is beneficial to retain in its natural state. Pre-development run-off has resulted in seasonal flooding of Prado Road due to they currently deficient collection/distribution system to this natural drainage area south of Prado Road.. The Western Enclave applicants propose to acquire this off-site property designated for open space use by the MASP and utilize it beneficially for biological mitigation as well as a detention basin for pre- and post-Western Enclave development generated run-off. It is Z-13y Revised Planning Commiss,. Resolution No. 5442-06P h r. TR/ER 65-05 Page 4 proposed that this basin be enhanced to accommodate the greater project-generated and pre-project run-off flows, and to increase its habitat value in the long term. The basin is proposed to be held and maintained by a Master Home Owners Association (MIIOA) established initially for the Western Enclave area, and perhaps ultimately for the entire MASP as stipulated be done by the MASP. 3. Preparation and Implementation of"Traffic Reduction Program" In order for MASP/AASP EIR Mitigation Measure T-2.1 adopted with the certification of the MASP/RASP EIR in conjunction with the approval of the AASP in August, 2005 (Ref. City Council Resolution No. 9726, 2005 Series) to be brought forward to this site specific project stage, a transportation demand management program that demonstrates reduction of peak period travel by single-occupant vehicles shall be required of any employer within the subdivision with 25 or more employees. Said program shall incorporate all reasonably feasible measures or techniques, including those listed in the MASP/AASP EIR/General Plan Circulation, that encourage alternate modes other than single-occupant vehicles as the primary mode of transportation to the workplace and to travel during non-peak times. 4. Preparation and Implementation of a"Construction-Related Hazardous Materials Management Plan" As stipulated in the MASP/AASP EIR, this would be a plan identifying, when they are known, site/development-specific construction activities that will involve the hazardous materials. The plan shall be prepared before construction activities begin that involve hazardous materials and shall discuss proper handling and disposal of materials used or produced onsite, such as petroleum products, concrete, and sanitary waste. The plan will also outline a specific protocol to identify health risks associated with the presence of chemical compounds in the soil and/or groundwater and identify specific protective measures to be followed by the workers entering the work area. If the presence of hazardous materials is suspected or encountered during construction-related activities, the project proponent will cause Mitigation Measure HAZ-1.2 to be activated. Mitigation Measure HAZ-1.2 states: "The project proponent will complete a Phase I environmental site assessment for each proposed public facility (e.g. streets and buried infrastructure). If Phase 1 site assessments indicate a potential for soil and/or groundwater contamination within or adjacent to the road or utility alignments, a Phase II site assessment will be completed The following Phase H environmental site assessments will be prepared specific to soil and/or groundwater contamination. a. Soil Contamination. For soil contamination, the Phase Hsite assessment will include soil sampling and analysis for anticipated contaminating substances. If soil contamination is exposed during construction, the San Luis Obispo Fire Department (SLOFD) will be notified and a work plan to characterize and possibly remove contaminated soil will be prepared, submitted and approved. Revised Planning Commiss..,.r'Resolution No. 5442-06 Altad- i;nent 6 TR/ER 65-05 Page 5 b. Groundwater Contamination. For groundwater contamination, the Phase II assessment may include monitoring well installation, groundwater sampling, and analysis for anticipated contaminating substances. If groundwater contaminated by potentially hazardous materials is expected to be extracted during dewatering, the SLOFD and the Central Coast RWQCB will be notified. A contingency plan to dispose of contaminated groundwater will be developed in agreement with the SL OFD and Central Coast RWQCB. 5. Preparation and Implementation of an"Operations-Related Hazardous Materials Management Plan" As stipulated in the MASP/RASP EIR, this would be a plan prepared by a project proponent identifying hazardous materials management practices as might be required by state and local laws and regulations regarding delivery, use, manufacture, and storage of any such regulated materials might be present on site for any operations-related activities. This plan would identify the proper handling and disposal of materials uses or produced onsite, such as petroleum products, concrete, and sanitary waste. By the filing of said Plan, the City Fire Department will be on notice to provide regular and routine fire and life- safety inspections to determine,compliance with applicable health and safety codes. Section 3. Recommendation. The Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council approval of application TR/ER 65-05 with incorporation of the following conditions and code requirements into the project: Conditions: Streets 1. Prior to recordation of the vesting final map, or any phase thereof, the subdivider shall present a detailed schedule and delivery "Plan", to be approved by the Public Works Director, for the improvement of Prado Road between its eastern terminus at the current City boundary and Broad Street. For the purposes of this condition, the Prado Road Extension (PRE) shall be referenced in two segments. The first segment shall be the new roadway from the present easterly terminus (City boundary) of Prado Road extending easterly to the intersection of proposed "M" Street on Tract 2353 (the "Sierra Gardens (DeBlauw) property as shown in the Margarita Area Specific Plan (MASP)). This first segment shall be referred to as the "Prado Road Extension - Western Enclave" segment (PRE-WE). The second segment shall be from the Prado Road/"M" Street intersection on Tract 2353, easterly, to Broad Street. This second segment shall be referred to as the "Prado Road Extension- "M" Street to Broad" segment(PRE-MB). At a minimum, the Plan shall address the following milestones for Right-o&Way acquisition, design and construction: a. At the time of submittal of any plans for final map and/or improvement plan checking: The subdivider shall submit construction drawings and specifications for the full width improvement of the "Prado Road Extension - Western Enclave" segment (PRE-WE), and shall submit schematic plans for the full width improvement of the "Prado Road Extension- "M" Street to Broad" segment(PRE-MB). The final map and improvement . �-/3 Revised Planning Commiss.i Resolution No. 5442-06 Attar,i,gd en4 TR/ER 65-05 Page 6 plans will follow approximately 6 months after the date of the approval of the Tentative Map. During this time the City as well as area property owners will be involved in the review of updated drafts and the selection of the proper engineering company as well as overseeing the design. Following Tentative Map approval, the Western Enclave Property Owners (WEPO) and the City will establish a Stakeholder Group comprised of MASP property owners and public utility companies, etc. to augment/expedite the conceptual design of the PRE-MB component of the Roadway. b. The PRE-WE plans shall include 4 travel lanes, bike paths and lanes, sidewalks, utilities, storm drainage, landscaping, center median improvements and other necessary street appurtenances or as otherwise approved by the Director of Public Works. c. Off-site dedication of property for public right-of-way purposes is necessary to facilitate the construction of Prado Road. The subdivider shall exhaust all avenues available to acquire said public right-of-way dedication. In the event the subdivider is unable to acquire said property, the City Council will lend the subdivider its powers of condemnation to acquire the off-site right-of-way dedication, including any necessary slope and drainage easements. If condemnation is required, the subdivider shall agree to pay all costs associated with the off-site right-of-way acquisition (including attorney and court costs). The subdivider is responsible for construction of the necessary street improvements and striping,to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director. d. Subject to the availability of necessary right-of-way, the subdivider shall complete construction of the PRE-WE segment prior to occupancy of the 50th unit within the subdivision. If right-of-way is not available at the time of approval of the final map,the subdivider may submit a plan for providing interim, secondary access to the WEPO properties that is subject to approval by the Public Works Director. This secondary access shall be completed prior to granting of occupancy permits and may be required to be removed at a later time when additional access is provided from adjacent properties. e. At the time of recording the final map, the subdivider shall bond for the completion of the engineering plans and specifications, environmental review, if necessary, and associated construction permits for the PRE-MB segment. The subdivider shall complete the construction drawings and specifications for the PRE-MB segment on or before the 100th unit is occupied in the Western Enclave (approx. I year after Tentative Map Approval). If, at the time of Final Map approval, a detailed engineered cost estimate for the PRE-MB section of roadway has not yet been completed, the City may require that the developer (property owners) sign a waiver not opposing the possible future formation of a community facilities district or other such financing mechanism, that would fund any final project costs for the construction of PRE-MB that are not contained in the Margarita Area Specific Plan Impact Fee estimates. £ Subject to the availability of necessary right-of-way, the subdivider shall, at a minimum: (1)initiate the construction of the northern half, or some modified section of the roadway subject to approval by the Director of Public Works, of the PRE-MB segment prior to occupancy of the 200th residential unit in the Western Enclave (approx. 3 years after Tentative Map Approval) , and (2) complete construction of the northern half of the PRE-MB segment prior to occupancy of the 300th residential unit 2rI Revised Planning Commiss._ Resolution No. 5442-06 - �t1 ent 6 TR/ER 65-05 Page 7 in the Western Enclave (approx. 5 years after Tentative Map Approval). If right-of-way is not available at the time of requests for occupancy, the City will determine if public acquisition of said right-of-way is necessary or the subdivider will be required to submit an interim plan for providing secondary access the Western Enclave that shall be approved by the Public Works Director. g. As a part of the submittal of the plan for improvements to Prado Road, the subdivider shall submit a reimbursement proposal and schedule for the costs associated with the environmental, engineering and construction of Prado Road in its entirety, as established by the MASP. Subject to final approval of the City, the proposal may include fee credits and/or other appropriate mechanisms that may be applied against non-TIF city-wide and MASP impact fees as development occurs, to facilitate completion of the Prado Road extension. h. A second access off Prado to service VTTM 2353 (DeBlauw) can be incorporated on an interim basis at the time of construction of PRE-WE and will remain in place until PRE-MB is completed and an additional access point is provided at an adopted MASP location. 2. Margarita Area Specific Plan Impact Fees, as adopted by the City of San Luis Obispo, shall be paid prior to issuance of each building permit, subject to condition I.g. above. 3. The public improvement plans for VTTM 2353, VTTM 2428 and VTTM 2342 shall consider the proposed or required phasing to be completed by the combined development known as Margarita Area Specific Plan western enclave. The public improvement plans for each subdivision shall include any offsite improvements as considered necessary by the Director of Public Works to provide a reasonable transition between the subdivisions in the case that one project is developed before another. The scope.of required improvements shall be approved to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director. 4. The final subdivision design and improvements shall comply with the Margarita Area Specific Plan and all other City of San Luis Obispo Design Standards, Engineering Standards and Standard Plans and Specifications. 5. The final design, location, and number of traffic calming measures including bulb-outs, choke-downs, tabletops, roundabouts, neck-downs, etc. shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Director. Plans submitted for review shall include a truck turning diagram demonstrating a truck's ability to negotiate the traffic calming features. Additional or alternative traffic control measures may be required to comply with the Specific Plan objective to "foster traffic volumes and speeds that will be compatible with the neighborhood." 6. Pursuant to the Margarita Area Specific Plan, traffic volume and speeds shall be monitored after development. The subdivider shall retain a qualified traffic consultant to conduct traffic counts throughout the subdivision at locations approved by the Public Works Director. If traffic speeds or volumes exceed City 'standards during counts taken by the subdivider one year after final occupancy of complete build-out of the subdivision or acceptance of public improvements whichever occurs later, the subdivider shall be responsible for installing additional traffic calming measures to the approval of the Public Revised Planning Commissi,_ resolution No. 5442-06 TR/ER 65-05 Page 8 Works Director to reduce volume and speeds to comply with City standards. 7. If traffic speeds or volumes exceed City standards during counts taken by the subdivider one year after final occupancy of complete build-out of the subdivision, the subdivider shall be responsible for installing additional traffic calming measures to the approval of the Public Works Director to reduce volume and speeds to comply with City standards. 8. The subdivision design shall include directional curb ramps wherever possible. The inclusion of bulbouts at directional curb ramp locations is encouraged to decrease the roadway width to be crossed by a pedestrian. 9. Prior to approval of improvement plans, alternative paving materials proposed within the public right-of-way shall be approved by the Public Works Director. Alternative paving materials shall be maintained by the Homeowner's Association. 10. Common areas (except the 71-acre lot donated to the City), landscaped parkways and Class I pathways (other than Prado Road) shall be owned and maintained in perpetuity for public use by the Master Homeowner's Association. Water meters for common landscape areas including but not limited to parkways, medians, roundabouts and pathway corridors are subject to water impact fees and shall be paid for by the subdivider. On& Off-Site Improvements 11. With respect to all off-site improvements,prior to filing of the Final Map, the Subdivider(s) shall either: a. Clearly demonstrate their right to construct the improvements by showing title or interest in the property in a form acceptable to the City Engineer; or b. Request in writing that the subdivider has exhausted all reasonable efforts to acquire interest to the subject property and that the City assist in acquiring the property required for the construction of such improvements and exercise its power of eminent domain in accordance with Government Code Section 66462.5 to do so, if necessary. Subdivider shall also enter into an agreement with the City to pay all costs of such acquisition, including, but not limited to, all costs associated with condemnation. Said agreement shall be in a form acceptable to the City Engineer and the City Attorney. If condemnation proceedings are required, the Subdivider shall,no later that 90 days prior to recordation of the Final Map (final Parcel Map), submit, in a form acceptable to the City Engineer,the following documents regarding the property to be acquired: i. Property legal description and sketch stamped and signed by a Licensed Land Surveyor or Civil Engineer authorized to practice land surveying in the State of California.. ii. Preliminary title report including chain of title and litigation guarantee; iii. Appraisal of the property by a City approved appraiser. In the course of obtaining such appraisal, the property owner(s) must be given an opportunity to accompany the appraiser during any inspection of the property or acknowledge �-/39 Revised Planning Corrimissiu., Resolution No. 5442-06 Atls C#ii't1�N-)t b TRIER 65-05 Page 9 in writing that they knowingly waived the right to do so. iv. Copies of all written correspondence with off-site property owners including purchase summary of formal offers and counter offers to purchase at the appraised price. V. Prior to submittal of the aforementioned documents for City Engineer approval, the Subdivider shall deposit with the City all or a portion of the anticipated costs, as determined by the City Attorney, of the condemnation proceedings. The City does not and cannot guarantee that the necessary property rights can be acquired or will, in fact, be acquired. All necessary procedures of law would apply and would have to be followed. 12. Should the final design for the stormwater detention basin require the installation-of a stormwater pumping station in order to provide an outlet for the detention basin, the final pump.station design shall be in accordance with Section 8 of the WWMP-DDM and the following" a. The pump station shall be a triplex design. b. The pump station shall be designed to discharge at the 100 year pre-developed rate with. all three pumps running, the 10 year pre-developed rate with two pumps running and the 2 year pre-developed rate with only one pump in operation. At no time shall the pump discharge rate exceed that of the pre-development flow rates for each of the design storms. Or the pump station shall consist for a variable speed drive that matches the required discharge regime. c. The pump discharge shall be designed such that no erosion damage will occur. d. The pump shall discharge into a natural waterway or into an easement to which the subdividers,their heirs and/or assigns have rights to. 13. The final subdivision design shall incorporate stormwater quality BMPs with the January 2005 edition of the Engineering Standards, shall be designed to treat the stormwater runoff from all developed surfaces excluding rooftops but including all private and public streets, and shall be subject to the approval of the City Engineer. 14. The final design of any stormwater detention or treatment facilities shall incorporate all recommendations from.the final geotechnical report into the design of said facilities. The final geotechnical report shall address the effect, if any, of detaining stormwater in close proximity to the existing soil contamination. 15. The final design of the proposed off-site stormwater detention facilities shall also take into consideration the effects on 100 year floodplain (as identified as an undesignated "A Zone") on the FEMA FIRM Panel (as modified by the LOMR dated August 23, 2003) for San Luis Obispo County, from the unnamed tributary to the East Fork of San Luis Obispo Creek and shall establish the base flood elevation, process a CLOMR or CLOMR-F with FEMA prior to approval of any plans for ground disturbing activities; then process the final documents once Grading is complete. The design of any stormwater facilities shall be in Revised Planning Commiss._.. Resolution No. 5442-06 ,� Ctf".i�l TR/ER 65-05 Page 10 compliance with the WWW-DDM requirement for construction within a Special Floodplain Management Zone; i.e. no significant net loss of floodplain storage. 16. The subdivider shall secure the rights for the regional stormwater detention basin prior to or concurrently with the final subdivision maps.. Should the subdividers be unsuccessful in acquiring off-site property for the construction of the stormwater facilities, the subdivider shall either: a) revise the maps to reflect appropriately sized on-site detention of stormwater pursuant to the City's Waterway Management Plan Drainage Design Manual or, b) request in writing that the City assist in securing the property following procedures as outlined above. All costs associated with securing said rights including the eminent domain process shall be borne by the subdividers. 17. Prior to the approval of the public improvement plans the subdivider(s) shall have received an approved grading permit from the County of San Luis Obispo a written waiver for the construction of any facilities outside the City's corporate limits. Should San Luis Obispo County defer to the City for the processing of the grading permits for property outside the City corporate boundary, the subdivider(s) shall process the.grading permit with the.City Public Works Department concurrently with the improvements plans and pay all fees associated said grading in accordance with the Public Works Department Fee schedule for plan checking and inspection in effect at the time of permit processing. 18. To the degree feasible, shared driveways shall be utilized to reduce the number of driveway curb cuts in the subdivision and increase the provision of on-street parking. 19. Where a Class 1 bicycle path provides access across a public street, raised decorative paving, choke-downs, curb ramps and signage shall be provided and the street crossing shall be designed to direct pedestrians across the roadway in a perpendicular manner. 20. Prior to final map approval, details of the proposed roadway choke-downs shall be provided. Choke-downs adjacent to open.space corridors shall be lengthened to include the entire length of the open space corridor. 21. The curb to curb width of"I" Street shall be reduced to eliminate on-street parking on one side of the street if during the development of improvement plans it is determined that impacts to the creek adjacent to "I" Street will be reduced. Alternately the alignment of P' Street shall be adjusted westerly to avoid conflict with the creek setback area. 22. The subdivider shall analyze, and if allowed, include a landscaped roundabout in lieu of bulb-outs at the intersection of "E" and "D" Streets subject to Public Works Director approval. 23. For lots abutting the existing developed Margarita and Chumash Village projects; the slopes and drainage structures proposed in those rear lots shall be maintained by the property owners, with an additional slope and maintenance easement to the HOA so that the HOA can maintain these slopes if the property owners fail to do so in a satisfactory manner,. A deed restriction shall be placed on all lots with this situation so that a 6 foot high privacy fence shall be installed and maintained at the top of the slope. Details on the level of maintenance shall be provided in the draft CC&R's and reviewed and approved by the Community Development Director. Revised Planning Commissi... Resolution No. 5442-06 i t'aOlhl.nent TR/ER 65-05 Page 11 Water. Sewer& Utilities 24. The subdivider's engineer shall submit water demand and wastewater generation calculations so that the City can make a determination as to the adequacy of the supporting infrastructure. If it is discovered that an off-site deficiency exists, the owner will be required to mitigate the deficiency as a part of the overall project. 25. Water meters shall be grouped in manifold pairs wherever possible, to the satisfaction of the Utilities Engineer. 26. The water mains, sewer mains, and sewer force mains when attached or included with a bridge, shall be sleeved and encased within the bridge structure or located above the lowest point so as to protect the pipelines from the high water flow. 27. Sewer backwater valves may be required on some lots. The subdivider's engineer shall apply the City's criteria to the design to determine which lots will need backwater valves on the sewer laterals, per City and UPC standards. 28. In areas where the pressure in the water system exceeds 80 psi,the service line shall include a pressure regulator downstream of the water meter, where the water service enters the building. 29. The sewer and water mains shall be located approximately 2m on either side of the street centerline. All final grades and alignments of all public water, sewer and storm drains (including service laterals and meters) are subject to modifications to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director and Utilities Engineer. 30. The subdivision layout and preliminary utility plans shall include provisions for irrigating common areas,parks,detention basins, and other large landscape areas with recycled water. Appropriately sized reclaimed water mains shall be designed and constructed from the City's trunk system to these irrigation areas. If other use areas exist beyond the proposed subdivision, the mains shall be appropriately sized to provide for future use areas and extended to the boundary of the tract. If reclaimed water is not available at the time the recycled water is needed, the system shall be designed and constructed to reclaimed water standards, and temporarily connected to the City's potable water system in the area of the anticipated connection to the reclaimed water system. Grading &Drainage 31. The final grading plan shall include provisions to comply with the soils engineer's recommendations, including mitigating cut slopes, debris flows uphill of the lots and truck access. The soils engineer shall supervise all grading operations and certify the stability of the slopes prior to acceptance of the tract and/or issuance of building permits. 32. Clearing of any portion of the existing creek and drainage channels, including any required tree removals, and any necessary erosion repairs shall be to done the satisfaction of the . Public Works Director, Corp. of Engineers and the Dept. of Fish & Game. Certain trees may require safety pruning by a certified Arborist as determined by the City Arborist. ,�yz � Revised Planning Commiss._.. Resolution No. 5442-06 /�,;'axC l-nent ij TR/ER 65-05 Page 12 Homeowners' Association 33. The subdivider shall submit CC&R's with the Final Map that established a"Margarita Area Master Homeowner's Association" (Master HOA). The Master HOA shall include the subdivider's tract, and provide for the automatic annexation of all subsequent potential tracts within the Margarita Specific Plan area. The subsequent tracts may, at their sole discretion, annex to the Master HOA, or demonstrate to the city's satisfaction how many they may form their own, independent HOA, to manage their common area improvements. The Master HOA, and any and all subsequent HOA's not a part of the Master HOA, shall provide for maintenance of all common area drainage channels, on-site and/or sub-regional drainage basins and conveyance improvements and the Margarita median landscaping and trail network. The Master HOA shall also annually maintain a 30' wide wildland fuel reduction zone along all open space lots abutting developments within the MASP. The CC&R's shall be approved by the City Attorney prior to recordation of the Final Map, or any phase thereof." 34. The Master Homeowners' Association (MHOA) shall own and maintain all that portion of the lots designated as "Open Space"or "Wetlands Mitigation" (except for the 71-acre lot of the King map, which is proposed for donation to the City). Those open space areas that accommodate trails intended for public use shall be maintained, for public access in perpetuity. Maintenance responsibilities shall also include maintenance of any cut or fill slopes required to make the swale and berm. The storm drainage system within private streets shall be privately owned and maintained by the MHOA(to be included in CC&R's). 35. Subdivider shall prepare conditions, covenants, and restrictions (CC&R's) to be approved by the City Attorney and Community Development Director prior to final map approval. CC&R's shall contain the following provisions that pertain to all lots: a. Creation of a master homeowners' association if none exists or annexation into an existing MHOA, if one exists. b. No parking except in approved, designated spaces. c. No change in city-required provisions of the CC&R's without prior City Council approval. d. Provision for all of the maintenance responsibilities outlined in various conditions herein. e. The subdivider shall submit common driveway agreements for those lots with shared access including maintenance provisions, to the approval of the Community Development Director at the time of final map approval. Paths/Open Space 36. The multi-use paths should be 12 feet in width as called for in the Specific Plan, however the Natural Resource Manager and Public Works Director may approve a narrower path in locations that will only be used by pedestrians only or where environmental conditions warrant a narrower path based on in-the-field consideration. -03 Revised Planning Commiss,t�.rResolution No. 5442-06 Attachinr;nfi TRIER 65-05 Page 13 37. Final design (including materials, location, width, bridging and lighting) of pathways shall be reviewed and approved by the Natural Resources Manager and Public Works Director. 38. Class I path crossings at "G" St. should be perpendicular to the street. A cross section should be developed to show transition of path up to the roadway crossing. A raised table- top design with decorative pavement, choke-downs (see No. 19 above), and signage shall be provided and crossing shall be designed to direct pedestrians to cross the roadway in a direct perpendicular manner. 39. Pathway extending from Open Space lot to "G" St. should be shown to cross "G" St, to "D" St. as indicated by MASP. Air Ouality 40. All activities associated with construction and operation for the subdivision map shall comply at all times with all current APCD Rules and Regulations as applicable, including but not limited to PM-10,NOx emissions, Best Available Control Technologies, construction activity management plans, and phasing techniques. Housing Programs 41. Lot 85, the "condominium" lot on the modified plan shall be dedicated to the Housing Authority prior to, or in conjunction with, recording the first phase of Tentative Tract 2428. Improvement plans for Phase 1 of Tentative Tract 2428 shall include complete access and infrastructure, (roads, water, sewer, and utilities) to serve the Housing Authority site. Additional affordable housing requirements will be required if the average residential unit size of the entire Tentative Tract 2428 exceeds 2,000 square feet as per Table 2A of the City Housing Element. Planning Requirements 42. Bulb outs at "T" intersections need to be added to the straight leg "crossing the `T"' and elongated such that pedestrian crossings are at 90 degrees to the opposing bulb out transitions for the intersecting street leg. 43. Bulb-outs shall be provided at alley access points to street to provide line of sight where red curbing would otherwise be needed. 44. All lighting within the subdivision shall comply with the lighting standards contained in the San Luis Obispo Community Design Guidelines and as further stipulated in the Mitigation Measures listed above. 45. In order to be consistent with the requirements of the Margarita Area Specific Plan and County Airport Land Use Plan,the property owner shall grant an avigation easement for the benefit and protection of the City of San Luis Obispo, the County of San Luis Obispo and the San Luis Obispo County Airport via an avigation easement document prior to the recordation of the final map. 46. In the event archaeological resources are discovered in conjunction with a construction Revised Planning Commissio , Resolution No. 5442-06 TR/ER 65-05 Page 14 project, all activities shall cease and the Community Development Department shall be notified so that the procedures required by state law may be applied. 47. New development shall implement all feasible measures to minimize the use of conventional energy for space heating and cooling, water heating and illumination by means of proper design and orientation,including the provision and protection of solar exposure. 48. 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. 49. Proposed hillside Lots 19-55, which back up to the large open space parcel, are hereby designated sensitive sites and must comply with the Community Design Guidelines for hillside development. Individual lot development shall be subject to the review and approval of the Architectural Review Commission (ARC). Planning staff may make the determination upon submittal of complete plans if the minor or incidental architectural review process is appropriate. 50, Proposed Lots 19-55 are located within a wildland/urban interface area and shall comply with all applicable local and state fire code requirements, subject to the approval of the Fire Marshal-. A final fire management plan outlining fuel mitigation and maintenance proposals shall be submitted along with subdivision improvement plans to the approval of the Natural.Resources Manager and the Fire Department. 51.Development of lots adjacent to Chumash Village Mobile Home Park or El Camino Estates where pad elevations differ by four or more feet shall be limited to single-story development and increased rear yard setbacks of a minimum of 10 feet, or equivalent design techniques that maximize privacy protection for the adjacent lot as approved by the Architectural Review Commission. Code Reguirements: 1. Traffic impact fees and water and wastewater impact fees shall be paid as a condition of issuance of building permits. 2. The property is tributary to the Laguna Sewer Lift Station. Appropriate Lift Station Fees shall be paid prior to the final map approval. 3. Appropriate backflow prevention will be necessary_ on any connection to the City water system if the property includes an active well. 4. EPA Requirement: General Construction Activity Storm Water Permits are required for all storm water discharges associated with a construction activity where clearing, grading and excavation results in land disturbance of five or more acres. Storm water discharges of less than five acres, but which is part of a larger common plan of development or sale, also require a permit. Permits are required until the construction is complete. To be covered by a General Construction Activity Permit, the owner(s) of land where construction activity Revised Planning Commissiu, ,Resolution No. 5442-06 TR/ER 65-05 Page 15 occurs must submit a completed "Notice of Intent" (NOI) form, with the appropriate fee, to the State Water Board. 5. The subdivision design shall comply with the City's grading ordinance. 6. Street trees shall be planted along the private street per City Standards (the number of trees is determined by one tree per 35 linear feet of street frontage). 7. All boundary monuments, lot comers and centerline intersections, BC's, EC's, etc., shall be tied to the City's Horizontal Control Network At least two control points shall be used and a tabulation of the coordinates shall be submitted with the final map or parcel map. All coordinates submitted shall be based on the City coordinate system. A 3.5" diameter computer floppy disk, containing the appropriate data compatible with AutoCAD (Digital Interchange Format, DXF) for Geographic Information System (GIS) purposes, shall be submitted to the City Engineer. 8. The final map, public improvement plans and specifications shall use the International System of Units (metric system). The English System of Units may be used on the final map where necessary (e.g. - all record data shall be entered on the map in the record units, metric translations should be in parenthesis),to the approval of the City Engineer. 9. Access shall be in accordance with Article 9 of the California Fire Code(CFC). Access roads shall have an unobstructed width of not less than 20 feet and an unobstructed vertical clearance of 13' 6". Access roads shall be designed and maintained to support the imposed loads of a 60,000 pound fire apparatus and shall be provided with a surface so as to provide all-weather driving capabilities.All cul-de-sacs shall be minimum 40 foot radius. 10. Approved address numbers shall be placed on all new buildings in such a position to be plainly visible and legible from the street fronting the property. Numbers shall be a minimum of 5" high x ''/z"stroke and be on a contrasting background. [UFC 901.4.4] 11. Water Supplies and fire hydrants shall be provided in accordance with applicable articles of the CFC. An approved water supply capable of providing the required fire flow for fire protection is required. The fire flow shall be determined using applicable Appendices of the CFC. 12. Fire protection systems shall be installed in accordance with the CFC and the California Building Code. An approved NFPA system will be required for this project. 13. Fire hydrants shall be spaced per SLO-FD Guidelines (placement with Fire Department approval) and shall be capable of supplying the required fire-flows. Section 4. Recommendation of Acceotance of Offer of Donation. The Planning Commission does hereby recommend that the City Council accept the offer of donation by the project sponsor of a conservation easement, and ultimately, fee title, to the 71-acre open space lot. Revised Planning Commisslur, Resolution No. 5442-06 =' TR/ER 65-05 Page 16 On motion by Commissioner Christianson, seconded by Commissioner Loh, and on the following roll call vote: AYES: Commrs. Christianson, Loh, Miller, Carter, McCoy NOES: None REFRAIN: Commr. Osborne VACANCY: One The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 25`h day of January 2006. Ronal Whisenand, ecretary Planning Commission �-1Y7 I Attachment 7 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT rrEM# s BY; Mary Beatie, Contract Sr. Planner,TPG Consulting MEETING DATE: January 25, 2006 i ✓ FROMf�on Wcd thllisenand, Deputy Director, Development Review fes, FILE NUMBER:TR/ER 66-05,Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 2353-Siena Gardens-DeBlauw) PROJECT ADDRESS: 408 Prado Road SUBJECT: Consideration of a Vesting Tentative Tract Map #2353 to create a total of 133 lots on approximately 30 acres located generally east of and adjacent to proposed VTM #2342 (Cowan/French), on the north of side of the easterly extension of Prado Road, between South Higuera and Broad Street. RECOMMENDATION Recommend to the City Council approval of Vesting Tentative Tract Map VTM #2353, and mitigated negative declaration of environmental impact for the project, based upon the findings, and subject to the mitigation measures, conditions, and code requirement included in the attached resolution. BACKGROUND Situation/Previous Review On October 12, 2004 the City Council certified the Final EIR for and approved the Margarita Area Specific Plan (MASP), by Resolution No. 9615 (2004 series). This action by the City Council included approval of both text and map amendments to the City's General Plan, rezoning the subject site to R-1-SP (Low Density Residential), R-2-SP (Medium Density Residential), R-3-SP (Medium High Density Residential), O-SP (Office) and C/OS/SP (Conservation/Open Space.) The MASP Final EIR contained numerous. mitigation measures which are required be brought forward and incorporated into the tiered environmental assessment prepared for this site specific project. The applicant is now requesting that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council approval of the vesting tentative tract map showing a 133-lot subdivision. Data Summary Address: 408 Prado Road, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Applicant: Richard DeBlauw (Sierra Gardens of SLO, owner) Representatives: TEC Engineering Consultants; Althouse &Meade,Inc. Environmental status: The Final EIR for the Margarita Area Specific Plan, which included the subject site was certified by the City Council on October 12, 2004. A subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration,tiered to the prior FEIR is recommended for the site-specific project VTM#2353. �-/70 Attachment 7 Tract #2353-Vesting Tentative Map(DeBlauw/Siena Gardens) Planning Commission Agenda Report Page 2 Project Description The applicant has submitted a Vesting Tentative Map VTM #2353 proposing to create a total of 133 lots designated as follows in accordance with the MASP and the adopted implementing zoning districts: • 109 lots designated for single family residential use; 83 at low density in the R-1-SP zone, 26 at medium density in the R-2-SP zone • 12 lots designated for "mixed use" with integrated single family and business park-office uses on each lot in the O-SP zone • 6 lots for exclusive business park-office use in the O-SP zone • 1 lot designated for condominium medium-high density residential development in the R-2-SP zone (a portion of the required Affordable Housing Program; the other portion is proposed in VTM #2428 (King) to be developed by the Housing Authority or other appropriate entity • 3 lots for"greenway" park use in the R-1- and R-2-SP zones (within PG&E easement) for common ownership by a Home Owners Association • 2 lots for "open space-riparian" use in the C/OS-SP zone (drainage way) for common ownership by a Home Owners Association Approval of a vesting tentative map confers a "vested right" to develop in substantial compliance with the ordinances, policies and standards in effect when the application was determined complete on November 14, 2005 per Chapter 16.34 (Vesting Tentative Map) of the City's Municipal Code and Sections 66474.2 and 66498.1 of the California Government Code (Subdivision Map Act). Lot 105, proposed for 23 units of affordable housing development, will be dedicated to the Housing Authority as soon as infrastructure (street access, utilities, etc.) is completed for that parcel, and before recordation of the Final Map. The precise development proposal for the condominium Lot 105 will be processed at a later date; however, such development is to be consistent with the Affordable Housing Program included with this VTM proposal as approved by the City Community Development Director(see below for further details.) The project also proposes bike/pedestrian ways throughout the subdivision and traffic calming features to promote the pedestrian friendly environment envisioned by the MASP. The proposed open space lots achieve biological and drainage mitigation required by the MASP FEIR, as well as incorporates opportunities for passive recreation amenities for the future residents of the subdivision as stipulated by the MASP. EVALUATION Land Use: The residential, business park-office, mixed-use, and open space lots are located and sized in �-�y9 Attachment 7 Tract #2353-Vesting Tentative Map(DeBlauw/Sierra Gardens) Planning Commission Agenda Report Page 3 accordance with the low density, medium density residential, business park-office and open space land use designations and provisions of the MASP applicable to the subject site. The MASP designates a noise setback of 157 feet from the center line of Prado Road within which residential uses are prohibited. Accordingly, all or portions of 16 lots, 1-6 & 9-18, lie within this setback. Where the 157-foot setback encroaches into a portion of any of these lots, any residential use established on that lot much lie outside the setback. Depending whether the ultimate alignment of Prado Road continues due east rather than curving south at the east edge of the subdivision, portions of Lot 7 & 8 may also be affected by the restriction for residential uses. The overall medium density residential density of this subdivision is approximately.9 units per acre which is on the lower end of the range of 8-16 desired by the Plan and under the "target" density established of 12 units per acre. Staff has considered this aspect of the proposal against the competing demand of reducing grading and finds the lower density in this more sloping site to be acceptable. Higher density would result in more lots of a smaller size resulting in potentially more grading. Traffic and Circulation: VTM #2353 proposes primary access to the site from South Higuera Street via proposed extension of Prado Road easterly from its current terminus as a City public street roughly at the southeast corner of Rancho San Luis Mobile Home Park (southwest comer of proposed VTM #2342 (Cowan). After the easterly extension of Prado Road is constructed pursuant to recommended conditions of approval the site will ultimately have access to Broad Street as well. See below for further discussion of Prado Road extension. The subject site will directly connect to Prado Road via connections at proposed "D" Street and "M" Street. "D" Street is initially proposed as an interim access to the site to facilitate needed through connection to the VTM#2428 (King) during construction of that subdivision depending on phasing. Later "D" Street between Prado Road and "C" Street will be abandoned, with the portions on either side of the centerline reverting to private ownership within Lots 1 & 2 respectively. "M" Street will.remain a permanent ingress/egress street. Proposed "K" Street will stub out at the easterly property line to provide for future internal access and circulation to development on the adjacent Damon and Garcia property. The location of these accesses to the site, as well as other proposed streets to complete circulation internal to the subject VTM #2353, are all located in accordance with the Circulation Plan of the MASP VTM #2353 also proposes connections to adjacent developments within the Western Enclave to the north (VTM #2428-King) and to the west (VTM #2423-Cowan) with an internal system of public and private roadways consistent with the Circulation Plan of the MASP. A planned roundabout, as stipulated by the MASP, will complete the easterly terminus of Margarita Avenue (at its current cross section) within this site. The further easterly projection of Margarita.Avenue through this site is proposed to be developed, not as a street, but as a park area to be owned and maintained by a Home Owners Association. Easement rights will still be retained by PG&E to accommodate the existing high-voltage power lines that will remain within said parkway. Attachment 7 Tract #2353-Vesting Tentative Map(DeBlauw/Sierra Gardens) Planning Commission Agenda Report Page 4 Pedestrian and Bike Paths: Consistent with the MASP Class I shared pedestrian/bicycle paths are proposed within Open Space Lots 31 & 38 (to connect with the Class I path to the north in the King development for ultimate connection to the proposed City-owned open space lot of the South Street Hills and its established trail system) and within Greenway Lots 131, 132, and 133. This path will serve as an extension and a future connection opportunity to the east, from the greenway down the center of the existing Margarita Avenue. Street Development: 1. All streets within the subdivision will be public streets; except the alleys, which will be private. The alleys are proposed to be owned and maintained through private agreements entered into by each lot owner with frontage on the alley. The alleys are intended to serve rear entry garages and personal driveway parking for residents/occupants of the lots backing onto the alley. 2. Construction of streets to access the northerly VTM #2428 (King) subdivision ("D" and "F" Streets within in this subject map or Calle Malva VTM #2342-Cowan/French Map) will be conditioned to occur in relation to timing of construction of the other subdivisions such that either Calle Malva or "D" Street and/or "F" Street will provide primary access to the King site initially. Geolosic\Grading• . The subject site is relatively flat at its Prado Road frontage but slopes upward towards its northerly property line as the terrain begins to reach into the tow of the South Hills. While the preliminary grading plan appears to conform to the City's essential grading requirements and standards, there is concern for potentially undesirable elevation differences between adjacent lots within the proposed subdivision or between proposed lots and adjacent development within the existing El Camino Estates tract along Margarita Avenue or between proposed lots and development within the adjacent proposed VTM #2428 (King). There is potential in the northwesterly and northerly boundary areas for adjacent lot pads to have elevation differences of 5 feet or more, creating an undesirable privacy situation where one neighbor may be able look down into the yards or windows of adjacent homes. To some extent this situation must be anticipated in hillside development where a balance must be made with needed elevation requirements for drainage, for instance. However, the privacy issue can be remedied to some extent by the careful location of fences at the tops of the banks, particularly where the slope bank exceeds a ratio of 3:1 (3 ft. of vertical for every 1 foot horizontal.) Conditions of approval recommend that where such slope ratios will exist and elevation differences between adjacent lots exceed 4 feet, that privacy fences be established at the top of the bank and the remainder of the slope bank, including drainage structures, be owned and maintained by the Home .Owners Association through deed restriction. Biological Resources: Biological impacts of the three Western Enclave projects fall into several categories: wetland impacts; impacts to other sensitive habitats, and impacts to sensitive species. These impacts and related Attachment 7 Tract #2353-Vesting Tentative Map(DeBlauw/Sierra Gardens) Planning Commission Agenda Report Page 5 mitigation measures are all discussed more site-specifically in the attached Environmental Initial Studies for the respective three maps. Open Space/Recreation: The one unnamed natural drainage swale traversing southwesterly through the northwest corner of the site out of the South Hills is proposed to be protected for multiple benefits pursuant to the "Open Space-Riparian" designation requirements of the MASP. In addition to biological and drainage benefits (described elsewhere in this report), the MASP envisioned these types of drainage ways, of which there are three within the Western Enclave area) being preserved largely in their natural state to also achieve open space and passive recreation opportunities, both within the MASP generally, and within the Western Enclave area specifically. The MASP sets forth a "creek" standard, specifying a minimum width of 50 feet. In accordance with the requirements of the MASP, the subject map proposes Lots 31 and 38 to achieve these multiple purposes. These lots comply with the MASP specifications for"creeks". Lots 31, and 38, together with the Lots 131, 132, & 133 (the "greenway" lots along the extended alignment of the Margarita Avenue) are proposed to be owned and maintained by a Home Owners Association as stipulated by the MASP and as set forth in the conditions of approval. City staff debated at length in various meetings with the Western Enclave applicants the ramifications of private versus public ownership of these open space lots. There are compelling pros and cons with either option. It is the City's current policy to not take on ownership of creek areas because of the maintenance responsibilities and liability issues. The maps as submitted, with ownership and maintenance of a total of 12 lots by Home Owners Association is consistent with this City policy. However, the Planning Commission may recommend and the City Council may decide because of the important or unique habitat value of these drainages that it would be advisable for the City to own and maintain all or some of the total 12 open space lots and make them part of the larger open space parcel (Lot 146 of the King map). The Council will need to factor in added maintenance responsibilities that are currently unfunded. Some years,ago, the City received fee title to the creek area adjacent to the Laguna Lake Mobile Estates property, as well as some additional open space on the other side of the creek from the mobile home park. The Public Works Department has previously indicated that City acquisition of this creek area has greatly increased their maintenance responsibilities. Based on this experience and similar issues at other sites, the Public Works Department has real reservations with the City taking on maintenance responsibilities with the creek area next to proposed lots on the project site. Another factor in considering the ownership issue is the differing characteristics of each of the three drainages and the circumstances surrounding the City acquisition of the creek at the Laguna Lake Mobile Estates. When the City acquired the Laguna Lake creek area adjacent to the mobile home park, there was a severe erosion problem with a degraded riparian corridor and many coaches installed very close to, or encroaching over, the top of bank. The subject VTM project site differs in that the health of the drainages' riparian quality is generally good due to lack of Attachment 7 Tract #2353-Vesting Tentative Map(DeBlauw/Sierra Gardens) Planning Commission Agenda Report Page 6 disturbance and new development will be significantly set back from the drainage channel itself as required by the MASP and FEIR. The proposed subdivision design shows a 20-foot setback from the top of creek bank or edge of riparian vegetation to building envelopes consistent with Section 17.16.025 of the zoning regulations (creek setback ordinance). Inclusionary & Affordable Housing: The Planning Director is recommending approval of the proposed Affordable Housing Plan finding that it is consistent with the MASP and Housing Element. A recommended condition of approval stipulates that Lot 105 of this map, as well as Lot 147 of VTM #2428 (King) be dedicated to the Housing Authority prior to, or in conjunction with, recording the first phase of VTM #2353 and VTM #2428, respectively. Improvement plans for Phase I of the each VTM shall include complete access and infrastructure (roads, water, sewer, and utilities) to serve the Housing Authority site. Additional affordable housing requirements will be required if the average residential unit size of the entire VTM tract exceeds 2,000 sq. ft. Public Utilities/Services: 1. Infrastructure for all standard public services for telephone/data, electricity (including street lighting), gas, fire (including hydrants), domestic water and sewer; trash collection and storm drain will be constructed at the site by the subdividers. Although one cul-de-sac is proposed for the subject VTM #2353 accessibility to lots by fire trucks is not compromised due to the cul-de-sac providing the minimum radius of 40 ft. required by the Fire Department. 2. All the private alleys are designated on the map as public utility easements. Other Design Features: 1. The subject map proposes about 53.1% of the subdivision (about 68 of the total 133 developable lots) will utilize shared driveways. Approximately 9 of these will be lots fronting on public streets and about 59 will utilize shared driveways on alleys. Typically, utilizing shared driveways in lot designs results in fewer driveway cuts, particularly along public streets where greater un-broken lengths of on-street parking can thereby also be achieved, but also can reduce grading. Due to their close proximity to the Margarita Avenue roundabout, a recommended condition of approval requires a shared driveway for Lots 47 and 48 and a driveway design that will allow vehicles to exit the driveway in a forward motion to minimize traffic conflicts with vehicles in the roundabout. 2. Park ("Greenway") Lots 131, 132, & 133 are all proposed to be 80 feet in width, as per the underlying PG&E easement. These lots will be an extension of the Margarita Avenue alignment centered on the alignment of the PG&E high voltage power lines. As noted, these parkways will be maintained by the proposed Master Home Owners Association.. 3. According to the Statistics Table on the map sheet, a few of the comer lots may not currently ; '-15 - Attachment 7 Tract #2353-Vesting Tentative Map(DeBlauw/Sierra Gardens) Planning Commission Agenda Report Page 7 meet minimum widths according to sub-part D. of Section 2.2.2 on page 16 of the MASP. A condition of approval is recommended that requires all lots meet the minimum lot design standards set forth in the Plan. 4. Currently the eastbound bus pullout is shown located on the south side of"C" Street west of "D" Street, but conditions of approval require the eastbound pull-out to be located east of "D" Street. Staff believes lot design issues will not result from this change. 5. To accommodate flexibility in the ultimate alignment of Prado Road, a recommended condition of approval requires, as a contingency, that an additional offer of dedication within Lot 6 be obtained in the event Prado Road extends due east rather than curving to the south at the east edge of the site. Lot 6 has been designed such that, if the additional right-of-way (ROW) is needed, the lot will remain a conforming lot with sufficient building area outside the ROW. OTHER DEPARTMENT COMMENTS The comments and recommendations of various City departments are incorporated into the conditions and code requirements of the attached Resolution. ALTERNATIVES 1. The Commission may recommend approval of the project with modified findings and/or conditions. 2. The Commission may approve a resolution recommending that the City Council deny the proposed subdivision, based on findings of inconsistency with the Margarita Area Specific Plan as specified by the Planning Commission. 3. The Commission may continue review of the project, if more information is needed. Direction should be given to staff and the applicants. Attachments: 1. Vicinity/Location maps 2. Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 2428 3. Initial Study(ER 66-05) w.o.atbx_l1njeX&,c 4. DFa€t Planning Commission Resolution trio. 5443 -D(o Approved S:\Projects\05-914.2\Staff Report\Final DeBlauw Staff Report 1-19-06.doc ��sy Attachnent 7111 vigil 1 1111111/11 ♦,� ►:tom`��I1111111� • '•41��*17 f v�-^I Ott `` C : m- 881118- No mo ""1801 aa2 �= -= =- :solo= Mama no -� ■1■■■■111■■ll -i �■IIIIiI■11111�� It■■1■ 1�Ro1■■ C 1■��1� 1■loll■ lot sonGinn �� SIR EmmonsTract Maps =� All 1 � 1 PIE Il I .. ter I I� 1 1♦�� _�� }„ I•s`��. flit �ii/ >r s:rr: ii��ie`�MWAJ Nd !;Mm sLrir �ri.�t y � 1 M n �� • �.0 I �.:i. r II r oY•r� II: II f17:�\ il� 111�A AFI. I'. ��•1 �i, �� ' :i 7 V to �— L]� N d s $�yl� gg e g D QE qN 2 0 $ IItI tYo$oo�( IaF1 h® zcoil� 044 j < s 0 6Bg z ----- - ------ ----- 1T-T ; :V :L I e-1-TT� fI �• , I Q�/ I B 1 g I@ I @ IQ IQ 13 1@ 1 I @ Ie I® �.J 'I} 1 1 I ' '--L-j- , ° ' ® I a I a I ° I e I° I= 1° 1 P ;d . 1 . I! l e I ■ I R I■ ��_ I I I I I I I I I 1 I \J li 1 _J-L-J_L_J ^ 1 In 10 I s I ° I P i a � • � a i e �° �■ 1 P I � +_— e � tyire '•:{>___ s u s I s I o I s 11 � 111 I I I I I j 1 I 1 I tl I I_ �1_ -- r-T l _-� _ —� -T - I +I d .— 8 --� P I I I - Y- _ I ' /fill, S, if ------------ l� 'I IL fly TRgIpm12 0 i �p I - F - - - x' ` I VP Iri a•-��zun yr s r t �' u j� �1/ i.z. r�i.Jr/ss6�� reC' _J7d��Sr I` o kit g– I �fg-All� / '• ti �� w G L' i ' iiOm` 'l` a_ � s� i� (1' }�,� /mss '�r � ��? 6rG, - E >>o,a.a �JR, rr . — a h_ � f�ri�i/r■ � psi �■i��rl errs ♦ � .ate • •�a►�� il� c 1 k• F „S-� ,y} Fr . . �� / = i�i�� ►•, o o ! I ci ( Ali �/II1s.•S_ �aaS.?��eT� �_ uno� /�s� :•�.is ?AIR _-�' II i ' III�IIII I `� II��NIIIIIIII� ,,.III � ,�►�►��IIN IN �IIII!IIIII illll Attachment 7 -FC-Attachment 3 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM For ER#66-05 1. Project Title: Vesting Tentative Map#2353(Sierra Gardens/DeBlauw) 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of San Luis Obispo 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Pam Ricci, Senior Planner Mary Beatie, Senior Planner(Contract Planner) City of San Luis Obispo TPG Consulting, Inc. 805-781-7168 222 N. Garden Street, Suite#100 Visalia, CA 93291 559-739-8072 4. Project Location: The project site address is 408 Prado Road; consisting of approximately 30 acres. (Please refer to Attachment I"Western Enclave Projects Vicinity Map 5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Owner: Sierra Gardens of SLO, LTD. 411 El Camino Real Arroyo Grande, CA 93420 Applicants: Richard&Duane DeBlauw 6. General Plan Designation: The Land Use Element of the City General Plan designates the site for: Low Density Residential, Medium Density Residential, Medium-High Density Residential Business Park, and Open Space The Marnarita Area Specific Plan WASP), which implements the City General Plan, designates the site for: Business Park Office Low Density Residential a-�s9 - Attachment 7 Medium Density Residential Medium High Density Residential Greenway Open Space—Riparian 7. Zoning: The site contains multiple zoning districts to implement the MASP land use designations, as follows: Applies to Land Use Designation Zoning, VTM Lot#s Business Park Office O-SP(Office-Specific Plan Overlay) 1-18 Low Density Residential R-1-SP(Low-Density Residential-Specific Plan Overlay) 23-30, 32-36 Medium Density Residential R-2-SP(Medium Density Residential-Specific Plan Overlay) 19-22,37,68-70, 101-104, 117- 130 Medium High Density Res. R-3-SP(Medium High Density Res.-Specific Plan Overlay) 105 Greenway R-1-SP(Low-Density Residential-Specific Plan Overlay) 131-133 Open Space-Riparian C/OS-SP(Conservation/Open Space-Specific Plan Overlay) 31, 38 8. Description of the Project: Proposed VTM #2353, a 133-lot subdivision, has been designed and is being processed in coordination with the processing of two adjacent developments, described below, in order to better achieve the objectives and requirements of the MASP: • VTM .#2342 (Cowan/French) proposing 67 lots on approximately 15 acres; located immediately south of the existing El Camino Estates residential subdivision along Margarita Avenue and east of the Rancho San Luis Mobile Home Park, generally northeast of the current easterly terminus of the City maintained portion of Prado Road, east of South Higuera Street. • VTM#2428 (King)proposing 148 lots on approximately 99 acres; located immediately north the existing El Camino Estates residential subdivision along Margarita, and east of the existing Chumash Village Mobile Home Park (accessed from South Higuera.) This site is also generally situated along the lower lying slopes of the South Hills between South Higuera Street and Broad Street. Collectively these three tract map proposals are referred to as the "Western Enclave" (of the MASP.) Vesting Tentative Map VTM #2353 proposes a total of 133 lots designated as follows in accordance with the MASP: • 109 lots designated for single family residential use; 83 at low density in the R-1-SP zone, 26 at medium density in the R-2-SP zone CRY OF SAN LUIS OBlsao 2 INITIAL STuoy ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST ER 66-05 (VTrM#2353-Sierra Gardens/DeBlauw) GADocuments and Settings\slouser\Desktop\FINAL Initial Study DeBlauw 01-04-06.doc _ Attachment 7 • 12 lots designated for "mixed use" with integrated single family and business park-office uses on each lot in the O-SP zone • 6 lots for exclusive business park-office use in the O-SP zone 1 lot designated for condominium medium-high density residential development in the R-24P zone (a portion of the required Affordable Housing Program; the other portion is proposed in VTM#2428(King) to be developed by the Housing Authority or other appropriate entity • 3 lots for "greenway" park use in the R-1- and R-2-SP zones (within PG&E easement)for common ownership by a Home Owners Association • 2 lots for "open space-riparian" use in the C/OS-SP zone (drainage way) for common ownership by a Home Owners Association Approval of a vesting tentative map confers a "vested right"to develop in substantial compliance with the ordinances, policies and standards in effect when the application was determined complete on November 14, 2005, per Chapter 16.34 (Vesting Tentative Maps) of the City's Municipal Code and Sections 66474.2 and 66498.1 of the California Government Code (Subdivision Map Act). In order to obtain public road access, and as required by the MASP, Prado Road needs to be extended from its current easterly terminus (as a public roadway) from approximately the southeast corner of Rancho San Luis Mobile Home Park, east to Broad Street. A priority goal of the MASP is to establish the east-west connection of Prado Road between Broad Street and South Higuera Street at the earliest possible stage of development. Because the three proposed tract maps represent the first phase of proposed development in the MASP area, they are required to design and construct Prado Road to a minimum cross-section as agreed upon by the City Public Works Director, to provide the desired connection. According to the MASP, one option to finance the connection is that the City will credit (or pro-rate) the design and construction costs of the agreed-upon minimum cross section against all Margarita Area impact fees to be collected with each respective development until the amount of fees equals the amount of construction costs. If the costs of the roadway exceed fee amounts, another financing mechanism, such as a facilities financing district, may be necessary to complete the project. The location of site access and internal circulation for VTM 2353 is in accordance with the Circulation Plan of the MASP. VTM#2353 map proposes primary access initially from South Higuera Street to the site from the planned extension of Prado Road to the east along the entire frontage of the Western Enclave development area, and then ultimately farther east to Broad Street, all in accordance with the requirements of the MASP. The main access will initially be from Prado Road along proposed interim "D" Street, a proposed Residential Collector street. In the long run this will be an interim access and "M" Street,farther to the east will become the primary permanent access. The internal street layout for this map interconnects to the two other adjacent Western Enclave developments (via "C" Street to VTM#2342/Cowan and via "D" and "F" Streets to VTM#2428/King). The location of these accesses to the site as well as the other proposed streets to complete circulation internal to the subject VTM#2428, are all located in accordance with the Circulation Plan of the MASP). Although not specifically called for in the MASP, this subdivision does propose a second primary access into Western Enclave area through this site, which has been deemed suitable and desirable by the Public Works CITY OF SAN LUIS OBtSPO 3 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST ER 66-05 (VTfM#2353-Sierra Gardens/DeBlauw) CADocuments and Settings\,slouser\Desktop\FINAL Initial Study De81auw 01-04-06.doc '02 Attachment 7 Department. See Part 15 below for further analysis of this aspect of the proposal. Also proposed is a 12' Class 1 shared pedestrian/bicycle path within Greenway Lots 131, 132, & 133 extending from the roundabout proposed at the terminus of Margarita Avenue at the west edge of the site connecting to proposed "L" Street along the easterly edge of the site. Open Space Lots 31 and 38 are sized to accommodate protection of or avoidance of interference with special concern species and habitat, in accordance with biological resource protection objectives of the MASP. As specified in the MASP, the Affordable Housing objectives of the plan are to be achieved by two separate parcels within the Western Enclave in order to provide a total of 47 units; Lot 105 of the subject map is proposed to provide 23 of the units. Lot 105 is being created for dedication to the San Luis Obispo County Housing Authority or equivalent entity once the units are built. Lot 147 of proposed VTM#2428 (King) will accommodate the other 24 units in similar fashion, on a lot to be dedicated to the Housing Authority or equivalent once the units are built. 9. Surrounding Land Uses and Settings: The project site, 408 Prado Road, is located generally in the southern part of San Luis Obispo. The site is situated on the north side of Prado Road east and immediately adjacent to the site for proposed VTM#2342, and east of the existing residential subdivision along Margarita Avenue,. and south of the site proposed for VTM#2428 (King). Lands to the east(owned by Damon and Garcia families) and south (owned by L.J. and A.P. Martinelli) are primarily undeveloped lands or used agriculturally. The MASP/RASP EIR describes the site as lying, generally at the lower lying slopes of the toe of South Hills in an area characterized as Perennial Grassland with patches of Valley Needlegrass Grassland surrounding a small area of previously active agricultural field and a related home site. The site transmits area runoff through a natural channel or swale across the north easterly corner of the site (extending out of the proposed VTM #2428 (King) subdivision). This swale is well-enough defined as to be designated by the MASP as "Open Space-Riparian" and as such, is proposed for preservation in its natural state within the subdivision. This drainage way also contains habitat suitable for special concern species, and is to be preserved in "open space" not only as a component of the Western Enclave biological mitigation program, but also to function as a component of the sub-regional drainage plan devised for the Western Enclave developments, in accordance with objectives of the MASP. Lands to the east and south also lie within the MASP and aer currently used agriculturally or are vacant or undeveloped. 10. Project Entitlements Requested: Approval of Vesting Tentative Map VTM#2353 11. Other public agencies whose approval is required: Air Pollution Control District(Permit to Construct, Permit to Operate) Water Quality Control Board(NPDES permit-including Phase 11&SWPPP) California Department of Fish and Game U.S. Army Corps of Engineers CITY OF SAN Luis OBLSPO 4 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST ER 66-05(VTTM#2353-Sierra Gardens/DeBlauw) CADocuments and Settingslslouser0esktop\FINAL Initial Study DeBlauw 01-04-06.doc Attachment 7 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 Aesthetics Geology/Soils Public Services Agricultural Resources X Hazards&Hazardous Recreation Materials Air Quality Hydrology/Water Quality X Transportation&Traffic 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 Resources 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. The project has potential to impact fish and wildlife resources and shall be subject to the payment of Fish X 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 X 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 5 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST ER 66-05 (VTTM#2353-Sierra Gardens/DeBlauw) C:\Documents and Settings\slouser\Desktop\FINAL Initial Study DeBlauw 01-04-06.doc ,2 -16 3 - ' - Attachment 7 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, X there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been 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 requited. natur Date Ron Whisenand,-Deputy Director For:John Mandeville, Printed Name Community Development Director CRY OF SAN Luis OSISPO 6 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST ER 66-05 (VTTM#2353-Sierra Gardens/DeBlauw) GADocuments and Settings\.slouser\Desktop\FINAL Initial Study DeBlauw 01-04-06.doc s2—/4py 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 listed below), "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 18 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 documentshould, 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 OBISPO 7 INRULL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST ER 66-05 (VTTM#2353-Sierra Gardens/DeBlauw) C:\Documents and Settings\slouser\Desktop\FINAL Initial Study DeBlauw 01-04-06.doc a2-BIOS P lachinant 7 Issues, Discussion and Supporta y Information Sources Sources Pots_eUy Potentially LessTltan No Significant Significant Significant impact ER#66-OS Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorpotated 1.AESTHETICS. Would theproject: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? 1,2, X 3, 8,9 b) Substantially damage scenic resources,including,but not limited 1,2, X to,trees,rock outcroppings,open space,and historic buildings 3, 8,9 within a local or state scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of 1,2, X the site and its surroundings? 3, 8,9 d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would 1,2, X adversely effect day or nighttime views in the area? 3, 8,9 Evaluation a)The primary scenic value from within and around the Western Enclave area is the view to the north and northeast of the South Hills. The prior MASP/AASP EIR determined that the implementation of the Specific Plan would result inevitably in a change of character of the plan areas from a generally semi-rural to an urban developed setting. Urban development will cause irreversible changes in the visual character from that of undeveloped and low density semi-rural area to a more intensely developed, suburban area. The project site is situated alongside the lower slopes of the toe of the South Hills, the upper elevations of which, together with the natural drainage ways out of the hills, are designated for"Open Space" by the MASP in order to protect these more significant visual (and associated biological) resources. The project complies with aesthetic-related stipulations of the MASP affecting scenic resources by designating Lots 31 and 38 as Open Space lots alongside the natural drainage way transmitting area run-off out of the South Hills. The subject site does not contain any of the "Open Space-Hills" designation, is proposed to be developed in accordance with land use designations of the MASP, and therefore will not impinge on the visual resource that is the South Hills. Thus, the project will result in no impact to the view of the South Hills. b)See discussion a) above. There are no historic buildings within a local or state scenic highway in the project vicinity that will be impacted by the proposed development. Thus,this impact is less than significant. c) The existing visual character or quality of the site will change from semi-rural to urban developed as a result of urbanization of the area pursuant to and consistent with the objectives of the MASP. The VTM project is required to be consistent with the lay-out and distribution of land uses and design standards stated in the MASP to ensure that the appearance of the development is acceptable and that no new buildings block scenic views. Therefore, the project as proposed, together with conditions of approval, is consistent with the MASP. Through conditions of approval the project will be further required to comply with City codes and standards some of which impact aesthetics. Ultimately the design of both proposed housing and commercial buildings will require the review and approval of the Architectural Review Commission (ARC) to ensure consistency with the City's Community Design Guidelines as well as the MASP. Impacts resulting from the vroiect will he less than significant. d) The prior MASP/AASP EIR acknowledges that future development pursuant to the MASP will introduce new sources of light, glare and nighttime illumination, as is typical with residential and commercial development. However, the MASP/AASP EIR determined that such light and glare impacts (LU-7) can be mitigated to less than significant at the site specific project stage through compliance with lighting design standards set forth in the MASP and with other adopted standards as may be applicable by other City regulations. The new light source subject to mitigation will not adversely affect day or nighttime views in the urbanized area. Therefore impacts from new sources of light or glare will be less than significant with mitigation LU-7.1 as specified in the MASP/AASP EIR to be implemented through compliance with the MASP Community Design standard of Section 3.3-Lighting and accompanying conditions of approval Building and parking lot lighting for the commercial portions of the project would also be reviewed and approved by the ARC. CITY OF SAN Luis Oinspo K3 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST ER 66-05 (VTTM#2353-Sierra Gardens/DeBlauw) C:\Documents and Settings\slouser\Desktop\FINAL Initial Study DeBlauw 01-04-06.doc a.2 -/! 6 Attachment 7 Issues, Discussion and Support.-.,j Information Sources sources Po,_.Iauy Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact ER#66 05 Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated 2.AGRICULTURE RESOURCES. Would theproject: a) Convert Prime Farmland,Unique Farmland,or Farmland of I I X Statewide Importance(Farmland),as shown on the maps pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency,to non-agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a 6 X Williamson Act contract? c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which,due to 1,2,6 X their location or nature,could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use? Evaluation: a)According to the prior MASP/AASP EIR, the Margarita Area(including the Western Enclave area)does not contain any lands in the stated categories as shown on the maps pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, consequently, the project can not result in conversion of such lands to non-agricultural uses. Therefore,there is no impact. b)There is no agricultural zoning or Williamson Act Contract in effect on the subject site. Therefore there is no impact.. c) No lands within the Western Enclave (and thereby within the subject site), have been actively farmed recently, so this project will not result in any direct loss of productive farmland. Other lands in the vicinity of the project site are either already developed or if within the Margarita Area Specific Plan and in agricultural use(farmland/grazing or open space),are already slated by the Plan for eventual non-agricultural use whether this project proceeds or not; therefore there is no direct correlation from this project to any further planned conversions of farmland to non-agricultural uses. The impacts of conversion of these lands to non-agricultural uses have already been evaluated both in the environmental documents for the City's Land Use and Circulation Elements and the MASP as significant, irreversible, adverse impacts that could not be mitigated and the necessary Statement of Overriding Considerations adopted(Resolution No.9615 (2004 Series)pursuant to CEQA. Nonetheless, policies of the Land Use Element were adopted to help compensate for, and thereby reduce the impacts from, productivity lost as a result of the conversions to non-agricultural uses. Specifically, city policy requires direct dedication of open space areas or payment of in-lieu fees. As noted above, the subject project proposes Lots 31 and 38 as open space to be owned and maintained by a Master Home Owners Association as permanent open space pursuant to the requirements of the MASP. Therefore,the nroiect is self-mitigating and thus, the project impact is less than significant. 3. AIR QUALITY. Would theproject: a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an 1, 3 X existing or projected air quality violation? b) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air 1,3 X quality plan? c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant 1,3 X concentrations? d) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of 1,3 X people? e) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria 1,3 X pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed qualitative thresholds for ozone cursors)? Evaluation a-e) According to the prior MASP/AASP EIR, project construction will generate short-term emissions of air pollutants. Construction-related emissions would primarily be dust (particulates) generated from soil disturbance and combustion CRY OF SAN Luis OBISPO 9 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST ER 66-05 (VTTM#2353-Sierra Gardens/DeBlauw) C:\Documents and Settings\slouser\Desktop\FINAL Initial Study DeBlauw 01-04-06.doc o2 -/ee7 AftaC1";"tfief if 7 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potc,.ually Potentially Ips Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact ER#66 05 Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated emissions generated by construction equipment. Such dust generation was determined to be a potentially short-term significant impact on air quality that could lead to exceedances of established state and federal thresholds for regional or local air quality or otherwise conflict with City and County air quality plans or program. In addition, the project site is situated near existing residential units thereby potentially exposing sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. The MASP/AASP EIR also noted long-term ("operation") air quality impacts would result from on-going emissions generated by the project-related vehicular trips and development resulting in additional natural gas combustion for space and water heating and additional fuel combustion at power plants for electricity consumption. The MASP/AASP EIR concluded that implementation of the Plan, with mitigation measures AIR-1.1, 1.2, 1.3 and 2.Iset forth in the EIR brought forward to apply to individual projects, is consistent with the local Clean Air Plan. The EIR also determined that with adoption of the MASP and its accompanying EIR mitigation measures, further delays in attainment of state and federal air quality standards would not be expected and thus, air quality impacts resulting from build-out of the Plan were insignificant. The mitigation measures set forth in the prior MASP/RASP EIR were determined to reduce all the following impact areas to less than significant: 1)short-term construction-related vehicle emissions and fugitive dust(PMio), and 2.) long-term operation emissions, including increased vehicle trips resulting from new residential and commercial development in the MASP.. During Early Consultation for the subject VTM project, the Air Pollution Control District of San Luis Obispo County commented in a letter dated August 2, 2005 that they support the in-fill nature of the proposed development noting that such development makes walling, bicycling and public transportation more viable, decreasing dependence on driving and therefore reducing emissions from motor vehicles.The letter states further that such development is consistent with the land use goals and policies of the District's Clean Air Plan,consistent with the finding of the MASP/AASP EIR. The SLO County APCD reiterated in its letter the site mitigations as set forth in MASP/AASP EIR for dust control, construction vehicle emission control, construction activity pollution controls, and on-gong project operation emission controls, and noted these measures be incorporated into the project in order to maintain project-related impacts to less than significant These requirements will be enforced by the APCD through required Permit to Construct and Permit to Operate permits and by recommended conditions of approval. The proposed project is self-mitigating in these regards because the applicant has asserted his commitment by way of notation on the preliminary grading plans submitted for the project which states: "All requirements of the APCD letter dated 8/02/05 shall be complied with and incorporated into project improvement plans." This component of the applicant's project description/proposal together with Conditions of Approval assure mitigation measures set forth in the prior EIR are brought forward to this project. Thus,the proiect is self-mitigating and the impact is less than significant. 4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would theproject: a) Have a substantial adverse effect,either directly or indirectly or 1,3, X through habitat modifications,on any species identified as a 12, 13 candidate,sensitive,or special status species in local or regional plans,policies,or regulations,or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect,on any riparian habitat or 1,3, X other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional 12, 13 plans,policies,or regulations,or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting 1, 3, X biological resources,such as a tree preservation policy or 12, 13 ordinance(e.g.Heritage Trees)? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident 1,3, X or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native 12, 13 resident or migratory wildlife corridors,or impede the use of wildlife nursery sites? CITY of SAN Luis Oelspo 10 INtnnL STupv EwmONMENTAL CHecta.iST ER 66-05 (VTTM#2353-Sierra Gardens/DeBlauw) C:\Documents and Settings\slouser\Desktop\FINAL Initial Study DeBlauw 01-04-06.doc 02`Aw Attachment 7 Issues, Discussion and Supportlt y Information Sources Sources Pott• Ally Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact ER#66 05 Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated e) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted habitat Conservation 1,3, X Plan,Natural Community Conservation Plan,or other approved 12, 13 local,regional,or state habitat conservation plan? f) Have a substantial adverse effect on Federally protected 1,3, X wetlands as defined in Section 404 of the Clean Water Act 12, 13 (including,but not limited to,marshes,vernal pools,etc.) through direct removal,filling,hydrological interruption,or other means? Evaluation: c)There are no significant specimen or heritage trees on the property.Thus there is no impact from this proiect. d) The Margarita Area does not contain any waterways known to be important of viable fisheries, therefore there is not expected to be any effect on fish species. Due to the relatively poor soils, simple vegetation type (grassland), and general lack of vegetation diversity, the Western Enclave developments of MASP are not rich in wildlife species and do not form any kind of nursery or refugium for wildlife species. Therefore it is not expected that the development would interfere substantially with the movement of any native wildlife species. e)The City does not have an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan established in the City of San Luis Obispo. Thus there is no impact from this uroiect. a)-b), f) The prior EIR prepared for the MASP & AASP conducted extensive biological resource impact analyses and determined 19 areas of potential significant impact. Of these 19 impacts,6(BIO-3,4, 10, 15, 18,& 19)were determined to not be significant and thereby, not requiring mitigation. BIO-9 was ruled out as an impact for the MASP territory, and therefore is not an impact for the three Western Enclave project sites. The balance of 12 Impacts (BIO-1, 2, 5,6, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13, 14, 16 & 17) were subject to MASP/AASP EIR mitigation requiring further site specific surveys and mapping to determine if the specie of concern identified in the respective enumerated impacts might occur on the site. Mitigation Measure BIO-1.1 stated the performance criteria that if such specie was not found to exist then no further mitigation would be necessary,but if the specie was found or determined to exist then Mitigation Measure BIO-6.1 outlining the performance criteria to avoid, minimize, or compensate for significant impacts on those resources as specified by the site specific biological surveys would be required for affected projects. The MASP/AASP EIR-required site specific surveys were conducted for the Western Enclave properties during the winter, spring, and summer of 2005. As a result of these surveys, EIR Impacts BIO-1, 14, & 16 were determined to not be significant impacts requiring mitigation for the Western Enclave properties. The remaining impacts (BIO-2, 5, 6,7, 11, 12, 13, & 17)were determined to be applicable to the Western Enclave properties, and in particular, with respect to the subject VTM#2428,that upper portion of the site lying along the toe of the South Hills and the three drainage ways traversing the site. Consequently the site is subject to the performance standards to avoid, minimize, or compensate for the impact as set forth in Mitigation Measure BIO-6.1. In compliance with one of the performance standards of this mitigation, the Western Enclave applicants have already prepared and submitted as part of their project proposal a "Comprehensive Mitigation Program" that is applicable to all three of the Western Enclave sites (as opposed to three individual plans). By integrating all three projects as if they were one, impacts were able to be addressed by selectively applying mitigation where a beneficial habitat exists naturally and could thereby be dealt with on one site to the benefit of the other two, gamering a more holistic, rather than piecemeal, solution. The applicants propose to retain all existing natural drainage ways in their current locations and in their natural state, as required by the MASP. In addition, the applicants are already in communication with the agencies of jurisdiction (California Department of Fish and Game, US Fish & Wildlife Service, US Army Corps of Engineers) regarding acquiring necessary permits for mitigation of impacts to jurisdictional wetlands, (Section 404, etc.) and conditions of approval are recommended to assure compliance. The wetlands and drainages are afforded further protection as stipulated by the EIR performance criteria,by providingnecessary buffer zones around the features to be protected/preserved. CITY OF SAN Luts Oetsao 11 INmAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST ER 66-05 (VTTM#2353-Sierra Gardens/DeBlauw) C:\Documents and Settings\slouser\Desktop\FINAL Initial Study DeBlauw 01-04-06.doc C2. /49 AttaChment 7 Issues, Discussion and Support...., Information Sources Sources Pi,, ally Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact ER#66-05 Issues unless Impact Mitigation incorporated The findings and recommendations of the "Comprehensive Mitigation Program" as reviewed and modified by City staff are summarized below: Biological impacts fall into several categories: wetland impacts; impacts to other sensitive habitats,and impacts to sensitive species. These are discussed in more detail below for the site specific to the subject map: Wetland Impacts. All three subdivisions have some impacts to wetlands. Efforts have been made, especially in the King subdivision, to minimize these through redesign of the lot layout,but there will still be impacts that cannot be avoided if the project is to proceed as called for in the Margarita Area Specific Plan. The DeBlauw and Cowan subdivisions also have wetland impacts but these appear to be of a different nature, impacting wetlands that have resulted from grade and drainage changes caused by human activities in the past. The developers are working on a mitigation program for wetland impacts that would utilize a nearby property and would meet City,State,and federal mitigation requirements. . Impacts.to Sensitive Species. Several species of concern will be impacted by the project: these are mostly plant species, but also include one potentially affected animal.species. These are discussed individually below. Congdon Tarplant (Hentizonia parryi ssp congdoni). Up to several hundred individuals have been observed in disturbed, wet ground paralleling Prado Road on the Cowan and DeBlauw properties. This species is concentrated in the San Luis Obispo area in vernally wet areas that are routinely disturbed, such as by agricultural operations or livestock activities, and in vernal pools. Impacts to Other Nesting Birds. It is possible that construction activities during the nesting season could impact nesting birds,including inadvertent harassment of nesting pairs and destruction of nests Mitigation Program Mitigation for wetland impacts. Mitigation for wetland impacts will be through a combination of on- and off-site mitigation, approved by the City, the DFG and the Corps. Further, in compliance with the MASP/AASP EIR, the subject VTM#2342(Cowan)proposes the creation of Lot Z in an area designated by the MASP for"Open Space-Riparian"for the express purposes of achieving some of the necessary wetlands replacement mitigation area,as well as preservation of related biological habitat benefits. Mitigation for Impacts to Sensitive Species. None of these species are expected to be difficult to establish. City staff will work with the project sponsors in developing the details of the effort. Congdon Tarplant. Create compensating habitat in a suitable off-site location approved by the City. Mitigation for Impacts to Other Nesting Birds. Undertake surveys prior to initiation of construction activities; avoid construction activities within 100 feet of active nest sites until after young have fledged. Off Site Mitigation for Wetland Impacts. A further component of the biological mitigation program is the applicant's proposal to acquire (by fee, easement, or eminent domain) lands outside the bounds of the Western Enclave (designated by the MASP as"Open Space-Riparian" lands). The targeted property(lying south of Prado Road and owned by Unocal)is a low lying area that already naturally collects some area run-off and provides valuable habitat for certain special concern and R-T-E (rare, threatened, and endangered) species, and thus is beneficial to retain in its natural state. Pre-development run- off has resulted in seasonal flooding of Prado Road due to they currently deficient collection/distribution system to this natural drainage area south of Prado Road.. The Western Enclave applicants propose to acquire this off-site property designated for open space use by the MASP and utilize it beneficially for biological mitigation as well as a detention basin for pre- and post-Western Enclave development generated run-off. It is proposed that this basin be enhanced to accommodate the greater project-generated and pre-project run-off flows, and to increase its habitat value in the long term. The basin is proposed to be held and maintained by a Master Home Owners Association HOA established initially for CRY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 12 INmAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST ER 66-05 (VTI'M#2353-Sierra Gardens/DeBlauw) C:\Documents and Settings\slouser\Desktop\FINAL Initial Study DeBlauw 01-04-06.doc 76 Attachment 7 Issues, Discussion and Suppon._j Information Sources Sources Po,..aally Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Issues Unless Impact ER#66-05 Mitigation Inco rated the Western Enclave area,and perhaps ultimately for the entire MASP as stipulated be done by the MASP. As noted, the developments have been designed so as to avoid any disturbance to the natural drainage channels. In order to accommodate this, a storm drainage system is proposed to capture all surface flow from the improvements and convey it on through the watershed. Naturally occurring drainage from the upper reaches of the watershed will be allowed to continue to flow through the developments via the existing natural drainage channels [proposed to be preserved in Open Space, particularly Lots 142-146 & 148 in the subject maps. However, development-generated run-off will be conveyed via separate installed infrastructure &treatment facilities required for the subdivisions, and transported to the proposed off-site sub-regional drainage basin.] The proposed off-site detention basin and drainages(preserved in common by a MHOA as open channels)will be vegetated with local native, suitable grasses and other plant material, and with the assistance of composite turf reinforcement fabric, will allow for the formation of additional seasonal wetlands. As the channels and basin are lined with the turf reinforcement fabric, any additional bank stabilization that will be needed should be achieved. Additionally, outlets into the basin will have substantial energy dissipation structures, as required to remove any erosion and sedimentation potential. Once the wetlands within the channels and basin have been allowed to fully establish themselves, it is anticipated that some of the wildlife, which will take seasonal refuge within these wetlands, will assist with keeping growth of the vegetation under control. Inclusion of the above mitigations reduce the impacts to a level of less than significant. 5.CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would theproject: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a 1,3, X historic resource?(See CEQA Guidelines 15064.5) 10, 19,20 b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an 1, 3, X archaeological resource?(See CEQA Guidelines 15064.5) 10, 19,20 c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource 1, 3, X or site or unique geologic feature? 10, 19,20 d) Disturb any human remains,including those interred outside of 1, 3, X formal cemeteries? 10, 19,20 Evaluation (a-b) The MASP and MASP/AASP EIR determined, by way of Mitigation Measure CR-1.1 that further on-site surface surveys be done in conjunction with each site specific development proposal and that if resources are found that cannot be avoided should be evaluated through additional research and test excavations to determine whether the resources found meet CEQA or National Register of Historic Places (NRNP) significance criteria. The first part of this mitigation has been satisfied for this property in two ways: 1.)The required Phase I(surface)survey for archaeological resources was conducted by Heritage Discoveries, Inc. of San Luis Obispo, CA for the entire Western Enclave area and a written report, dated May 31, 2005, was submitted to the City, and 2.) A Historical Evaluation of the small farm house at the subject site, the only structures within the Western Enclave area,was also performed by Bertrando&Bertrando Research Consultants of San Luis Obispo, CA and a written report dated April 2005 submitted to the City. This latter report concluded that the research conducted on the property revealed no evidence of historical significance, and therefore there will be no significant impact resulting from the removal of the house. The archaeological report however, found and completed a site record for, a small archaeological site of unspecified significance within the subject project site area. The report recommends that a Phase II subsurface test is now required at this recorded site to complete the required mitigation, but such survey will not affect and therefore does not impact the subject project going forward,unless the Phase II survey determines significance criteria for a unique resource(as defined in CITY OF SAN Luis OBISPO 13 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST ER 66-05(VTTM#2353-Sierra Gardens/DeBlauw) CADocuments and Settings\slouser\Desktop\FINAL Initial Study DeBlauw 01-04-06.doc a_/71 Attachment 7 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Pote,...dly Potentially LessTttan No Significant Significant Significant Impact ER#66-05 Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Inco orated CEQA)or evidence of a qualifying historical site per NRHP has been met.In this instance Mitigation Measure CR-1.1 states that if avoidance of the resource is not possible, then the impact to the resource shall be mitigated in consultation with the lead agency and any or all of the following measures may be needed: 1.)A data recovery program consisting of archaeological excavation to retrieve the important data from the archaeological site; 2.)Development and implementation of public interpretation plans for both prehistoric and historic sites; 3.)Preservation, rehabilitation, restoration, or reconstruction of historic structures according to the Secretary of Interior Standards for Treatment of Historic Properties; 4.)Construction of new structures in a manner consistent with the historic character of the region;and 5.)Treatment of historic landscapes according to the Secretary of Interior Standards for Treatment of Historic Landscapes. If the project involves a federal agency, and is therefore subject to a MOA, the inventory, evaluation, and treatment processes will be coordinated with that federal agency to ensure that the work conducted will also comply with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. Thus,the project impact is Potentially significant without mitigation of a Phase II subsurface survey. c-d)The project site is located in an area that does not contain any unique geological feature and possesses no known unique paleontological resources. The project area has been part of two general cultural resource field surveys. As a result of these field surveys, there are no known historical or archaeological resources that are associated with the project site. Therefore there is no impacL d)There is no evidence available that suggests human remains are known to exist within the project boundaries. Therefore, there is no impact. 6. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would theproject: a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? 1,2, 3 X b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient 1,2, 3 X manner? c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource 1,2, 3 X that would be of value to the region and the residents of the State? Evaluation: a) b) The project will not conflict with adopted energy conservation plans nor will it promote the use of non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner. The future development of the site must comply with the policies contained in the General Plan Energy Element that states: "New development will be encouraged to minimize the use of conventional energy for space heating and cooling, water heating, and illumination by means of proper design and orientation, including the provision and protection of solar exposure." The project will also be subject to Architectural Review that will ensure consistency with City energy conservation goals and policies,and regulations. This impact is less than significant. c) There are no known mineral resources on the project site that would be of value to the region and the residents of the State. 7. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the-project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse 1,2, 3, X effects, including risk of loss,injury or death involving: 5,7, 17 1. Rapture of a known earthquake fault,as delineated in the 1,2,3, X most recent Alquust-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map 5,7, 17 issued by the State Geologist for the area,or based on other CRY OF SAN Luis OBLsPo 14 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST ER 66-05 (VTTM#2353-Sierra Gardens/DeBlauw) C:\Documents and Settings\slouser\Desktop\FINAL Initial Study DeBlauw 01-04-06.doc 4;2--/70- _ Atlach, neat 7 Issues, Discussion and Support,..., Information Sources Sources pot`ally potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact ER#66-05 Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated substantial evidence of a known fault? II. Strong seismic ground shaking? 1,2,3, X 5,7, 17 M. Seismic-related ground failure,including liquefaction? 1,2,3, X 5,7, 17 IV. Landslides or mudflows? 1,2, 3, X 5,7, 17 b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? 1,2, 3, X 5,7, 17 c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable,or that 1,2,3, X would become unstable as a result of the project,and potentially 5,7, 17 result in on or off site landslides,lateral spreading,subsidence, liquefaction,or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil,as defined in Table 18-1-B of the 1,2,3, X Uniform Building Code(1994),creating substantial risks to life 5,7, 17 or property? Evaluation: a)-d):The initial study prepared for the MASP/AASP projects found that all the above-stated effects from implementation of both plans would be less than significant and therefore the MASP/AASP EIR conducted no further evaluations. There is no new evidence to suggest there would be any site specific impacts that were not adequately anticipated or evaluated in the prior environmental documents.The preliminary grading plan prepared for the subdivision is consistent with City code. The final grading plan of the proposed subdivision will be in accordance with the Geotechnical Engineer's recommendations and the California Building Code adopted by the City and modified by City regulations. Thus, the project impact is less than significant. 8. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the r( 'ect: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment 1,3, X through the routine use,transport or disposal of hazardous 14 materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment 1,3, X through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions 14 involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely 1,3, X hazardous materials,substances,or waste within one-quarter 14 mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Expose people or structures to existing sources of hazardous 1,3, X emissions or hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, 14 substances,or waste? e) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous 1,3, X materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 14 65962.5 and,as a result, it would create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? f) For a project located within an airport land use plan,or within 1,2, X two miles of a public airport,would the project result in a safety 3, 14 hazard for the people residing or working in the project area? g) Impair implementation of,or physically interfere with,the 1,2, X adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation 3, 14 plan? Expose people or structures to a significant risk of lose,injury, 1,2, X CITY OF SAN Luis Osispo 15 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST ER 66-05 (VTTM#2353-Sierra Gardens/DeBlauw) CADocuments and Settings\slouser\Desktop\FINAL Initial Study DeBlauw 01-04-06.doc a -173 Attach eat 7 Issues, Discussion and Supportb�j Information Sources sources PoN-dany potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact ER#66 05 Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated or death,involving wildland fires,including where wildlands are 3, 14 adjacent to urbanized areas or where residents are intermixed with wildlands? Evaluation: a), b), d): The prior EIR determined that historical agricultural activities and surrounding industrial activities of the Margarita Area may have released hazardous materials into the environment. Hazardous materials releases may have involved leaking underground or aboveground storage tanks, or similar events from other nearby properties that store or handle hazardous or toxic materials. Construction-related and ground disturbing activities may involve the use of materials that could contaminate nearby soils and water resources in the project area. Existence of such potential hazards could cause construction workers and other people to be exposed to dust or emissions containing such hazardous materials or to organic pesticides, herbicides, and other hazardous materials. The prior MASP/AASP EIR further determined impacts related to development of allowed business park land uses could result in operations-related exposures to hazardous materials and short-term surface water quality degradation from accidental release of hazardous materials during construction; areas of concern within the Margarita Area included mention of Acacia Creek. The prior MASP/AASP EIR required the following mitigation measures that would reduce such impacts to less than significant: HAZ-1.1: Implement a construction-related hazardous materials management plan HAZ-1.2: If presence of hazardous materials is suspected or encountered during construction-related activities, conduct a Phase I and possibly Phase R Environmental Site Assessment to determine soil or groundwater contamination. HAZ-2.1: Implement an operations-related hazardous materials management plan. With respect to required mitigation measure HAZ-1.1, the applicant already prepared and submitted the results of Phase I ESA for the subject site,as required by City application submittal requirements. Said Assessment,dated June 30,2005, was prepared by Geo-Solutions, Inc., a firm qualified to prepare such assessments. The Assessment found that there are no recognized environmental conditions at the site or in connection with the site that could be affected by roadway or utility alignments, and in the author's expert judgment, no further inquiry regarding potential or recognized environmental conditions is required for past uses of the site(No Phase II ESA,required.) The site investigation revealed the presence of a residential structure, older vehicles, vehicle parts, miscellaneous furniture around the structure. North of the structure two 55-gallon barrels, empty fuel tanks, car batteries, used plaster, automobiles, and scrap wood were observed. The report acknowledges the presence of potential historical off-site contamination concerns to the west of the site involving the site of proposed VTM #2342 (please refer to Initial Study for that project for further information), but notes the corrective action plans achieved in regard to that contamination together with the 500-foot separation between that site and the subject site, groundwater gradient direction (away from the subject site) and current below threshold concentration levels,this effects to the subject site are considered low. The report conclusion recommended that the two 55-gallon barrels, fuel tanks, automobile parts, and household trash be removed from the site and properly disposed of at an approved landfill site. This can all be accomplished in conjunction with demolition/removal of the existing structures during site preparation activities for construction of the subdivision. The conclusions of this professionally prepared Phase I assessment confirms there is no impact with regard to any existing known conditions at the site. However,as a further precaution,as noted by MASP/AASP EIR Mitigation HAZ-1.1, if during construction activities suspected or actual hazardous materials are encountered, then the mitigation stipulated by HAZ-1.2 is required. This impact is therefore less than significant with mitigation. Since the subject project involves development of business park-office uses there is, as stated in the MASP/AASP EIR potential for impacts related to business park office development or uses that would involve the handling or disposal of materials used onsite, or the delivery, use, manufacture and/or storage of various chemicals necessary to perform manufacturing and business park activities. Therefore, Mitigation Measure HAZ-2.1 above is applicable to the subject project and therefore is required to be brought forward as a condition of approval. Thus, this impact is less than significant ficant with mitigation. Although Acacia Creek does not lie within the Western Enclave area of the MASP, there are other natural drainage ways within this and the two other related Western Enclave development sites that contain biological resource values required by CITY OF SAN Luis Ostspo 16 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST ER 66-05 (VTTM#2353-Sierra Gardens/DeBlauw) C:\Documents and Settings\slouser\Desktop\FINAL Initial Study DeBlauw 01-04-06.doc c2—/70�1 A�?G.G�ment 7 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact ER #66-05 Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated the MASP to be protected and preserved. Therefore, there is still potential for on-site construction of roadways, infrastructure and building sites to involve handling and disposal of materials used or produced onsite, such as petroleum products, concrete, and sanitary waste that have the potential to adversely impact these drainages if proper precautions are not implemented. Therefore,Mitigation Measure HAZ-1.1 above is applicable to the subject site and is therefore required to be brought forward as a condition of approval. According to the MASP/AASP EIR, said Construction-Related Hazardous Materials Management Plan is required to outline specific protocol to identify health risks associated with presence and handling of chemical compounds and identify specific protective measures to be followed by the workers in the work area to prevent or avoid improper release or accidental disposals that would result in soil and/or groundwater contamination. By incorporating the stated mitigation HAZ-1.1 above as condition of approval this impact will remain less than significant with mitigation. c)The project site is not located within a one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school. Thus,there is no impact. e) The project site is not located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. Thus,there is no impact. f) The project site is located in the vicinity of the San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport, and is subject to the County Airport Land Use Plan (ALUP). In its adoption of the MASP, the City Council already found the MASP to be consistent with the ALUP. It follows, therefore, that because the subject project and proposed residential uses and densities are compliant with the MASP, the project is also compatible with the policies and objectives of the Airport Land Use Plan. Thus there is no impact. g)The project and its proposed circulation and land use plan has been reviewed by the Fire Marshall who has recommended conditions of approval which will assure compliance with adopted fire/emergency-related codes. The Fire Marshall has provided no expert evidence that said proposal will impair implementation of, or physically interfere with, the adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plans of the City. Thus, the impact is less than significant. h)The project site is not in an area identified as subject to wildland fire hazards. Thus there is no impact. 9. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALM. Would the roject: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge 1,2, X requirements? 3, 16 b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere 1,2, X substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be 3, 16 a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level(e.g.The production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses for which permits have been granted)? c) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the 1,2, X capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or 3, 16 provide additional sources of runoff into surface waters (including,but not limited to,wetlands,riparian areas,ponds, springs,creeks,streams,rivers,Iakes,estuaries,tidal areas,bays, ocean,etc.)? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or 1,2, X area in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or 3, 16 siltation onsite or offsite? e) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or 1,2, X area in a manner which would result in substantial flooding 3, 16 onsite or offsite? f)_ Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on 1 1,2, X CRY OF SAN LUIS OBISPo 17 INmAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CNECKLW ER 66-05(VTTM#2353-Sierra Gardens/DeBlauw) Q\Documents and Settings\slouser\Desktop\FINAL Initial Study DeBlauw 01-04-06.doc .?.-/7'5�' Affachment 7 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially LessThar, No Significant Significant Significant Impact ER#66-05 Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated a Federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map 3, 16 or other flood hazard delineation map? g) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which 1,2, X would impede or redirect flood flows? 3, 16 h) Will the project introduce typical storm water pollutants into 1,2, X ground or surface waters? 3, 16 i) Will the project alter ground water or surface water quality, 1,2, X temperature,dissolved oxygen, or turbidity? 3, 16 Evaluation: a) The project will not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. According to the prior MASP/AASP EIR,development associated with the project will require issuance of an NPDES general construction activity storm water permit by the Central Coast RWQCB. Completion of this project would ensure that construction-related discharges are limited or adequately accommodated by properly engineered infrastructure design. Thus, the impact is considered less than significant. b) The project will be served by the City's sewer and water systems and will not use or deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level . c), e) According to the prior MASP/AASP EIR, construction of the proposed project as part of the urbanization of the Western Enclave Area would result in an increase of impervious surfaces that would cause the timing and amount of surface water runoff to increase. However, the project is subject to the revised City Storm Drain Master Plan/Waterways Management Plan that discusses the necessary improvements that would ensure adequate transmission and detention of storm water flow created by any new development and thus potential impacts resulting from increased development-related run-off was determined by the MASP/AASP EIR to be less than significant, and no mitigation required. To ensure that runoff levels will be equal to or less than existing levels, all storm water runoff will be contained in detention basins and drained at a rate not to exceed the 2-year undeveloped flow rate. In addition,according to the MASP a series of basins will be constructed to detain storm water runoff within the area. In this instance the Western Enclave developers propose one off-site detention basin to accept development-generated run-off from all three subdivisions, together with existing area run- off that historically creates flooding at the concrete box culvert under Prado Road that is insufficient to accept and transmit existing area run-off. The design, location, and maintenance of the detention basins will be subject to the approval of the City Engineer. In the event such off-site basin cannot be achieved, then, alternately,each subdivision will be responsible for providing its own on-site basin to the approval of the City Engineer as stipulated in the MASP. Thus, the impact of the project is less than significant. f), g) The project does not place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a Federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map nor will it impede or redirect water flows that will cause a flood hazard to surrounding areas.Thus,there is no impact. h), i) According to the prior MASP/AASP EIR, the project could potentially introduce typical storm water pollutants into ground or surface waters during construction activities and as a result of ongoing use of the project area. As a result, the development would require issuance of an NPDES general construction activity permit by the Central Coast RWQCB. Completion of this permit process would ensure that construction-related discharges were limited. Because ongoing use of the project area for residential and commercial uses would also increase the potential for discharge of chemicals, oils and fuels, and waste into projected waterways; the requirement for the implementation of Best Management Practices (BMPs) must be established to greatly reduce the potential for unwanted runoff. Therefore, implementation of the BMPs on the project will reduce impact to less than significant level. 10. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would theproject: CRY OF SAN LUIS Owspo 18 INRULL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST ER 66-05(VTfM#2353-Sierra Gardens/DeBlauw) C:\Documents and Settings\slouser\Desktop\FINAL Initial Study DeBlauw 01-04-06.doc -'7& Attachment 7 Issues, Discussion and Supponi,tg Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact ER#66-05 Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Inco rated a) Conflict with applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of 1,2,3 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? 1,2,3 X c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural 1,2,3 X community conservationplans? Evaluation: a)The project is located in an area designated by the MASP for low density residential,medium density residential, medium high density & business park office uses. The City's Open Space Element requires developments to include buffer areas next to wetlands and creeks to protect riparian habitat. The project is providing the minimum required setback for the small creek located along the northeast corner of the project site. The subdivision of the property residential uses and business park office uses does not conflict with any plan or policy adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. Thus there is no impact. (See related discussion above under Part 4.Biological Resources.) b)The project will not physically divide an established community,because the project is a logical and orderly extension of the planned land uses and development that are already established and planned for within the surrounding area The project area will result in business park offices along Prado Road and low-density residential alongside existing residential units on the northern end of the project site,all as specified by the MASP. Thus,there is no impact. c) The project site is not located within a habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan. Thus, there is no impact. (See related discussion above under Part 4.Biological Resources.) 11.NOISE. Would the project result in: a) Exposure of people to or generation of"unacceptable"noise 1,2,3 X levels as defined by the San Luis Obispo General Plan Noise Element,or general noise levels in excess of standards established in the Noise Ordinance? b) A substantial temporary,periodic,or permanent increase in 1,2, 3 X ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? c) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne 1,2,3 X vibration or groundbome noise levels? d) For a project located within an airport land use plan,or within 1,2,3 X two miles of a public airport or public use airport,would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? Evaluation: a)According to the previous MASP/AASP EIR,the proposed project is located in an area zoned for residential and business land uses that are predicted to be exposed to traffic noise levels that exceed the Noise Element standard of 60 decibels(dB). This is particularly true for lots adjacent to Prado Road which will function, when fully built, as a major east-west arterial, connecting South Higuera and Broad Street and will carry large volumes of traffic. Consequently, to avoid the effects of such traffic related noise to sensitive residential receptors, the MASP established a setback for residential uses of 157 feet measured from the centerline of Prado Road, the projected location of the 60 dB CNEL noise level contour,considered the acceptable threshold for residential uses by the City Noise Element. Consequently, although the MASP would otherwise allow mixed use office and residential within the BP-0 zone, the site specific project proposes no residential uses mixed with business park-office uses in the lots 1-6 fronting on Prado Road, as nearly all portions of these lots lie within the 157 foot setback. The remaining Lots 7-18 will be able to contain the desired mix of residential and office uses as they have suitable building areas that lie outside the required 157-foot setback that can be utilized for the residential uses. In this regard the project proposal and design is self-mitigating. Thus there is no impact. CRY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 19 INmAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST ER 66-05 (VTTM#2353-Sierra Gardens/DeBlauw) C:\Documents and Settings\slouser\Desktop\FINAL Initial Study DeBlauw 01-04 06.doc ,o2-177 Af aC,11rY ent 7 Issues, Discussion and Suppon,..j Information Sources sources Po, .aauy potettiauy Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact ER#66-05 qua Unless Impact Mitigation Inco orated According to the MASP/AASP EIR, the proposed project is located in an area zoned for residential land uses that are predicted to be exposed to traffic noise levels resulting from new roadways within the development. Such traffic-related noise levels are expected to exceed the maximum exterior noise planning standard of 60 Ld„/CNEL dB (day-night average sound level; or 24-hour average community noise equivalent level, in decibels) or to exceed allowable thresholds of stationary noise sources as set forth in Table 2 of the Noise Element. However, the EIR concludes that this impact is less- than-significant since in order for a subdivision map to be approved it must be fully compliant with the entirety of the City's General Plan. As such,the project is required to be consistent with the Specific Plan standards for road noise mitigation and outdoor noise reduction as well as subject to mitigation measures listed and already adopted in the City's General Plan Noise Element. The applicable mitigation measures are any or all of those listed in Policy 8 of the Noise Element which, based upon the conclusions of a site specific noise measurement, are shown by a qualified expert performing said study are necessary to achieve the 60 Ld„/CNEL dB standard within the outdoor activity exposure area. Conditions of approval require that measures contained in the City's Noise Guidebook and as deemed necessary by the qualified acoustic consultant shall be incorporated into the design of the buildings to ensure that noise impacts are reduced to achieve the performance thresholds set forth herein and in the City Noise Element. . Implementation of this condition will assure the impact remains less-than-significant. b) Site development will result in increases in ambient noise levels, but not to significant levels, since by operation of mitigation requirements set forth in a)above,noise increases that would affect ambient levels are to be reduced to thresholds determined to be acceptable in residential areas. Therefore, impacts to permanent ambient noise levels are less than significant. Project construction or other temporary or periodic noise generation may result in temporary increases(spikes)inn ambient noise levels. Since there is no way to predict the origin or duration of these types of noise sources for this development, it can only be regulated if found to be a nuisance by the City's Noise Ordinance. If noise levels exceed the Noise Ordinance thresholds,the property owner would be subject to possible citations and corrective actions to eliminate or reduce such noise to non-nuisance levels. The significance of this impact is too speculative to determine; compliance with the Noise Ordinance is presumed to adequately abate potential periodic nuisance noise. Thus,there is no impact. c) The project will not expose people to the generation of excessive groundbome noise levels or vibrations. Thus, there is no impact. d) The project is located in the vicinity of the San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport, and is subject to the County Airport Land Use Plan. According to the prior MASP/AASP EIR,the project is not within the 60 or 65 dBA-CNEL contour line. However, due to projected future aircraft over flight, the project is required by the MASP/AASP EIR and MASP to implement design features to ensure compatibility with the Airport and thereby control indoor noise levels. Design features must control for indoor noise to not exceed 45 dB Community Noise Equivalent Level, and a 60 dB maximum for aircraft single events. Implementation of mitigation as specified in the MASP/AASP EIR and Plan will result in the impact being less-than-significant. 12. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would theproject: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly 1,2,3 X (for example by proposing new homes or businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing or people 1,2, 3 X necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Evaluation: a) The added population growth caused by this project is within the General Plan's projection and will not result in population exceeding local and regional growth projections. Therefore the impact of inducing substantial population CITY OF SAN LUIS Osispo 20 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHEcKLisT ER 66-05 (VTfM#2353-Sierra Gardens/DeBlauw) CADocuments and Settings\slouser\Desktop\FINAL Initial Study DeBlauw 01-04-06.doc -/7S' Attachment 7 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially IessThan No Significant Significant Significant Impact ER#66-05 Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated growth to the planning area would be less than significant. b)The project site is currently vacant and undeveloped land;therefore, housing or people will not be displaced as a result of the project. Thus,there is no impact. 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? 1,2,3 X b) Police protection? 1,2,3 X c) Schools? 1,2, 3 X d) Parks? 1,2,3 X e) Roads and other transportation infrastructure? 1,2,3 X f) Other public facilities? 1, 2,3 X Evaluation: a), b), d), e), & f)The MASP/AASP EIR determined that implementation and build out of the MASP will not result in any significant impacts related to any of the above-listed services due to the ability to off-set service needs through the City's Development Impact Fee program established via the City General Plan and augmented by the development fee program in the MASP and concluded that no mitigation was necessary. There is no new evidence that the subject project, proposed to carry out the development intended by the MASP as evaluated by the MASP/AASP E)R will result in any adverse impacts to these services. And further, the project will not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of, or need for, new or physically altered government facilities, the construction of which might have the potential to cause significant environmental impacts. In accordance with the MASP, the project is subject to City and MASP established Development Impact Fees that are charged in conjunction with approval of development projects to offset costs associated with increases in demand of public services. Thus,the impact is less than significant. c) The school districts in the state have the authority to collect fees at the time of building permits to offset the costs to finance school site acquisition and school construction, and said fees, when collected by local school districts, are deemed by State law constitute adequate mitigation for all school facility requirements.. Section 65955 of the Government Code prohibits the City from denying a subdivision or collecting any fees beyond those required by the school district to mitigate effects associated with inadequate school facilities. Any increases in demand on school facilities caused by the project are considered to be mitigated by the district's collection of adopted fees at the time of building permit issuance for each residential and commercial building. Thus,there is no impact. 14.RECREATION. Would theproject: a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood or regional parks or X other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Include recreational facilities or require the construction or X expansion of recreational facilities,which ntight have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Evaluation: a) & b) The build-out of the project will add to the demand for parks and other recreational facilities. The MASP has anticipated this demand by designating certain lands within the Plan area for "Sports Fields" (already built) and "Neighborhood Park" for active recreational use and other areas for"Open Space-Hills"or"Open Space-Riparian"for more passive recreation/aesthetic amenities (e.g. walking or bicycling paths and trails) intended more for use by adjacent or nearby residents. No portions of the subject site are designated by the MASP for either of the active recreation land use designations. The project is consistent with MASP insofar as said plan does designate a portion of the subject site for"Open CITY OF SAN Luis OBIsPo 21 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST ER 66-05 (VTTM#2353-Sierra Gardens/DeBlauw) C:\Documents and Settings\slouser\Desktop\FINAL Initial Study DeBlauw 01-04-06.doc //—? Attachment 7 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Pote„tially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact ER#66-05 Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated Space-Riparian" which the proposal meets by designating that area (proposed Lot 31 & 38) for open space use. The MASP/AASP EIR determined that while build-out of the MASP will generate increased demand for recreational facilities, the impact is less than significant due to the adoption through the MASP of 533 acres of additional parks and open space land use designations(lying outside the Western Enclave development area.) The MASP also specifies that developers will contribute to the construction of public park facilities through the payment of City-,as well as,MASP-adopted Park Improvement Fees to offset costs associated with increases in demand and services as it relates to maintaining City-wide public park areas. Thus,the construction of the oroiect will have a less than significant ficant impact on parks or other recreational facilities. 15. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would theproject: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the 1,2, X existing traffic load and capacity of the street system? 3,4 b) Exceed,either individually or cumulatively,a level of service 1,2, X standard established by the county congestion management 3,4 agency for designated roads and highways? c) Substantially increase hazards due to design features(e.g.sharp 1,2, X curves or dangerous intersections)or incompatible uses(e.g. 3,4 farm equipment)? d) Result in inadequate emergency access? 1,2, 3 X e) Result in inadequate parking capacity onsite or offsite? 1,2,3 X f) Conflict with adopted policies supporting alternative 1,2,3 X transportation(e.g.bus turnouts,bicycle racks)? g) Conflict with the with San Luis Obispo County Airport Land 1,2, 3 X Use Plan resulting in substantial safety risks from hazards,noise, or a change in air trafficpatterns? Evaluation: a), b)The subject project proposed in accordance to the MASP and AASP and the City General Plan will increase traffic in the area, but not in relation to load and capacity of project area streets,existing or as projected currently, nor will increased traffic exceed established acceptable level of service (LOS) threshold (adopted at LOS "D" by the City General Plan) for San Luis Obispo as discussed in the MASP/AASP EIR, except for the Prado Road/South Higuera Street intersection. The Circulation Plan of the MASP (as well as the Circulation Plan of the AASP and Circulation Element of the City General Plan)identifies the essential primary road system that will be needed to accommodate development within the plan area and surrounding growth areas of the City at this threshold. The MASP/AASP EIR determined that the circulation plans of these planning documents are for the most part self-mitigating in that 1.) Roadway alignments, road extensions, and new intersections are designed and will be built in response to traffic projected at build-out and, 2.)Development projects in the Airport and Margarita Specific Plan areas will also contribute their fair share either through adopted Traffic Impact Fees, MASP development impact fees, assessments or dedications to specified roadway improvements (EIR page 3D-29). The primary self-mitigating traffic feature of the MASP is the Plan's requirement that Prado Road be extended easterly, from its current terminus just east of South Higuera Street, all the way to Broad Street, thus providing a major new divided 4-lane east-west cross town arterial connector in the southerly area of San Luis Obispo. Conditions of approval are recommended that would require improvements to Prado Road as stipulated by the MASP and MASP/AASP EIR. The project will be conditioned to provide build-out of Prado Road commensurate with the development of the subject site together with the other two developments within the Western Enclave, as required by the MASP and as recommended by the City Public Works Dept. In addition, the subject proposal's proposed street system internal to the subdivision conforms to the MASP Circulation Plan. The extension of Prado Road, as a designated "highway/regional route", together with AASP required roadway improvements (particularly Tank Farm Road) will accommodate cumulative traffic increases in the area and will mostly maintain at the acceptable LOS of"D" or better,except as noted above regarding the intersection of Prado Road and South CRY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 22 INmAL STUDY ENYIRONMENTAL CHECKLJST ER 66-05 (VTTM#2353-Sierra Gardens/DeBlauw) C:\Documents and Settings\slouser\Desktop\FINAL Initial Study DeBlauw 01-04-06.doc X40 1 Issues, Discussion and Suppon,,,g Information Sources Sources Powutially potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact ER#66-05 Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated Higuera Street.At the time of adoption of the Airport Area Specific Plan(Ref. Resolution 9726-2205 Series)adopted by the City Council August 23, 2005, almost a year after the adoption of the MASP, it was determined potential and proposed development circumstances had changed sufficiently in the Airport Area since the adoption of the MASP,such that Level of Service (LOS) at the intersection of Prado Road and South Higuera Street would decline from LOS "D" (as found in the MASP/RASP EIR) to LOS "E". As a result, the City Council Resolution No. 9726 (2005 Series) found that additional mitigation T-2.1 was necessary to lessen the effects of the significant impact at this intersection. This mitigation requires that the threshold for Transportation Demand Management(TDM)requirements shall be reduced to apply to employers with 25 or more employees. It is appropriate, therefore, that this mitigation measure applies to commercial development within the MASP to cumulatively contribute to the mitigation. In summary, the proposed project would add vehicular trips to streets that serve as entry/exit routes to the project site. These streets with the given improvements specified in the City's adopted planning documents and with the addition of new TDM requirements will serve to accommodate the added vehicular traffic. Thus, the impact from this project is less than significant. c) d) The Margarita Area Specific Plan will require that the project provides roadways that are designed and developed in accordance with adopted city standards thereby assuring predetermined standards necessary to limit safety hazards and provide adequate emergency access. Thus,there is no impact as result of the project. e) The project is subject to the City's parking requirements as it is outlined in the Margarita Area Specific Plan for each varying land use. The project build-out is required to fulfill all necessary parking requirements and therefore there is no evidence of inability to comply with onsite or offsite parking standards. Thus,there is no impact. f) The MASP/AASP EIR identified certain secondary impacts to pedestrians and bicyclists that could result from road improvements needed to achieve vehicular flow at intersections noted in Table 3D-10(namely, with respect to the Western Enclave developments, the intersections of Prado Road/South Higuera Street and Prado Road/Broad Street). Such secondary impacts relate to increased crossing distances from road widening at intersections and introducing conflicts at intersections with multiple turning lanes. The MASP/RASP EIR notes such impacts can be adequately avoided by implementation of Mitigations Measures T-l.I Design Features which, in summary,incorporate the following: 1. Sidewalks along both sides of all newly constructed streets and reconstructed streets, 2. Crosswalks(pursuant to the City's adopted"Pedestrian Crosswalk Guidelines-2000")at new and reconstructed intersections, 3. Pedestrian signals at all new and reconstructed signalized intersections,and 4. Class lI bike lanes on all new and reconstructed streets per the City Bicycle Transportation Plan and MASP. The three Western Enclave development projects are not directly responsible for the construction of the above described off- site intersections except through payment of City adopted Traffic and Development Impact Fees which contribute their respective calculated fair share of the cost. This funding source will contribute to the construction of said intersection at a later time to be determined by the City. Thus, this impact is less than significant. g) The MASP has already been found to not conflict with the San Luis Obispo County Airport Land Use Plan (ALUP). Therefore, as the subject project complies with the pertinent requirements of the MASP regarding allowed land uses and development densities and standards,the project is not in conflict with the ALUP. Thus,there is no impact from this project 16.UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would theproject: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable 1,2, 3 X Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction or expansion of new water 1,2, 3 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 supplies available to serve the project _ 1,2,3 1 X CITY OF SAN Luis Osispo 23 INITIAL STUDY ENvmONMENTAL CNECIMAT ER 66-05 (VTTM#2353-Sierra Gardens/DeBlauw) C:\Documents and Settings\slouser\Desktop\FINAL Initial Study DeBlauw 01-04-06.doc 402—/4?/ f.fa 1�ri�=�t 7 Issues, Discussion and Support,. ,, Information Sources sources Pot,_ .ally Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact ER#66-05 Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Inco rated from existing entitlements and resources,or are new and expanded water resources needed? d) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider 1,2, 3 X which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitment? e) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to 1,2, 3 X accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? f) Comply with federal,state,and local statutes and regulations 1,2,3 X related to solid waste? Evaluation: a) b) The HASP/AASP EIR determined that implementation and build out of the MASP will not result in any significant impacts related to delivery of domestic water, wastewater collection or treatment, or storm water drainage/retention and concluded that such impacts related to build-out of the MASP were less than significant and no mitigation was deemed necessary. The build-out under the MASP will be similar to that anticipated and projected in the City General Plan. The subject project proposes to provide all water, sewer and storm drain facilities necessary to adequately serve the subject project, including distribution, collection and other infrastructure capacity as required by the MASP facility master plan and the City's Storm Drain Master Plan.There is no new evidence that the subject project, as intended by the MASP will result in any adverse impacts to these service systems nor result in any exceedances of RWQCB wastewater treatment requirements. In addition to the on-site utility service infrastructure required with the development, the project is subject to City and MASP established Development Impact Fees that are charged in conjunction with approval of development projects to offset costs associated with off-site city-wide utility system impacts related to needed periodic maintenance and upgrades. Thus.there is no impact. c) Provisions in the City General Plan and MASP ensure that an adequate quantity of water will exist before any development is allowed. Moreover, the City has adopted the Water Allocation Regulations to insure that increased water use by new development will not cause inadequate water service to existing and future customers. Section 17.89.030 of the Water Allocation Regulation states that a water allocation shall be required to obtain a connection to the city water system for a structure or facility not previously connected. This project is also subject to water impact fees which were adopted to ensure that new development pays its share of constructing additional infrastructure needed to support additional facilities. More specifically, the project is subject to both the citywide water impact fees and the MASP-specific water add-on fees. Thus, compliance with the City and State standards and requirements will assure that impacts related to water supplies are less than sienificant. d)The City wastewater treatment plant and existing and proposed ewer lines in the vicinity and within the project site have sufficient capacity to serve the project site. The developer will be required to construct on-site sewer facilities according to the Uniform Plumbing Code standards. Impact fees are also collected when building permits are issued to pay for capacity at the City's Water Reclamation Facility. The fees are set to offset potential impacts associated with increases in demand and use by each new residential unit in the project. Thus,there is no impact. e) Solid waste collection within the City will be provided by a private operator under a City franchise and disposal is expected to continue at Cold Canyon Landfill until 2018. The project must be consistent with the City's Source Reduction and Recycling Element which requires that recycling facilities be accommodated on the project site and a solid waste reduction plan for recycling discarded construction materials must be submitted with the building permit application The project is also required by the ordinance to include facilities for recycling to reduce the waste stream generated by the project.Thus,there is no impact. f)The project will fully comply with existing federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste. Thus, there is no impact. CITY OF SAN Luis Ostspo 24 INmAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST ER 66-05 (VTTM#2353-Sierra Gardens/DeBlauw) C:\Docurnents and Settings\slouser\Desktop\FINAL Initial Study DeBlauw 01-04-06.doc ci�2�10 Affachrnpnt 7 Issues, Discussion and Suppon,,,j Information Sources Sources Pow-wally potentially less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact ER #66-05 Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated 17.MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the 1,2, X environment,substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife 3, 12, species,cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- 13 sustaining levels,threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community,reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major veriods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited,but 1,2, X cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" 3,4 means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of the past projects, the effects of other current projects,and the effects of probable futureprojects) c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause 1,2, X substantial adverse effects on human beings,either directly or 3,4 indirecll ? CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 25 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST ER 66-05 (VTTM#2353-Sierra Gardens/DeBlauw) CADocuments and SettingsWouser\Desktop\FINAL Initial Study DeBlauw 01-04-06.doc c2 —lk3 Attachment 7 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 15063 (c) (3) (D). In this case a discussion should identify the following items: a) Earlier analysis used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. In 2004 the City of San Luis Obispo certified an Environmental Impact Report for the Margarita Area Specific Plan(MASP), the Airport Area Specific Plan (AASP) and the related Facilities Master Plan. The subject proposed VTM #2353 property lies within the boundaries of the MASP. Therefore, this prior MASP/AASP EIR evaluation considered impacts and mitigation related generally to potential development of the subject site and others pursuant to the MASP and related Facilities Master Plan. The prior EIR, certified by the City Council along with the adoption of the MASP, AASP, and Facilities Master Plan on October 12,2004,by Resolution No. 9615 (2004 Series)contained a variety of mitigation measures to be incorporated as discrete components of the MASP or as policies or development standards to be implemented through site specific development proposals. Further on August 23,2005,by Resolution No.9726(2005 Series),the City Council re- certified,with additional mitigation,the MASP/AASP EIR for the Airport Area Specific Plan(AASP),and adopted the Plan. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) allows Lead Agencies (the City) to use the analysis of general matters contained in a broader EIR, such as for a general or specific plan, with later EIRs or Negative Declarations on narrower projects; incorporating by reference the general discussions from the broader EIR, and concentrating the later EIR or Negative Declaration solely on the issues specific to the later project. The environmental assessment approach is refereed to as"tiering". The environmental analyses above for VTM#2353 take into account the environmental conclusions of the prior EIR as they are applicable to the proposed site specific project. As such,mitigation measures adopted in the prior EIR that are applicable to the subject site-specific project, and therefore must be incorporated into the proposed project to effectively mitigate the prior identified impacts, are listed below. Some of these mitigation measures are verbatim from the prior EIR, others have been refined to more specifically clarify how they are applicable to the site specific project by way of Conditions of Approval, in order to be properly implemented. Lastly many of the applicable mitigation measures required by provisions of the MASP have been incorporated by the applicant into the actual project subdivision design, making the project "self-mitigating" in these instances. The Airport Area and Margarita Area Specific Plans and Related Facilities Master Plan Final Program EIR is available for review at the City of San Luis Obispo Community Development Department, City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo,CA 93402-3249. b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards,and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. The MASP/AASP EIR (prior EIR), (which included the sites of the three proposed subdivisions within the Western Enclave area,) was certified by the City Council on October 12, 2004, thereby determining that the EIR adequately analyzed the impacts listed in Column No. 1 and that mitigation was required for certain identified impacts,as noted. (If a potential impact was found by the MASP to not be significant, or has been found by the above-stated analyses to not be significant for the subject project, it is noted with strikethrough text. One impact/mitigation originating from the Certified EIR for the AASP— Impact T-2 regarding Transportation Demand Management for exceeding LOS "D",is also applicable to the MASP. Column No. 2 indicates whether mitigations were required due to the impact being significant. Column No. 3 indicates status of impact after mitigation specified in the prior EIR. Column No. 4 indicates if there is a specific provision of the MASP that serves to implement or achieve the required mitigation. Column No.5 reflects whether the site specific VTM, as designed or proposed,complies with the MASP mitigation("complies")or whether a Condition of Approval("COA")is required to bring a required mitigation forward through the project approval or subsequent permits: Attach ll�'lEt 7 Issues, Discussion and Support... Information Sources Sources Po,__.ially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact ER#66-05 Issues unless Impact Mitigation lncorDomtrd MASP/AASP EIR-Identified Mitigation Impact after Areas of Potential Impact. Reonired? Mitigation MASP Provision? Site Specific? 1.)Land Use and Aesthetics -LU-6 Change in Views "none feasible" SU Open Space&Parks complies -LU-7 Increased light&glare yes L-T-S Lighting Stnd.3.3 COA 2.)Hydrology and Water Quality -H-4 Changes in course or "none feasible" SU Drainage 7.3 complies,COA direction of water move- ment 3.)Biological Resources -BIO-2 Valley Needlegrass yes L-T-S Open Space&Parks complies,COA -BIO-5 Open Water Habitat yes L-T-S Open Space&Parks complies,COA -BIO-6 Freshwater Marsh yes L-T-S Open Space&Parks complies,COA -BI0-7 Seasonal Wetlands yes L-T-S Open Space&Parks complies,COA -BIO-11 Special-Status Plants yes L-T-S Open Space&Parks complies,COA -BIO-l2 Non-listed Special-Status yes L-T-S Open Space&Parks complies,COA Wildlife -SIO-13 Calif.red-legged frog yes L-T-S Open Space&Parks complies,COA -BIO-17 Southwestern pond turtle yes L-T-S Open Space&Parks complies,COA 4.)Traffic and Circulation -T-1 Secondary Impacts: Peds/Cyclists yes(MASP EIR) L-T-S off-site,not specified COA -T-2 LOS in Excess of LOS"D" yes(AASP EIR) SU Chapter 6,new standard COA self-mitig.,COA self-mitig.,COA 6.)Neise Be L T S D -°�-4.2.E• COA 7.)Hazardous Materials -HAZ-1 Construction Related yes L-T-S not specified COA -HAZ-2 Operations Related yes L-T-S not specified COA -HAZ-3 Accidental Releases yes L-T-S not specified COA 8.)Pldhlie Servises and Utilities He L'I' S COA 9.)Cultural Resources -CR-1 Phase II dig,if site unavoidable yes L-T-S not specified COA Notes: SU=Significant,Unavoidable(Statement of Overriding Considerations adopted),L-T-S=Less than Significant Each of these impacts listed is also relative to the subject project. No new impacts for'the subject project have been identified and no new mitigation measures are needed. F _n...i 19. SOURCE REFERENCES. 1. - Margarita Area Specific Plan/Airport Area Specific Plan,and Final EIR 2. The City of San Luis Obispo 2004 General Plan/EIR and all its adopted Elements 3. City Council Resolution#9615,2004 Series 4. City Council Resolution#9726,2005 Series 5. SLO Municipal Code 6. SLO Zoning Ordinance,2004 7. SLO Construction Codes,2002 Crry OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 27 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST ER 66-05 (VTTM#2353-Sierra Gardens(DeBlauw) C:\Documents and Settings\slouser\Desktop\FINAL Initial Study DeBlauw 01-04-06.doc i;z ,i i Issues, Discussion and Suppor,. ,Information Sources Sources Pol.-dally Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impaa ER#66-05 issues Unless Impact Mitigation Inco rated 8. SLO Community Design Guidelines,2003 9. SLO Subdivision Regulations, 1985, 1993 10. SLO Archaeological Resources Preservation Guidelines, 1995 11. Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency 12. Biological Assessment for Sierra Gardens Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 2353 APN:076-341-010&076-341-011,City of San Luis Obispo, San Luis Obispo County,California Althouse& Meade,Inc.,July,2005. 13. Wetland Delineation for Sierra Gardens Vesting Tentative Tract Man No.2353,APN:076-341-010&076-341- 01 1,City of San Luis Obiso San Luis Obispo Courtly,California,Althouse&Meade,Inc.,July,2005. 14. Phase I Environmental Site assessment 408 Prado Road,APNs:053-022-014&053-022-015 San Luis Obispo, California Project No.SL04922-1,GeoSolutions,Inc.,June 30,2005 15. Affordable Housing Proiect:Margarita Annexation and SpecificPlanArea,San Luis Obispo,California Dave Watson,AICP,June,2005 16. Addendum and Update to Hydrologic and Hydraulic Analysis Report for the Margarita Area,San Luis Obispo County,TEC Civil Engineering Consultants,October,2005 17. Soils Engineering Report 408 Prado Road APNs 653-022-014&015,San Luis Obispo,California.project No. SLO 4922-1,GeoSolutions,Inc.,July 12,2005. 19. An Archaeological Survey for the Margarita Area Specific Plan,Western Enclave Area, San Luis Obispo,San Luis Obispo Count California, Heritage Discoveries,Inc.,May,2005 20. Historical Evaluation for a House at 408 Prado Road.City of San Luis Obispo,California,The Terra/DeB1auW Pro ert APN 076-341-011,Bertranado&Bertranado Research Consultants,April,2005 Attachments: Attachment 1: Vicinity Map Attachment.2: Vesting Tentative Tract Map No.2342(City File No.TR 63-05) Attachment.3: Biological Assessment for Sierra Gardens Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 2353 APN:076-341-010&076-341-011,City of San Luis Obispo, San Luis Obispo County,California, Althouse&Meade,Inc.,July,2005. Attachment 4: Wetland Delineation for Sierra Gardens Vesting Tentative Tract Mao No.2353,APN:076-341-010&076- 341-011,City of San Luis Obispo,San Luis Obispo County,California Althouse&Meade,Inc.,July,2005. Attachment 5: Addendum and Update to Hydrologic and Hydraulic Analysis Report for the Margarita Area,San Luis Obispo County,TEC,Civil Engineering Consultants,October 20, 2005(Technical Appendices available for inspection at City Hall, Community Development Department, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA) Attachment 6: Historical Evaluation for a House at 408 Prado Road,City of San Luis Obispo,California,the Terra/DeBlauw Property.APN 076-341-011,Bettranado&Bertranado Research Consultants,April,2005 Other source documents listed above which are not included as attachments are available upon request from or may be viewed at City Hall,Community Development Department,990 Palm Street,San Luis Obispo,CA,93401 REQUIRED MITIGATIONS AND MONITORING PROGRAMS 1. Reduction of Light and Glare In order for MASP/AASP EIR Mitigation Measure LU-7.1 as implemented by the MASP to be carried through to lot- specific development stage, applicants, at the time of building permit application, shall submit for review by the City Community Development Department, a lighting plan that demonstrates compliance with Community Design Section 3.3 Lighting requirements of the MASP shall be submitted with other required plans for both the residential and commercial components of the project to the review and approval of the Architectural Review Commission (ARC). The lighting plan shall propose specific measures to limit the amount of light trespass associated with development CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 28 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST ER 66-05 (VTTM#2353-Sierra Gardens/DeBlauw) CADocuments and Settings\slouser\Desktop\FINAL Initial Study DeBlauw 01-04-06.doc ca -Ir6 Issues, Discussion and Suppoi,._, Information Sources Sources Po,—.dally Potentially less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact ER #66-OS Issues unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated within the project area including shielding and/or directional lighting methods to ensure that spillover light does not exceed 0.5 foot-candles at adjacent property lines. • Monitoring Program: The ARC will review development plans for both the residential and commercial components of the project. City staff,including Planning and other departments, will review plans to assure that all of the ARC's requirements related to lighting and compliant with the MASP provisions have been incorporated into working drawings. City building inspectors will be responsible for assuring that all lighting is installed pursuant to the approved lighting plan. 2. Preparation and Implementation of"Comprehensive Biological Mitigation Program" Mitigation for wetland impacts. Mitigation for wetland impacts will be through a combination of on- and off-site mitigation, approved by the City, the DFG and the Corps. Further, in compliance with the MASP/AASP EIR, the subject VTM #2342 (Cowan) proposes the creation of Lot Z in an area designated by the MASP for"Open Space- Riparian" for the express purposes of achieving some of the necessary wetlands replacement mitigation area, as well as preservation of related biological habitat benefits. Mitigation for Impacts to Sensitive Species. None of these species are expected to be difficult to establish.City staff will work with the project sponsors in developing the details of the effort. Congdon Tarplant. Create compensating habitat in a suitable off-site location approved by the City. Mitigation for Impacts to Other Nesting Buds. Undertake surveys prior to initiation of construction activities;avoid construction activities within 100 feet of active nest sites until after young have fledged. Off Site Mitigation for Wetland Impacts. A further component of the biological mitigation program is the applicant's proposal to acquire (by fee, easement, or eminent domain) lands outside the bounds of the Western Enclave`(designated by the MASP as "Open Space-Riparian" lands). The targeted property (lying south of Prado Road and owned by Unocal)is a low lying area that already naturally collects some area run-off and provides valuable habitat for certain special concern and R-T-E (rare, threatened, and endangered) species, and thus is beneficial to retain in its natural state. Pre-development run-off has resulted in seasonal flooding of Prado Road due to they currently deficient collection/distribution system to this natural drainage area south of Prado Road.. The Western Enclave applicants propose to acquire this off-site property designated for open space use by the MASP and utilize it beneficially for biological mitigation as well as a detention basin for pre- and post-Western Enclave development generated run-off. It is proposed that this basin be enhanced to accommodate the greater project-generated and pre- project run-off flows, and to increase its habitat value in the long term. The basin is proposed to be held and maintained by a Master Home Owners Association (MHOA) established initially for the Western Enclave area, and perhaps ultimately for the entire MASP as stipulated be done by the MASP. • Monitoring Program: Prior to approval of the final map, the applicant shall contact the City Natural Resource Manager for review and approval of the final lot and street design to assure that on-site natural resources are protected and preserved to the greatest extent required by the mitigation measures and consistent with requirements of the MASP and MASP/AASP EIR. Said design shall also be consistent with approvals required subsequent to this Tentative Map from State Dept. of Fish and Game and Army Corps of Engineers. Prior to any site preparation or construction activities, the applicant shall also initiate, and complete for approval by the City pre-construction surveys for nesting birds and adhere to performance standard specified in the mitigation. Provisions for required off-site mitigation shall be coordinated with and approved by the City Natural Resource Manager prior to recordation of the Final Map. Periodic field inspections CITY OF SAN LUIS Oetspo 29 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST ER 66-05(VTTM#2353-Sierra Gardens/DeBlauw) C:\Documents and Settings\slouser\Desktop\FINAL Initial Study DeBlauw 01.04-06.doc 2 _/?7 Ittachment7 Issues, Discussion and Suppot,._j Information Sources Sources Pow,dally Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact ER #66-05 Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated by City Staff during construction will be necessary to assure site development conforms to mitigation measures and conditions of approval. 3. Preparation and Implementation of"Traffic Reduction Program" In order for MASP/AASP EIR Mitigation Measure T-2.1 adopted with the certification of the MASP/AASP EIR in conjunction with the approval of the AASP in August, 2005 (Ref. City Council Resolution No. 9726, 2005 Series) to be brought forward to this site specific project stage, a transportation demand management program that demonstrates reduction of peak period travel by single-occupant vehicles shall be required of any employer within the subdivision with 25 or more employees. Said program shall incorporate all reasonably feasible measures or techniques, including those listed in the MASP/AASP EIR/General Plan Circulation, that encourage alternate modes other than single-occupant vehicles as the primary mode of transportation to the workplace and to travel during non-peak times. • Monitoring Program: Each business owner, upon employment of 25 or more employees, shall immediately prepare and submit, obtain approval from the City Public Works Director and implement the provisions of a Traffic Reduction Plan which demonstrates reduction of peak period travel consistent with requirements of the City General Plan Circulation Element Policies and Programs. City Staff shall periodically inspect the business to observe and assure that reduction techniques approved by the City are in place and adhered to by the business. Staff shall take any corrective or enforcement actions authorized by law to achieve compliance. 4. Preparation of Phase II Archaeological Subsurface Survey In order to achieve complete mitigation for the archaeological resource found on the subject site, this survey is required if the site cannot be avoided. The Phase II survey is to determine if significance criteria of CEQA and/or NRHP are met. The survey must be completed and results submitted to City for determination whether mitigation measures below,as specified in EIR,are needed. 1.) A data recovery program consisting of archaeological excavation to retrieve the important data from the archaeological site; 2.)Development and implementation of public interpretation plans for both prehistoric and historic sites; 3.) Preservation, rehabilitation, restoration, or reconstruction of historic structures according to the Secretary of Interior Standards for Treatment of Historic Properties; 4.)Construction of new structures in a manner consistent with the historic character of the region;and 5.) Treatment of historic landscapes according to the Secretary of Interior Standards for Treatment of Historic Landscapes. If the project involves a federal agency, and is therefore subject to a MOA, the inventory, evaluation, and treatment processes will be coordinated with that federal agency to ensure that the work conducted will also comply with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. • Monitoring Program: If the survey results reveal that the archaeological resource does meet the significance criteria set forth in CEQA or NRNP, then no further mitigation is required. However if the significance criteria is met, then the lead agency in coordination with the agency with jurisdiction over the resources shall jointly determine which of the above stated CRY OF SAN Luis OBISPO 30 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST ER 66-05(VTTM#2353-Sierra Gardens/DeBlauw) C:\Documents and Settings\slouser\Desktop\FINAL Initial Study DeBlauw 01-04-06.doc a -ice 1 Issues, Discussion and Suppon._j Information Sources Sources I Pow„tially I Potentially 1xssThan No Significant Significant Significant Impact ER#66-05 Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated mitigation are appropriate for the resource status. The applicant shall provide evidence to the City that the mitigation has been achieved prior to recordation of the final subdivision map. 5. Preparation and Implementation of a "Construction-Related Hazardous Materials Management Plan" As stipulated in the MASP/RASP EIR, this would be a plan identifying, when they are known, site/development- specific construction activities that will involve the hazardous materials. The plan shall be prepared before construction activities begin that involve hazardous materials and shall discuss proper handling and disposal of materials used or produced onsite, such as petroleum products, concrete, and sanitary waste. The plan will also outline a specific protocol to identify health risks associated with the presence of chemical compounds in the soil and/or groundwater and identify specific protective measures to be followed by the workers entering the work area. If the presence of hazardous materials is suspected or encountered during construction-related activities, the project proponent will cause Mitigation Measure HAZ-1.2 to be activated. Mitigation Measure HAZ-1.2 states: "The project proponent will complete a Phase I environmental site assessment for each proposed public facility(e.g. streets and buried infrastructure). If Phase I site assessments indicate a potential for soil and/or groundwater contamination within or adjacent to the road or utility alignments, a Phase II site assessment will be completed. The following Phase II environmental site assessments will be prepared specific to soil and/or groundwater contamination. a. Soil Contamination. For soil contamination, the Phase II site assessment will include soil sampling and analysis for anticipated contaminating substances. If soil contamination is exposed during construction, the San Luis Obispo Fire Department (SLOFD) will be notified and a work plan to characterize and possibly remove contaminated soil will be prepared, submitted and approved. b. Groundwater Contamination. For groundwater contamination, the Phase 11 assessment may include monitoring well installation, groundwater sampling, and analysis for anticipated contaminating substances. If groundwater contaminated by potentially hazardous materials is expected to be extracted during dewatering, the SLOFD and the Central Coast RWQCB will be notified. A contingency plan to dispose of contaminated groundwater will be developed in agreement with the SLOFD and Central Coast RWQCB. • Monitoring Program: The "Construction-Related Hazardous Materials Management Plan" will be requited to be submitted to the City Community Development Department and Fire Department for review prior to commencement of any site preparation or construction work involving hazardous materials. No site preparation or construction work may commence before said plan has been approved by the City. Any site work commenced without City approval of said Plan will be subject to"Stop Work"(cease and desist)orders as may be issued under the authority of The City Fire Department. 6. Preparation and Implementation of an "Operations-Related Hazardous Materials Management Plan" As stipulated in the MASP/AASP EIR, this would be a plan prepared by a project proponent identifying hazardous materials management practices as might be required by state and local laws and regulations regarding delivery,use, Crry OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 31 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKuST ER 66-05 (VTTM#2353-Sierra Gardens/DeBlauw) CADocuments and Settings\slouser\Desktop\FINAL Initial Study DeBlauw 01-04-06.doc Issues, Discussion and Suppon.__4 Information Sources Sources Pow..aally Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact ER#66-05 Issues unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated manufacture,and storage of any such regulated materials might be present on site for any operations-related activities. This plan would identify the proper handling and disposal of materials uses or produced onsite, such as petroleum products, concrete, and sanitary waste. By the filing of said Plan, the City Fire Department will be on notice to provide regular and routine fire and life-safety inspections to determine compliance with applicable health and safety codes. • Monitoring Program: The "Operations-Related Hazardous.Materials Management Plan" will be required to be submitted by a project proponent to the City Community Development Department and City Fire Department for review prior to the establishment of any operations-related activities. CRY OF SAN Luis OwsPo 32 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST ER 66-05 (VTTM#2353-Sierra Gardens/DeBlauw) CADocuments and Settings\slouser\Desktop\FINAL Initial Study DeBIauw 01-04-06.doc �- -/9d Attachment 7 II h C� ® say WIS OBISPO 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 February 2, 2006 Richard DeBlauw Sierra Gardens, LTD 411 EI Camino Real Arroyo Grande, CA 93420 SUBJECT: TR and ER 66-05—408 Prado Road Consideration of a vesting tentative tract map to subdivide a 30-acre (approx.) site into 133 lots, with 109 residential lots, 1 lot for an affordable housing project, 12 mixed use (residential and office) lots, 6 business. park/office lots, and 5 open space lots; and environmental review Dear Mr. DeBlauw: The Planning Commission, at its meeting of January 25, 2005, recommended that the City Council approve the vesting tentative tract map and mitigated negative declaration of environmental impact, based on the information noted in the attached resolution. The action of the Planning Commission is a recommendation to the City Council and, therefore, is not final. This matter has been tentatively scheduled for public hearing before the City Council on March 7, 2006. This date, however, should be verified with the City Clerk's office(805) 781-7102. If you have any questions, please contact Pam Ricci at(805) 781-7178. Sincerely, 0 d Whisen Zd Deputy Community Development Director Development Review Attachment: Resolution No. 5443-06 cc: County of SLO Assessor's Office �� The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services,programs and activities. Telecommunications Device for the Deaf(805)781-7410. ��9/ RESOLUTION NO. 5443-06 Attachment 7 A RESOLUTION OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF A VESTING TENATIVE TRACT MAP AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR PROPERTY LOCATE_D AT 408 PRADO ROAD (TR/ER 66-05; TRACT 2353) 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 January 25, 2006, for the purpose of considering TR/ER 66-05, a vesting tentative tract map subdividing an approximately 30-acre site into 133 lots; 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 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. Findines. Based upon all the evidence, the Commission makes the following findings in support of the vesting tentative tract map with exceptions to the Subdivision Regulations: 1. The design of the vesting tentative tract map is consistent with the General Plan because the proposed subdivision respects existing site constraints (slope, creeks, wetlands, significant trees),will incrementally add to the City's residential housing inventory, result in parcels that meet density standards, and will be consistent with the density and lot sizes established by the Margarita Area Specific Plan. 2. The site is physically suited for the proposed type of development allowed in the R4-SP, R- 2-SP,R-3-SP, and O-SP zones. 3. The design of the subdivision will not conflict with easements for access through (or use of property within)the proposed subdivision. 4. The subdivision will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment, subject to the mitigation measures of the Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) certified by the City Council on October 12, 2004 being incorporated into the project, the mitigation monitoring program adopted with said EIR approval being followed and mitigation measures recommended herein. a -r Planning Commission Resi.._.on No. 5443-06 Attachment 7 TRIER 66-05 Page 2 5. A Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared by the Community Development Department on January 9, 2006. The Planning Commission finds and determines that the project's Mitigated Negative Declaration adequately addresses the potential significant environmental impacts of the proposed project. Section 2. Environmental Review. The Planning Commission does hereby recommend adoption of the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration with incorporation of the following mitigation measures: Mitigation Measures: 1. Reduction of Light and Glare In order for MASP/AASP EIR Mitigation.Measure LU-7.1 as implemented by the MASP to be carried through to lot-specific development stage, applicants, at the time of building permit application, shall submit for review by the City Community Development Department, a lighting plan that demonstrates compliance with Community Design Section 3.3 Lighting requirements of the MASP shall be submitted with other required plans for both the residential and commercial components of the project to the review and approval of the Architectural Review Commission(ARC). The lighting plan shall propose specific measures to limit the amount of light trespass associated with development within the project area including shielding and/or directional lighting methods to ensure that spillover light does not exceed 0.5 foot-candles at adjacent property lines. 2. Preparation and Implementation of"Comprehensive Biological Mitigation Program" Mitigation for wetland impacts. Mitigation for wetland impacts will be through a combination of on- and off-site mitigation, approved by the City, the DFG and the Corps. Further, in compliance with the MASP/AASP EIR, the subject VTM #2342 (Cowan) proposes the creation of Lot Z in an area designated by the. MASP for "Open Space- Riparian" for the express purposes of achieving some of the necessary wetlands replacement mitigation area, as well as preservation of related biological habitat benefits. Mitigation for Impacts to Sensitive Species. None of these species are expected to be difficult to establish. City staff will work with the project sponsors in developing the details of the effort. Congdon Tarplant. Create compensating habitat in a suitable off-site location approved by the City. Mitigation for Impacts to Other Nesting Birds Undertake surveys prior to initiation of construction activities;-avoid construction activities within 100 feet of active nest sites, or 300 feet of raptor nests,until after young have fledged. Off Site Mitigation for Kielland Impacts. A fiuther component of the biological mitigation program is the applicant's proposal to acquire (by fee, easement, or eminent domain) lands outside the bounds of the Western Enclave (designated by the MASP as "Open Space-Riparian" lands). The targeted property (lying south of Prado Road and -/?3 Planning Commission Resp on No. 5443-06 Attachment 7 TR/ER 66-05 Page 3 owned by Unocal)is a lowlying area that already naturally collects some area run-off and provides valuable habitat for certain special concern and R-T-E (rare, threatened, and endangered) species, and thus is beneficial to retain in its natural.state. Pre-development run-off has resulted in seasonal flooding of Prado Road due to they currently deficient collection/distribution system to this natural drainage area south of Prado Road. .The Western Enclave applicants propose to acquire this off-site property designated for open space use by the MASP and utilize it beneficially for biological mitigation as well as a detention basin for pre- and post-Western Enclave development generated run-off. It is proposed that this basin be enhanced to accommodate the greater project-generated and pre-project run-off flows, and to increase its habitat value in the long term. The basin is proposed to be held and maintained by a Master Home Owners Association (MHOA) established initially for the Western Enclave area, and perhaps ultimately for the entire MASP as stipulated be done by the MASP. 3. Preparation and Implementation of"Traffic Reduction Prop-ram" In order for MASP/AASP EIR Mitigation Measure T-2.1 adopted with the certification of the MASP/AASP EIR in conjunction .with the approval of the AASP in August, 2005 (Ref. City Council Resolution No. 9726, 2005 Series) to be brought forward to this site specific project stage, a transportation demand management program that demonstrates reduction of peak period travel by single-occupant vehicles shall be required of any employer within the subdivision with 25 or more employees. Said program shall incorporate all reasonably feasible measures or techniques, including those listed.in the MASP/AASP EIR/General Plan Circulation, that encourage alternate modes other than single-occupant vehicles as the primary mode of transportation to the workplace and to travel during non-peak times. 4. Preparation of Phase II Archaeological Subsurface Survey In order to achieve complete mitigation for the archaeological resource found on the subject site,this survey is required if the site cannot be avoided. The Phase II survey is to determine if significance criteria of CEQA and/or NRHP are met. The survey must be completed and results submitted to City for determination whether mitigation measures below,as specified in EIR,are needed. 1.) A data recovery program consisting of archaeological excavation to retrieve the important data from the archaeological site; 2.) Development and implementation of public interpretation plans for both prehistoric and historic sites; 3.) Preservation, rehabilitation, restoration or reconstruction of historic structures according to the Secretary of Interior Standards for Treatment of Historic Properties; 4.) Construction of new structures in a manner consistent with the historic character of the region; and 5.) Treatment of historic landscapes according to the Secretary of Interior Standards for Treatment of Historic Landscapes. If the project involves a federal agency, and is therefore subject to a MDA, the inventory, evaluation, and treatment processes will be coordinated with that federal agency to X77 / 1 Planning TRIER 66-05 Commission Res .ion No. 5443-06 AttaChMent 7 Page 4 ensure that the work conducted will also comply with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. 5. Preparation and Implementation of a "Construction-Related Hazardous Materials Manasement Plan" As stipulated in the MASP/AASP EIR, this would be a.plan identifying, when they are known, site/development-specific construction activities that will involve the hazardous materials. The plan shall be prepared before construction activities begin that involve hazardous materials and shall discuss proper handling and disposal of materials used or produced onsite, such as petroleum products, concrete, and sanitary waste. The plan will also outline a specific protocol to identify health risks associated with the presence of chemical compounds in the soil and/or groundwater and identify specific protective measures to be followed by the workers entering the work area. If the presence of hazardous materials is suspected or encountered during construction-related activities, the project proponent will cause Mitigation Measure HAZ-1.2 to be activated. Mitigation Measure RAZ-1.2 states: "The project proponent will complete a Phase I environmental site assessment for each proposed public facility (e.g streets and buried infrastructure). If Phase I site assessments indicate a potential for soil andlor groundwater contamination within or adjacent to the road or utility alignments, a Phase 11 site assessment will be completed The following Phase 11 environmental site assessments will be prepared specific to soil and/or groundwater contamination. a. Soil Contamination. For soil contamination, the Phase H site assessment will include soil sampling and analysis for anticipated contaminating substances. If soil contamination is exposed during construction, the San Luis Obispo Fire Department (SLOFD) will be notified and a work plan to characterize and possibly remove contaminated soil will be prepared submitted and approved. b. Groundwater Contamination. For groundwater contamination, the Phase II assessment may include monitoring well installation, groundwater sampling, and analysis for anticipated contaminating substances. If groundwater contaminated by potentially hazardous materials is expected to be extracted during dewatering the SLOFD and the Central Coast RWQCB will be notified A contingency plan to dispose of contaminated groundwater will be developed in agreement with the SLOFD and Central Coast RWQCB. 6. Preparation and Implementation of an "Operations-Related Hazardous Materials Management Plan" As stipulated in the MASP/AASP EK this would be a plan prepared by a project proponent identifying hazardous materials management practices as might be required by state and local laws and regulations regarding delivery, use, manufacture, and storage of any such regulated materials might be present on site for any operations-related activities. This plan would identify the proper handling and disposal of materials uses or produced onsite, such as petroleum products,concrete, and sanitary waste. By the filing of said Plan, 4;2 -/9S Planning Commission Resc.- .in No. 5443-06 TR/ER 66-05 Attachment 7 Page 5 the City Fire Department will be on notice to provide regular and routine fire and life- safety inspections to determine compliance with applicable health and safety codes. Section 3. Recommendation. The Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council approval of application TR/ER 65-05 with incorporation of the following conditions and code requirements into the project: Conditions: Streets 1. Prior to recordation of the vesting final map, or any phase thereof, the' subdivider shall present a detailed schedule and delivery "Plan", to be approved by the Public Works Director, for the improvement of Prado Road between its eastern terminus at the current City boundary and Broad Street. For the purposes of this condition, the Prado Road Extension (PRE) shall be referenced in two segments. The first segment shall be the new roadway from the present easterly terminus (City boundary) of Prado Road extending easterly to the intersection of proposed "M" Street on Tract 2353 (the "Sierra Gardens (DeBlauw) property as shown in the Margarita Area Specific Plan (MASP)). This first segment shall be referred to as the "Prado Road Extension - Western Enclave" segment (PRE-WE). The second segment shall be from the Prado Road/"M" Street intersection on Tract 2353, easterly,to Broad Street. This second segment shall be referred to as the "Prado Road Extension- "M" Street to Broad" segment(PRE-MB). At a minimum, the Plan shall address the following milestones for Right-of-Way acquisition, design and construction: a. At the time of submittal of any plans for final map and/or improvement plan checking: The subdivider shall submit construction drawings and specifications for the full width improvement of the "Prado Road Extension - Western Enclave" segment (PRE-WE), and shall submit schematic plans for the full width improvement of the "Prado Road Extension- "M" Street to Broad" segment(PRE-MB). The final map and improvement plans will follow approximately 6 months after the date of the approval of the Tentative Map. During this time the City as well as area property owners will be involved in the review of updated drafts and the selection of the proper engineering company as well as overseeing the design. Following Tentative Map approval, the Western Enclave Property Owners (WEPO) and the City will establish a Stakeholder Group comprised of MASP property owners and public utility companies, etc. to augment/expedite the conceptual design of the PRE-MB component of the Roadway. b. The PRE-WE plans shall include 4 travel lanes, bike paths and lanes, sidewalks, utilities, storm drainage, landscaping, center median improvements and other necessary street appurtenances or as otherwise approved by the Director of Public Works. c. Off-site dedication of property for public right-of-way purposes is necessary to facilitate the construction of Prado Road. The subdivider shall exhaust all avenues available to acquire said public right-of-way dedication. In the event the subdivider is unable to acquire said property, the City Council will lend the subdivider its powers of condemnation to acquire the off-site right-of-way dedication, including any necessary Planning Commission Res�__eon No. 5443-06 Attachment 7 TRIER 66-05 Page 6 slope and drainage easements. If condemnation is required, the subdivider shall agree to pay all costs associated with the off-site right-of-way acquisition (including attorney and court costs). The subdivider is responsible for construction of the necessary street improvements and striping,to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director.) d. Subject to the availability of necessary right-of-way, the subdivider shall complete construction of the PRE-WE segment prior to occupancy of the 50th unit within the subdivision. If right-of-way is not available at the time of approval of the final map, the subdivider may submit a plan for providing interim, secondary access to the WEPO properties that is subject to approval by the Public Works Director. This secondary access shall be completed prior to granting of occupancy permits and may be required to be removed at a later time when additional access is provided from adjacent properties. e. At the time of recording the final map, the subdivider shall bond for the completion.of the engineering plans and specifications, environmental review, if necessary, and associated construction permits for the PRE-MB segment. The subdivider shall complete the construction drawings and specifications for the PRE-MB segment on or before the 100th unit is occupied in the Western Enclave(approx. I year after Tentative. Map Approval). If, at the time of Final Map approval, a detailed engineered cost estimate for the PRE-MB section of roadway has not yet been completed, the City may require that the developer (property owners) sign a waiver not opposing the possible future formation of a community facilities district or other such financing mechanism, that would fund any final project costs for the construction of PRE-MB that are not contained in the Margarita Area Specific Plan Impact Fee estimates. f. Subject to the availability of necessary right-of-way, the subdivider shall, at a minimum: (1) initiate the construction of the northern half, or some modified section of the roadway subject to approval by the Director of Public Works, of the PRE-MB segment prior to occupancy of the 200th residential unit in the Western Enclave (approx. 3 years after Tentative Map Approval) , and (2) complete construction of the northern half of the PRE-MB segment prior to occupancy of the 300th residential unit in the Western Enclave (approx. 5 years after Tentative Map Approval). If right-of-way is not available at the time of requests for occupancy, the City will determine if public acquisition of said right-of-way is necessary or the subdivider will be required to submit an interim plan for providing secondary access the Western Enclave that shall be approved by the Public Works Director. g. As a part of the submittal of the plan for improvements to Prado Road, the subdivider shall submit a reimbursement proposal and schedule for the costs associated with the environmental, engineering and construction of Prado Road in its entirety, as established by the MASP. Subject to final approval of the City, the proposal may include fee credits and/or other appropriate mechanisms that may be applied against non-TIF city-wide and MASP impact fees as development occurs, to facilitate completion of the Prado Road extension. h. A second access off Prado to service VTTM 2353 (DeBlauw) can be incorporated on an interim basis at the time of construction of PRE-WE and will remain in place until PRE-MB is completed and an additional access point is provided at an adopted MASP O ��l 7 Planning Commission ResL__.ion No. 5443-06 TRIER 66-05 Attachment 7 Page 7 location. 2. Margarita Area Specific Plan Impact Fees, as adopted by the City of San Luis Obispo, shall be paid prior to issuance of each building permit, subject to condition I.g. above. 3. The public improvement plans for VTTM 2353, VTTM 2428 and VTTM 2342 shall consider the proposed or required phasing to be completed by the combined development known as Margarita Area Specific Plan western enclave. The public improvement plans for each subdivision shall include any offsite improvements as considered necessary by the Director of Public Works to provide a reasonable transition between the subdivisions in the case that one project is developed before another. The scope of required improvements shall be approved to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director. 4. The final subdivision design and improvements shall comply with the Margarita Area Specific Plan .and all other City of San Luis Obispo Design Standards, Engineering Standards and Standard Plans and Specifications. 5. The final design, location, and number of traffic calming measures including bulb-outs, choke-downs, tabletops, roundabouts, neck-downs, etc. shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Director. Plans submitted for review shall include a truck turning diagram demonstrating a truck's ability to negotiate the traffic calming features. Additional or alternative traffic control measures may be required to comply with the Specific Plan objective to "foster traffic volumes and speeds that will be compatible with the neighborhood." 6. Pursuant to the Margarita Area Specific Plan, traffic volume and speeds shall be monitored after development. The subdivider shall retain a qualified traffic consultant to conduct traffic counts throughout the subdivision at locations approved by the Public Works Director. If traffic speeds or volumes exceed City standards during counts taken by the subdivider one year after final occupancy of complete build-out of the subdivision or acceptance of public improvements whichever occurs later, the subdivider shall be responsible for installing additional traffic calming measures to the approval of the Public Works Director to reduce volume and speeds to comply with City standards. 7. The subdivision design shall include directional curb ramps wherever possible. The inclusion of bulbouts at directional curb ramp locations is encouraged to decrease the roadway width to be crossed by a pedestrian. 8. The subdivision design shall include curb extensions at locations where on-street parking needs to be restricted for sight visibility reasons. 9. Prior to approval of improvement plans, alternative paving materials proposed within the public right-of-way shall be approved by the Public Works Director. Alternative paving materials shall be maintained by the Homeowner's Association. 10. Common areas, landscaped parkways and Class I pathways (other than Prado Road) shall be owned and maintained in perpetuity for public use by the Master Homeowner's Association. Water meters for common landscape areas including but not limited to parkways, medians, roundabouts and pathway corridors are subject to water impact fees a,2—I? Planning Commission ReSL Aon No. 5443-06 TR/ER 66-05 Page 8 Attachment 7 and shall be paid for by the subdivider. On& Off-Site Improvements 11. With respect to all off-site improvements, prior to filing of the Final Map, the Subdivider(s) shall either: a. Clearly demonstrate their right to construct the improvements by showing title or interest in the property in a form acceptable to the City Engineer-;or b. Request in writing that the subdivider has exhausted all.reasonable efforts to acquire interest to the subject property and that the City assist in acquiring the property required for the construction of such improvements and exercise its power of eminent domain in accordance with Government Code Section 66462.5 to do so, if necessary. Subdivider shall also enter into an agreement with the City to pay all costs of such acquisition, including, but not limited to, all costs associated with condemnation. Said agreement shall be in a form acceptable to the City Engineer and the City Attorney. If condemnation proceedings are required, the Subdivider shall, no later that 90 days prior to recordation of the Final Map (final Parcel Map), submit, in a form acceptable to the City Engineer, the following documents regarding the property to be acquired: i. Property legal description and sketch, stamped and signed by a Licensed Land Surveyor or Civil Engineer authorized to practice land surveying in the State of California. ii. Preliminary title report including chain of title and litigation guarantee; iii. Appraisal of the property by a City approved appraiser. In the course of obtaining such appraisal, the property owner(s) must be given an opportunity to accompany the appraiser during any inspection of the property or acknowledge in writing that they knowingly waived the right to,do so. iv. Copies of all written correspondence with off-site property owners including purchase summary of formal offers and counter offers to purchase at the appraised price. V. Prior to submittal of the aforementioned documents for City Engineer approval, the Subdivider shall deposit with the City all or a portion of the anticipated costs, as determined by the City Attorney, of the condemnation proceedings. The City does not and cannot guarantee that the necessary property rights can be acquired or will, in fact, be acquired. All necessary procedures of law would apply and would have to be followed. 12. Should the final design for the stormwater detention basin require the installation of a stormwater pumping station in order to provide an outlet for the detention basin, the final pump station design shall be in accordance with Section 8 of the WWMP-DDM and the following" a. The pump station shall be a triplex design. � -/99 Planning Commission Reso,.,on No. 5443-06 Attachment 7 TR/ER 66-05 Page 9 b. The pump station shall be designed to discharge at the 100 year pre-developed rate with all three pumps running, the 10 year pre-developed rate with two pumps running and the 2 year pre-developed rate with only one pump in operation. At no time shall the pump discharge rate exceed that of the pre-development flow rates for each of the design storms. Or the pump station shall consist for a variable speed drive that matches the required discharge regime. c. The pump discharge shall be designed such that no erosion damage will occur. d. The pump shall discharge into a natural waterway or into an easement to which the subdividers, their heirs and/or assigns have rights to. 13. The final subdivision design shall incorporate stormwater quality BMPs with the January 2005 edition of the Engineering Standards, shall be designed to treat the stormwater runoff from all developed surfaces excluding rooftops but including all private and public streets, and shall be subject to the approval of the City Engineer. 14. The final design of any stormwater detention or treatment facilities shall incorporate all recommendations from the final geotechnical report into the design of said facilities. The final geotechnical report shall address the effect, if any, of detaining stormwater in close proximity to the existing soil contamination. 15. The final design of the proposed off-site stormwater detention facilities shall also take into consideration the effects on 100 year floodplain (as identified as an undesignated "A Zone") on the FEMA FIRM Panel (as modified by the LOMR dated August 23, 2003) for San Luis Obispo County, from the unnamed tributary to the East Fork of San Luis Obispo Creek and shall establish the base flood elevation, process a CLOMR or CLOMR-F with FEMA prior to approval of any plans for ground disturbing activities;then process the final documents once Grading is complete. The design of any stormwater facilities shall be in compliance with the WWMP-DDM requirement for construction within a Special Floodplain Management Zone; i.e. no significant net loss of floodplain storage. 16. The subdivider shall secure the rights for the regional stormwater detention basin prior to or concurrently with the final subdivision maps. Should the subdividers be unsuccessful in acquiring off site property for the construction of the stormwater facilities, the subdivider shall either: a) revise the maps to reflect appropriately sized on-site detention of stormwater pursuant to the City's Waterway Management Plan Drainage Design Manual or,b)request in writing that the City assist.in securing the property following procedures as outlined above. All costs associated with securing said rights including the eminent domain process shall be borne by the subdividers. 17. Prior to the approval of the public improvement plans the subdivider(s) shall have received an approved grading permit from the County of San Luis Obispo a written waiver for the construction of any facilities outside the City's corporate limits. Should San Luis Obispo County defer to the City for the processing of the grading permits for property outside the City corporate boundary, the subdivider(s) shall process the grading permit with the City Public Works Department concurrently with the improvements plans and pay all fees associated said grading in accordance with the Public Works Department Fee schedule for plan checking and inspection in effect at the time of permit processing. 2 -zoo Planning Commission Res.__ .,on No. 5443-06 Attachment 7 TR/ER 66-05 Page 10 18. To the degree feasible, shared driveways shall be utilized to reduce the number of driveway curb cuts in the subdivision and increase the provision of on-street parking. 19. The final map and its associated dedications should reflect the correct legal description; that is to say the offer of dedication for future Prado Road should be to the actual south property line as described in the legal description contained in an up-to-date title report. 20. Where a Class 1 bicycle path provides access across a public street, raised decorative paving, choke-downs, curb ramps and signage shall be provided and the street crossing shall be designed to direct pedestrians across the roadway in a perpendicular manner. 21. Prior to final map approval, details of the proposed roadway choke-downs shall be provided. Choke-downs adjacent to open space corridors shall be lengthened to include the entire length of the open space corridor. 22. Prior to final map approval, the landscaped roundabout proposed at the terminus of Margarita Avenue shall be designed to comply with Caltrans Standards Design Information Bulletin 80 and FHWA roundabout guidelines and address pedestrian and bicycle crossing areas. The proposed roundabout shall be landscaped and maintained by the homeowner's association. 23. Due to the potential for circulation conflicts given the lot's proximity to the proposed roundabout, the subdivider shall dedicate vehicular access rights to the City of San Luis Obispo for proposed Lot 24 onto "D" Street,and said access restriction shall be shown on the Final Map. 24. Prior to final map approval, the subdivider shall demonstrate how Lots 47 and 48 will be developed with a shared driveway easement and a design that allows vehicles exiting the lots to exit in a forward motion to address the potential for circulation conflicts given the lots proximity to the proposed roundabout. Said easement shall be shown on the final map. 25. The final map shall include an irrevocable offer of dedication to the public for road purposes across that portion of Lot 6 as necessary to provide an alterative alignment of Prado Road to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director. Said offer and final map shall recognize access restrictions to Prado Road from Lot 6. 26. Demolition permits are required from the Building Division for the removal of all existing structures. The permits shall be issued prior to approval of the public improvement plans. 27. Prior to final map approval, "L" Street shall be designed and constructed to comply with City standards which at a minimum include half-street improvements plus 12 feet. Off-site improvements, temporary construction easements or slope bank easements may be required in order to complete the necessary improvements. 28. Prior to final map approval, the design and location of the bus pullouts on "C" Street shall be coordinated with Tract 2342 (Cowan) and approved by the Public Works Director. Plans submitted for review shall include a bus turning diagram demonstrating a bus's ability to negotiate the turnout. The final design shall also include bus stop improvements and indicate how access to adjacent parcels is provided. As called for in the Specific Plan, Planning Commission Resi._.on No. 5443-06 Attachment 7 TRIER 66-05 Page 11 the eastbound bus pullout shall be located on "C" Street east of"D" Street, not directly across from the westbound bus pullout as shown on project plans. 29. Prior to final map approval,the Prado Road cross section shall be redesigned to comply with the Margarita Area Specific Plan. 30. Prior to final map approval, traffic calming islands shown on "J" and "L" Streets shall be eliminated and replaced with other traffic calming devices. 31. Private alleys shall be designed for use by emergency vehicles and garbage trucks and shall be located within a public access easement. 32. Vehicular access rights along Prado Road shall be dedicated to the City. Water. Sewer& Utilities 33. The subdivider's engineer shall submit water demand and wastewater generation calculations so that the City can make a determination as to the adequacy of the supporting infrastructure. If it is discovered that an off-site deficiency exists, the owner will be required to mitigate the deficiency as a part of the overall project. 34. Water meters shall be grouped in manifold pairs wherever possible, to the satisfaction of the Utilities Engineer. 35. The water mains, sewer mains, and sewer force mains when attached or included with a bridge, shall be sleeved and encased within the bridge structure or located above the lowest point so as to protect the pipelines from the high water flow. 36. Sewer backwater valves.may be required on some lots. . The subdivider's engineer shall apply the City's criteria to the design to determine which lots will need backwater valves on the sewer laterals,per City and UPC standards. 37. In areas where the pressure in the water system exceeds 80 psi, the service line shall include a pressure regulator downstream of the water meter, where the water service enters the building. 38. The sewer and water mains shall be located approximately 2m on either side of the street centerline. All final grades and alignments of all public water, sewer and storm drains (including service laterals and meters) are subject to modifications to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director and Utilities Engineer. 39. The subdivision layout and preliminary utility plans shall include provisions for irrigating common areas, parks, detention basins, and other large landscape areas with recycled water. Appropriately sized reclaimed water mains shall be designed and constructed from the City's trunk system to these irrigation areas. If other use areas exist beyond the proposed subdivision, the mains shall be appropriately sized to provide for firture use areas and extended to the boundary of the tract. If reclaimed water is not available at the time the recycled water is needed, the system shall be designed and constructed to reclaimed water standards, and temporarily connected to the City's potable water system in the area of the anticipated connection to the reclaimed water system. /� Planning Commission Res .ion No. 5443-06 TR/ER 66-05 Attic-1hr1'ent 7 Page 12 Grading& Drainage 40. The final grading plan shall include provisions to comply with the soils engineer's recommendations, including mitigating cut slopes, debris flows uphill of the lots and truck access. The soils engineer shall supervise all grading operations and certify the stability of the slopes prior to acceptance of the tract and/or issuance of 41. Clearing of any portion of the existing creek and drainage channels, including any required tree removals, and any necessary erosion repairs shall be to done the satisfaction of the Public Works Director, Corp. of Engineers and the Dept. of Fish & Game. Certain trees may require safety pruning by a certified Arborist as determined by the City Arborist. Homeowners' Association 42. The subdivider shall submit CC&R's with the Final Map that establishes a"Margarita Area Master Homeowner's Association" (Master HOA). The Master HOA shall include the subdivider's tract, and provide for the automatic annexation of all subsequent potential tracts within the Margarita Specific Plan area. The subsequent tracts may, at their sole discretion, annex to the Master HOA, or demonstrate to the city's satisfaction how many they may form their own, independent HOA, to manage their common area improvements. The Master HOA, and any and all subsequent HOA's not a part of the Master HOA, shall provide for maintenance of all common area drainage channels, on-site and/or sub-regional drainage basins and conveyance improvements and the Margarita median landscaping and trail network. The Master HOA shall also annually maintain a 30' wide wildland fuel reduction zone along all open space lots abutting developments within the MASP. The CC&R's shall be approved by the City Attorney prior to recordation_ of the Final Map, or any phase thereof." 43. The Master Homeowners' Association (MHOA) shall own and maintain all that portion of the lots designated as "Open Space" or "Wetlands Mitigation". The MHOA shall also be responsible for maintenance of said lots. Those open space areas that accommodate trails intended for public use shall be maintained for public access in perpetuity. Maintenance responsibilities shall also include maintenance of any cut or fill slopes required to make the swale and berm. The storm drainage system within the private streets shall be privately owned and maintained by the M 40A(to be included in CC&R's). 44. Subdivider shall prepare conditions, covenants, and restrictions (CC&R's)to be approved by the City Attorney and Community Development Director prior to final map approval. CC&R's shall contain thefollowing provisions that pertain to all lots: a. Creation of a master homeowners' association if none exists or annexation into an existing MHOA, if one exists. b. No parking except in approved, designated spaces. c. No change in city-required provisions of the CC&R's without prior City Council approval. d. Provision for all of the maintenance responsibilities outlined in various conditions Planning Commission Res6._.,on No. 5443-06 Attachment 7 TR/ER 66-05 Page 13 below. e. The subdivider shall submit common driveway agreements for those lots with shared access including maintenance provisions, to the approval of the Community Development Director at the time of final map approval. Paths/Open Space 45. The multi-use paths should be 12 feet in width as called for in the Specific Plan, however the Natural Resource Manager and Public Works Director may approve a narrower path in locations that will only be used by pedestrians only or where environmental conditions warrant a narrower path based on in-the-field consideration. 46. Final design (including materials, location, width, bridging and lighting) of pathways shall be reviewed and approved by the Natural Resources Manager and Public Works Director. 47. Class I path crossings at public streets should be perpendicular to the street. A cross section should be developed to show transition of path up to the roadway crossing. A raised table-top design with decorative pavement, choke-downs (see above), and signage shall be provided and crossing shall be designed to direct pedestrians to cross the roadway in a direct perpendicular manner. Air Quali 48. All activities associated with construction and operation for the subdivision map shall comply at all times with all current APCD Rules and Regulations as applicable, including but not limited to PM-10, NOx emissions, Best Available Control Technologies, construction activity management plans,and phasing techniques. . Housing Programs 49. Lot 105, the "condominium" lot, shall be dedicated to the Housing Authority prior to; or in conjunction with, recording the first phase of Tentative Tract 2353. Improvement plans for Phase 1 of Tentative Tract 2353 shall include complete access and infrastructure(roads,water, sewer, and utilities) to serve the Housing Authority sites. Additional affordable housing requirements will be required if the average residential unit size of the entire Tentative Tract 2353 exceeds 2,000 square feet as per Table 2A of the City Housing Element. Planning Requirements 50. Bulb outs at "T" intersections need to be added to the straight leg "crossing the `T"' and elongated such that pedestrian crossings are at 90 degrees to the opposing bulb out transitions for the intersecting street leg. 51. Bulb-outs shall be provided at alley access points to street to provide line of sight where red curbing would otherwise be needed. 52. Development of lots adjacent to El Camino Estates or the proposed VTM #2428 where pad elevations differ by four or more feet shall be limited to single-story development and increased rear yard setbacks of a minimum of 10 feet, or equivalent design techniques that 2- zeF Planning Commission Reso.._,an No. 5443-06 -;i¢ Lt t31RI,t 7 TRIER 66-05 Page 14 maximize privacy protection for the adjacent lot as approved by the Architectural Review Commission. 53. For lots with slope banks 3:1 or steeper adjacent to the property line and drainage structures in the rear yards, the subdivider shall designate the entire slope bank as a slope easement to be maintained by the HOA. A deed restriction shall be placed on all lots with this situation so that a 6 foot high privacy fence shall be installed and maintained at the top of the slope 54. All lighting within the subdivision shall comply with the lighting standards contained in the San Luis Obispo Community Design Guidelines and as further stipulated in the Mitigation Measures listed below. 55. In order to be consistent with the requirements of the Margarita Area Specific Plan and County Airport Land Use Plan,the property owner shall grant an avigation easement for the benefit and protection of the City of San Luis Obispo, the County of San Luis Obispo and the San Luis Obispo County Airport via an avigation easement document prior to the recordation of the final map. 56. In the event archaeological resources are discovered in conjunction with a construction project, all activities shall cease and the Community Development Department shall be notified so that the procedures required by state law may be applied. 57. New development shallimplement all feasible measures to minimize the use of conventional energy for space heating and cooling, water heating and illumination by means of proper design and orientation,.including the provision and protection of solar exposure. 58. As set forth in the Margarita Area Specific Plan, there shall be a minimum setback of 157 feet for new residential uses from the centerline of Prado Road. 60. For interior streets (not Prado Road), a 15-foot public street yard shall be allowed for homes and a 20-foot street yard for garages with doors facing the public street. 61. Islands in "J" street should be moved farther back of the intersection and designed to accommodate appropriately located pedestrian crossing to align with bulb-outs. Islands shall be landscaped and in such a way so as to not obstruct left and right line of sight to approaching cars from intersecting streets. Code Requirements: 1. Traffic impact fees and water and wastewater impact fees shall be paid as a condition of issuance of building permits. 2. The property is tributary to the Laguna Sewer Lift Station. Appropriate Lift Station Fees shall be paid prior to the final map approval. 3 Appropriate backflow prevention will be necessary on any connection to the City water system if the property includes an active well. 4 EPA Requirement: General Construction Activity Storm Water Permits are required for all storm water discharges associated with a construction activity where clearing, grading and Planning Commission Rese. in No. 5443-06 TRIER 66-05 AVa^l'ment 7 Page 15 excavation results in land disturbance of five or more acres. Storm water discharges of less than five acres, but which is part of a larger common plan of development or sale, also require a permit. Permits are required until the construction is complete. To be covered by a General Construction Activity Permit, the owner(s) of land where construction activity occurs must submit a completed "Notice of Intent" (NOI) form, with the appropriate fee, to the State Water Board. 5 The subdivision design shall comply with the City's grading ordinance. 6 Street trees shall be planted along the private street per City Standards (the number of trees is determined by one tree per 35 linear feet of street frontage). 7 All boundary monuments, lot comers and centerline intersections, BC's, EC's, etc., shall be tied to the City's Horizontal Control Network. At least two control points shall be used and a tabulation of the coordinates shall be submitted with the final map or parcel map. All coordinates submitted shall be based on the City coordinate system. A 3.5" diameter computer floppy disk, containing the appropriate data compatible with AutoCAD (Digital Interchange Format, DXF) for Geographic Information System (GIS) purposes, shall be submitted to the City Engineer. 8 The final map, public improvement plans and specifications shall use the International System of Units (metric system). The English System of Units may be used on the final map where necessary (e.g. - all record data shall be entered on the map in the record units, metric translations should be in parenthesis),to the approval of the City Engineer. 9. Access shall be in accordance with Article 9 of the California Fire Code (CFC). Access roads shall have an unobstructed width of not less than 20 feet and an unobstructed vertical clearance of 13' 6". Access roads shall be designed and maintained to support the imposed loads of a 60,000 pound fire apparatus and shall be provided with a surface so as to provide all-weather driving capabilities.All cul-de-sacs shall be minimum 40 foot radius. 10. Approved address numbers shall be placed on all new buildings in such a position to be plainly visible and legible from the street fronting the property. Numbers shall be a minimum of 5"high x '/z"stroke and be on a contrasting background. 11. Water Supplies and fire hydrants shall be provided in accordance with applicable articles of the CFC. An approved water supply capable of providing the required fire flow for fire protection_ is required. The fire flow shall be determined using applicable Appendices of the CFC. 12. Fire protection systems shall be installed in accordance with the CFC and the California Building Code. An approved NFPA system will be required for this project 13. Fire hydrants shall be spaced per SLO-FD Guidelines (placement with Fire Department approval)and shall be capable of supplying the required fire-flows. Planning Commission Resoaunon No. 5443-06 _ A"tiach(? or.t 7 TR/ER 66-05 Page 16 On motion by Commissioner Christianson, seconded by Commissioner Loh, and on the following roll call vote: AYES: Commrs. Christianson, Loh,Carter,McCoy, Miller NOES: None REFRAIN: Comm r. Osborne VACANCY: One The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 25th day of January 2006. Ronal Whisenan , Secretary Planning Co ssion DRAFT Attachment 8 SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES January 25, 2006 ROLL CALL: Commissioners Carlyn Christianson, Jason McCoy, Alice Loh, Andrea Miller, Andrew Carter; Chairperson Orval Osbome (and one vacancy) Absent: none Staff: Community Development Director John Mandeville, Senior Planner Pam Ricci, City Planning Consultant Mary Beattie, Deputy Community Development Director Ronald Whisenand, Natural Resources Manager Neil Havlik, Deputy Public Works Director Tim Bochum and Recording Secretary Jill Francis ACCEPTANCE OF AGENDA: Due to the resignation of Chairperson Boswell at the previous meeting (with vice-chair Osborne taking the seat of chairperson), selection of an acting vice-chairperson took place. Commrs. Loh, Miller Christianson nominated themselves for the seat. On motion by Commr. McCoy to appoint Commr. Miller as vice-chairperson. Seconded by Chairperson Osborne. AYES: Commrs. Osborne, McCoy, Miller, Carter and Christianson NOES: Commr. Loh ABSENT: none ABSTAIN: none MINUTES: Minutes of January 11, 2006 The minutes of January 11, 2006 were approved as amended. PUBLIC COMMENT: Tom Cantrell, commented on the issue of public growth, noting that increasing the community population could cause negative impacts to downtown traffic, traffic congestion, and preservation of open space. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1. 392 Prado Road. TR and ER 63-05; Consideration of a vesting tentative tract map to subdivide a 15-acre (approx.) site into 67 lots with 41 residential lots, 10 business park/office lots, 15 mixed use (residential and office) lots, and 1 open space lot; and environmental review; R-1-SP, O-SP, R-2-SP, & C/OS-SP zones; Craig Cowan, applicant. (Pam Ricci and Mary Beatie) Commr. Osborne stepped down from participation due to a potential conflict of interest because he owns property in the area. Draft Planning Commission minutes Attachment $ January 25, 2006 Page 2 Community Development Director John Mandeville presented the staff report regarding the context and history of the Margarita Area Specific Plan (MASP) and how it relates to the three vesting tract maps, recommending that the Commission review the staff reports for the individual tracts and environmental documents, and make recommendations to the City Council on each individual subdivision as appropriate. Mary Beatie, Planning Consultant for the City, discussed how the three tract maps accomplish the goals of the MASP, including: facilitating transit-oriented development; to accommodate the planned extension of Prado Road; addressing area drainage issues; protecting the environment and existing neighborhoods; and providing new affordable housing. She recommended the Commission adopt a resolution for recommending approval of each tentative map. Tim Bochum, Deputy Director of Public Works, presented an overview of the Prado Road implementation with schematic plans and final map to follow. He also discussed storm water detention. Natural Resources Manager Neil Havlik discussed the dedication of the donated easement by King Ventures, drainage channels, a multi-use trail, protection of rare plant species, proper recreation, new wetlands, and preservation of local hills and open space. PUBLIC COMMENTS: John French, applicant, spoke in support of the subdivision, but noted his objection to condition #5, requesting revised language. He also requested a master association for all three projects relating to drainage and wetlands, and suggested text changes to clarify mixed-uses regarding calculating fees. Patricia Wilmore, 1039 Chorro Street (San Luis Obispo Chamber of Commerce Representative) spoke in support of the project, commenting on the different types of housing, multi-uses, and transit oriented development that would be provided. Elizabeth Righetti, 3057 So. Higuera Street (Chumash Village), had questions about building heights, lot depths, slopes, and drainage. She wanted single-story development on the lots adjacent to Chumash Village and suggested stakes and story poles showing the extent of development. Bonnie Wollam, 3057 So. Higuera Street #233 (Chumash Village) expressed concerns about access to the mobile home park, pest control and increased traffic problems in the area. David Booker, 867 Leff Street, spoke in support of the project and their locations, and is encouraged by added density. Sam Vlahos, 3057 S. Higuera Street #163 (Chumash Village), voiced concerns with the fence line, dust problems, and the need for a buffer. 2-�9 Draft Planning Commission minutes Attachment 8 January25, 2006 Page 3 John Nicholson, Attorney for Midland Pacific, 6633 Bay Laurel, Avila Beach, noted concerns with the changes submitted by King Ventures, the number of lots, and setback issues. Reed Harris, Builder, 4100 EI Camino Real, Atascadero, expressed concern that King Ventures is making changes this late in the process. Ken Scott, 320 Calle Lupita, SLO, expressed concern that homes adjacent to his development will not be limited to single-story. There were no further comments made from the public. COMMISSION COMMENTS: Prado Road Implementation: Commr. Christianson questioned possible problems with. the right-of-way acquisition and development. Commr. Loh asked for a proposed phasing plan for the developments. Long range solution for drainage problems - storm water detention Commr. Carter asked if eminent domain could be applied for the area needed for drainage. Commr. Loh questioned possible problems in obtaining property from Unocal or local residents. Commr. McCoy asked about the design for the drainage area. Protect Open Space, Natural Features and Other Sensitive Resources Commr. Loh questioned the distance from the wetlands to the project (I street cul-de- sac). Commr. Christianson commented on bird species and the recommended mitigation measures versus the actual overall recommendations. She suggested adding language (on page 3) regarding raptor nests. Protect Existing Neighborhoods. (Pdvacv Issues Senior Planner Ricci pointed out neighborhood preservation conditions including single- story homes with greater setbacks adjacent to existing neighborhoods and requirements related to grading and fencing. Provide Affordable Housing by Increasing Supply of Modest Dwellings VO Draft Planning Commission minutes January 25, 2006 Attachmnrq (3 Page 4 Commr. Carter asked if the number of housing units will be consistent with density requirements. Commr. McCoy inquired whether the number of units lost in one development could be picked up in another development, and suggested adding language to either condition 38 or 40 regarding a public access easement. On motion by Commr. Loh to recommend the City Council approve the vesting tentative tract map and environmental documents, with changes (pg 7 language. #8. Pg 12,13 MHOA.pg 14 condition #45-keep first sentence-drop second sentence, language regarding public access easement, language on rafter nests) Seconded by Commr. Carter AYES: Commrs. Miller, McCoy, Loh, Carter, and Christianson NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: Commr. Osbome The motion carried on a 5:0 vote. 2.. 3000 Calle.Malva. TR and ER 65-05; Consideration of a vesting tentative tract map to subdivide a 99-acre (approxi) site into 148 lots with 141 single-family residential lots, 1 lot for an affordable housing project, and 6 open space lots; and environmental review; R-1-SP, R-2-SP, C/OS-SP zones; John King, applicant (Pam Ricci and Mary Beatie) Dave Watson, representative for King Ventures, presented a letter to Commission supporting the project with the alternative pattern of the, lots which could accommodate higher density in the center of the project, and reviewed the plans for drainage, privacy issues, and affordable housing. Senior Planner Pam Ricci distributed the letter with the modified map and added language proposed by the applicant. COMMISSION COMMENTS: Commr. Loh questioned density requirements for this project, and asked if the applicant supported a master Homeowners Association. Commr. McCoy asked staff for clarification on the map, and expressed support for project and higher density in this project and in future projects. Commr. Carter asked staff if the new issues with the King project would delay the other two projects. Commr. Carter expressed support for the project. Commr. Miller asked if future problems could be brought back to the Commission. /Z _V/ Draft Planning Commission mfinutes Attachment 8 January 25, 2006 Page 5 Commr. Christianson discussed elevation requirements that will be discussed by the Architectural Review Commission, density and alternative plans, and urged the Commission to encourage higher density. She suggested adding language on raptor nests. On motion by Commr. Christianson to recommend approval of the tentative tract map and environmental document to the City Council with changes and corrections. Seconded by Commr. Loh AYES: Commrs. Miller, McCoy, Loh, Carter, and Christianson NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: Commr. Osborne The motion carried on a 5 0 vote. 3. 408 Prado Road. TR and ER 66-05; Consideration of a vesting tentative tract map to subdivide a 30-acre (approx.) site into 133 lots, with 109 residential lots, 1 lot for an affordable housing project, 12 mixed use (residential and office) lots, 6 business parkloffice lots, and 5 open space lots; and environmental review; R-1-SP, R-2-SP, R-3-SP, O-SP and C/OS-SP zones; Richard DeBlauw, applicant. (Pam Ricci and Mary Beatie) City Planning Consultant Mary Beatie, requested the Commission remove the first sentence of condition #61. Richard DeBlauw, applicant, asked the Commission to approve his project without delay while considering changes to the King project. COMMISSION COMMENTS: Commr. Loh asked about the HOA and the easement with PG&E. Commr. Christianson again asked that language be added regarding raptor nests. On .motion by Commr. Christianson to recommend the City Council approve the tentative map and environmental document, with changes discussed. Seconded by Commr. Loh AYES: Commrs. Miller, McCoy, Loh, Carter, and Christianson NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: Commr. Osborne The motion carried on a 5 : 0 vote. Draft Planning Commission minutes January 25, 2006 Attachment 8 Page 6 COMMENT AND DISCUSSION: 4. Staff A. Agenda Forecast An agenda forecast was provided on upcoming items and projects. 5. Commission ADJOURMENT: With no further business before the Commission, the meeting adjourned to the regular meeting of the Planning Commission scheduled for Wednesday February 8, 2006, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street. Respectfully submitted by Jill Francis Recording Secretary 2' 17 /2 �J 1 Attachment 9 TO: Planning Commission San Luis Obispo FROM: Bonnie Wollam Chumash Village Resident DATE" January 25,2006 SUBJECT: Proposed Development 3000 Calle Malva Adjacent to Chumash Village Subm lJJ fte , I would like to reiterate or present some concerns I have regarding the proposed development. I am a resident of Chumash Village. We have 236 mobile homes in our community and over 300 residents. 1. Access Into Chumash Village I am concerned about potential predatory access into our mobile home park resulting from this development. Specifically, Chumash's Northeast corner or the new Development's Northwest corner, if opened up to hikers, general pedestrians, transients, loose pets, or wild animals exposes our residents to many specific hazards. With cutbacks (and more potential in the future) of many City services, such as Police, I am requesting that this development restrict access to our Village to prohibit potential problems we will not be equipped to handle. I am request'g the Planning Commission to grant our residents a solution to this potential hazard. 2. Pest Control Problems Over the past year, I have become aware of severe rodent infestations in San Luis Obispo. Personally, I hire a pest control service to help me eliminate mice in our area; my problem is currently controlled. I am also aware of a rat infestation in the Creekside mobile home park area, as well as a rodent problem in Laguna Lake area, as well as other areas in the community. A few weeks ago, after a big storm, I saw a dead rat in one of our gutters. The other day I was walking by an open area on Tank Farm Road. I observed hundreds of holes and what appeared to be gophers or squirrels running all over a vacant field. My request is this: When the new development is begun, thousands of rodents will be displaced adjacent to our Village. I am requesting that the developers be ��y Attachment 9 required to work with a pest control service prior to beginning construction to insure that the rodent population is not driven into our mobile home park. We are not equipped to deal with such an infestation. 3. Increased Traffic Problems to our Residents On October 12, 2004, I presented a petition to the City Council from our residents requesting that a traffic light be installed outside our village. Currently, we have difficulty accessing South Higuera Street because of heavy traffic flow. At that time, certain assumptions were made, possibly that we would have an overpass at Prado Road, thus alleviating future traffic flow through our area. It appears that this may never materialize. I cannot recall the exact amount of increasedtr nat b , ee �` r1a � development, but I believe that approximate) nndvfiy6 trips pfla;Wh 1 were projected. If 1/4 of those trips ended up traveling up South I iguera Street, the current probleqis we,a erienTin 'll be exacerbated. _ �. Vs -frPPS oti One four si ents w mvolved in accident in front of our park within the last month. It may be true that traffic "warrants" do not justify the need for a signal. I do believe, however, that common sense should prevail. I am requesting that you recommend to the City Council that something be done to help our community avoid future problems. Thank you. Attachment 9 Petition to Limit Height of Homes in MMargarita.Extension That Adjoin Existing Structures to the North and East If the undeveloped property immediately bordering our properties is to be developed, we the undersigned respectfully request that height limitations be adopted for all units that are immediately contiguous to our property lines to limit development to one-story structures. Our homes were designed and built with the bedrooms at the rear of the house. The lots behind our homes will have an elevation increase by as much as five feet. One-story structures adjoining our properties to the rear will preserve our privacy and help the new development blend into the existing development. Na Addr�s� p/ v 3/ 0 717 A4 4nzw ,,.I 6,L6 0 ta�ia to 9 i 3�67 3 / zkd� C44c "eA1*,,a SLO 2.3 yo/ ,Sub m-'ffte_etl, G? lo PC Z Attachment 9 imission CITY Of SP,N LUlS OBISPOCOMMUNITY BAJAN 2 5 i Dr VELRMENT January 25, 2006 --- San Luis Obispo Planning Commission Planning Department 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Attention: Pam Ricci Re: Tract 2428, King Residential Subdivision, Margarita Specific Plan Area Dear Chairman and Commissioners: The purpose of this letter is to voice our support for the efforts of both your staff and the developer, King Ventures, in pursuing any and all opportunities towards the creation of affordable and workforce housing in the City. The Margarita area represents a significant opportunity in which a win/win contribution towards our combined housing goals can take place. The Margarita area provides a means to achieve more diverse housing and higher densities that are ideal solutions for our local projects. Mission Community Bank has had the opportunity to work with Mr. King over the years and to be a partner in the commitment to affordable housing construction through his successful Npomo Village projects. We can attest to his creativity in achieving varieties of housing types that are inviting, attractive and create pleasant communities when completed. He stays true to his commitment and has taken the lead in the development of workforce housing in the County. Tonight the Planning Commission has the opportunity to recommend to the City Council a proposal that a portion of the project be dedicated to this variety and density concept. This will achieve long held community goals of increasing workforce and affordable housing availability,while encouraging variety and more choices. Please support this project as proposed and help us to retain and attract the necessary workforce for our community. Sincerely, C. M4Roinson President& CEO Anita M.Robinson President and Chief Executive Officer 581 Higuera Street,P.O.Box 789■San Luis Obispo,California 93401 a 805-782-5000■Fax 805.782.5034 0 anita@missioincommunitybank.com Pam Ricci Fwd: Planning Commissionieting Jan. 25, 2006 �^ Page 1 From: John Mandeville Attachment 9 To: Ricci, Pam Date: 1/26/06 1 1:OOAM Subject: Fwd: Planning Commission Meeting Jan.25,2006 Please include this correspondence, and other correspondence received, as an attachment to the Council agenda report. >>>°D.& E. Dollar"<ddollar@pacbell.net>01/25/06 08:37AM >> John, Please forward the following to the Planning Commission and enter in the public record. Thank you, Don Dollar Planning Commissioners: As a concerned resident, I offer the following comments on MASP, particularly VTM#2428, King, -3000 Calle Malva.. My comments are related to the process for planning for City Open Space. Yesterday, I spoke with City Natural Resource Manager, Neil Havlik about the MASP and Open Space. It is not clear to me,that the MASP allows the Open Space planning process referred to in the Draft Open Space element, and the approved Conservation Guidelines for Open Space. The Open Space that will be added to existing city Open Space, South Street Hills, currently does not allow bicycles (very rocky terrain, limited area, etc.). However,the MASP calls for adding bicycle trails into the existing Open Space.Also, the MASP calls for trails much wider than the standard listed in the Conservation Guidelines for Open Space. I have no problem with bicycle trails at the perimeter of the houses, on the NW to NE sections of actual housing. However, I think the planning and any uses should be arrived at following the Conservation Guidelines for Open Space, not a SP that is focused on development. Yesterday when speaking with Neil Havlik on the process for Open Space olannino versus using a SP he agreed with me that the preferred process is usina the Conservation Guidelines for Open Spaces Over a year ago, I spoke with both Neil Havlik and Mike Draze on this issue, and was assured that the SP would not be used for the planning process for Open Space. Recommendation: That any resolution passed on MASP include language clearly stating the Open Space planning will follow the Conservation Guidelines for Open Space process. Sincerely, Don Dollar SLO 781.0118 J Attachment 10 Draft Resolution "A" RESOLUTION NO. (2006 Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO APPROVING A VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 392 PRADO ROAD (TR/ER 63-05; TRACT NO. 2342) 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 January 25, 2006, and recommended approval of Application TR/ER 63-05, a request to subdivide an approximately 15-acre site into 67 lots; 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 March 7, 2006, for the purpose of considering Application TR/ER 63-05; and WHEREAS, notices of said public hearings were made at the time and in the manner required by law; and WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed and considered the Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impact for the project;and WHEREAS, the City Council has duly considered all evidence, including the recommendation of the Planning Commission, testimony of interested parties, and the evaluation and recommendations of staff, presented at said hearing. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. Findings. Based upon all the evidence, the City Council makes the following findings: 1. The design of the vesting tentative tract map is consistent with the General Plan because the proposed subdivision respects existing site constraints (slope, creeks, wetlands, significant trees), will incrementally add to the City's residential housing inventory, result in parcels that meet density standards, and will be consistent with the density and lot sizes established by the Margarita Area Specific Plan. 2. The site is physically suited for the proposed type of development allowed in the R-I-SP, R- 2-SP, and O-SP zones. 3. The design of the subdivision will not conflict with easements for access through (or use of property within) the proposed subdivision. 2 -2/9 Attachment 10 Resolution No. (2006 Series) Page 2 4. The subdivision will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment, subject to the mitigation measures of the Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) certified by the City Council on October 12, 2004 being incorporated into the project, the mitigation monitoring program adopted with said EIR approval being followed and mitigation measures recommended herein. 5. A Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared by the Community Development Department on January 9, 2006. The Planning Commission finds and determines that the project's Mitigated Negative Declaration adequately addresses the potential significant environmental impacts of the proposed project. SECTION 2. Environmental Review. The City Council finds and determines that the project's Mitigated Negative Declaration adequately addresses the potential significant environmental impacts of the proposed project, and reflects the independent judgment of the City Council. The Council hereby adopts said Mitigated Negative Declaration and incorporates the following mitigation measures and monitoring programs into the project: Mitigation Measures: Reduction of Light and Glare 1. In order for MASP/AASP EIR Mitigation Measure LU-7.1 as implemented by the MASP to be carried through to lot-specific development stage, a lighting plan that demonstrates compliance with Community Design Section 3.3 Lighting requirements of the MASP shall be submitted with other required plans for both the residential and commercial components of the project to the review and approval of the Architectural Review Commission (ARC). The lighting plan shall propose specific measures to limit the amount of light trespass associated with development within the project area including shielding and/or directional lighting methods to ensure that spillover light does not exceed 0.5 foot-candles at adjacent property lines. ➢ Monitoring Program: The ARC will review development plans for both the residential and commercial components of the project. City staff, including Planning and other departments, will review plans to assure that all of the ARC's requirements related to lighting and compliant with the MASP provisions have been incorporated into working drawings. City building inspectors will be responsible for assuring that all lighting is installed pursuant to the approved lighting plan. Preparation and Implementation of"Comprehensive Biological Mitigation Program" 2. Mitigation for wetland impacts. Mitigation for wetland impacts will be through a combination of on- and off-site mitigation, approved by the City, the DFG and the Attachment 10 Resolution No. (2006 Series) Page 3 Army Corps of Engineers. Further, in compliance with the MASP/AASP EIR, the subject VTM #2342 (Cowan) proposes the creation of Lot Z in an area designated by the MASP for "Open Space-Riparian" for the express purposes of achieving some of the necessary wetlands replacement mitigation area, as well as preservation of related biological habitat benefits. 2. Mitigation for Impacts to Sensitive Species. None of these species are expected to be difficult to establish. City staff will work with the project sponsors in developing the details of the effort. Congdon Tarplant. Create compensating habitat in a suitable off-site location approved by the City. 4. Mitigation for Impacts to Other Nesting Birds. Undertake surveys prior to initiation of construction activities; avoid construction activities within 100 feet of active nest sites, or within 300 feet for raptor nests, until after young have fledged. 5. Off Site Mitigation for Wetland Impacts. A further component of the biological mitigation program is the applicant's proposal to acquire (by fee, easement, or eminent domain) lands outside the bounds of the Western Enclave (designated by the MASP as "Open Space-Riparian" lands). The targeted property (lying south of Prado Road and owned by Unocal) is a low lying area that already naturally collects some area run-off and provides valuable habitat for certain special concern and R-T-E (rare, threatened, and endangered) species, and thus is beneficial to retain in its natural state. Pre- development run-off has resulted in seasonal flooding of Prado Road due to the currently deficient collection/distribution system to this natural drainage area south of Prado Road. The Western Enclave applicants propose to acquire this off-site property designated for open space use by the MASP and utilize it beneficially for biological mitigation as well as a detention basin for pre- and post-Westem Enclave.development generated run-off. It is proposed that this basin be enhanced to accommodate the greater project-generated and pre-project run-off flows, and to increase its habitat value in the long term. The basin is proposed to be held and maintained by a Master Home Owners Association (MHOA) established initially for the Western Enclave area, and perhaps ultimately for the entire MASP as stipulated be done by the MASP. a. Monitoring Program: Prior to approval of the final map, the applicant shall contact the City Natural Resource Manager for review and approval of the final lot and street design to assure that on-site natural resources are protected and preserved to the greatest extent required by the mitigation measures and consistent with requirements of the MASP and MASP/AASP EIR. Said design shall also be consistent with approvals required subsequent to this Tentative Map from State Dept. of Fish and Game and Army Corps of Engineers. Prior to any site preparation or construction activities, the applicant shall also initiate and complete for approval by the City pre-construction Attachment 10 Resolution No. (2006 Series) Page 4 surveys for nesting birds and adhere to performance standard specified in the mitigation. Provisions for required off-site mitigation shall be coordinated with and approved by the City Natural Resource Manager prior to recordation of the Final Map. Periodic field inspections by City Staff during construction will be necessary to assure site development conforms to mitigation measures and conditions of approval. Preparation and Implementation of"Traffic Reduction Program" 6. In order for MASP/AASP EIR Mitigation Measure T-2.1 adopted with the certification of the MASP/AASP EIR in conjunction with the approval of the AASP in August, 2005 (Ref. City Council Resolution No. 9726, 2005 Series) to be brought forward to this site specific project stage, a transportation demand management program that demonstrates reduction of peak period travel by single-occupant vehicles shall be required of any employer within the subdivision with 25 or more employees. Said program shall incorporate all reasonably feasible measures or techniques, including those listed in the MASP/AASP EIR/General Plan Circulation, that encourage alternate modes other than single-occupant vehicles as the primary mode of transportation to the workplace and to travel during non-peak times. Monitoring Program: Each business owner, upon employment of 25 or more employees, shall immediately prepare and submit, obtain approval from the City Public Works Director and implement the provisions of a Traffic Reduction Plan which demonstrates reduction of peak period travel consistent with requirements of the City General Plan Circulation Element Policies and Programs. City Staff shall periodically inspect the business to observe and assure that reduction techniques approved by the City are in place and adhered to by the business. Staff shall take any corrective or enforcement actions authorized by law to achieve compliance. Preparation and Implementation of a"Construction-Related Hazardous Materials Management Plan" 7. As stipulated in the MASP/AASP EIR, this would be a plan identifying, when they are known, site/development-specific construction activities that will involve the hazardous materials. The plan shall be prepared before construction activities begin that involve hazardous materials and shall discuss proper handling and disposal of materials used or produced onsite, such as petroleum products, concrete, and sanitary waste. The plan will also outline a specific protocol to identify health risks associated with the presence of chemical compounds in the soil and/or groundwater and identify specific protective measures to be followed by the workers entering the work area. If the presence of hazardous materials is suspected or encountered during construction-related activities, the project proponent will cause Mitigation Measure HAZ-1.2 to be activated. Mitigation Measure HAZ-1.2 states: Attachment 10 Resolution No. (2006 Series) Page 5 "The project proponent will complete a Phase 1 environmental site assessment for each proposed public facility (e.g. streets and buried infrastructure). If Phase I site assessments indicate a potential for soil and/or groundwater contamination within or adjacent to the road or utility alignments, a Phase II site assessment will be completed. The following Phase II environmental site assessments will be prepared specific to soil and/or groundwater contamination. a. Soil Contamination. For soil contamination, the Phase II site assessment will include soil sampling and analysis for anticipated contaminating substances. If soil contamination is exposed during construction, the San Luis Obispo Fire Department (SLOFD) will be notified and a work plan to characterize and possibly remove contaminated soil will be prepared, submitted and approved. b. Groundwater Contamination. For groundwater contamination, the Phase II assessment may include monitoring well installation, groundwater sampling, and analysis for anticipated contaminating substances. If groundwater contaminated by potentially hazardous materials is expected to be extracted during dewatering, the SLOFD and the Central Coast RWQCB will be notified. A contingency plan to dispose of contaminated groundwater will be developed in agreement with the SLOFD and Central Coast RWQCB. Monitoring Program: The "Construction-Related Hazardous Materials Management Plan" will be required to be submitted to the City Community Development Department and Fire Department for review prior to commencement of any site preparation or construction work involving hazardous materials. No site preparation or construction work may commence before said plan has been approved by the City. Any site work commenced without City approval of said Plan will be subject to "Stop Work" (cease and desist) orders as may be issued under the authority of the City Fire Department. Preparation and Implementation of an "Operations-Related Hazardous Materials Management Plan' 8. As stipulated in the MASP/AASP EIR, this would be a plan prepared by a project proponent identifying hazardous materials management practices as might be required by state and local laws and regulations regarding delivery, use, manufacture, and storage of any such regulated materials might be present on site for any operations- related activities. This plan would identify the proper handling and disposal of materials uses or produced onsite, such as petroleum products, concrete, and sanitary waste. By the filing of said Plan, the City Fire Department will be on notice to provide regular and routine fire and life-safety inspections to determine compliance with applicable health and safety codes. Attachment 10 Resolution No. (2006 Series) Page 6 ➢ Monitoring Program: The "Operations-Related Hazardous Materials Management Plan" will be required to be submitted by a project proponent to the City Community Development Department and City Fire Department for review prior to the establishment of any operations-related activities. SECTION 3. Action. The City Council does hereby approve Application TR/ER 63-05 with incorporation of the following conditions and code requirements into the project: Conditions: Streets: 1. Prior to recordation of the vesting final map, or any phase thereof, the subdivider shall present a detailed schedule and delivery 'Plan", to be approved by the Public Works Director, for the improvement of Prado Road between its eastern terminus at the current City boundary and Broad Street. For the purposes of this condition, the Prado Road Extension (PRE) shall be referenced in two segments. The first segment shall be the new roadway from the present easterly terminus (City boundary) of Prado Road extending easterly to the intersection of proposed "M" Street on Tract 2353 (the "Sierra Gardens (DeBlauw) property as shown in the Margarita Area Specific Plan (MASP)). This first segment shall be referred to as the 'Prado Road Extension - Western Enclave" segment (PRE-WE). The second segment shall be from the Prado Road/"M" Street intersection on Tract 2353, easterly, to Broad Street. This second segment "shall be referred to as the 'Prado Road Extension - "M" Street to Broad" segment (PRE-MB). At a minimum, the Plan shall address the following milestones for right-of-way acquisition, design and construction: a. At the time of submittal of any plans for final map and/or improvement plan checking: The subdivider shall submit construction drawings and specifications for the full width improvement of the 'Prado Road Extension - Western Enclave" segment (PRE-WE), and shall submit schematic plans for the full width improvement of the 'Prado Road Extension - "M" Street to Broad" segment (PRE-MB). The final map and improvement plans will follow approximately 6 months after the date of the approval of the Tentative Map. During this time the City as well as area property owners will be involved in the review of updated drafts and the selection of the proper engineering company as well as overseeing the design. Following Tentative Map approval, the Western Enclave Property Owners (WEPO) and the City will establish a Stakeholder Group comprised of MASP property owners and public utility companies, etc. to augment/expedite the conceptual design of the PRE-MB component of the Roadway. b. The PRE-WE plans shall include 4 travel lanes, bike paths and lanes, sidewalks, utilities, storm drainage, landscaping, center median improvements and other necessary street appurtenances or as otherwise approved by the Director of Public Works. ;2,, zzy I Attachment 10 Resolution No. (2006 Series) Page 7 c. Off-site dedication of property for public right-of-way purposes is necessary to facilitate the construction of Prado Road. The subdivider shall exhaust all avenues available to acquire said public right-of-way dedication. In the event the subdivider is unable to acquire said property, the City Council will lend the subdivider its powers of condemnation to acquire the off-site right-of--way dedication, including any necessary slope and drainage easements. If condemnation is required, the subdivider shall agree to pay all costs associated with the off-site right-of=way acquisition (including attorney and court costs). The subdivider is responsible for construction of the necessary street improvements and striping, to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director.) d. Subject to the availability of necessary right-of-way, the subdivider shall complete construction of the PRE-WE segment prior to occupancy of the 50th unit within the subdivision. If right-of-way is not available at the time of approval of the final map, the subdivider may submit a plan for providing interim, secondary access to the WEPO properties that is subject to approval by the Public Works Director. This secondary access shall be completed prior to granting of occupancy permits and may be required to be removed at a later time when additional access is provided from adjacent properties. e. At the time of recording the final map, the subdivider shall bond for the completion of the engineering plans and specifications, environmental review, if necessary, and associated construction permits for the PRE-MB segment. The subdivider shall complete the construction drawings and specifications for the PRE-MB segment on or before the 100th unit is occupied in the Western Enclave (approx. 1 year after Tentative Map Approval). If, at the time of Final Map approval, a detailed engineered cost estimate for the PRE-MB section of roadway has not yet been completed, the City may require that the developer (property owners) sign a waiver not opposing the possible future formation of a community facilities district or other such financing mechanism, that would fund any final project costs for the construction of PRE-MB that are not contained in the Margarita Area Specific Plan Impact Fee estimates. f. Subject to the availability of necessary right-of-way, the subdivider shall, at a minimum: (1) initiate the construction of the northern half, or some modified section of the roadway subject to approval by the Director of Public Works, of the PRE-MB segment prior to occupancy of the 200th residential unit in the Western Enclave (approx. 3 years after Tentative Map Approval) , and (2) complete construction of the northern half of the PRE- MB segment prior to occupancy of the 300th residential unit in the Western Enclave (approx. 5 years after Tentative Map Approval). If right-of-way is not available at the time of requests for occupancy, the City will determine if public acquisition of said right- of-way is necessary or the subdivider will be required to submit an interim plan for providing secondary access the Western Enclave that shall be approved by the Public Works Director. g. As a part of the submittal of the plan for improvements to Prado Road, the subdivider � .zzs Resolution No. (2006 Series) Attachment 10 Page 8 shall submit a reimbursement proposal and schedule for the costs associated with the environmental, engineering and construction of Prado Road in its entirety, as established by the MASP. Subject to final approval of the City, the proposal may include fee credits and/or other appropriate mechanisms that may be applied against non-TIF city-wide and MASP impact fees as development occurs, to facilitate completion of the Prado Road extension. h. A second access off Prado to service VTTM 2353 (DeBlauw) can be incorporated on an interim basis at the time of construction of PRE-WE and will remain in place until PRE- MB is completed and an additional access point is provided at an adopted MASP location. 2. Margarita Area Specific Plan Impact Fees, as adopted by the City of San Luis Obispo, shall be.paid prior to issuance of each building permit subject,to condition 1.g. above. 3. The public improvement plans for VTTM 2353, VTTM 2428 and VTTM 2342 shall consider the proposed or required phasing to be completed by the combined development known as Margarita Area Specific Plan western enclave. The public improvement plans for .each subdivision shall include any offsite improvements as considered necessary by the Director of Public Works to provide a reasonable transition between the subdivisions in the case that one project is developed before another. The scope of required improvements shall be approved to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director. 4. The final subdivision design and improvements shall comply with the Margarita Area Specific Plan and all other City of San Luis Obispo Design Standards, Engineering Standards and Standard Plans and Specifications. 5. The final design, location, and number of traffic calming measures including bulb-outs, choke-downs, tabletops, roundabouts; neck-downs, etc. shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Director. Plans submitted for review shall include a truck turning diagram demonstrating a truck's ability to negotiate the traffic calming features. Additional or alternative traffic control measures may be required to comply with the Specific Plan objective to "foster traffic volumes and speeds that will be compatible with the neighborhood." 6. Pursuant to the Margarita Area Specific Plan, traffic volume and speeds shall be monitored after development. The subdivider shall retain a qualified traffic consultant to conduct traffic counts throughout the subdivision at locations approved by the Public Works Director. If traffic speeds or volumes exceed City standards during counts taken by the subdivider one year after final occupancy of complete build-out of the subdivision or acceptance of public improvements whichever occurs later, the subdivider shall be responsible for installing additional traffic calming measures to the approval of the Public Works Director to reduce volume and speeds to comply with City standards. As an alternative to the above, prior to final map recordation, the Western Enclave property owners may pay a one-time non- �-Zz� Attachment 10 Resolution No. (2006 Series) Page 9 refundable contribution to the City's Neighborhood Traffic Management Program in the amount of$130,000 to fund future traffic calming efforts in the City. T. The subdivision design shall include directional curb ramps wherever possible. The inclusion of bulb-outs at directional curb ramp locations is encouraged to decrease the roadway width to be crossed by a pedestrian. 8. Prior to approval of improvement plans, alternative paving materials proposed within the public right-of-way shall be approved by the Public Works Director. Alternative paving materials shall be maintained by the Homeowner's Association. 9. Common areas (except Lot Z-Wetlands Replacement), landscaped parkways and Class I pathways (other than Prado Road) shall be owned and maintained in perpetuity for public use by the Master Homeowner's Association. Water meters for common landscape areas including but not limited to parkways, medians, roundabouts and pathway corridors are subject to water impact fees and shall be paid for by the subdivider. On & Off-Site Improvements: 10. With respect to all off-site improvements, prior to filing of the Final Map, the Subdivider(s) shall either: a. Clearly demonstrate their right to construct the improvements by showing title or interest in the property in a form acceptable to the City Engineer; or b. Request in writing that the subdivider has exhausted all reasonable efforts to acquire interest to the subject property and that the City assist in acquiring the property required for the construction of such improvements and exercise its power of eminent domain in accordance with Government Code Section 66462.5 to do so, if necessary. Subdivider shall also enter into an agreement with the City to pay all costs of such acquisition, including, but not limited to, all costs associated with condemnation. Said agreement shall be in a form acceptable to the City Engineer and the City Attorney. If condemnation proceedings are required, the Subdivider-shall, no later that 90 days prior to recordation of the Final Map (final Parcel Map), submit, in a form acceptable to the City Engineer, the following documents regarding the property to be acquired: i. Property legal description and sketch stamped and signed by a Licensed Land Surveyor or Civil Engineer authorized to practice land surveying in' the State of California. ii. Preliminary title report including chain of title and litigation guarantee; iii. Appraisal of the property by a City approved appraiser. In the course of obtaining such appraisal, the property owner(s) must be given an opportunity to accompany the Attachment 10 Resolution No. (2006 Series) Page 10 appraiser during any inspection of the property or acknowledge in writing that they knowingly waived the right to do so. iv. Copies of all written correspondence with off-site property owners including purchase summary of formal offers and counter offers to purchase at the appraised price. v. Prior to submittal of the aforementioned documents for City Engineer approval, the Subdivider shall deposit with the City all or a portion of the anticipated costs, as determined by the City Attorney, of the condemnation proceedings: The City does not and cannot guarantee that the necessary property rights can be acquired or will, in fact, be acquired. All necessary procedures of law would apply and would have to be followed. 11. Should the final design for the stormwater detention basin require the installation of a stormwater pumping station in order to provide an outlet for the detention basin, the final pump station design shall be in accordance with Section 8 of the WWMP-DDM and the following" a. The pump station shall be a triplex design. b. The pump station shall be designed to discharge at the 100 year pre-developed rate with all three pumps running, the 10 year pre-developed rate with two pumps running and the 2 year pre-developed rate with only one pump in operation. At no time shall the pump discharge rate exceed that of the pre-development flow rates for each of the design storms. Or the pump station shall consist for a variable speed drive that matches the required discharge regime. c. The pump discharge shall be designed such that no erosion damage will occur. d. The pump shall discharge into a natural waterway or into an easement to which the . subdividers, their heirs and/or assigns have rights to. 12. The final subdivision design shall incorporate stormwater quality Best Management Practices (BMPs) with the January 2005 edition of the Engineering Standards, shall be designed to treat the stormwater runoff from all developed surfaces excluding rooftops but including all private and public streets, and shall be subject to the approval of the City Engineer. 13. The final design of any stormwater detention or treatment facilities shall incorporate all recommendations from the final geotechnical report into the design of said facilities. The final geotechnical report shall address the effect, if any, of detaining stormwater in close proximity to the existing soil contamination. 14. The final design of the proposed off-site stormwater detention facilities shall also take into Attachment 10 Resolution No. (2006 Series) Page 11 consideration the effects on 100 year floodplain (as identified as an undesignated "A Zone") on the FEMA FIRM Panel (as modified by the LOMR dated August 23, 2003) for San Luis Obispo County, from the unnamed tributary to the East Fork of San Luis Obispo Creek and shall establish the base flood elevation, process a CLOMR or CLOMR-F with FEMA prior to approval of any plans for ground disturbing activities; then process the final documents once Grading is complete. The design of any stormwater facilities shall be in compliance with the WWMP-DDM requirement for construction within a Special Floodplain Management Zone; i.e. no significant net loss of floodplain storage. 15. The subdivider shall secure the rights for the regional stormwater detention basin prior to or concurrently with the final subdivision maps. Should the subdividers be unsuccessful in acquiring off site property for the construction of the stormwater facilities, the subdivider shall either: a) revise the maps to reflect appropriately sized on-site detention of stormwater pursuant to the City's Waterway Management Plan Drainage Design Manual or, b) request in writing that the City assist in securing the property following procedures outlined above. All costs associated with securing said rights including the eminent domain process shall be borne by the subdividers. 16. Prior to the approval of the public improvement plans the subdivider(s) shall have received an approved grading permit from the County of San Luis Obispo a written waiver for the construction of any facilities outside the City's corporate limits. Should San Luis Obispo County defer to the City for the processing of the grading permits for property outside the City corporate boundary, the subdivider(s) shall process the grading permit with the City Public Works Department concurrently with the improvements plans and pay all fees associated said grading in accordance with the Public Works Department Fee schedule for plan checking and inspection in effect at the time of permit processing. 17. Improvement plans shall show how project streets and sidewalks are connected with existing improvements on Calle Malva Calle Jazmin and Prado Road to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director. Plans shall also show how driveway access is maintained on adjacent lots on Calle Malva and Calle Jazmin. 18. The parking lot designs shown on the tentative map are not approved as part of the subdivision. Final design of parking lots shall be reviewed and approved by the City's Architectural Review Commission. Final maps shall establish reciprocal access to/from adjacent parking lots and shall be designed to comply with City standards. 19. The public improvement plans shall show Prado Road street lights shall be located within the center landscaped median rather than along each side of the roadway. 20. The public improvement plans shall show the fire hydrant shown within Prado Road shall be relocated outside of the roadway. 21. The public improvement plans shall show the landscaped roundabout proposed on Prado -zz9 Attachment 10 Resolution No. (2006 Series) Page 12 Road shall be designed to comply with Caltrans Standards Design Information Bulletin 80 and FHWA roundabout guidelines and address pedestrian and bicycle crossing areas. 22. The public improvement plans shall show the final design and location of the bus pullouts and transit facilities on "C" Street coordinated with Tract 2353 (DeBlauw) and approved by the Public Works Director. Plans submitted for review shall include a bus turning diagram demonstrating a bus's ability to negotiate the turnout. The final design shall also include bus stop improvements and indicate how access to adjacent parcels is provided. 23. The public improvement plans shall show the private alleys are designed to accommodate both garbage truck and emergency vehicle access, including required turnaround, structural section and geometrics. The subdivider shall show the alleys within a public access easement on the Final Map. 24. Prior to final map approval, the proposed Class 1 pathway between "A" Street and Prado Road shall terminate at the Prado Road Class 1 pathway and not provide a direct connection to the Prado Road roadway. 25. A portion of the westerly half of the proposed subdivision is within the area shown on the San Luis Obispo County FEMA FIRM panel as being subject to inundation from flood waters due to the runoff from the 100 year storm. Since the area of inundation does not have a base flood elevation (BFE) established, the subdivider shall establish the 100 year BFE, and prior to the approval of plans for any ground disturbing activities. The subdivider shall process either a CLOMR or CLOMR-F through FEMA to allow for construction of both residential and non-residential structures. The analysis required for the CLOMR/CLOMR-F shall show that the proposed finish floors of the structures are at least one foot above the 100 year flood elevation and does not significantly reduced the amount of floodplain storage per the WWMP-DDM. Once construction is complete, but prior to final occupancy, the subdivider/developer shall finalize the CLOMR with a final Letter of Map Change (LOMC) through FEMA. 26. Vehicular access rights along Prado Road shall be dedicated to the City. 27. The subdivider shall install private street lighting along the private internal streets per City standards and off-site p1iblic street lighting along Prado Road leading to and from the development, as determined by the Director of Public Works. All public street lighting installed by the developer shall include the luminaires as well as all wiring and conduit necessary to energize the light standards from PG&E's point of service. Water,Sewer & Utilities: 28. The subdivider's engineer shall submit water demand and wastewater generation calculations so that the City can make a determination as to the adequacy of the supporting infrastructure. If it is discovered that an off-site deficiency exists, the owner will be required Resolution No. (2006 Series) Attachment 10 Page 13 to mitigate the deficiency as a part of the overall project. 29. Water meters shall be grouped in manifold pairs wherever possible, to the satisfaction of the Utilities Engineer. 30. The water mains, sewer mains, and sewer force mains when attached or included with a bridge, shall be sleeved and encased within the bridge structure or located above the lowest point so as to protect the pipelines from the high water flow. 31. Sewer backwater valves may be required on some lots. The subdivider's engineer shall apply the City's criteria to the design to determine which lots will need backwater valves on the sewer laterals,per City and UPC standards. 32. In areas where the pressure in the water system exceeds 80 psi, the service line shall include a pressure regulator downstream of the water meter, where the water service enters the building. 33. The sewer and water mains .shall be located approximately 2m on either side of the street centerline. All final grades and alignments of all public water, sewer and storm drains ('including service laterals and meters) are subject to modifications to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director and Utilities Engineer. 34. The subdivision layout and preliminary utility plans shall include provisions for irrigating common areas, parks, detention basins, and other large landscape areas with recycled water. Appropriately sized reclaimed water mains shall be designed and constructed from the City's trunk system to these irrigation areas. If other use areas exist beyond the proposed subdivision, the mains shall be appropriately sized to provide for future use areas and extended to the boundary of the tract. If reclaimed water is not available at the time the recycled water is needed, the system shall be designed and constructed to reclaimed water standards, and temporarily connected to the City's potable water system in the area of the anticipated connection to the reclaimed water system. 35. The well on Lot Q shall only be used for irrigation purposes on Lot Q or otherwise shall be properly abandoned in compliance with all applicable regulations. Grading & Drainage: 36. The final grading plan shall include provisions to comply with the soils engineer's recommendations, including mitigating cut slopes, debris flows uphill of the lots and truck access. The soils engineer shall supervise all grading operations and certify the stability of the slopes prior to acceptance of the tract and/or issuance of building permits. 37. Clearing of any portion of the existing creek and drainage channels, including any required tree removals, and any necessary erosion repairs shall be to done the satisfaction of the Public Attachment 10 Resolution No. (2006 Series) Page 14 Works Director, Corp. of Engineers and the Dept. of Fish &Game. Certain trees may require safety pruning by a certified Arborist as determined by the City Arborist. Homeowners' Association: 38. The subdivider shall submit CC&R's with the Final Map that establishes a "Margarita Area Master Homeowner's Association" (Master HOA). The Master HOA shall include the subdivider's tract, and provide for the automatic annexation of all subsequent potential tracts within the Margarita Specific Plan area. The subsequent tracts may, at their sole discretion, annex to the Master HOA, or demonstrate to the city's satisfaction how many they may form their own, independent HOA, to manage their common area improvements. The Master HOA, and any andall subsequent HOA's not a part of the Master HOA, shall provide for maintenance of all common area drainage channels, on-site and/or sub-regional drainage basins and conveyance improvements and the Margarita median landscaping and trail network. The Master HOA shall also annually maintain a 30' wide wildland fuel reduction zone along all open space lots abutting developments within the MASP. The CC&R's shall be approved by the City Attorney prior to recordation of the Final Map, or any phase thereof. 39. The Master Homeowners' Association (MHOA) shall own and maintain all that portion of the Lot Z designated as "Wetlands Mitigation". Maintenance responsibilities shall include maintenance of any cut or fill slopes required to make the swale and berm. The storm drainage system within the private streets shall be privately owned and maintained by the MHOA (to be included in CC& R's). Those open space areas that accommodate trails intended for public use shall be maintained for public access in perpetuity. 40. Subdivider shall prepare conditions, covenants, and restrictions (CC&R's) to be approved by the City Attorney and Community Development Director prior to final map approval. CC&R's shall contain the following provisions that pertain to all lots: a. Creation of a master homeowners' association if none exists or annexation into an existing MHOA, if one exists. b. No parking except in approved, designated spaces. c. No change in city-required provisions of the CC&R's without prior City Council approval. d. Provision for all of the maintenance responsibilities outlined in various conditions below. e. The subdivider shall submit common driveway agreements for those lots with shared access including maintenance provisions, to the approval of the Community Development Director at the time of final map approval. �� 2J � j Attachment 10 Resolution No. (2006 Series) Page 15 Paths/Open Space: 41. The multi-use paths should be 12 feet in width as called for in the Specific Plan, however the Natural Resource Manager and Public Works Director may approve a narrower path in locations that will only be used by pedestrians only or where environmental conditions warrant a narrower path based on in-the-field consideration. 42. Final design (including materials, location, width, bridging and lighting) of pathways shall be reviewed and approved by the Natural Resources Manager and Public Works Director. Air Quality: 43. All activities associated with construction and operation for the subdivision map shall comply at all times with all current APCD Rules and Regulations as applicable, including but not limited to PM-10, NOx emissions, Best Available Control Technologies, construction activity management plans, and phasing techniques. Housing Programs: 44. To provide one half of the required affordable units for Tentative Tract 2342, six units shall be constructed for low- and moderate-income households (4 moderate, 2 low income) in the R-1 and/or R-2 zones. These units shall be intermixed throughout Tract 2342 rather than a separate enclave of three units. These "affordable" units shall be comparable in appearance and quality to the market-rate units. This condition shall become null and void upon the land dedication and completion of associated access/infrastructure improvements for Lot 105 of Tentative Tract 2353. 45. The Inclusionary Housing requirement for the BPO property shall be met prior to building permit issuance. Planning Requirements: 46. Bulb outs at "T" intersections need to be added to the straight leg "crossing the T"' and elongated such that pedestrian crossings are at 90 degrees to the opposing bulb out transitions for the intersecting street leg. 47. Bulb-outs shall be provided at alley access points to street to provide line of sight where red curbing would otherwise be needed. 48. All lighting within the subdivision shall comply with the lighting standards contained in the San Luis Obispo Community Design Guidelines and as further stipulated in the Mitigation Measures listed below. 2, 33 Attachment 10 Resolution No. (2006 Series) Page 16 49. In order to be consistent with the requirements of the Margarita Area Specific Plan and County Airport Land Use Plan, the property owner shall grant an avigation easement for the benefit and protection of the City of San Luis Obispo, the County of San Luis Obispo and the San Luis Obispo County Airport via an avigation easement document prior to the recordation of the final map. 50. In the event archaeological resources are discovered in conjunction with a construction project, all activities shall cease and the Community Development Department shall be notified so that the procedures required by state law may be applied. 51. New development shall implement all feasible measures to minimize the use of conventional energy for space heating and cooling,water heating and illumination by means of proper design and orientation, including the provision and protection of solar exposure. 52. As set forth in the Margarita Area Specific Plan, there shall be a minimum setback of 157 feet for new residential uses from the centerline of Prado Road. 53. 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. 54. For interior streets (not Prado Road), a 15-foot public street yard shall be allowed for homes and a 20-foot street yard for garages with doors facing the public street. Code Requirements: 1. Traffic impact and water and wastewater impact fees are required to be paid as a condition of issuance of building permits. 2. The property is tributary to the Laguna Sewer Lift Station. Appropriate Lift Station Fees shall be paid prior to the final map approval. 3. Appropriate backflow prevention will be necessary on any connection to the City water system if the property includes an active well. 4. EPA Requirement: General Construction Activity Storm Water Permits are required for all storm water discharges associated with a construction activity where clearing, grading and excavation results in land disturbance of five or more acres. Storm water discharges of less than five acres, but which is part of a larger common plan of development or sale, also require a permit. Permits are required until the construction is complete. To be covered by a General Construction Activity Permit, the owner(s) of land where construction activity occurs Attachment 10 Resolution No. (2006 Series) Page 17 must submit a completed "Notice of Intent" (NOI) form, with the appropriate fee, to the State Water Board. 5. The subdivision design shall comply with the City's grading ordinance. 6. Street trees shall be planted along the private street per City Standards (the number of trees is determined by one tree per 35 linear feet of street frontage). 7. All boundary monuments, lot corners and centerline intersections, BC's, EC's, etc., shall be tied to the City's Horizontal Control Network. At least two control points.shall be used and a. tabulation of the coordinates shall be submitted with the final map or parcel map. All coordinates submitted shall be based on the City coordinate system. A 3.5" diameter computer floppy disk, containing the appropriate data compatible with AutoCAD (Digital Interchange Format, DXF) for Geographic Information System (GIS) purposes, shall be submitted to the City Engineer. 8. The final map, public improvement plans and specifications shall use the International System of Units (metric system). The English System of Units may be used on the final map where necessary (e.g. - all record data shall be entered on the map in the record units, metric translations should be in parenthesis), to the approval of the City Engineer. 9. Access shall be in accordance with Article 9 of the California Fire Code (CFC). Access roads shall have an unobstructed width of not less than 20 feet and an unobstructed vertical clearance of 13' 6". Access roads shall be designed and maintained to support the imposed loads of a 60,000 pound fire apparatus and shall be provided with a surface so as to provide all-weather driving capabilities. All cul-de-sacs shall be minimum 40 foot radius. 10. Approved address numbers shall be placed on all new buildings in such a position to be plainly visible and legible from the street fronting the property. Numbers shall be a minimum of 5" high x t/2" stroke and be on a contrasting background. [UFC 901.4.4] 11. Water Supplies and fire hydrants shall be provided in accordance with applicable articles of the CFC. An approved water supply capable of providing the required fire flow for fire protection is required. The fire flow shall be determined using applicable Appendices of the CFC. 12. Fire protection systems shall be installed in accordance with the CFC and the California Building Code. An approved NFPA system will be required for this project. 13. Rooms or areas in commercial buildings containing controls for air-handling systems, automatic fire-protection systems, or other diction, suppression or control elements shall be identified for use by the fire department and shall be located in the same area.. A sign shall be provided on the door to the room or area stating "Fire Sprinkler Riser" and "Fire Alarm Control Panel" Attachment 10 Resolution No. (2006 Series) Page 18 14. A Knox Box shall be provided on the outside of the Fire Sprinkler Riser Room with a key to the room for commercial buildings. 15. Portable fire extinguishers, rated 2A, 10 BC, shall be mounted within 75' of travel and at each exit within commercial buildings. 16. Fire hydrants shall be spaced per SLO-FD Guidelines (placement with Fire Department approval) and shall be capable of supplying the required fire-flows. On motion of seconded by , and on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 7th day of March , 2006. Mayor David F. Romero ATTEST: Audrey Hooper, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Jona an Lowell, City Attorney L:MASP\Resolutions\TR-ER 63-05 Cowan Draft Council RESOLUTION 2-24-06 meb Draft Resolution `B" Attachment 10 RESOLUTION NO. (2006 Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO APPROVING A VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3000 CALLE MALVA (TRIER 65-05; TRACT NO. 2428) 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 January 25, 2006, and recommended approval of Application TRIER 65-05, a request to subdivide an approximately 99-care site into 91 lots; 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 March 7, 2006 for the purpose of considering Application TRIER 65-05; and WHEREAS, notices of said public hearings were made at the time and in the manner required by law; and WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed and considered the Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impact for the project; and WHEREAS, the City Council has duly considered all evidence, including the recommendation of the Planning commission, testimony of interested parties, and the evaluation and recommendations of staff, presented at said hearing. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. Findings. Based upon all the evidence, the Council makes the following findings: 1. The design of the vesting tentative tract map is consistent with the General Plan because the proposed subdivision respects existing site constraints (slope, creeks, wetlands, significant trees), will incrementally add to the City's residential housing inventory, result in parcels that meet density standards, and will be consistent with the density and lot sizes established by the Margarita Area Specific Plan. 2. The site is physically suited for the proposed type of development allowed in the R-1-SP, R- 2-SP, and R-3-SP zones. 3. The design of the subdivision will not conflict with easements for access through (or use of property within) the proposed subdivision. Resolution No. (2006 Series) Attachment 10 Page 2 4. The subdivision will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment, subject to the mitigation measures of the Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) certified by the City Council on October 12, 2004 being incorporated into the project, the mitigation monitoring program adopted with said EIR approval being followed and mitigation measures recommended herein. 5. A Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared by the Community Development Department on January 9, 2006. The Planning Commission finds .and determines that the project's Mitigated Negative Declaration adequately addresses the potential significant environmental impacts of the proposed project, as modified, determining there is no substantial evidence of new or further significant impacts not already identified. 6. The offer of donation of a conservation easement and ultimately, fee title, to the 71-acre open space lot is consistent with the General Plan of the City of San Luis Obispo. SECTION 2. Environmental Review. The City Council finds and determines that the project's Mitigated Negative Declaration adequately addresses the potential significant environmental impacts of the proposed project, and reflects the independent judgment of the City Council. The Council hereby adopts said Mitigated Negative Declaration and incorporates the following mitigation measures and.monitoring programs into the project: Mitigation Measures: Reduction of Light and Glare 1. In order for MASP/AASP EIR Mitigation Measure LU-7.1 as implemented by the MASP to be carried through to lot-specific development stage, a lighting plan that demonstrates compliance with Community Design Section 3.3 Lighting requirements of the MASP shall be submitted with other required plans for both the residential and commercial components of the project to the review and approval of the Architectural Review Commission (ARC). The lighting plan shall propose specific measures to limit the amount of light trespass associated with development within the project area including shielding and/or directional lighting methods to ensure that spillover light does not exceed 0.5 foot-candles at adjacent property lines. Monitoring Program: The ARC will review development plans for both the residential and commercial components of the project. City staff, including Planning and other departments, will review plans to assure that all of the ARC's requirements related to lighting and compliant with the MASP provisions have been incorporated into working drawings. City building inspectors will be responsible for assuring that all lighting is installed pursuant to the approved lighting plan. �-z3� Resolution No. (2006 Series) Attachment 10 Page 3 Preparation and Implementation of"Comprehensive Biological Mitigation Program" 2. Mitigation for wetland impacts. Mitigation for wetland impacts will be through a combination of on- and off-site mitigation, approved by the City, the DFG and the Corps. Further, in compliance with the MASP/AASP EIR, VTM #2342 (Cowan) proposes the creation of Lot Z in an area designated by the MASP for "Open Space- Riparian" for the express purposes of achieving some of the necessary wetlands replacement mitigation area, as well as preservation of related biological habitat benefits. 3. Mitigation for Impacts to Creek Habitats. Mitigation for impacts creek habitats will be through a combination of on- and off-site mitigation, approved by the City, the DFG and the Army Corps of Engineers. 4. Mitigation for Impacts to Serpentine Bunchgrass Habitat. A mitigation program involving restoration of serpentine bunchgrass habitat at an identified area in the so- called "saddle" in the King property's open space parcel, should be required. This area occupies between one-half and three-quarters of an acre. The program would at a minimum, replace the existing non-native grassland in that area with a grassland containing a majority of native bunchgrass species including purple needlegrass, meadow barley, and California brome. In addition, a program for additional protection for the open space lands of the project will be developed. The goal of this program will be to provide protection for remaining areas of serpentine bunchgrass habitat and species within that habitat in the South Hills Open Space, through mechanisms such as fencing, trail realignments, and drainage improvements on the access road to the communication site on neighboring property. Finally, the project sponsors propose to donate fee title to the open space lot 91 to the City of San Luis Obispo as permanent open space as part of the project. 5. Mitigation for Impacts to Sensitive Species. None of these species are expected to be difficult to establish. City staff will work with the project sponsors in developing the details of the effort. Palmer Spineflower. None required. Brewer Spineflower. None required. Obispo Indian Paintbrush. Collect seed or seed/soil mix for relocation to open space lot enhancement site. Miles Milkvetch. Collect seed or seed/soil mix for relocation to open space lot enhancement site. 2- 239 Attachment 10 Resolution No. (2006 Series) Page 4 Obispo Dudleya. Due to the very small number of impacted individuals and the ease of transplanting, transplant these individuals to .suitable sites within the project open space. Obispo Mariposa.Lily. None required. Adobe Sanicle. Relocate some individuals to a suitable site within the project open space; consider transplanting the balance to a suitable site in Laguna Lake Park or other suitable off-site location approved by the City, or consider lot adjustments to protect the major portion near lots 82, and adjacent multifamily lot. Congdon Tarplant. Create compensating habitat in a suitable off-site location approved by the City. Loggerhead Shrike. Remove myoporum tree before nesting season. 6. Mitigation for Impacts to Other Nesting Birds. Undertake surveys prior to initiation of construction activities; avoid construction activities within 100 feet of active nest sites, or 300 feet from raptor nests, until after young have fledged. 7. Off Site Mitigation for Wetland Impacts. A further component of the biological mitigation program is the applicant's proposal to acquire (by fee, easement, or eminent domain) lands outside the bounds of the Western Enclave (designated by the MASP as "Open Space-Riparian" lands). The targeted property (lying south of Prado Road and owned by Unocal) is a low lying area that already naturally collects some.area run-off and provides valuable habitat for certain special concern and R-T-E (rare, threatened, and endangered) species, and thus is beneficial to retain in its natural state. Pre- development run-off has resulted in seasonal flooding of Prado Road due to the currently deficient collection/distribution system to this natural drainage area south of Prado Road. The Western Enclave applicants propose to acquire this offsite property designated for open space use by the MASP and utilize it beneficially for biological mitigation as well as a detention basin for pre- and post-Western Enclave development generated run-off. It is proposed that this basin be enhanced to accommodate the greater project-generated and pre-project run-off flows, and to increase its habitat value in the long term. The basin is proposed to be held and maintained by a Master Home Owners Association (MHOA) established initially for the Western Enclave area, and perhaps ultimately for the entire MASP as stipulated be done by the MASP. a. Monitoring Program: Prior to approval of the final map, the applicant shall contact the City Natural Resource Manager for review and approval of the final lot and street design to assure that on-site natural resources are protected and preserved to the greatest extent required by the mitigation measures and consistent with requirements of the MASP and MASPlAASP EIR. Said design shall also be consistent with approvals required subsequent to this Tentative Map from State Dept. of Fish and Game and Army Corps of Engineers. Prior to any site preparation or construction activities; the applicant shall also initiate and complete for approval by the City pre-construction surveys for nesting birds and adhere to performance standard specified in the 2 -z Yo A ta&iment 10 Resolution No. (2006 Series) . Page 5 mitigation. Provisions for required off-site mitigation shall be coordinated with and approved by the City Natural Resource Manager prior to recordation of the Final Map. Periodic field inspections by City Staff during construction will be necessary to assure site development conforms to mitigation measures and conditions of approval. Preparation and Implementation of"Traffic Reduction Program" 8. In order for MASP/AASP EIR Mitigation Measure T-2.1 adopted with the certification of the MASP/RASP EIR in conjunction with the approval of the AASP in August, 2005 (Ref. City Council Resolution No. 9726, 2005 Series) to be brought forward to this site specific project stage, a transportation demand management program that demonstrates reduction of peak period travel by single-occupant vehiclesshall be required of any employer within the subdivision with 25 or more employees. Said program shall incorporate all reasonably feasible measures or techniques, including those listed in the MASP/AASP EIR/General Plan Circulation, that encourage alternate modes other than single-occupant vehicles as the primary mode of transportation to the workplace and to travel during non-peak times. Monitoring Program: Each business owner, upon employment of 25 or more employees, shall immediately prepare and submit, obtain approval from the City Public Works Director and implement the provisions of a Traffic Reduction Plan which demonstrates reduction of peak period travel consistent with requirements of the City General Plan Circulation Element Policies and Programs. City Staff shall periodically inspect the business to observe and assure that reduction techniques approved by the City are in place and adhered to by the business. Staff shall take any corrective or enforcement actions authorized by law to achieve compliance. Preparation and Implementation of a "Construction-Related Hazardous Materials Management Plan" 9. As stipulated in the MASP/AASP EIR, this would be a plan identifying, when they are known, site/development-specific construction activities that will involve the hazardous materials. The plan shall be prepared before construction activities begin that involve hazardous materials and shall discuss proper handling and disposal of materials used or produced onsite, such as petroleum products, concrete, and sanitary waste. The plan will also outline a specific protocol to identify health risks associated with the presence of chemical compounds in the soil and/or groundwater and identify specific protective measures to be followed by the workers entering the work area. if the presence of hazardous materials is suspected or encountered during construction-related activities,. the project proponent will cause Mitigation Measure HAZ-1.2 to be activated. Mitigation Measure HAZ-1.2 states: �-zyr Attachment 10 Resolution No. (2006 Series) Page 6 "The project proponent will complete a Phase I environmental site assessment for each proposed public facility (e.g. streets and buried infrastructure). If Phase 1 site assessments indicate a potential for soil and/or groundwater contamination within or adjacent to the road or utility alignments, a Phase II site assessment will be completed. The following Phase 11 environmental site assessments will be prepared specific to soil and/or groundwater contamination. a. Soil Contamination. For soil contamination, the Phase II site assessment will include soil sampling and analysis for anticipated contaminating substances. If soil contamination is exposed during construction, the San Luis Obispo Fire Department (SLOFD) will be notified and a work plan to characterize and possibly remove contaminated soil will be prepared, submitted and approved. b. Groundwater Contamination. For groundwater contamination, the Phase H assessment may include monitoring well installation, groundwater sampling, and analysis for anticipated contaminating substances. If groundwater contaminated by potentially hazardous materials is expected to be extracted during dewatering, the SLOFD and the Central Coast RWQCB will be notified. A contingency plan to dispose of contaminated groundwater will be developed in agreement with the SLOFD and Central Coast RWQCB. Monitoring Program: The "Construction-Related Hazardous Materials Management Plan" will be required to be submitted to the City Community Development Department and Fire Department for review prior to commencement of any site preparation or construction work involving hazardous materials. No site preparation or construction work may commence before said plan has been approved by the City. Any site work commenced without City approval of said Plan will be subject to "Stop Work" (cease and desist) orders as may be issued under the authority of the City Fire Department. Preparation and Implementation of an "Operations-Related Hazardous Materials Management Plan' 10. As stipulated in the MASP/AASP EIR, this would be a plan prepared by a project proponent identifying hazardous materials management practices as might be required by state and local laws and regulations regarding delivery, use, manufacture, and storage of any such regulated materials might be present on site for any operations- related activities. This plan would identify the proper handling and disposal of materials uses or produced onsite, such as petroleum products, concrete, and sanitary waste. By the filing of said Plan, the City Fire Department will be on notice to provide regular and routine fire and life-safety inspections to determine compliance with applicable health and safety codes. �-�yz Attachment 10 Resolution No. (2006 Series) Page 7 ➢ Monitoring Program: The "Operations-Related Hazardous Materials Management Plan" will be required to be submitted by a project proponent to the City Community Development Department and City Fire Department for review prior to the establishment of any operations-related activities. SECTION 3. Action. The City Council does hereby approve Application TR/ER 65-05 with incorporation of the following conditions and code requirements into the project: Conditions: Streets: 1. Prior to recordation of the vesting final map, or any phase thereof, the subdivider shall present a detailed schedule and delivery `'Plan", to be approved by the Public Works Director, for the improvement of Prado Road between its eastern terminus at the current City boundary and Broad Street. For the purposes of this condition, the Prado Road Extension (PRE) shall be referenced in two segments. The first segment shall be the new roadway from the present easterly terminus (City boundary) of Prado Road extending easterly to the intersection of proposed "M" Street on Tract 2353 (the "Sierra Gardens (DeBlauw) property as shown in the Margarita Area Specific Plan (MASP)). This first segment shall be referred to as the "Prado Road Extension - Western Enclave" segment (PRE-WE). The second segment shall be from the Prado Road/"M" Street intersection on Tract 2353, easterly, to Broad Street. This second segment shall be referred to as the "Prado Road Extension - "M" Street to Broad" segment (PRE-MB). At a minimum, the Plan shall address the following milestones for Right-of-Way acquisition, design and construction: a. At the time of submittal of any plans for final map and/or improvement plan checking: The subdivider shall submit construction drawings and specifications for the full width improvement of the "Prado Road Extension - Western Enclave" segment (PRE-WE), and shall submit schematic plans for the full width improvement of the "Prado Road Extension - "M" Street to Broad" segment (PRE-MB). The final map and improvement plans will follow approximately 6 months after the date of the approval of the Tentative Map. During this time the City as well as area property owners will be involved in the review of updated drafts and the selection of the proper engineering company as well as overseeing the design. Following Tentative Map approval, the Western Enclave Property Owners (WEPO) and the City will establish a Stakeholder Group comprised of MASP property owners and public utility companies, etc. to augment/expedite the conceptual design of the PRE-MB component of the Roadway. b. The PRE-WE plans shall include 4 travel lanes, bike paths and lanes, sidewalks, utilities, storm drainage, landscaping, center median improvements and other necessary z-�y3 Attachment 10 Resolution No. (2006 Series) Page 8 street appurtenances or as otherwise approved by the Director of Public Works. c. Off-site dedication of property for public right-of-way purposes is necessary to facilitate the construction of Prado Road. The subdivider shall exhaust all avenues available to acquire said public right-of-way dedication. In the event the subdivider is unable to acquire said property, the City Council will lend the subdivider its powers of condemnation to acquire the off-site right-of-way dedication, including any necessary slope and drainage easements. If condemnation is required, the subdivider shall agree to pay all costs associated with the off-site right-of-way acquisition (including attorney and court costs). The subdivider is responsible for construction of the necessary street improvements and striping, to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director. d. Subject to the availability of necessary right-of-way, the subdivider shall complete construction of the PRE-WE segment prior to occupancy of the 50th unit within the subdivision.,If right-of-way is not available at the time of approval of the final map, the subdivider may submit a plan for providing interim, secondary access to the WEPO properties that is subject to approval by the Public Works Director. This secondary access shall be completed prior to granting of occupancy permits and may be required to be removed at a later time when additional access is provided from adjacent properties. e. At the time of recording the final map, the subdivider shall bond for the completion of the engineering plans and specifications, environmental review, if necessary, and associated construction permits for the PRE-MB segment. The subdivider shall complete the construction drawings and specifications for the PRE-MB segment on or before the 100th unit is occupied in the Western Enclave (approx. 1 year after Tentative Map Approval). If, at the time of Final Map approval, a detailed engineered cost estimate for the PRE-MB section of roadway has not yet been completed, the City may require that the developer (property owners) sign a waiver not opposing the possible future formation of a community facilities district or other such financing mechanism, that would fund any final project costs for the construction of PRE-MB that are not contained in the Margarita Area Specific Plan Impact Fee estimates. f. Subject to the availability of necessary right-of-way, the subdivider shall, at a minimum: (1) initiate the construction of the northern half, or some modified section of the roadway subject to approval by the Director of Public Works, of the PRE-MB segment prior to occupancy of the 200th residential unit in the Western Enclave (approx. 3 years after Tentative Map Approval) , and (2) complete construction of the northern half of the PRE-MB segment prior to occupancy of the 300th residential unit in the Western Enclave (approx. 5 years after Tentative Map Approval). If right-of-way is not available at the time of requests for occupancy, the City will determine if public acquisition of said right-of-way is necessary or the subdivider will be required to submit an interim plan for providing secondary access the Western Enclave that shall Z,�yy Resolution No. (2006 Series) Attachment 10 Page 9 be approved by the Public Works Director. g. As a part of the submittal of the plan for improvements to Prado Road, the subdivider shall submit a reimbursement proposal and schedule for the costs associated with the environmental, engineering and construction of Prado Road in its entirety, as established by the MASP. Subject to final approval of the City, the proposal may include fee credits and/or other appropriate mechanisms that may be applied against non-TIF city-wide and MASP impact fees as development occurs, to facilitate completion of the Prado Road extension. h. A second access off Prado to service VTTM 2353 (DeBlauw) can be incorporated on an interim basis at the time of construction of PRE-WE and will remain in place until PRE-MB is completed and an additional access point is provided at an adopted MASP location. 2. Margarita Area Specific Plan Impact Fees, as adopted by the City of San Luis Obispo, shall be paid prior to issuance of each building permit, subject to condition l.g. above. 3. The public improvement plans for VTTM 2353, VTTM 2428 and VTTM 2342 shall consider the proposed or required phasing to be completed by the combined development known as Margarita Area Specific Plan western enclave. The public improvement plans for each subdivision shall include any offsite improvements as considered necessary by the Director of Public Works to provide a reasonable transition between the subdivisions in the case that one project is developed before another. The scope of required improvements shall be approved to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director. 4. The final subdivision design and improvements shall comply with the Margarita Area Specific Plan and all other City of San Luis Obispo Design Standards, Engineering Standards and Standard Plans and Specifications. 5. The final design, location, and number of traffic calming measures including bulb-outs, choke-downs, tabletops, roundabouts, neck-downs, etc. shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Director. Plans submitted for review shall include a truck turning diagram demonstrating a truck's ability to negotiate the traffic calming features. Additional or alternative traffic control measures may be required to comply with the Specific Plan objective to "foster traffic volumes and speeds that will be compatible with the neighborhood." 6. Pursuant to the Margarita Area Specific Plan, traffic volume and speeds shall be monitored after development. The subdivider shall retain a qualified traffic consultant to conduct traffic counts throughout the subdivision at locations approved by the Public Works Director. If traffic speeds or volumes exceed City standards during counts taken by the subdivider one year after final occupancy of complete build-out of the subdivision or acceptance of public improvements whichever occurs later, the subdivider shall be responsible for installing -ZyS i , :tachmcnt 10 Resolution No. (2006 Series) Page 10 additional traffic calming measures to the approval of the Public Works Director to reduce volume and speeds to comply with City standards. As an alternative to the above, prior to final map recordation, the Western Enclave property owners may pay a one-time non- refundable contribution to the City's Neighborhood Traffic Management Program in the amount of$130,000 to fund future traffic calming efforts in the City. 7. The subdivision design shall include directional curb ramps wherever possible. The inclusion of bulb-outs at directional curb ramp locations is encouraged to decrease the roadway width to be crossed by a pedestrian. 8. Prior to approval of improvement plans, alternative paving materials proposed within the public right-of-way shall be approved by the Public Works Director. Alternative paving materials shall be maintained by the Homeowner's Association. 9. Common areas (except the 71-acre lot donated to the City), landscaped parkways and Class I pathways (other than Prado Road) shall be owned and maintained in perpetuity for public use by the Master Homeowner's Association. Water meters for common landscape areas including but not limited to parkways, medians, roundabouts and pathway corridors are subject to water impact fees and shall be paid for by the subdivider. 10. "E" Street shall be extended to provide a public street connection to "G" Street. Intersection sight distance shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department prior to final map recordation. 11. The final map shall not be approved by the City until a complete application for a tentative subdivision map of Lots 81, 82, 83, and 84 has been submitted to the City. 12. The final map shall show a multi-use path connecting "I" Street to "G" Street along or adjacent to Lot 89. The final location shall be reviewed and approved by the Natural Resources Manager. On & Off-Site Improvements: 13. With respect to all off-site improvements, prior to filing of the Final Map, the Subdivider(s) shall either: a. Clearly demonstrate their right to construct the improvements by showing title or interest in the property in a form acceptable to the City Engineer; or b. Request in writing that the subdivider has exhausted all reasonable efforts to acquire interest to the subject property and that the City assist in acquiring the property required for the construction of such improvements and exercise its power of eminent domain in accordance with Government Code Section 66462.5 to do so, if necessary. Subdivider shall also enter into an agreement with the City to pay all costs of such acquisition, i Attachment 10 Resolution No. (2006 Series) Page 11 including, but not limited to, all costs associated with condemnation. Said agreement shall be in a form acceptable to the City Engineer and the City Attorney. If condemnation proceedings are required, the Subdivider shall, no later that 90 days prior to recordation of the Final Map (final Parcel Map), submit, in a form acceptable to the City Engineer, the following documents regarding the property to be acquired: i. Property legal description and sketch stamped and signed by a Licensed Land Surveyor or Civil Engineer authorized to practice land surveying in the State of California. ii. Preliminary title report including chain of title and litigation guarantee; iii. Appraisal of the property by a City approved appraiser. In the course of obtaining such appraisal, the property owner(s) must be given an opportunity to accompany the appraiser during any inspection of the property or acknowledge in writing that they knowingly waived the right to do so. iv. Copies of all written correspondence with off-site property owners including purchase summary of formal offers and counter offers to purchase at the appraised price. V. Prior to submittal of the aforementioned documents for City Engineer approval, the Subdivider shall deposit with the City all or a portion of the anticipated costs, as determined by the City Attorney, of the condemnation proceedings. The City does not and cannot guarantee that the necessary property rights can be acquired or will, in fact, be acquired. All necessary procedures of law would apply and would have to be followed. 14. Should the final design for the stormwater detention basin require the installation of a stormwater pumping station in order to provide an outlet for the detention basin, the final pump station design shall be in accordance with Section 8 of the WWMP-DDM and the following" a. The pump station shall be a triplex design. b. The pump station shall be designed to discharge at the 100 year pre-developed rate with all three pumps running, the 10 year pre-developed rate with two pumps running and the 2 year pre-developed rate with only one pump in operation. At no time shall the pump discharge rate exceed that of the pre-development flow rates for each of the design storms. Or the pump station shall consist for a variable speed drive that matches the required discharge regime. c. The pump discharge shall be designed such that no erosion damage will occur. �-2Y� AInachment i Resolution No. (2006 Series) Page 12 d. The pump shall discharge into a natural waterway or into an easement to which the subdividers, their heirs and/or assigns have rights to. 15. The final subdivision design shall incorporate stormwater quality BMPs with the January 2005 edition of the Engineering Standards, shall be designed to treat the stormwater runoff from all developed surfaces excluding rooftops but including all private and public streets, and shall be subject to the approval of the City Engineer. 16. The final design of any stormwater detention or treatment facilities shall incorporate all recommendations from the final geotechnical report into the design of said facilities. The final geotechnical report shall address the effect, if any, of detaining stormwater in close proximity to the existing soil contamination. 17. The final design of the proposed off-site stormwater detention facilities shall also take into consideration the effects on 100 year floodplain (as identified as an undesignated "A Zone") on the FEMA FIRM Panel (as modified by the LOMR dated August 23, 2003) for San Luis Obispo County, from the unnamed tributary to the East Fork of San Luis Obispo Creek and shall establish the base flood elevation, process a CLOMR or CLOMR-F with FEMA prior to approval of any plans for ground disturbing activities; then process the final documents once Grading is complete. The design of any stormwater facilities shall be in compliance with the WWMP-DDM requirement for construction within a Special Floodplain Management Zone; i.e. no significant net loss of floodplain storage. 18. The subdivider shall secure the rights for the regional stormwater detention basin prior to or concurrently with the final subdivision maps. Should the subdividers be unsuccessful in acquiring off-site property for the construction of the stormwater facilities, the subdivider shall either: a) revise the maps to reflect appropriately sized on-site detention of stormwater pursuant to the City's Waterway Management Plan Drainage Design Manual or, b) request in writing that the City assist in securing the property following procedures as outlined above. All costs associated with securing said rights including the eminent domain process shall be borne by the subdividers. 19. Prior to the approval of the public improvement plans the subdivider(s) shall have received an approved grading permit from the County of San Luis Obispo a written waiver for the construction of any facilities outside the City's corporate limits. Should San Luis Obispo County defer to the City for the processing of the grading permits for property outside the City corporate boundary, the subdivider(s) shall process the grading permit with the City Public Works Department concurrently with the improvements plans and pay all fees associated said grading in accordance with the Public Works Department Fee schedule for plan checking and inspection in effect at the time of permit processing. 20. To the degree feasible, shared driveways shall be utilized to reduce the number of driveway curb cuts in the subdivision and increase the provision of on-street parking. Resolution No. (2006 Series) Attachment 10 Page 13 21. Where a Class 1 bicycle path provides access across a public street, raised decorative paving, choke-downs, curb ramps and signage shall be provided and the street crossing shall be designed to direct pedestrians across the roadway in a perpendicular manner. 22. Prior to final map approval, details of the proposed roadway choke-downs shall be provided. Choke-downs adjacent to open space corridors shall be lengthened to include the entire length of the open space corridor. 23. The curb to curb width of ,r' Street shall be reduced to eliminate on-street parking on one side of the street if during the development of improvement plans it is determined that impacts to the creek adjacent to "r' Street will be reduced. Alternately the alignment of"r' Street shall be adjusted westerly to avoid conflict with the creek setback area. 24. The subdivider shall analyze, and if allowed, include a landscaped roundabout in lieu of bulb-outs at the intersection of "E" and "D" Streets subject to Public Works Director approval. 25. The subdivider.shall install private street lighting along the private internal streets per City standards and off-siteup blic street lighting along Prado Road leading to and from the development, as determined by the Director of Public Works. All public street lighting installed by the developer shall include the luminaires as well as all wiring and conduit necessary to energize the light standards from PG& E's point of service. 26. For lots abutting the existing developed Margarita.and Chumash Village projects, the slopes and drainage structures proposed in those rear lots shall be maintained by the property owners, with an additional slope and maintenance easement to the HOA so that the 140A can maintain these slopes if the property owners fail to do so in a satisfactory manner. A deed restriction shall be placed on all lots with this situation so that a 6 foot high privacy fence shall be installed and maintained at the top of the slope. Details on the level of maintenance shall be provided in the draft CC&R's and reviewed and approved by the Community Development Director. Water,Sewer& Utilities: 27. The subdivider's engineer shall submit water demand and wastewater generation calculations so that the City can make a determination as to the adequacy of the supporting infrastructure. If it is discovered that an off-site deficiency exists, the owner will be required to mitigate the deficiency as a part of the overall project. 28. Water meters shall be grouped in manifold pairs wherever possible, to the satisfaction of the Utilities Engineer. 29. The water mains, sewer mains, and sewer force mains when attached or included with a bridge, shall be sleeved and encased within the bridge structure or located above the lowest 2-2y9 IBJ � Resolution No. (2006 Series) Attachment 10 Page 14 point so as to protect the pipelines from the high water flow. 30. Sewer backwater valves may be required on some lots. The subdivider's engineer shall apply the City's criteria to the design to determine which lots will need backwater valves on the sewer laterals, per City and UPC standards. 31. In areas where the pressure in the water system exceeds 80 psi, the service line shall include a pressure regulator downstream of the water meter, where the water service enters the building. 32. The sewer and water mains shall be located approximately 2m on either side of the street centerline: All final grades and alignments of all public water, sewer and storm drains (including service laterals and meters) are subject to modifications to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director and Utilities Engineer.. 33. The subdivision layout and preliminary utility plans shall include provisions for irrigating common areas, parks, detention basins, and other large landscape areas with recycled water. Appropriately sized reclaimed water mains shall be designed and constructed from the City's trunk system to these irrigation areas. If other use areas exist beyond the proposed subdivision, the mains shall be appropriately sized to provide for future use areas and extended to the boundary of the tract. If reclaimed water is not available at the time the recycled water is needed, the system shall be designed and constructed to reclaimed water standards, and temporarily connected to the City's potable water system in the area of the anticipated connection to the reclaimed water system. Grading & Drainage: 34. The final grading plan shall include provisions to comply with the soils engineer's recommendations, including mitigating cut slopes, debris flows uphill of the lots and truck access. The soils engineer shall supervise all grading operations and certify the stability of the slopes prior to acceptance of the tract and/or issuance of building permits. 35. _ Clearing of any portion of the existing creek and drainage channels, including any required tree removals, and any necessary erosion repairs shall be to done the satisfaction of the Public Works Director, Corp. of Engineers and the Dept. of Fish & Game. Certain trees may require safety pruning by a certified Arborist as determined by the City Arborist. 36. The developer of VTM #2428 shall begin grading operations related to site preparation and infrastructure construction near the westerly edge of the property in order to reduce short tem impacts of"herding" rodents and other small animals toward the adjacent mobile home park. f I Resolution No. (2006 Series) Attachment 10 Page 15 Homeowners' Association: 37. The subdivider shall submit CC&R's with the Final Map that established a "Margarita Area Master Homeowner's Association" (Master HOA). The Master HOA shall include the subdivider's tract, and provide for the automatic annexation of all subsequent potential tracts within the Margarita Specific Plan area. The subsequent tracts may, at their sole discretion, annex to the Master HOA, or demonstrate to the city's satisfaction how many they may form their own, independent HOA, to manage their common area improvements. The Master HOA, and any and all subsequent HOA's not a part of the Master HOA, shall provide for maintenance of all common area drainage channels, on-site and/or sub-regional drainage basins and conveyance improvements and the Margarita median landscaping and trail network. The Master HOA shall also annually maintain a 30' wide wildland fuel reduction zone along all open space lots abutting developments within the MASP. The CC&R's shall be approved by the City Attorney prior to recordation of the Final Map, or any phase thereof. 38. The Master Homeowners' Association (MHOA) shall own and maintain all that portion of the lots designated as "Open Space" or "Wetlands Mitigation" (except for the 71-acre lot of the King map, which is proposed for donation to the City). Those open space areas that accommodate trails intended for public use shall be maintained. for public access in perpetuity. Maintenance responsibilities shall also include maintenance of any cut.or fill slopes required to make the swale and berm. The storm drainage system within private streets shall be privately owned and maintained by the MHOA (to be included in CC& R's). 39. Subdivider shall prepare conditions, covenants, and restrictions (CC&R's) to be approved by the City Attorney and Community Development Director prior to final map approval. CC&R's shall contain the following provisions that pertain to all lots: a. Creation of a master homeowners' association if none exists or annexation into an existing MHOA, if one exists. b. No parking except in approved, designated spaces. c. No change in city-required provisions of the CC&R's without prior City Council approval. d. Provision for all of the maintenance responsibilities outlined in various conditions herein. e. The subdivider shall submit common driveway agreements for those lots with shared access including maintenance provisions, to the approval of the Community Development Director at the time of final map approval. Resolution No. (2006 Series) Attachment 10 Page 16 Paths/Open Space: 40. The multi-use paths should be 12 feet in width as called for in the Specific Plan, however the Natural Resource Manager and Public Works Director may approve a narrower path in locations that will only be used by pedestrians only or where environmental conditions warrant a narrower path based on in-the-field consideration. 41. Final design (including materials, location, width, bridging and lighting) of pathways shall be reviewed and approved by the Natural Resources Manager and Public Works Director. 42. Class I path crossings at "G" St. should be perpendicular to the street. A cross section should be developed to show transition of path up to the roadway crossing. A raised table- top design with decorative pavement, choke-downs (see No. 19 above), and signage shall be provided and crossing shall be designed to direct pedestrians to cross the roadway in a direct perpendicular manner. 43. Pathway extending from Open Space lot to "G" St. should be shown to cross "G" St, to "D" St. as indicated by MASP. Air Quality: 44. All activities associated with construction and operation for the subdivision map shall comply at all times with all current APCD Rules and Regulations as applicable, including but not limited to PM-10, NOx emissions, Best Available Control Technologies, construction activity management plans, and phasing techniques. Housing Programs: 45. Lot 85, the "condominium" lot on the modified plan shall be dedicated to the Housing Authority prior to, or in conjunction with, recording the first phase of Tentative Tract 2428. Improvement plans for Phase 1 of Tentative Tract 2428 shall include complete access and infrastructure (roads, water, sewer, and utilities) to serve the Housing Authority site. Additional affordable housing requirements will be required if the average residential unit size of the entire Tentative Tract 2428 exceeds 2,000 square feet as per Table 2A of the City Housing Element. Planning Requirements: 46: Prior to submittal of the final map and pursuant to the Margarita Area Specific Plan requirements for minimum density, the owners shall submit a development proposal for Lots 81, 82, 83, and 84 that provides for a minimum of 70 dwelling units. These units may be in the form of lots or residential condominiums if shown on a new vesting tentative map or as multi-family apartments if no further subdivision of the four lots is proposed. If more than one subdivision map is received, the date a subdivision map is deemed complete shall Attachment 10 Resolution No. (2006 Series) Page 17 be used to determine the minimum number of dwelling units consistent with that application and to determine the minimum number of dwelling units that must be provided on the remaining lots. Owners of the four lots created by this subdivision are strongly encouraged to coordinate development proposals for these four lots. 47. Bulb outs at "T" intersections need to be added to the straight leg "crossing the `T"' and elongated such that pedestrian crossings are at 90 degrees to the opposing bulb out transitions for the intersecting street leg. 48. Bulb-outs shall be provided at alley access points to street to provide line of sight where red curbing would otherwise be needed. 49. All lighting within the subdivision shall comply with the lighting standards contained in the San Luis Obispo Community Design Guidelines and as further stipulated in the Mitigation Measures listed above. 50. In order to be consistent with the requirements of the Margarita Area Specific Plan and County Airport Land Use Plan, the property owner shall grant an avigation easement for the benefit and protection of the City of San Luis Obispo, the County of San Luis Obispo and the San Luis Obispo County Airport via an avigation easement document prior to the recordation of the final map. 51. In the event archaeological resources are discovered in conjunction with a construction project, all activities shall cease and the Community Development Department shall be notified so that the procedures required by state law may be applied. 52. New development shall implement all feasible measures to minimize the use of conventional energy for space heating and cooling, water heating and illumination by means of proper design and orientation, including the provision and protection of solar exposure. 53. 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. 54. Proposed hillside Lots 19-55, which back up to the large open space parcel, are hereby designated sensitive sites and must comply with the Community Design Guidelines for hillside development. Individual lot development shall be subject to the review and approval of the Architectural Review Commission (ARC). Planning staff may make the determination upon submittal of complete plans if the minor or incidental architectural review process is appropriate. 55. Proposed Lots 19-55 are located within a wildland/urban interface area and shall comply with Attachment 10 Resolution No. (2006 Series) Page 18 all applicable local and state fire code requirements, subject to the approval of the Fire Marshal. A final fire management plan outlining fuel mitigation and maintenance proposals shall be submitted along with subdivision improvement plans to the approval of the Natural Resources Manager and the Fire Department. 56. Development of lots adjacent to Chumash Village Mobile Home Park or El Camino Estates where pad elevations differ by four or more feet shall be limited to single-story development and increased rear yard setbacks of a minimum of 10 feet, or equivalent design techniques that maximize privacy protection for the adjacent lot as approved by the Architectural Review Commission. Code Requirements: 1. Traffic impact fees and water and wastewater impact fees shall be paid as a condition of issuance of building permits. 2. The property is tributary to the.Laguna Sewer Lift Station. Appropriate Lift Station Fees shall be paid prior to the final map approval. 3. Appropriate backflow prevention will be necessary on any connection to the City water system if the property includes an active well. 4. EPA Requirement: General Construction Activity Storm Water Permits are required for all storm water discharges associated with a construction activity where clearing, grading and excavation results in land disturbance of five or more acres. Storm water discharges of less than five acres, but which is part of a larger common plan of development or sale, also require a permit. Permits are required until the construction is complete. To be covered by a General Construction Activity Permit, the owner(s) of land where construction activity occurs must submit a completed "Notice of Intent" (NOI) form, with the appropriate fee, to the State Water Board. 5. The subdivision design shall comply with the City's grading ordinance. 6. Street trees shall be planted along the private street per City Standards (the number of trees is determined by one tree per 35 linear feet of street frontage). 7. All boundary monuments, lot corners and centerline intersections, BC's, EC's, etc., shall be tied to the City's Horizontal Control Network. At least two control points shall be used and a tabulation of the coordinates shall be submitted with the final map or parcel map. All coordinates submitted shall be based on the City coordinate system. A 3.5" diameter computer floppy disk, containing the appropriate data compatible with AutoCAD (Digital Interchange Format, DXF) for Geographic Information System (GIS) purposes, shall be submitted to the City Engineer. � . �5f t Attachment 10 Resolution No. (2006 Series) Page 19 8. The final map, public improvement plans and specifications shall use the International System of Units (metric system). The English System of Units may be used on the final map where necessary (e.g. - all record-data shall be entered on the map in the record units, metric translations should be in parenthesis), to the approval of the City Engineer. 9. Access shall be in accordance with Article 9 of the California Fire Code (CFC). Access roads shall have an unobstructed width of not less than 20 feet and an unobstructed vertical clearance of 13' 6". Access roads shall be designed and maintained to support the imposed loads of a 60,000 pound fire apparatus and shall be provided with a.surface so as to provide all-weather driving capabilities. All cul-de-sacs shall be minimum 40 foot radius. 10. Approved address numbers shall be placed on all new buildings in such a position to be plainly visible and legible from the street fronting the property. Numbers shall be a minimum of 5" high x '/r" stroke and be on a contrasting background. [UFC 901.4.4] 11. Water Supplies and fire hydrants shall be provided in accordance with applicable articles of the CFC. An approved water supply capable of providing the required fire flow for fire protection is required. The fire flow shall be determined using applicable Appendices of the CFC. 12. Fire protection systems shall be installed in accordance with the CFC and the California Building Code. An approved NFPA system will be required for this project. 13. Fire hydrants shall be spaced per SLO-FD Guidelines (placement with Fire Department approval) and shall be capable of supplying the required fire-flows. SECTION 4. Acceptance of Offer of Donation. The City Council does hereby accept the offer of donation by the project sponsor of a conservation easement, and ultimately, fee title, to the 71-acre open space lot (Lot 91). On motion of seconded by and on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 7th day of March , 2006. Mayor David F. Romero ATTEST: I � Resolution No. (2006 Series) :Attachment 19, Page 20 Audrey Hooper, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Jonas Lowell, City Attorney L:MASP\resolutions\TR-ER 65-05 King Draft Council Res.2-24-06 meb Draft Resolution "C" Attachment 10 RESOLUTION NO. (2006 Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO APPROVING A VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT AMP AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 408 PRADO ROAD (TR/ER 66-05; TRACT NO. 2353) 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 January 25, 2006, and recommended approval of Application TR/ER 66-05, a request to subdivide an approximately 30-acre site into 133 lots; 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 March 7, 2006, for the purpose of considering Application TR/ER 63-05; and WHEREAS, notices of said public hearings were made at the time and in the manner required by law; and WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed and considered the Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impact for the project; and WHEREAS, the City Council has duly considered all evidence, including the recommendation of the Planning commission, testimony of interested parties, and the evaluation and recommendations of staff, presented at said hearing. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. Findings. Based upon all the evidence, the City Council makes the following findings: 1. The design of the vesting tentative tract map is consistent with the General Plan because the proposed subdivision respects existing site constraints (slope, creeks, wetlands, significant trees), will incrementally add to the City's residential housing inventory, result in parcels that meet density standards, and will be consistent with the density and lot sizes established by the Margarita Area Specific Plan. 2. The site is physically suited for the proposed type of development allowed in the R-I-SP, R- 2-SP, R-3-SP, and O-SP zones. 3. The design of the subdivision will not conflict with easements for access through (or use of property within) the proposed subdivision. .2, 4, Attachment 10 Resolution No. (2006 Series) Page 2 4. The subdivision will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment, subject to the mitigation measures of the Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) certified by the City Council on October 12, 2004 being incorporated into the project, the mitigation monitoring program adopted with said EIR approval being followed and mitigation measures recommended herein. 5. A Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared by the Community Development Department on January 9, 2006. The Planning Commission finds and determines that the project's Mitigated Negative Declaration adequately addresses the potential significant environmental impacts of the proposed project. SECTION 2. Environmental Review. The City Council finds and determines that the project's Mitigated Negative Declaration adequately addresses the potential significant environmental impacts of the proposed project, and reflects the independent judgment of the City Council. The Council hereby adopts said Mitigated Negative Declaration and incorporates the following mitigation measures and monitoring programs into the project: Mitigation Measures: Reduction of Eight and Glare 1. In order for MASP/AASP EIR Mitigation Measure LU-7.1 as implemented by the MASP to be carried through to lot-specific development stage, a lighting plan that demonstrates compliance with Community Design Section 3:3 Lighting requirements of the MASP shall be submitted with other required plans for both the residential and commercial components of the project to the review and approval of the Architectural Review Commission (ARC). The lighting plan shall propose specific measures to limit the amount of light trespass associated with development. within the project area including shielding and/or directional lighting methods to ensure that spillover light does not exceed 0.5 foot-candles at adjacent property lines. ➢ Monitoring Program: The ARC will review development plans for both the residential and commercial components of the project. City staff, including Planning and other departments, will review plans to assure that all of the ARC's requirements related to lighting and compliant with the MASP provisions have been incorporated into working drawings. City building inspectors will be responsible for assuring that all lighting is installed pursuant to the approved lighting plan. Preparation and Implementation of"Comprehensive Biological Mitigation Program" 2. Mitigation for wetland impacts. Mitigation for wetland impacts will be through a combination of on- and. off-site mitigation, approved by the City, the DFG and the i Attachment 10 Resolution No. (2006 Series) Page 3 Corps. Further, in compliance with the MASP/AASP EIR, the subject VTM #2342 (Cowan) proposes the creation of Lot Z in an area designated by the MASP for "Open Space-Riparian" for the express purposes of achieving some of the necessary wetlands replacement mitigation area, as well as preservation of related biological habitat benefits. 3. Mitigation for Impacts to Sensitive Species. None of these species are expected to be difficult to establish. City staff will work with the project sponsors in developing the details of the effort. Congdon Tarplant. Create compensating habitat in a suitable off-site location approved by the City. 4. Mitigation for Impacts to Other Nesting Birds. Undertake surveys prior to initiation of construction activities; avoid construction activities within 100 feet of active nest sites, or within 300 feet for raptor nests, until after young have fledged. 5. .Off Site Mitigation for Wetland Impacts. A further component of the biological mitigation program is the applicant's proposal to acquire (by fee, easement, or eminent domain) lands outside the bounds of the Western Enclave (designated by the MASP as "Open Space-Riparian" lands). The targeted property (lying south of Prado Road and owned by Unocal) is a low lying area that already naturally collects some area run-off and provides valuable habitat for certain special concern and R-T-E (rare, threatened, and endangered) species, and thus is beneficial to retain in its natural state. Pre- development run-off has resulted in seasonal flooding of Prado Road due to the currently deficient collection/distribution system to this natural drainage area south of Prado Road. The Western Enclave applicants propose to acquire this off-site property designated for open space use by the MASP and utilize it beneficially for biological mitigation as well as a detention basin for pre- and post-Western Enclave development generated run-off. It is proposed that this basin be enhanced to accommodate the greater project-generated and pre-project run-off flows, and to increase its habitat value in the long term. The basin is proposed to be held and maintained by a Master Home Owners Association (MHOA) established initially for the Western Enclave area, and perhaps ultimately for the entire MASP as stipulated be done by the MASP. a. Monitoring Program: Prior to approval of the final map, the applicant shall contact the City Natural Resource Manager for review and approval of the final lot and street design to assure that on-site natural resources are protected and preserved to the greatest extent required by the mitigation measures and consistent with requirements of the MASP and MASP/AASP EIR. Said design shall also be consistent with approvals required subsequent to this Tentative Map from State Dept. of Fish and Game and Army Corps of Engineers. Prior to any site preparation or construction activities, the applicant shall also initiate and complete for approval by the City pre-construction Attachment 10 Resolution No. (2006 Series) Page 4 surveys for nesting birds and adhere to performance standard specified in the mitigation. Provisions for required off-site mitigation shall be coordinated with and approved by the City Natural Resource Manager prior to recordation of the Final Map. Periodic field inspections by City Staff during construction will be necessary to assure site development conforms to mitigation measures and conditions of approval. Preparation and Implementation of"Traffic Reduction Program" 6. In order for MASP/AASP EIR Mitigation Measure T-2.1 adopted with the certification of the MASP/AASP EIR in conjunction with the approval of the AASP in August, 2005 (Ref. City Council Resolution No. 9726, 2005 Series) to be brought forward to this site specific project stage, a transportation demand management program that demonstrates reduction of peak period travel by single-occupant vehicles shall be required of any employer within the subdivision with 25 or more employees. Said program shall incorporate all reasonably feasible measures or techniques, including those listed in the MASP/AASP EIR/General Plan Circulation, that encourage alternate modes other than single-occupant vehicles as the primary mode of transportation to the workplace and to travel during non-peak times. i Monitoring Program: Each business owner, upon employment of 25 or more employees, shall immediately prepare and submit, obtain approval from the City Public Works Director and implement the provisions of a Traffic Reduction Plan which demonstrates reduction of peak period travel consistent with requirements of the City General Plan Circulation Element Policies and Programs.. City Staff shall periodically inspect the business to observe and assure that reduction techniques approved by the City are in place and adhered to by the business. Staff shall take any corrective or enforcement actions authorized by law to achieve compliance. Preparation of Phase H Archaeological Subsurface Survey 7. In order to achieve complete mitigation for the archaeological resource found on the subject site, this survey is required if the site cannot be avoided. The Phase H survey is to determine if significance criteria of CEQA and/or NRNP are met. The survey must be completed and results submitted to City for determination whether mitigation measures below, as specified in EIR, are needed. a) A data recovery program consisting of archaeological excavation to retrieve the important data from the archaeological site; b) Development and ,implementation of public interpretation plans for both prehistoric and historic sites; c) Preservation, rehabilitation, restoration, or reconstruction of historic structures according to the Secretary of Interior Standards for Treatment of Historic Properties; 2 '�� Attachment 10 Resolution No. (2.006 Series) Page 5 d) Construction of new structures in a manner consistent with the historic character of the region; and e) Treatment of historic landscapes according to the Secretary of Interior Standards for Treatment of Historic Landscapes. If the project involves a federal agency, and is therefore subject to a MOA, the inventory, evaluation, and treatment processes will be coordinated with that federal agency to ensure that the work conducted will also comply with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. Monitoring Program: If the survey results reveal that the archaeological resource does meet the significance criteria set forth in CEQA or NRNP, then no further mitigation is required. However if the significance criteria is met, then the lead agency in coordination with the agency with jurisdiction over the resources shall jointly determine which of the above stated mitigation are appropriate for the resource status. The applicant shall provide evidence to the City that the mitigation has been achieved prior to recordation of the final subdivision map. Preparation and Implementation of a "Construction-Related Hazardous Materials Management Plan" 8. As stipulated in the MASP/AASP EIR, this would be a plan identifying, when they are known, site/development-specific construction activities that will involve the hazardous materials. The plan shall be prepared before construction activities begin that involve hazardous materials and shall discuss proper handling and disposal of materials used or produced onsite, such as petroleum products, concrete, and sanitary waste. The plan will also outline a specific protocol to identify health risks associated with the presence of chemical compounds in the soil and/or groundwater and identify specific protective measures to be followed by the workers entering the work area. If the presence of hazardous materials is suspected or encountered during construction-related activities, the project proponent will cause Mitigation Measure HAZ-1.2 to be activated. Mitigation Measure HAZ-1.2 states: "The project proponent will complete a Phase I environmental site assessment for each proposed public facility (e.g. streets and buried infrastructure). If Phase 1 site assessments indicate a potential for soil and/or groundwater contamination within or adjacent to the road or utility alignments, a Phase 11 site assessment will be completed. The following Phase 11 environmental site assessments will be prepared specific to soil and/or groundwater contamination. a. Soil Contamination. For soil contamination, the Phase 11 site assessment will include soil sampling and analysis for anticipated contaminating substances. If soil contamination is exposed during construction, the San Luis Obispo Fire f 7 Attachment 10 Resolution No. (2006 Series) Page 6 Department (SLOFD) will be notified and a work plan to characterize and possibly remove contaminated soil will be prepared, submitted and approved. b. Groundwater Contamination. For groundwater contamination, the Phase II assessment may include monitoring well installation, groundwater sampling, and analysis for anticipated contaminating substances. If groundwater contaminated by potentially hazardous materials is expected to be extracted during dewatering, the SLOFD and the Central Coast RWQCB will be notified. A contingency plan to dispose of contaminated groundwater will be developed in agreement with the SLOFD and Central Coast RWQCB. Monitoring Program: The "Construction-Related Hazardous Materials Management Plan" will be required to be submitted to the City Community Development Department and Fire Department for review prior to commencement of any site preparation or construction work involving hazardous materials. No site preparation or construction work may commence before said plan has been approved by the City. Any site work commenced without City approval of said Plan will be subject to "Stop Work" (cease and desist) orders as may be issued under the authority of the City Fire Department. Preparation and Implementation of an "Operations-Related Hazardous Materials Management Plan" 9. As stipulated in the MASP/AASP EIR, this would be a plan prepared by a project proponent identifying hazardous materials management practices as might be required by state and local laws and regulations regarding delivery, use, manufacture, and storage of any such regulated materials might be present on site for any operations- related activities. This plan would identify the proper handling and disposal of materials uses or produced onsite, such as petroleum products, concrete, and sanitary waste. By the filing of said Plan, the City Fire Department will be on notice to provide regular and routine fire and life-safety inspections to determine compliance with applicable health and safety codes. i Monitoring Program: The "Operations-Related Hazardous Materials Management Plan" will be required to be submitted by a project proponent to the City Community Development Department and City Fire Department for review prior to the establishment of any operations-related activities. SECTION 3. Action. The City Council does hereby approve Application TR/ER 63-05 with incorporation of the following conditions and code requirements into the project: Resolution No. (2006 Series) AILlachmGPt 10 Page 7 Conditions: Streets: 1. Prior to recordation of the vesting final map, or any phase thereof, the subdivider shall present a detailed schedule and delivery "Plan", to be approved by the Public Works Director, for the improvement of Prado Road between its eastern terminus at the current City boundary and Broad Street. For the purposes of this condition, the Prado Road Extension (PRE) shall be referenced in two segments. The first segment shall be the new roadway from the present easterly terminus (City boundary) of Prado Road extending easterly to the intersection of proposed "M" .Street on Tract 2353 (the "Sierra Gardens (DeBlauw) property as shown in the Margarita Area Specific Plan (MASP)). This first segment shall be referred to as the "Prado Road Extension - Western Enclave" segment (PRE-WE). The second segment shall be from the Prado Road/"M" Street intersection on Tract 2353, easterly, to Broad Street. This second segment shall be referred to as the 'Prado Road Extension - "M" Street to Broad" segment (PRE-MB). At a minimum, the Plan shall address the following milestones for Right-of-Way acquisition, design and construction: a. At the time of submittal of any plans for final map and/or improvement plan checking: The subdivider shall submit construction drawings and specifications for the full width improvement of the 'Prado Road Extension - Western Enclave" segment (PRE-WE), and shall submit schematic plans for the full,width improvement of the 'Prado Road Extension - "M" Street to Broad" segment (PRE-MB). The final map and improvement plans will follow approximately 6 months after the date of the approval of the Tentative Map. During this time the City as well as area property owners will be involved in the review of updated drafts and the selection of the proper engineering company as well as overseeing the design. Following Tentative Map approval, the Western Enclave Property Owners (WEPO) and the City will establish a Stakeholder Group comprised of MASP property owners and public utility companies, etc. to augment/expedite the conceptual design of the PRE-MB component of the Roadway. b. The PRE-WE plans shall include 4 travel lanes, bike paths and lanes, sidewalks, utilities, storm drainage, landscaping, center median improvements and other necessary street appurtenances or as otherwise approved by the Director of Public Works. c. Off-site dedication of property for public right-of-way purposes is necessary to facilitate the construction of Prado Road. The subdivider shall exhaust all avenues available to acquire said public right-of-way dedication. In the event the subdivider is unable to acquire said property, the City Council will lend the subdivider its powers of condemnation to acquire the off-site right-of-way dedication, including any necessary slope and drainage easements. If condemnation is required, the subdivider shall agree to pay all costs associated with the off-site right-of-way acquisition (including attorney 2-2G�3 Attachment 10 Resolution No. (2006 Series) Page 8 and court costs). The subdivider is responsible for construction of the necessary street improvements and striping, to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director.) d. Subject to the availability of necessary right-of-way, the subdivider shall complete construction of the PRE-WE segment prior to occupancy of the 50th unit within the subdivision. If right-of-way is not available at the time of approval of the final map, the subdivider may submit a plan for providing interim, secondary access to the WEPO properties that is subject to approval by the Public Works Director. This secondary access shall be completed prior to granting of occupancy permits and may be required to be removed at a later time when additional access is provided from adjacent properties. . e. At the time of recording the final map, the subdivider shall bond for the completion of the engineering plans and specifications, environmental review, if necessary, and associated construction permits for the PRE-MB segment. The subdivider shall complete the construction drawings and specifications for the PRE-MB segment on or before the 100th unit is occupied in the Western Enclave (approx. 1 year after Tentative Map Approval). If, at the time of Final Map approval, a detailed engineered cost estimate for the PRE-MB section of roadway has not yet been completed, the City may require that the developer (property owners) sign a waiver not opposing the possible future formation of a community facilities district or other such financing mechanism, that would fund any final project costs for the construction of PRE-MB that are not contained in the Margarita Area Specific Plan Impact Fee estimates. f. Subject to the availability of necessary right-of-way, the subdivider shall, at a minimum: (1) initiate the construction of the northern half, or some modified section of the roadway subject to approval by the Director of Public Works, of the PRE-MB segment prior to occupancy of the 200th residential unit in the Western Enclave (approx. 3 years after Tentative Map Approval) , and (2) complete construction of the northern half of the PRE-MB segment prior to occupancy of the 300th residential unit in the Western Enclave (approx. 5 years after Tentative Map Approval). If right-of-way is not available at the time of requests for occupancy, the City will determine if public acquisition of said right-of-way is necessary or the subdivider will be required to submit an interim plan for providing secondary access the Western Enclave that shall be approved by the Public Works Director. g. As a part of the submittal of the plan for improvements to Prado Road, the subdivider shall submit a reimbursement proposal and schedule for the costs associated with the environmental, engineering and construction of Prado Road in its entirety, as established by the MASP. Subject to final approval of the City, the proposal may include fee credits and/or other appropriate mechanisms that may be applied against non-TIF city-wide and MASP impact fees as development occurs, to facilitate completion of the Prado Road extension. i Attachment 10 Resolution No. (2006 Series) Page 9 h. A second access off Prado to service VTTM 2353 (DeBlauw)can be incorporated on an interim basis at the time of construction of PRE-WE and will remain in place until PRE-MB is completed and an additional access point is provided at an adopted MASP location. 2. Margarita Area Specific Plan Impact Fees, as adopted by the City of San Luis Obispo, shall be paid prior to issuance of each building permit, subject to condition l.g. above. 3. The public improvement plans for VTTM 2353, VTTM 2428 and VTTM 2342 shall consider the proposed or required phasing to be completed by the combined development known as Margarita Area Specific Plan western enclave. The public improvement plans for each subdivision shall include any offsite improvements as considered necessary by the Director of Public Works to provide a reasonable transition between the subdivisions in the case that one project is developed before another. The scope of required improvements shall be approved to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director. 4. The final subdivision design and improvements shall comply with the Margarita Area Specific Plan and all other City of San Luis Obispo Design Standards, Engineering Standards and Standard Plans and Specifications. 5. The final design, location, and number of traffic calming measures including bulb-outs, choke-downs, tabletops, roundabouts, neck-downs, etc. shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Director. Plans submitted for review shall include a truck turning diagram demonstrating a truck's ability to negotiate the traffic calming features. Additional or alternative traffic control measures may be required to comply with the Specific Plan objective to "foster traffic volumes and speeds that will be compatible with the neighborhood." 6. Pursuant to the Margarita Area Specific Plan, traffic volume and speeds shall be monitored after development. The subdivider shall retain a qualified traffic consultant to conduct traffic counts throughout the subdivision at locations approved by the Public Works Director. If traffic speeds or volumes exceed City standards during counts taken by the subdivider one year after final occupancy of complete build-out of the.subdivision or acceptance of public improvements whichever occurs later, the subdivider shall be responsible for installing additional traffic calming measures to the approval of the Public Works Director to reduce volume and speeds to comply with City standards. As an alternative to the above, prior to final map recordation, the Western Enclave property owners may pay a one-time non- refundable contribution to the City's Neighborhood Traffic Management Program in the amount of$130,000 to fund future traffic calming efforts in the City. 7. The subdivision design shall include directional curb ramps wherever possible. The inclusion of bulb-outs at directional curb ramp locations is encouraged to decrease the roadway width to be crossed by a pedestrian. Attachment 10 Resolution No. (2006 Series) Page 10 8. The subdivision design shall include curb extensions at locations where on-street parking needs to be restricted for sight visibility reasons. 9. Prior to approval of improvement plans, alternative paving materials proposed within the public right-of-way shall be approved by the Public Works Director. Alternative paving materials shall be maintained by the Homeowner's Association. 10. Common areas, landscaped parkways and Class I pathways (other than Prado Road) shall be owned and maintained in perpetuity for public use by the Master Homeowner's Association. Water meters for common landscape areas including but not limited to parkways, medians, roundabouts and pathway corridors are subject to water impact fees and shall be paid for by the subdivider. On & Off-Site Improvements: 11. With respect to all off-site improvements, prior to filing of the Final Map, the Subdivider(s) shall either: a. Clearly demonstrate their right to construct the improvements by showing title or interest in the property in a form acceptable to the City Engineer; or b. Request in writing that the subdivider has exhausted all reasonable efforts to acquire interest to the subject property and that the City assist in acquiring the property required for the construction of such improvements and exercise its power of eminent domain in accordance with Government Code Section 66462.5 to do so, if necessary. Subdivider shall also enter into an agreement with the City to pay all costs of such acquisition, including, but not limited to, all costs associated with condemnation. Said agreement shall be in a form acceptable to the City Engineer and the City Attorney. If condemnation proceedings are required, the Subdivider shall, no later that 90 day's prior to recordation of the Final Map (final Parcel Map), submit, in a form acceptable to the City Engineer, the following documents regarding the property to be acquired: i. Property legal description and sketch, stamped and signed by a Licensed Land Surveyor or Civil Engineer authorized to practice land surveying in the State of California. ii. Preliminary title report including chain of title and litigation guarantee; iii. Appraisal of the property by a City approved appraiser. In the course of obtaining such appraisal, the property owner(s) must be given an opportunity to accompany the appraiser during any inspection of the property or acknowledge in writing that they knowingly waived the right to do so. iv. Copies of all written correspondence with off-site property owners including v 1 Attachment 10 Resolution No. (2006 Series) Page 11 purchase summary of formal offers and counter offers to purchase at the appraised price. V. Prior to submittal of the aforementioned documents for City Engineer approval, the Subdivider shall deposit with the City all or a portion of the anticipated costs, as determined by the City Attorney, of the condemnation proceedings. The City does not and cannot guarantee that the necessary property rights can be acquired or will, in fact, be acquired. All necessary procedures of law would apply and would have to be followed. 12. Should the final design for the stormwater detention basin require the installation of a stormwater pumping station in order to provide an outlet for the detention basin, the final pump station design shall be in accordance with Section 8 of the WWMP-DDM and the following" a. The pump station shall be a triplex design. b. The pump station shall be designed to discharge at the 100 year pre-developed rate with all three pumps running, the 10 year pre-developed rate with two pumps running and the 2 year pre-developed rate with only one pump in operation. At no time shall the pump discharge rate exceed that of the pre-development flow rates for each of the design storms. Or the pump station shall consist for a variable speed drive that matches the required discharge regime. c. The pump discharge shall be designed such that no erosion damage will occur. d. The pump shall discharge into a natural waterway or into an easement to which the subdividers, their heirs and/or assigns have rights to. 13. The final subdivision design shall incorporate stormwater quality BMPs with the January 2005 edition of the Engineering Standards, shall be designed to treat the stormwater runoff from all developed surfaces excluding rooftops but including all private and public streets, and shall be subject to the approval of the City Engineer. 14. The final design of any stormwater detention or treatment facilities shall incorporate all recommendations from the final geotechnical report into the design of said facilities. The final geotechnical report shall address the effect, if any, of detaining stormwater in close proximity to the existing soil contamination. 15. The final design of the proposed off-site stormwater detention facilities shall also take into consideration the effects on 100 year floodplain (as identified as an undesignated "A Zone") on the FEMA FIRM Panel (as modified by the LOMR dated August 23, 2003) for San Luis Obispo County, from the unnamed tributary to the East Fork of San Luis Obispo Creek and shall establish the base flood elevation, process a CLOMR or CLOMR-F with Attachment 10 Resolution No. (2006 Series) Page 12 FEMA prior to approval of any plans for ground disturbing activities; then process the final documents once Grading is complete. The design of any stormwater facilities shall be in compliance with the WWMP-DDM requirement for construction within a Special Floodplain Management Zone; i.e. no significant net loss of floodplain storage. 16. The subdivider shall secure the rights for the regional stormwater detention basin prior to or concurrently with the final subdivision maps. Should the subdividers be unsuccessful in acquiring off site property for the construction of the stormwater facilities, the subdivider shall either: a) revise the maps to reflect appropriately sized on-site detention of stormwater pursuant to the City's Waterway Management Plan Drainage Design Manual or, b) request in writing that the City assist in securing the property following procedures as outlined above. All costs associated with securing said rights including the eminent domain process shall be borne by the subdividers. 17. Prior to the approval of the public improvement plans the subdivider(s) shall have received an approved grading permit from the County of San Luis Obispo a written waiver for the construction of any facilities outside the City's corporate limits. Should San Luis Obispo County defer to the City for the processing of the grading permits for property outside the City corporate boundary, the subdivider(s) shall process the grading permit with the City Public Works Department concurrently with the improvements plans and pay all fees associated said grading in accordance with the Public Works Department Fee schedule for plan checking and inspection in effect at the time of permit processing. 18. To the degree feasible, shared driveways shall be utilized to reduce the number of driveway curb cuts in the subdivision and increase the provision of on-street parking. 19. The final map and its associated dedications should reflect the correct legal description; that is to say the offer of dedication for future Prado Road should be to the actual south property line as described in the legal description contained in an up-to-date title report. 20. Where a Class 1 bicycle path provides access across a public street, raised decorative paving, choke-downs, curb ramps and signage shall be provided and the street crossing shall be designed to direct pedestrians across the roadway in a perpendicular manner. 21. Prior to final map approval, details of the proposed roadway choke-downs shall be provided. Choke-downs adjacent to open space corridors shall be lengthened to include the entire length of the open space corridor. 22. Prior to final map approval, the landscaped roundabout proposed at the terminus of Margarita Avenue shall be designed to comply with Caltrans Standards Design Information Bulletin 80 and FHWA roundabout guidelines and address pedestrian and bicycle crossing areas. The proposed roundabout shall be landscaped and maintained by the homeowner's association. Attachment 10 Resolution No. (2006 Series) Page 13 23. Due to the potential for circulation conflicts given the lot's proximity to the proposed roundabout, the subdivider shall dedicate vehicular access rights to the City of San Luis Obispo for proposed Lot 24 onto "D" Street and said access restriction shall be shown on the Final Map. 24. Prior to final map approval, the subdivider shall demonstrate how Lots 47 and 48 will be developed with a shared driveway easement and a design that allows vehicles exiting the lots to exit in a forward motion to address the potential for circulation conflicts given the lots proximity to the proposed roundabout. Said easement shall be shown on the final map.. 25. The final map shall include an irrevocable offer of dedication to the public for road purposes across that portion of Lot 6 as necessary to provide an alternative alignment of Prado Road to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director. Said offer and final map shall recognize access restrictions to Prado Road from Lot 6. 26. Demolition permits are required from the Building Division for the removal of all existing structures. The permits shall be issued prior to approval of the public improvement plans. 27. Prior to final map approval, "L" Street shall be designed and constructed to comply with City standards which at a minimum include half-street improvements plus 12 feet. Off-site improvements, temporary construction easements or slope bank easements may be required in order to complete the necessary improvements. 28. Prior to final map approval, the design and location of the bus pullouts on "C" Street shall be coordinated with Tract 2342 (Cowan) and approved by the Public Works Director. Plans submitted for review shall include a bus turning diagram demonstrating a bus's ability to negotiate the turnout. The final design shall also include bus stop improvements and indicate how access to adjacent parcels is provided. As called for in the Specific Plan, the eastbound bus pullout shall be located on "C" Street east of "D Street, not directly across from the westbound bus pullout as shown on project plans. 29. Prior to final map approval, the Prado Road cross section shall be redesigned to comply with the Margarita Area Specific Plan. 30. Prior to final map approval, traffic calming islands shown on "J" and "L" Streets shall be eliminated and replaced with other traffic calming devices. 31. Private alleys shall be designed for use by emergency vehicles and garbage trucks and shall be located within a public access easement. 32. Vehicular access rights along Prado Road shall be dedicated to the.City. 33. The subdivider shall install private street lighting along therip Late internal streets per City standards and off-siteup blic street lighting along Prado Road leading to and from the Attachment 10 Resolution No. (2006 Series) Page 14 development, as determined by the Director of Public Works. All public street lighting installed by the developer shall include the luminaires as well as all wiring and conduit necessary to energize the light standards from PG& E's point of service. Water, Sewer & Utilities: 34. The subdivider's engineer shall submit water demand and wastewater generation calculations so that the City can make a determination as to the adequacy of the supporting infrastructure. If it is discovered that an off-site deficiency exists, the owner will be required to mitigate the deficiency as a part of the overall project. 35. Water meters shall be grouped in manifold pairs wherever possible, to the satisfaction of the Utilities Engineer. 36. The water mains, sewer mains, and sewer force mains when attached or included with a bridge, shall be sleeved and encased within the bridge structure or located above the lowest point so as to protect the pipelines from the'high water flow. 37. Sewer backwater valves may be required on some lots. The subdivider's engineer shall apply the City's criteria to the design to determine which lots will need backwater valves on the sewer laterals, per City and UPC standards. 38. In areas where the pressure in the water system exceeds 80 psi, the service line shall include a pressure regulator downstream of the water meter, where the water service enters the building. 39. The sewer and water mains shall be located approximately 2m on either side of the street centerline. All final grades and alignments of all public water, sewer and storm drains (including service laterals and meters) are subject to modifications to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director and Utilities Engineer. 40. The subdivision layout and preliminary utility plans shall include provisions for irrigating common areas, parks, detention basins, and other large landscape areas with recycled water. Appropriately sized reclaimed water mains shall be designed and constructed from the City's trunk system to these irrigation areas. If other use areas exist beyond the proposed subdivision, the mains shall be appropriately sized to provide for future use areas and extended to the boundary of the tract. If reclaimed water is not available at the time the recycled water is needed, the system shall be designed andconstructed to reclaimed water standards, and temporarily connected to the City's potable water system in the area of the anticipated connection to the reclaimed water system. Grading & Drainage: 41. The final grading plan shall include provisions to comply with the soils engineer's i l Attachment 10 Resolution No. (2006 Series) Page 15 recommendations, including mitigating cut slopes, debris flows uphill of the lots and truck access. The soils engineer shall supervise all grading operations and certify the stability of the slopes prior to acceptance of the tract and/or issuance of 42. Clearing of any portion of the existing creek and drainage channels, including any required tree removals, and any necessary erosion repairs shall be to done the satisfaction of the Public Works Director, Corp. of Engineers and the Dept. of Fish & Game. Certain trees may require safety pruning by a certified Arborist as determined by the City Arborist. Homeowners' Association: 43. The subdivider shall submit CC&R's with the Final Map that establishes a"Margarita Area Master Homeowner's Association" (Master HOA). The Master HOA shall include the subdivider's tract, and provide for the automatic annexation of all subsequent potential tracts within the Margarita Specific Plan area. The subsequent tracts may, at their sole discretion, annex to the Master HOA, or demonstrate to the city's satisfaction how many they may form their own, independent HOA, to manage their common area improvements. The Master HOA, and any and all subsequent HOA's not a part of the Master HOA, shall provide for maintenance of all common area drainage channels, on-site and/or sub-regional drainage basins and conveyance improvements and the Margarita median landscaping and trail network. The Master HOA shall also annually maintain a 30' wide wildland fuel reduction zone along all open space lots abutting developments within the MASP. The CC&R's shall be approved by the City Attorney prior to recordation of the Final Map, or any phase thereof. 44. The Master Homeowners' Association (MHOA) shall own and maintain all that portion of the lots designated as "Open Space" or "Wetlands Mitigation". The MHOA shall also be responsible for maintenance of said lots. Those open space areas that accommodate trails intended for public use shall be maintained for public access in perpetuity. Maintenance responsibilities shall also include maintenance of any cut or fill slopes required to make the swale and berm. The storm drainage system within the private streets shall be privately owned and maintained by the MHOA (to be included in CC& R's). 45. Subdivider shall prepare conditions, covenants, and restrictions (CC&R's) to be approved by the City Attorney and Community Development Director prior to final map approval. CC&R's shall contain the following provisions that pertain to all lots: a. Creation of a master homeowners' association if none exists or annexation into an existing MHOA, if one exists. b. No parking except in approved, designated spaces. c. No change in city-required provisions of the CC&R's without prior City Council approval. -2- 7/ Attachment 10 Resolution No. (2006 Series) Page 16 d. Provision for all of the maintenance responsibilities outlined in various conditions below. e. The subdivider shall submit common driveway agreements for those lots with shared access including maintenance provisions, to the approval of the Community Development Director at the time of final map approval. Paths/Open Space: 46. The multi-use paths should be 12 feet in width as called for in the Specific Plan, however the Natural Resource Manager and Public Works Director may approve a narrower path in locations that will only be used by pedestrians only or where environmental conditions warrant a narrower path based on in-the-field consideration. 47. Final design (including materials, location, width, bridging and lighting) of pathways shall be reviewed and approved by the Natural Resources Manager and Public Works Director. 48. . Class I path crossings at public streets should be perpendicular to the street. A cross section should be developed to show transition of path up to the roadway crossing. A raised table-top design with decorative pavement, choke-downs (see above), and signage shall be provided and crossing shall be designed to direct pedestrians to cross the roadway in a direct perpendicular manner. Air Quality: 49. All activities associated with construction and operation for the subdivision map shall comply at all times with all current APCD Rules and Regulations as applicable, including but not limited to PM-10, NOx emissions, Best Available Control Technologies, construction activity management plans, and phasing techniques. . Housing Programs: 50. Lot 105, the "condominium" lot, shall be dedicated to the Housing Authority prior to, or in conjunction with, recording the first phase of Tentative Tract 2353. Improvement plans for Phase 1 of Tentative Tract 2353 shall include complete access and infrastructure (roads, water, sewer, and utilities) to serve the Housing Authority sites. Additional affordable housing requirements will be required if the average residential unit size of the entire Tentative Tract 2353 exceeds 2,000 square feet as per Table 2A of the City Housing Element. Planning Requirements: 51. Bulb outs at "T" intersections need to be added to the straight leg "crossing the `T"' and elongated such that pedestrian crossings are at 90 degrees to the opposing bulb out transitions for the intersecting street leg. Attachment 10 Resolution No. (2006 Series) Page 17 52. Bulb-outs shall be provided at alley access points to street to provide line of sight where red curbing would otherwise be needed. 53. Development of lots adjacent to El Camino Estates or the proposed VTM #2428 where pad elevations differ by four or more feet shall be limited to single-story development and increased rear yard setbacks of a minimum of 10 feet, or equivalent design techniques that maximize privacy protection for the adjacent lot as approved by the Architectural Review Commission. 54. For lots with slope banks 3:1 or steeper adjacent to the property line and drainage structures in the rear yards, the subdivider shall designate the entire slope bank as a slope easement to be maintained by the HOA. A deed restriction shall be placed on all lots with this situation so that a 6 foot high privacy fence shall be installed and maintained at the top of the slope 55. All lighting within the subdivision shall comply with the lighting standards contained in the San Luis Obispo Community Design Guidelines and as further stipulated in the Mitigation Measures listed below. 56. In order to be consistent with the requirements of the Margarita Area Specific Plan and County Airport Land Use Plan, the property owner shall grant an avigation easement for the benefit and protection of the City of San Luis Obispo,.the County of San Luis Obispo and the San Luis Obispo County Airport via an avigaiion easement document prior to the recordation of the final map. 57. In the event archaeological resources are discovered in conjunction with a construction project, all activities shall cease and the Community Development Department shall be notified so that the procedures required by state law may be applied. 58. New development shall implement all feasible measures to minimize the use of conventional energy for space heating and cooling, water heating and illumination by means of proper design and orientation, including the provision and protection of solar exposure. 59. As set forth in the Margarita Area Specific Plan, there shall be a minimum setback of 157 feet for new residential uses from the centerline of Prado Road. 61. For interior streets (not Prado Road), a 15-foot public street yard shall be allowed for homes and.a 20-foot street yard for garages with doors facing the public street. 62. Islands in "J" street should be moved farther back of the intersection and designed to accommodate appropriately located pedestrian crossing to align with bulb-outs. Islands shall be landscaped and in such a way so as to not obstruct left and right line of sight to approaching cars from intersecting streets. �_ 273 Attachment � 0 Resolution No. (2006 Series) Pa-0e 18 Code Requirements: 1. Traffic impact fees and water and wastewater impact fees shall be paid as a condition of issuance of building permits. 2. The.property is tributary to the Laguna Sewer Lift Station. Appropriate Lift Station Fees shall be paid prior to the final map approval. 3 Appropriate backflow prevention will be necessary on any connection to the City water system if the property includes an active well. 4 EPA Requirement: General Construction Activity Storm Water Permits are required for all storm water discharges associated with a construction activity where clearing, grading and excavation results in land disturbance of five or more acres. Storm water discharges of less than five acres, but which is part of a larger common plan of development or sale, also require a permit. Permits are required until the construction is complete: To be covered by a General Construction Activity Permit, the owner(s) of land where construction activity occurs must submit a completed "Notice of Intent" (NOI) form, with the appropriate fee, to the State Water Board. 5 The subdivision design shall comply with the City's grading ordinance. 6 Street trees shall be planted along the private street per City Standards (the number of trees is determined by one tree per 35 linear feet of street frontage). 7 All boundary monuments, lot corners and centerline intersections, BC's, EC's, etc., shall be tied to the City's Horizontal Control Network. At least two control points shall be used and a tabulation of the coordinates shall be submitted with the final map or parcel map. All coordinates submitted shall be based on the City coordinate system. A 3.5" diameter computer floppy disk, containing the appropriate data compatible with AutoCAD (Digital Interchange Format, DXF) for Geographic Information System (GIS) purposes, shall be submitted to the City Engineer. 8 The final map, public improvement plans and specifications shall use the International System of Units (metric system). The English System of Units may be used on the final map where necessary (e.g. - all record data shall be entered on the map in the record units, metric translations should be in parenthesis), to the approval of the City Engineer. 9. Access shall be in accordance with Article 9 of the California Fire Code (CFC). Access roads shall have an unobstructed width of not less than 20 feet and an unobstructed vertical clearance of 13' 6". Access roads shall be designed and maintained to support the imposed loads of a 60,000 pound fire apparatus and shall be provided with a surface so as to provide all-weather driving capabilities. All cul-de-sacs shall be minimum 40 foot radius. Attachment 10 Resolution No. (2006 Series) Page 19 10. Approved address numbers shall be placed on all new buildings in such a position to be plainly visible and legible from the street fronting the property. Numbers shall be a minimum of 5"high x V2" stroke and be on a contrasting background. 11. Water Supplies and fire hydrants shall be provided in accordance with applicable articles of the CFC. An approved water supply capable of providing the required fire flow for fire protection is required. The fire flow shall be determined using applicable Appendices of the CFC.. 12. Fire protection systems shall be installed in accordance with the CFC and the California Building Code. An approved NFPA system will be required for this project. 13. Fire hydrants shall be spaced per SLO-FD Guidelines (placement with Fire Department approval) and shall be capable of supplying the required fire-flows. On motion of seconded by and on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 7th day of March , 2006. Mayor David F, Romero ATTEST: Audrey Hooper, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Jona an Lowell, City Attorney L:MASP\Resolutlons\TR-ER 66-05 DeRiauw Draft council RESOLUTION 2-24.06 meb ' 76 RECEIVED RED FILE LAW OFFICES 'Af2 �Y Le1ifU MEETING AGEN}jDA WILLIAM S. WALTER N DATE 4 ITEM #� A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION L LO CITY 1 CLERK T E HONE (805) 541-6601 THE BELLO HOUSE MAIL FACSIMILE (805) 541-6640 579 MONTEREY STREET WWALTEReaTCSN.NET SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA 93401 March 7, 2006 #7 COUNCIL q2 CDD DIR 9CAO FIN DIR ACAOe FIRE CHIEF ATTORNEY 2 PW DIR City of San Luis Obispo &CLERW'CRIG POLICE CHF Mayor Dave Romero and ❑ DEPT HEADS REP DIR City Council Members �a--�---� UTIL DIR 990 Palm Avenue — HR DIR San Luis Obispo, CA 93408 >` `P Cx�o RE: Consideration Of Three Vesting Tentative Tract Maps for the Portion Of The Margarita Area Specific Plan Known As The "Western Enclave", Located Beyond The Westerly End Of Margarita Avenue.And On The North Side Of The Easterly Extension Of Prado Road,Between South Higuera And Broad Streets ER/TR 63/05 (Cowan,392 Prado),ERTR 65-05 (King,3000 Calle Malva),And ER/TR 66-05 (Deblauw,408 Prado). Dear Mayor and Council Members: This office represents John and Carole King with regard to Vesting Tentative Map No. 2438. In this regard, we will specifically respond to correspondence dated March 3, 2006, from Thomas D. Green, on behalf of Midland Pacific Building Corporation. While our clients have long planned a project with the density of 120 units, it is clear that in the intervening years, the goals of the City itself have changed dramatically, as well as revisions to the Draft Margarita Specific Plan. The project must now contribute to and support the costs for the Prado Road extension and for various drainage basin improvements, none of which were contemplated at the beginning of the process. Further, the City's goals and policies have also changed which render the original 120 unit subdivision inconsistent with the City's density and housing element goals, and with the minimum density requirements presently applicable to the property.. The Kings have attempted to respond to these changing circumstances and legal requirements, and face realistically the fact that the project as originally conceived cannot be found consistent with changed City policies and goals. The Kings recognize the importance of these goals and policies, and that any approved project, in order to be legally and economically viable, must be consistent with the applicable General Plan and Specific Plan densities and policies. For these reasons, they have attempted to respond to City desires and changed policies, recognizing that there are no meaningful grounds or adequate legal bases upon which the original density can be found consistent with the Specific Plan and General Plan of the City. Ultimately, the Kings recognize that the development of the property must be flexible and respond to the changed circumstances, legal,requirements, and policies, because of the simple fact that these are decisions and findings not controlled by private parties, but by the legislative and quasi-judicial planning actions of the City. By the same token, the Kings recognize that the City of San Luis Obispo Mayor and Council Members March 7,2006 Page 2 of 2 decision concerning density and General Plan and Specific Plan consistency are for the City, and have responded to changed policies by providing the alternatives which the City decision makers may consider. If the City chooses a lower density project, then the Kings would request that requirements for participation in the expansion Prado Road and drainage and retention basin improvements be reduced proportionately, so that any project is economically feasible. With all due respect, our review of the points raised in Midland Pacific's correspondence of March 3, 2006, indicates that most of the points are so fallacious and unsubstantial as to require no reply. However, issues regarding the adequacy of the prior environmental review, although incorrect, do merit a more extended reply. These arguments attacking the mitigated negative declaration and the environmental review for the project resemble arguments raised in litigation against the City in which this office participated in defending the City's decision both in the trial an appellate courts. This case is Sullivan vs. City of San Luis Obispo (2nd civil No. B158882), involving a portion of the DeVaul Ranch located on Los Osos Valley Road in which both the trial and appellate courts upheld the discretion and decisions of the City. The following sections of this letter will demonstrate why the environmental documentation for this project is entirely consistent with requirements of law. 1. The Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration Is Consistent With The Requirements Of Law . When determining the type of environmental document to prepare for a project that is clearly not exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), a lead agency must prepare an initial study. The initial study is used to determine whether a project may have a significant adverse effect on the environment. CEQA allows mitigated negative declarations to be used when: The initial study has identified potentially significant effects on the environment, but (1) revisions in the project plans or proposals made by, or agreed to by, the applicant before the proposed negative declaration and initial study are released for public review would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effect on the environment would occur, and (2) there is no substantial evidence the project, as revised, may have a significant effect on the environment. (Public Resources Code Section 21064.5). In addition, a lead agency may also determine that a previously adopted EIR has adequately analyzed the effects of the project and has mitigated any impacts. When a lead agency relies on a previously prepared EIR for its conclusion that a new project will not cause a significant impact, and thus can be approved with a negative declaration,the agency may employ the previous EIR as part of its initial study. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, Section 15153(c)). City of San Luis Obispo Mayor and Council Members March 7,2006 Page 3 of 3 The purpose of section 15153 is to grant lead agencies clear authority to use an EIR prepared for one project over again for a second project which has essentially the same impacts as the project for which the EIR was originally prepared. Where two projects are essentially the same in terms of environmental impacts, there is little reason to require preparation of a separate EIR for the second project. (Guide to the California Environmental Quality Act(1999 Ed.)p. 905). In this case, all potential impacts have been thoroughly identified, analyzed and mitigated in the previously adopted EIRs for the Margarita Area Specific Plan development, and the 1994 Land Use/Circulation Element Update to justify the use of a MND for this project. The law provides that an EIR is required whenever substantial evidence in the record supports a "fair argument" that significant impacts may occur, even if other substantial evidence supports the opposite conclusion. (No Oil, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (1974) 13 Cal.3d 68,75). The "fair argument" standard creates a low threshold for requiring an EIR. The principle behind this low threshold is to have an EIR resolve "uncertainty created by conflicting assertions" and to "substitute some degree of factual certainty for tentative opinion and speculation." (No Oil, supra 13 Cal.3d at p. 85). When the record as a whole shows that the purported evidence supporting a fair argument is really not substantial, an EIR is not required. Substantial evidence includes facts, or expert opinion supported by facts. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, Section 15064(g)). It is not argument, speculation, unsupported opinion or evidence of impacts that do not directly relate to physical impacts or the environment. Testimony or other evidence which expresses generalized concerns and fears do not rise to the level of a"fair argument"that a proposed use will create a substantial, or potentially substantial, adverse change to the environment. Finally, the City receives the benefit of the doubt on legitimate, disputed issues of credibility. (Quail Botanical Gardens v. City of Encinitas (1994) 29 CalAth 1597, 1603). 2. CEQA Provides That The Negative Declaration And Project Conditions May Refer To Citywide Mitigation Programs. In this project, the project conditions proposed by staff require compliance with a variety of citywide mitigation programs. CEQA Guidelines Section 15064(i)(3) which states: A lead agency may determine that a project's incremental contribution to a cumulative effect is not cumulatively considerable if the project will comply with the requirements in a previously approved plan or mitigation program which provides specific requirements that will avoid or substantially lessen the cumulative problem (e.g. water quality control plan, air quality plan, integrated waste management plan) within the geographic area in which the City of San Luis Obispo Mayor and Council Members March 7, 2006 Page 4 of 4 project is located. Such plans or programs must be specified in law or adopted by the public agency with jurisdiction over the affected resources through a public review process to implement, interpret, or make specific the law enforced or administered by the public agency. The City's proposed mitigations are in fact a program authorized by Section 15064(i)(3). 3. Midland Pacific Must Have Competent Expert Evidence Based Upon A Proper Foundation. Abundant authority supports the City's actions in finding no significant impacts. Both the Initial Study and the Mitigated Negative Declaration constitute substantial evidence in support of the City's decision. (Friends of"B"St. v. City of Hayward (1980) 106 Cal.App.3d 988, 1003). Testimony and reports by experts supporting a finding that a project's impacts will be insignificant also constitutes substantial evidence supporting the City's decisions. (Uhler v. City of Encinitas (1991) 227 Cal.App.3d 795, 805.) In Citizens for Responsible Dev. v. City of W. Hollywood(1995) 39 Cal.App.4th 490, 502, the court rejected as a basis for requiring an EIR "an irrelevant generalization, too vague and nonspecific to amount to substantial evidence of anything." To constitute substantial evidence, there must be a detailed factual foundation for any expert opinions. (Citizens Comm. to Save Our Village v. City of Claremont (1995) 37 Cal.App.4th 1157, 1170.) Even testimony from a competent expert will be rejected as not constituting substantial evidence when it is based upon an inadequate foundation or specific information about the project in question. (Gentry v. City of Murrieta (1995) 36 Cal.AppAth 1359, 1422.) Expert opinions on the ultimate issue of whether a project's impacts should be classified as "significant" do not address factual issues and should not be treated as substantial evidence. (Citizen Action To Serve All Students v. Thornley(1990) 222 Ca1.App.3d 748, 755.) If a foundation is not established, the agency must disregard the comment. (See, Gabric v. City of Rancho Palos Verdes (1977) 73 Ca1.App.3d 183, 199, where testimony by a neighbor that views would be blocked by a proposed home is not substantial evidence, because the neighbor did not testify that she had examined and measured the view and line of sight.) As discussed below, Midland Pacific provides no adequate foundation for its personal knowledge of substantial facts as required by the courts in Lucas Valley Homeowners Assn v. County of Marin (1991) 223 Cal.App.3d 30, 142; and Oro Fino Gold Mining Corp. v. County of EI Dorado (1990) 225 Cal.App.3d 872. Midland Pacific may have expressions of subjective concerns and personal beliefs which have been held not to rise to the level of substantial evidence upon which to require the preparation of an EIR. (Newberry Springs Water Assn v. County of San Bernardino (1984) 150 Ca1.Ap.3d 740; Perley v. Board of Supervisors (1982) 137 City of San Luis Obispo Mayor and Council Members March 7,2006 Page 5 of 5 Cal.App.3d 424.) Speculation and unfounded conclusions are not substantial evidence which can be used to require the preparation of an EIR. (Citizens Comm. to Save Our Village v. City of Claremont (1995) 37 Ca1.App.4th 1157, 1171; Citizen Action To Serve All Students v. Thornley (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 748; Snyder v. City of S. Pasadena (1975) 53 Cal.App.3d 1051, 1060 n4.) Testimony by a witness who is not competent to render an opinion on the subject matter cannot be deemed to be substantial evidence requiring the preparation of an EIR. (Cathay Mortuary, Inc. v. San Francisco Planning Comm'n (1989) 207 Cal.App.3d 275.) An agency may disregard testimony if the witness is biased or if the testimony is inherently improbable or not credible for other reasons. (Leonoff v. Monterey County Bd. of Supervisors (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 1337; Newberry Springs Water Assn v. County of San Bernardino (1984) 150 Cal.App.3d 740, 750; Brentwood Assn for No Drilling, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (1982) 134 Cal.App.3d 491, 504.) Evidence that is clearly inaccurate or erroneous may be disregarded. (P.R.C. §§ 21080(e), P.R.C. section 21082.2(c), 14 Cal. Admin. Code Regs. §§ 15064(g)(5), 15384.) Indeed, any public comments not based upon a specific factual foundation do not constitute substantial evidence as a matter of law under CEQA. (P.R.C. § 21082.2(c).) Midland Pacific fails to meet the standards for requiring further environmental review. 4. The Arguments Raised By Midland Pacific Must Be Denied Pursuant To Public Resources Code Section 21083.3 Both the program EIR for the Margarita Area Specific Plan and the 1994 Land Use/Circulation Element Update and EIR supplement fully address the range of issues presented by Midland Pacific.I The statute of limitations for challenging the adequacy of these environmental impact reports as long since passed (PRC section 211167 (c)). P.R.C. § 21083.3(b) establishes the limited circumstances under which a further EIR is required: (b) If a development project is consistent with the general plan of a local agency and an environmental impact report was certified with respect to that general plan, the application of this division to the approval of that development project shall be limited to effects on the environment which are peculiar to the parcel or to the project and which were not addressed as significant effects in the prior environmental impact report, or which substantial new information shows will be more significant than described in the prior environmental impact report. 1 The council is requested take official notice obvious environmental documents. City of San Luis Obispo Mayor and Council Members March 7,2006 Page 6 of 6 P.R.C. § 21083.3(d) provides that effects of a project "shall not be considered peculiar to the parcel or to the project" if they are uniformly applied to "development policies or standards". which have previously been adopted and that the development policies or standards "will substantially mitigate that environmental effect when applied to future projects, unless substantial new information shows that the policies or standards will not substantially mitigate the environmental effect." Midland Pacific presents no such substantial evidence which is on point. Midland Pacific also fails to present any substantial evidence of unmitigated impacts which are peculiar to the parcel and which were not addressed as significant effects in the prior EIRS, or for which substantial new information identifies more significant impacts than in the prior E1R. There is simply nothing in the record constituting such substantial evidence. 5. Midland Pacific Fails To Present Substantial Evidence To Challenge The Legal Adequacy Of The Mitigated Negative Declaration. Midland Pacific also fails to present any substantial evidence meeting the standard of review for the adequacy of a Mitigated Negative Declaration. This standard of review has been summarized in 1 Practice Under The California Environmental Quality Act (supra, § 676, pp. 322.2-322.3): Without substantial evidence in the record showing that significant adverse impacts will remain after mitigation, a court must presume that the conditions adopted by the agency in a mitigated negative declaration will be effective and will ensure that impacts are mitigated to an acceptable level. See Perley v. Board of Supervisors (1982) 137 CAM 424, 434, 187 CR 53; Running Fence Corp. v. Superior Court (1975) 51 CAM 400, 423, 124 CR 339. In other words, the burden is on the Midland Pacific to demonstrate that there is substantial evidence in the record supporting a fair argument that the proposed project may have a significant effect even after mitigation measures are considered. If the Midland Pacific does not meet this burden, the mitigated negative declaration must be upheld. Citizens for Responsible Dev. v. City of W. Hollywood (1995) 39 CA4th 490, 45 CR2d 917. Citizens Comm. to Save Our Village v. City of Claremont(1995) 37 CA4th 1157, 1167, 44 CR2d 288; San Bernardino Valley Audubon Socy v. Metropolitan Water Dist. (1999) 71 CA4th 382, 390, 83 CR2d 836. If there is substantial evidence in the record supporting a fair argument that the mitigation measures will not be effective, however, a mitigated negative declaration must be set aside. San Bernardino Audubon Soc y, supra. City of San Luis Obispo Mayor and Council Members March 7,2006 Page 7 of 7 Midland Pacific fails to present substantial evidence in the record showing that specific impacts remain significant which result directly from this Project. The Staff has proposed mitigation measures and which address all potentially significant environmental impacts from the Project and reduced those impacts to a level of insignificance. 6. Conclusion The arguments presented by Midland Pacific are reminiscent of the Court's rejection of an attorney comment letter in Pala Band of Mission Indians v. County of San Diego (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 556, 579-581: We can conclude Pala's comment letter does not constitute substantial evidence under the applicable "fair argument" standard because it consists almost exclusively of mere argument and unsubstantiated opinion,which are excluded from the definition of substantial evidence under CEQA. (Guidelines, Section 15384, Subd. (a).) It is respectfully suggested that the same conclusion must be drawn with regard to Midland Pacific's correspondence. The letter is not a substitute for competent.expert opinion which must be found within the record. For these reasons, and is respectfully requested that the city not be intimidated by the baseless threats of Midland Pacific, and proceed to exercise its discretion in considering an approving this project with proportionate conditions. Very Will alter cc: John King City Attorney O-COUNCIL l-✓CDD DIR p'CAO :e FIN DIR C"t', erl< [2'ACAO E,-FIRE CHIEF RECEIVED E-YATTORNEY 2cPW DIR RED FILE E?CLERK/ORIG POLICE CHF MEETING AGENDA MAR Q 2 ZUU6 0 DEPT HEADS 2"'REC DIR rr.bu� -r-i'UTIL DIR DATE3- 1-0 ITEM # P[t SLO CITY CLERK r 1��tTY�BAt�CIL P ELIC MEETING RE: APPLICATION"KING RANCH"DEVELOPMENT J FROM: MARY POLLOCK, 3057 S, HIGUERA AVE. SP. 118 SLO, 93401 I Feeent+y-at#ended atneoft iFI Chuniash Village Clubhouse talar some discussion of the development just east of my residence in Chumash. I am a 1 year resident of this park and when I purchased my home-W a 4nfermed-e€#whew,deve"meM but was told that there was a 20 foot easement around the"King"development with green space within that 20 feet. I heard athewri"the meeting in February. I hnmasi rinvestigating wily I was told one thing when something else is being planned. All the Chumash residents I talked to said they were told in thafrrsYmeetings that a 2^ Frtat setba*was behren our rear fence and the backyards of the KING development. Now I am being told that the King Development will be right up against our baelt pmpefV line,nereasement, and-&*beg"to be 4-6 feet higher than our propertles. I have some real concerns: A culveFt off the supaunding-Mls-v iII-NOT handle that water as I have seen how much water comes off that hill. The new houses built 4-6 feet higher than Chumash pFepedies Wil he safe fnom-flooding but Chumash\4Uage residents will inherit the spilling over. 1 WILL HOLD-9wW Ycg- tihePla nersrdev"rs, and residents of that development RESPONSIBLE IF FLOODING OCCURS AFTER YOU GRADE AND RAISE THEIR HOUSES ABOVE-OLIP-PROPERTY LINES.Cumantly axlitch 8 feet from the property line carries the water toward Margarita St Houses and into drainage ditches. If the culvert is moved to OUFfeRse ' 5 feetfirm oix line you are developing a basin for water to collect and flooding will happen. When you tryto go against nature with man- made culverts, NATURE USUALLY WINS. If those houses are raised 4-6 feet our morning sunlight will be completely blocked until after 9:00 arca.lhave measi red grouadto measure their height with a 4-6 ft. raise in their foundation. And I am only measuring for a single floordwelling. THESE HOUSES ALONG-THEA "daylight will be blocked until almost 11:00 am. THIS IS COMPLETELY UNACCEPTABLE. This project was assepted-l*most of the resident,sof-Churaasa,Village based on the facts originally presented to them. A few persons have tried to keep up with this projecL As I talk to residents Ivey feel the city has deceived them by no aieWg-tlxa�to changes that will affect their residences. We are all senium-We ' t afford T*A6 waA4ke. We cannot just sell and move. THIS MUST BE A CONSIDERATION FOR BOTH FLOODING and AMOUNT OF SUNSHINE. Seniors need-Tt and no fear of floodin Sincerely, Mary Pollock PLEASE RcSPoNO c°wLa� I M fgcmvvi r FAD FILE MEETING AGENDA ` DATE 0)1Jt&ITEM J FRECEIVED TO: Members of San Luis Obispo City Council 006 (Ma�ofDi6 Ro_m= John Ewan, Christine Mulholland, LERK Paul Brown, Allen Settle) FROM: Bonnie Wollam Resident of Chumash Village Co rng, C, Z COUNCIL 17 CDL Z, CAO T FIN C`.! DATE: March 3, 2006 ACAO I�FIRE -H; IE ATTORNEY (a PW DIR F CLERKVORIG rt POUCE CH^ SUBJECT: Public Hearing March 7, 2006 ❑ DEPT HEADS F REC DIR Margarita Area Specific Plan T UTI'- DIf-1 I am presenting my concerns about the proposed development: 1. Traffic Safety Concerns Need to Be Resolved for Senior Citizens Residing in 236 Units at Chumash Village. At the October 12, 2004 City Council Meeting, I presented a petition from many of our residents for a traffic light. I have also presented the same concern at several Planning Commission Meetings and several other City Council Meetings. I am extremely apprehensive about my own personal safety, especially when I try to gain access to South Higuera Street, not to mention my concern for many residents who are in their 80s and 90s. We have one outlet to South Higuera, Chumash Village Drive, and in an emergency, not to mention daily travel, we are in trouble. New businesses are continually added to South Higuera or its offshoots. The Western Enclave of the Margarita Development will add 291 residences, 16 business offices, 27 mixed use developments, and 1 affordable housing unit. The old Mc Brides (3085 S. Higuera)next to Chumash Village will require 45 parking spaces for a mixed housing/office development. The remaining portion of the Margarita Development will further add to traffic problems Seven trips per day are projected for single family residences. I do not have any statistics for office use. However, office use requires an office staff and customers. Most office staffs go out to lunch. You can do the math. The new developments will have access to traffic signals at Margarita Avenue and Prado Road. For an almost equal number of residents, we have nothing. I don't think it will take long before new residents discover what frustrated Los Osos Valley Road overpass drivers have already discovered— it's easier to drive by Chumash Village to reach a destination. 1 a - At one time, widening South Higuera to 4 lanes was proposed. Developers in the Margarita Development could be asked to widen South Higuera. This would satisfy some of our residents. I would be very happy with Stop Signs. Since the City Council ultimately approves or disapproves these matters,I now turn the problem over to you. I have not based my request on warrants. 2. Concerns.AboutRodentInfestation into Chumash Village Need to Be Resolved. Our local newspaper recently publicized rodent infestations resulting from new building developments. I am also aware of a rat infestation in Creekside Village and ground squirrels living openly Tank Farm.Road, near South I-Iiguera. To discourage rodent infestations into Chumash Village, Lam requesting that the City Council insert specific language into development plans. Specifically, I request that the developer of the 3000 Calle Malva tract be required to begin construction along the West Border adjoining Chumash Village. This may help to alleviate a portion of the rodent infestation that will occur as a result of construction- 3. Open Access Area Needs to Be Designed by City to Discourage Entrance Into Chumash.Village. Also,.City Needs to Maintain Perimeters to Prohibit Fire Hazards. The City of San Luis has acquired the open access area donated by John King. The area lies next to Chumash's Northeast border. I am requesting the City Council require the City to plan this open access area with the privacy needs of Chumash Village in mind. I have discussed the matter briefly with Neil Havlick and understand that trails and barbed wire fencing at the perimeter can be designed to discourage vagrancy into our community. He also mentioned that criminals don't like to hang out in open areas. This was one of my concerns. I also want the City to be mindful that during hot, dry seasons,the grass on the perimeter may need to be mowed to prevent potential fires. The cattle used to keep it trimmed. Thank you. 2 , ADAMSKI MOROSKI MADDEN & GREEN LLP POST OFFICE Box 3835 TELEPHONE: (805)543-0990 SAN Luis OBISPO,CA 93403-3835 ATTORNEYS AT LAW FACSIMILE: (805)543-0980 RECEIVEDwww.ammglaw.com info@ammglaw.com YAR 0 3 1,26 March 3e , 2006 SLO CITY CLERK COUNCIL CAO FIN C!n- RED FILE ACAO e FlFi '-H:EF Honorable Mayor Dave Romero MEETING AGENDA ®-ATTORNEY 1E PON _:I C$CLERK/ORIG ® and Members of the City Council POL!CI; CHFDATE 3 y ITEM # P#z 0 DEPT HEADS r;u•.:.::!.q City of San Luis Obispo City Hall, 990 Palm Street B 6 a I' q San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Re: City Council Agenda for March 7, 2006 Public Hearing Agenda Item 2 (Modified Map for VTM #2428—King) Dear Mayor Romero and Councilmembers Settle, Ewan, Mulholland and Brown: With regard to the above-referenced vesting tentative map (VTM #2428 — King), this office represents Midland Pacific Building Corporation, the purchaser of the underlying real property involved in the proposed subdivision. Although we fully appreciate that the City is not a party to the Purchase and Sale Agreement and, therefore, may not want to be involved with disagreements between Midland Pacific and King involving the proposed vesting tentative map, the City nevertheless should be seriously concerned about the legal issues resulting from the Planning Commission's action recommending approval of the map. For the reasons set forth below, the Planning Commission's decision to recommend approval of VTM #2428, after it was revised by the applicant without appropriate notice and environmental review literally minutes before the Planning Commission's hearing, was erroneous, illegal, and unfair. The City Council should not condone and ratify the Planning Commission's action. 1. The Planning Commission's Recommendation of Approval of the Revised Map was in Violation of the Brown Act The Ralph M. Brown Act, Government Code section 54950 ct seq. (the "Brown Act") requires that all local agencies post an agenda describing each item of business to be transacted or discussed at a meeting no less than seventy two (72) hours prior to such meeting. Gov. Code § 54950.2(a)(1). Any commission of a local public agency, such as the Commission, is subject to the terms of the Brown Act and must comply with its terms. Gov. Code § 54951. The agency's description must comport with and adequately describe the items to be discussed in the meeting. Moreno v. City of King (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 17, 26-27. Any action or discussion on any item not posted on the meeting agenda by an agency subject to the Brown Act is in violation of the law. Id.; Gov. Code§54950.2(a)(2). Prior to the Commission meeting of January 25, 2006, the Commission posted an agenda including an item designated as follows: PASO ROBLES OFFICE: 1200 VINE STREET 4 PASO ROBLES,CA 93446-2268❖TELEPHONE(805)238-2300:FACSIMILE(805)238-2322 Honorable Mayor Dave Romero and Members of the City Council City of San Luis Obispo March 3, 2006 Page 2 "2. 3000 Calle Malva. TR and ER 65-05; Consideration of a vesting tentative tract map to subdivide a 99-acre (approx.) site into 148 lots with 141 single- family residential lots, 1 lot for an affordable housing project, and 6 open space lots; and environmental review; R-I-SP, R-2-SP, C/OS-SP zones; John King, applicant. (Pam Ricci and Mary Beatie)" (emphasis added). The above-described vesting tentative map for the subdivision of 141 single-family residential lots is consistent with and was designated with reference to the Margarita Area Specific Plan, approved by the City Council on October 12, 2004 (the "Margarita Plan"). The agenda item quoted above is the subject of an eight-page Commission Agenda Report regarding the approval of a different proposed tentative map, attached as an exhibit to the report (the "Original Map"). The Original Map, the one described in the agenda item, is not what the Commission actually discussed and recommended approving at the January 25, 2006 meeting. The Revised Map, recommended for approval by the Commission on January 26, 2006, is outside the scope of the properly noticed agenda under the Brown Act. See Gov. Code § 54950.2(a)(1). The Revised Map deviates from the only related agenda item in that (1) the Revised Map does not designate the number of single-family residential lots to be created as specifically indicated in the agenda; and (2) the Revised Map calls for the use of zoning designation 'R-3-SP" which is excluded from the zoning designations specifically indicated on the agenda. In fact, the Revised Map and the proposal made to the Commission in support thereof would reduce the size of more than one third of the total lots on the Original Map and increase the housing density within that area, thereby increasing the total number of lots by an unknown amount.' The Revised Map calls for a different zoning designation than the previous, and properly agendized, Original Map. The public was not properly put on notice of these changes in the map to be discussed and recommended for approval, and was therefore deprived of its right to meaningfully participate in the hearing as a result. See id. Because the Revised Map does not comport with the description of any item of the January 25, 2006 agenda, its discussion and recommended approval were in violation of the Brown Act. 2. Approval of the Revised Map will Necessitate Further Environmental Review under the California Environmental Quality Act. The approval of the Revised Map by the City Council would be in violation of the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"). CEQA requires that prior to approval by a The Commission recommends that the fifty-one affected lots be increased to at least seventy parcels. Council Agenda Report,p. 6. Honorable Mayor Dave Romero and Members of the City Council City of San Luis Obispo March 3, 2006 Page 3 local agency of a development project such as that contemplated by the Margarita Plan and reflected in the Original Map (the "Project"), the agency must first analyze the environmental impacts of the proposed project and the mitigation measures that may reduce such impacts. Pub. Res. Code§21000 et seq. After the preparation of either a Mitigated Negative Declaration or an EIR on any project, if there are any changes to the environmental document, further environmental review may be required. See 14 Cal. Code Regs § 15162. If the changes to the project necessitate changes or additions to the EIR that fall short of major changes as described above, the local agency must prepare an addendum to the EIR. 14 Cal. Code Regs§15164(a). In this case, the Planning Department has prepared a proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration for VTM # 2428. Previously, on October 12, 2004, the San Luis Obispo City Council approved the Final Program EIR for the Margarita Plan. In that EIR, a number of potential environmental impacts from the adoption of the Margarita Plan were evaluated on the basis of the project description and the goals as identified in the Margarita Plan itself. Potential areas of environmental impact included (1) air quality issues; (2) hydrology and water quality issues, including the alteration of drainage patterns; (3) the creation of excessive noised (4) increases in traffic problems; and (5) effects on the community at large, including impacts to services and the existing community. Final Program EIR, dated September 2003. All of the above potential environmental impacts may be substantially affected by the implementation of the Revised Map instead of one consistent with the terms of the Margarita Plan as approved. By increasing the density of a large percentage of the project, the Revised Map will necessarily increase traffic, and consequently impact air quality issues as well, in the immediate area of the Project. Further, increased density on almost half of the Project's lots will likely impact hydrological patterns, potentially decreasing permeability of the underlying land as the number of structures on the real property is increased. Excessive noise issues will similarly be exacerbated by the implementation of the Revised Map, as it will lead to an increase in overall population and, as discussed below, a likely increase in student population. The strain on local services will also likely increase beyond that which was contemplated at the time of approval of the Final Program EIR. The above list of potential increased environmental impacts if the Revised Map is approved is by no means exhaustive. Further expert analysis would be required to determine the full impact of the increased density. Given the significant number of important environmental factors that will likely be substantially affected by the adoption of the Revised Map, the currently operative Final Program EIR and the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration are not sufficient to address the likely impacts of the project as it is now being recommended by the Commission. As the Planning Staff correctly articulated in the staff report regarding the approval of the Revised Map (the "Council Agenda Report"), the changes to the Project will require further Honorable Mayor Dave Romero and Members of the City Council City of San Luis Obispo March 3, 2006 Page 4 analysis in order to comply with the terns of CEQA. However, Staff fails to explain how the subsequent CEQA review can occur if the increased density required by the Revised Map predetermines the outcome. In other words, the City can not authorize the increased density without first analyzing the impacts. Accordingly, if the City Council approves the Revised Map, a subsequent EIR or, at the very least, an addendum to the existing EIR must be prepared. Failure to do so would constitute a violation of CEQA. 214 Cal. Code Regs§ 15162, 15164. If the City Council were to reject the Revised Map, however, and the City were to return to consideration of the Original Map, no further environmental analysis would be required. The Negative Declaration already completed is wholly consistent with the Original Map and the above-described need for extensive analysis would be obviated. 3. The Revised Map is Inconsistent with the Margarita Specific Area Plan. In addition to the forgoing, the Revised Map recommended for approval by the Commission is inconsistent with both the terms and the spirit of the Margarita Plan. The Margarita Plan was a carefully considered, carefully planned concept intended to meet the housing and commercial needs of San Luis Obispo while creating an appealing, family-friendly environment. The approval of the Revised Map would undermine these core values of the Margarita Plan and must not be allowed. By increasing the density of the project beyond that which was contemplated in preparing the Original Map, the Revised Map necessarily decreases the lot size in the affected areas. Instead of containing lots large enough for three-bedroom single-family dwellings, the affected area will have lots that by law will only accommodate at most two-bedroom units. See Margarita Plan,pp. 13-22. The impact of the reduction in the allowable number of bedrooms will be at least two- fold. First, this change will compromise the economic viability of the Project as a whole by making the units much less attractive to buyers. It has become increasingly difficult to sell new two-bedroom units in the San Luis Obispo area in recent years. Prospective purchasers of new homes are reluctant to pay the prices that homes on the Central Coast command to purchase a two-bedroom home, which is often insufficient to accommodate a family. Second, the reduction in dwelling size will make the medium-high density units more attractive to students than to z The Commission's finding, stated in Planning Commission Resolution 5442-06, that the Project "as modified" presents no "new or further significant impacts," is unsubstantiated by any analysis whatsoever of the eleventh-hour revision to the Project, and does not adequately address this issue. See Planning Commission Resolution No. 5442-06, Section 1(5). Honorable Mayor Dave Romero and Members of the City Council City of San Luis Obispo March 3, 2006 Page 5 families. This shift to student housing is problematic in light of the fact that the Margarita Plan was created and approved with the purpose of creating modest housing for San Luis Obispo's families. Rather than constituting a unique and community-centered development for the betterment of San Luis Obispo, the Project will be transformed into yet another student housing neighborhood. Moreover, as explained above, the increase in total number of dwellings will increase the number of cars, leading to increased traffic in a project that was envisioned as a pedestrian - and bicycle -friendly community. Parking will be more problematic. Excessive noise issues will be increased. By increasing the residential density beyond that which was initially contemplated, these values inherent in the Project as contemplated and approved by the City Council will be undermined. Put simply, the reduction in lot sizes reflected on the Revised Map would damage the character and the very purpose of the Margarita Plan and must not be allowed. 4. Approval of the Revised Map would be Inequitable under the Circumstances. In addition to violating both state law and local planning ordinances, the approval of the Revised Map would be highly inequitable under the circumstances. As the City Council is no doubt aware, the Project has been in planning and under review for many years. The Margarita Plan itself was approved with a certain vision of the project for the community. The intended buyers of the particular real property reflected in the Revised Map agreed to purchase and develop that real property as it was reflected in the Margarita Plan and the Original Map. Even the Commission Agenda Report detailing the issues regarding approval of a tentative map for the Project was written with reference to the Original Map. Only days before the Commission meeting of January 25, 2006, the Revised Map was drafted. The Revised Map was seen for the first time at the January 25, 2006 hearing by anyone other than the current owners of the real property upon which the Project will be constructed. Its approval by the City, substantially altering the nature of the Project on the very day it was unveiled, would simply be unfair. This eleventh-hour re-conceptualization of the Project flies in the face of the reasoned deliberation that has marked the progress of the Margarita Plan over these past several years. Accordingly, the City Council must not ratify this last-minute decision of the Commission. The City Council is being placed in a very precarious legal position as a result of the Commission's recommendation of approval based on last-minute changes to the original vesting tentative map without adequate notice and appropriate environmental review. Accordingly, the City Council is respectfully requested to simply reject the Commission's recommended approval of the Revised Map and approve the Original Map based upon the proposed mitigated negative declaration and the original Staff Report to the Commission. Honorable Mayor Dave Romero and Members of the City Council City of San Luis Obispo March 3, 2006 Page 6 My client and I will be in attendance at the City Council hearing on this matter and we will be happy to address any questions the Council members may have. Very truly yours, ADAMSKI MO OSKI MADDEN & GREEN LLP L r THOMAS D. GREEN TDG:tlg GAMidland\Margarita\Cor\City Council 030306.doc cc: Ken Hampian, CAO Jonathan P. Lowell, City Attorney .inia �u �NIUC�I S RED FILE ® COUNCIL a CDD DIR _- ® CAO ❑ FIN DIR - MEETING AGENDA 19 ACAO ❑ FIRE CHIEF IR ATTORNEY 13 PW DIR, :. ©ATE 7-0b ITEM # N R CLERK4,RCJ POLICE CHF Tuesday,March OZ, 2006 ❑ DEP7 HEAD 0 AEC DIR iL DIR 91 'f'r;b .n DI t�f diR Shouldn't the changed map in the King portion of the A4ASP be seen as a new project and IQ C o be subject to a normal full review process? I ask the City Council to continue review of 49 ue!!* Vesting Tentative Map 65-05. This will allow all parties affected reasonable time to research and consider the latest changes on TR2428. The full text of the planning staff*report report was not available to the public until Wednesday, March 1, last week! However,if you decide to proceed this evening I want my letter and comments to be included in your considerations. Having read the newest 275 pages over this weekend, I find some 20 areas of comment. I will pick out the top three concerns. • Does the"black hole" in the King Map adequately address MASP development - 1' standards? I • I request two additional Conditions of Approval: 1. That all affected adjacent properties be notified within a reasonable time before grading starts to allow those residents with medical problems to take proper protective steps. 2. That there be no exceptions to single story residence requirement along fence line. Not any "or its equivalent" nor grading, drainage or other reason.Please no loopholes or wiggle-room that would leave this open to interpretation. Single 1 story at any adjacencies' fence line is required. I am including a history of my comments over the past few years and the unannotated 20- point concern list from your staff report. Sorry it's so last minute,with a bit more lead time it would've been shorter. I appreciate your consideration of the fine details of this project. It affects all the residents in the adjacent properties. Thank you. Elizabeth Kyle Righetti 3057 South Higuera, #114 'I Chumash Village Mobile Home Park San Luis Obispo,California 805-543-6036 RECEIVED MAR 0 7 2006 SLO CITY CLERK 1 ELIZABEII I KYLE RIGHEM PO BOX 13922 SAN LUIS OBISPO 3057 SOUTH HIGUERA STREET(805)543-6036 My name is Elizabeth Kyle Righetti. As a resident of Chumash Village Mobile Home Park, I have watched the ongoing processes of the Margarita Area Specific Plan approval as it affects Chumash Village Mobile Home Park for some time now. We continue to have concerns about the MASP and the development of the King Ventures property along our park's eastern border. We recently invited members of the San Luis Obispo City Council and Planning Commission to observe our situation first hand to consider the developers' potential impacts. This resulted in some Council and Committee members coming out to physically view the immediate area. The majority of both groups have chosen to pass final decisions onto you members of the Architectural Review Commission. So here we are, feeling like we are starting over again, with the same issues. However, it has come to my attention that some decisions may have been influenced by misconceptions about our park.Allow me to digress. A member of the city council asked during a recent session about the life expectancy of Chumash Village. We are a California corporation and a condominium association, and as such have no life expectancy. Each lot is individually and separately owned, and I assure you that there is a pride of ownership and feeling of independence unmatched in any other seniors development in the county. Our association bylaws do not allow older coaches placed in the park. There is a requirement that each replacement coach be recently manufactured (within a ten year limit). The first coaches and residents moved in here in 1973 and some are still in occupancy and well into their 90's. Our coaches must be newer than ten years old to be moved in, our residents over 55 years old to establish residency. We are not transient in nature, we buy with every intention of settling down and staying for a long while. A current check of prices within the park shows escrows in the last six months have closed in the high $180,000's to the $310,000 range. The lots and homes on the market are listed at $195,000 and up. As you can see from the prices and the homeowners' well-thought-out bylaws, the park continues to upgrade.- and recreate itself with each turnover of ownership. Our park offers numerous amenities that make it a nice place to be. We have 235 individually owned mobile homes served by a large lap pool, a heated pool, a therapy spa, a club house with a large group room and a separate computer room and poolroom with 2 tables, two separate buildings containing laundry rooms, another building with a gym/exercise room, and well maintained streets and RV parking areas. Most of these are things a small efficient village should have. We are good neighbors. We know each other's names. We see each other while walking within the park, at community potlucks, and other activities within the park. We don't make a lot of noise. We are not up late at night We are polite.And we look after each other. We are a community. There are.major concerns involving the proposed project next door. The Mayor and City Council have asked you for special consideration of single-story housing with adequate setbacks immediately next to our one story mobile home park. This will help us maintain privacy and continue to keep sunlight on our fence line properties. It will also protect us from bright lights beaming into our properties from the adjacencies. We will still be able to see the South Hills. Within the MASP, the Rancho San Luis Mobile Home Park/Cowan adjacency and the existing Margarita subdivision/King Ventures adjacency areas are dealt with quite differently as to proposed density than we are here in Chumash Village with King Ventures adjacency. The MASP before you calls for low density housing adjoining those property lines and medium density housing adjoining our property line. We request and require equal consideration as either other neighbor along our side of the fence. Building density and population density are both statistics that matter and cannot be interchanged. The MASP calls for medium density housing in the adjacent development that allows at.least three to four people per household in the homes at our property line. That does not match our population density. Nor does the square footage density -- per.household. A low density zoning would allow fewer houses,thus more space between them, hopefully, in keeping with all the other houses along the fence-line. May I suggest that if those fence-line lots were to be planned with.one story two bedroom houses with one or two residents in mind as our seniors park is, the development would be a more equitable neighbor for the premier senior development in the city. Our population density is lower than it appears: Units per acre do not take into account our per capita density. transition zone must be established to provide easement access for underground utilities, to handle runoff and drainage, and to create a buffer between Chumash Village and the major housing development at the fence line. Underground utility lines along the common property line need to be installed. A 20 foot residential setback on the rear of the developers' lots is not adequate when plans include garages in the spaces between the developer's houses and the back fence. Our lots are existing and should be recognized as such. Please help us continue our quality of life here in Chumash Village Mobile Home Park. Chumash Village and adjacent areas have known run-off flooding from the South Hills and the pastures. Underground springs and a high ground-water table are known along the serpentine geological features of the hills and pasture and will be compromised by poor drainage planning. We need assurance that run-off waters from any future development will not flow onto our properties. A minimally functional berm on the King Ventures property handles most run-off during storms by diverting it within their property down to its tower western comer adjacency, although there is a vernal pond which attracts wild ducks for a time after the rains. Soil stability and maintaining level footings for the mobile homes will be a challenge if the proposed construction and drainage engineering are not carefully considered. Hopefully, there will be some assurance as to how these needs will be met. Before the subdivision is approved, and to satisfy continuity of neighborhood, we ask for staking and story poles (orange tape) to be placed to show heights of buildings and depths of setbacks along the property line to show the currently proposed design. Privacy, natural light and our view-shed to the east continue to be valued assets. We have many photographs showing our concerns,some given to the local paper,the Tribune, and some being held by park residents. Ve are a vulnerable population with some of us in our seventies, eighties and nineties. We purchased homes are with assurance that our community would be for seniors only, a quiet, secure place to live out the final years of our lives. We have specific safety, air quality, light and noise concerns that will begin when the proposed site development and building starts. Security is also an item as the Margarita area becomes home to a more diverse population. Strict compliance with city ordinances is expected during the years of completion. We have health concems about noise from blasting, noises of heavy equipment, and air pollution from dust and exhaust fumes,vapors from construction materials, and a myriad of other related development processes. * Can we be assured that the city and county.ordinances will be followed? Who will the contact person/office be and what phone numbers will be made available? _ * What construction materials, equipment and trash would stay on site and for how long? * What visual, noise, and safety protection do we have from construction during the ongoing process? j * What construction days and hours will be approved? * What is a ball park guess of subdivision approval date and the start date of site.development? Can we have these issues addressed now? When, if not now? We appreciate your consideration of our concerns. Thank you. E K. Righetti Chumash Village Mobile Home Park 3057 South Higuera Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 '05 543 6036 January 22, 2065 i SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF THREE VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT _ MAPS FOR THE PORTION OF THE MARGARITA AREA SPECIFIC PLAN KNOWN AS THE "WESTERN ENCLAVE', LOCATED BEYOND THE WESTERLY END OF MARGARITA.AVENUE AND ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE EASTERLY EXTENSION OF PRADO ROAD, BETWEEN SOUTH HIGUERA AND BROAD STREETS (CITY FILE NOS. ERITR 63-05 (COWAN, 392 PRADO), ERITR 65-05 (KING, 3000 CALLE MALVA), AND ERIT R 66-05 (DEBLAUW, 408 PRADO). 2. With respect to VTM 65-05 (King, County File #2428), adopt Draft Resolution "B", which adopts the Mitigated Negative Declaration, and approves the 91-lot VTM, based on findings, and subject to mitigation measures, conditions, and code requirements. . The WE is also adjacent to other existing development, including the EI Camino Estates (Tract 400) a residential subdivision along Margarita Avenue off South Higuera Street and the Chumash Village Mobile Home Park off South Higuera Street.. • 4.) VTM #2428 (King) modified subdivision design for 91 lots instead of 148 lots and procedural issues related to that modified design • Given that the three VTMs involve the development of vacant property adjacent to existing development, testimony was provided at the Planning Commission hearing by neighbors overall quality of life. This testimony focused on concerns raised regarding the design of lots and homes adjacent primarily to Chumash Village Mobile Home Park lying west of the King map, and the design of lots and homes adjacent to the EI Camino Estates residences along Margarita Avenue south of the King map and west of the DeBlauw map. One individual raised some concern about "predatory access" by the public through the.large open space lot in the King map (to be dedicated to the City) to her property in the Chumash Village Mobile Home Park and potential infestation of rodents and other pests resulting from construction-related ground disturbances. (Also raised were concerns about circulation within the tracts and within the MASP area in general. These latter issues are covered together under'7raffic" below.) • Conditions of Approval further recommend that development of lots adjacent to Chumash Village Mobile Home Park or EI Camino Estates shall be limited to single- story development and increased rear yard setbacks of a minimum of 10 1 _ I / 1 feet, or equivalent-design techniques that maximize privacy protection for the adjacent lot as approved by the ARC.`Lots with slope banks of 3;1 9 steegef adjacent to property lines and drainage structures in the rear yards will require deed restrictions such that the entire slope bank is covered by an easement to be maintained by the MHOA and with a 6-foot privacy fence installed and maintained at the top of the slope • In discussions with the County Environmental Health Department, it would likely reduce the rodent/pest concern somewhat if the grading for the tract adjacent to the mobile home park begins nearer the mobile home park and moves outward toward the open space. The Draft Resolution for the King map includes Condition No .45 to note this requirement. 4. Modified Map for VTM #2438 (King): Dave Watson, representative for John and Carole King, applicants, submitted to Planning Commission at the hearing a request to consider an alternative design proposal for the site (Attachment 3). The alternative design essentially consisted of a proposal to reduce the number of over-all lots from 148 to 91. This would consolidate 51 of the originally proposed lots generally surrounding the central lot proposed for the affordable housing development, into 4 larger lots with the ultimate intention of submitting revised tentative map(s) for these areas that would achieve a higher density of development.(These 4 larger lots, in the alternative design scheme are numbered 81, 82, 83 & 84.) Mr. Watson felt such an approach would better achieve the intent and"spirit" of the MASP. Mr. Watson indicated in his proposal to the Commission, the applicant's intention of the alternative design was to take better advantage of the density bonus allowances of the MASP to achieve more units at a higher density and hopefully increase moderate-income housing opportunities. Mr. Watson indicated that perhaps a Planned Unit Development-style plan could accommodate 80-100 units within the central area of the site, an increase over the original proposal of 61 units..How this issue is addressed: In response to Mr. Watson's proposal, staff pointed out to the Commission at the hearing that this alternative proposal, although 1 acceptable in theory, would require submittal of new tentative map(s) and companion environmental reviews pursuant to CEQA in order for the higher density lot design to be considered. As presented there was some risk, albeit remote perhaps, that approval of the 4 lots in place of the originally designed 51 lots, could result in the sale of each of the 4 lots and development of each with only one single-family home. Further, issues were raised by individuals involved in a contractual relationship with Mr. King regarding breach of promised development rights for the subject site if the alternative design was approved, the Commission was advised by the Assistant City Attorney that since the City is not a party to said contract, the Commission should disregard the issue because it concerns _ a private dispute. Seeing the benefit of the opportunity to reach higher densities and the potential to achieve an increase in moderately priced housing, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the King - VTM #2428 with the proposed modified design. While staff agrees with the intention to be achieved by the applicant and the Commission with the alternative design, we do have concerns about the finding that the revised map is consistent with the specific plan requirement that the subdivision achieve a minimum density of seven units per acre for low-density residential and eight units per acre for the medium-density residential. In light of this, staff is recommending that the Council approve the VTM #2428 (King) map as recommended by the Planning Commission with an added condition to require that lots 81, 82, 83, and 84 be developed with no less than 70 units total, which will bring the medium-density area up to eight units per acre. This will not effectively change the potential outcome desired by the applicant and the Commission, will guard against the unintended, but still possible, outcome of only one single family residence being built on each of the four larger parcels (# 81-84), and will allow specific plan conformity and CEQA procedures to be carried out more precisely as they are intended by law. 3. The Council may continue review of the project, if more information is needed. Direction should be given to staff and the applicants. - Elizabeth Righetti, 3057 So. Higuera Street (Chumash Village), had questions about building heights, lot depths, slopes, and drainage. She wanted single-story development on the lots adjacent to Chumash Village and suggested stakes and story poles showing the extent of development. • Bonnie Wollam, 3057 So. Higuera Street#233 (Chumash Village) expressed concerns about access to the mobile home park, pest control and increased traffic problems in the area. • Sam Vlahos, 3057 S. Higuera Street#163 (Chumash Village), voiced concerns with the fence line, dust problems, and the need for a buffer. 1 FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3000 CALLE MALVA (TRIER 65-05; TRACT NO. 2428) • 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 January 25, 2006, and recommended approval of Application TRIER 65-05, a request to subdivide an approximately 99-care site into 91 lots • 9. As stipulated in the MA,SP/RASP OR, this would be a plan identifying, when they are known, site/development-specific construction activities that will involve the hazardous materials . The plan shall be prepared before construction activities begin that involve hazardous materials and shall discuss proper handling and disposal of materials used or produced onsite, such as petroleum products, concrete, and sanitary waste. The plan will also outline a specific protocol to identify health risks associated with the presence • of chemical compounds in the soil and/or groundwater and identify specific protective measures to be followed by the workers entering the work area. If the presence of hazardous materials is suspected or encountered during ` construction-related activities, the project proponent will cause Mitigation Measure HAZ-1.2 to be activated. • 9. Common areas (except the 71-acre lot donated to the City), landscaped parkways and,Class I pathways (other than Prado Road) shall be owned and maintained in perpetuity for public use by the Master Homeowner's Association. Water meters for common landscape areas including but not limited to parkways, medians, roundabouts and pathway corridors are subject to water impact fees and shall be paid for by the subdivider. • 26. For lots abutting the existing developed Margarita and Chumash Village projects, the slopes and drainage structures proposed in those rear lots shall be maintained by the property owners, with an additional slope and maintenance easement to the HOA so that the HOA can maintain these slopes if the property owners fail to do so in a satisfactory manner. A deed restriction shall be placed on all lots with this situation so that a 6 foot high privacy fence shall be installed and maintained at the top ofthe slope. Details on the level of maintenance shall be provided in the draft CC&R's and reviewed and approved by the Community Development Director • 36. The developer of VTM #2428 shall begin grading operations related to site preparation and infrastructure construction near the westerly edge of the property in order to reduce short tern impacts Of"herding" rodents and other small animals toward the adjacent mobile home park. • 37. ,....The Master HOA, and'any and all subsequent HOA's not a part of the Master HOA, shall provide for maintenance of all common area drainage channels, on-site and/or sub-regional drainage basins and conveyance improvements and the Margarita median landscaping and trail network...... t • Lot 85, the "condominium" lot on the modified plan shall be dedicated to the Housing Authority prior to, or in conjunction with, recording the first phase of Tentative Tract 2428. Improvement plans for Phase 1 of Tentative Tract 2428 shall include complete access and infrastructure (roads, water, sewer, and utilities) to serve the Housing Authority site. Additional affordable housing requirements will be required if the average residential unit size of the entire Tentative Tract 2428 exceeds 2,000 square feet as per Table 2A of the City Housing Element. •. 56. Development of lots adjacent to Chumash Village Mobile Home Park or El Camino Estates shall be limited to single-story development and increased rear yard setbacks of a minimum of 10 feet, OFequivalsntdesign techniques that maximize .privacy protection for the adjacent lot as approved by the Architectural Review Commission. i J `�►I�Illi I�III�II � �� IIIII IIID � - � `City Of SAn WIS OBIS 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 February 7, 2006 Mr. Thomas D. Green P.O..Box 3835 San Luis Obispo, CA 93403-3835 Dear Mr. Green: Your appeal of the Planning Commission's action of January 25, 2006, pertaining to vesting tentative tract map TR and ER 65-05 (3000 Calle Malva) was received by this office. Upon review, it is apparent that the Planning Commission's action is only a recommendation to the City Council and final action must betaken by the City Council. The matter is tentatively set for consideration by the Council on March 7, 2006. Please check with our office prior to March 7`h to confirm the date this item will be heard. In light of the fact that the item is proceeding to the City Council automatically, your appeal will not and need not be processed. A refund of the appeal fee you provided with your appeal will be sent to you within 30 days. If you have any questions, please email me or give me a call. Sincerely, Audrey Ho per City Clerk cc: Jonathan Lowell, City Attorney Diane Stuart, CDD Management Assistant The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services, programs and activities. Telecommunications Device for the Deaf(805)781-7410. Filing Fee: $100.00' Paid ; {CIW 0f "IA FEB 0 3 ?006 j" "REFER TO SECTION 4 9`E�San lUIS OBISPO SLO CITY CLERK APPEAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL SECTION 1. APPELLANT INFORMATION Midland Pacific Building Company&Thomas D. Green, P.O. Box 3835, SLO, 93403-3835 Name Mailing Address and Zip Code (805) 543-0.990 (805) 543-0980 Phone Fax Thomas D. Green P.O. Box 3835, SLO, 93403-3835 Representative's Name Mailing Address and Zip Code Attorney (805) 543-0990 (805) 543-0980 Title Phone Fax SECTION 2. SUBJECT OF APPEAL 1. In accordance with the procedures set forth in Title 1, Chapter 1.20 of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code (copy attached), I hereby appeal the decision of the: San Luis Obispo City Planning Commission (Name of Officer, Committee or Commission decision being appealed) 2. The date the decision being appealed was rendered: January 25, 2006 3. The application or project was entitled: TR and ER 65-05, Tract 2428 -3000 Calle Malva 4. 1 discussed the matter with the following City staff member: Jonathan P. Lowell on February 3, 2006 (Staff Member's Name and Department) (Date) 5. Has this matter been the subject of a previous appeal? If so, when was it heard and by whom: No. SECTION 3. REASON FOR APPEAL Explain specifically what action/s you are appealing and why you believe the Council should consider your appeal. Include what evidence you have that supports your appeal. You may attach additional pages, if necessary. This form continues on the other side. Page 1 of 3 Filing Fee: $100.00 Paid_ I 8WMJ) ty Of N/A FEB 0 3 2006 �a9 G, san�Llues omspo "REFER TOSECTION 4 SLO CITY CLERK APPEAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL SECTION 1. APPELLANT INFORMATION Midland Pacific Building Company &Thomas D. Green, P.O. Box 3835, SLO, 93403-3835 Name Mailing Address and Zip Code (805)543-09.90 (805) 543-0980 Phone Fax Thomas D. Green P.O. Box 3835, SLO, 93403-3835 Representative's Name Mailing Address and Zip Code Attorney (805) 543-0990 (805) 543-0980 Title Phone Fax SECTION 2. SUBJECT OF APPEAL 1. In accordance with the procedures set forth in Title 1, Chapter 1.20 of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code (copy attached), I hereby appeal the decision of the.-M 02/03/2N6 15:12 0%497 P11J. PLM P.PFL FE $i01ftA San Luis Obispo City Planning Commission IDsr?. (Name of Officer, Committee or Commission decision being appealed) 2. The date the decision being appealed was rendered: January 25,2006 3. The application or project was entitled: TR and ER 65-05, Tract 2428 3000 Calle Malva 4. 1 discussed the matter with the following City staff member: Jonathan P..Lowell on February 3, 2006 (Staff Members Name and Department) (Date) 5. Has this matter been the subject of a previous appeal? If so,when was it heard and by whom: No. SECTION 3. REASON FOR APPEAL Explain specifically what action/s you are appealing and why you believe the Council should consider your appeal. Include what evidence.you have that,supports your appeal. You may attach additional pages, if necessary. This form continues on the other side. Page 1 of 3 Reason for Appeal continued ACTION APPEALING- Planning Commission's recommendation to City Council that it approve the Vesting tentative tract map and mitigated negative declaration of environmental impact. GROUNDS- 1. The Planning Commission action is invalid because It failed to comply with the required notice and agenda requirements. 2.The Planning Commission action violates the California Environmental Quality Act in that,among other things, there was inadequate environmental analysis of the potential impacts of the approved map. 3.The Planning Commission action is inconsistent with the City planning regulations including the Municipal Code, General Plan and the Margarita Area Specific Plan. 4. The Planning Commission action was not in the best interests of the City. This appeal is protective only-appellants do not believe such appeal is required by law. SECTION 4. APPELLANT'S RESPONSIBILITY The San Luis Obispo City Council values public participation in local government and encourages all forms of citizen involvement. However, due to real costs associated with City, Council consideration of an appeal, including public notification, all appeals pertaining to a planning application or project are subject to a filing fee of$1100% which must accompany the appeal form. 11 Your right to exercise an appeal comes with certain responsibilities. If you file an appeal, please understand that it must be heard within 45 days from filing this form. You will be notified in writing of the exact date your appeal will be heard before the Council. You or-your representative will.be-expected to-attend the public hearing, and to be prepared to make your case. Your testimony is limited to 10 minutes. A continuance may be granted under certain and unusual circumstances. If you feel you need to request a continuance, you must submit your request in writing to the City Clerk. Please be advised that if your request for continuance is received after the appeal is noticed to the public, the Council may not be able to grant the request for Continuance. Submitting a request forcontinuance does not guarantee that it will be granted, that action is at the discretion of the City Council. I hereby agree to appear and/or send a representative to appear on my behalf when said appeal is schedukd for a public hearing before the City Council. February 3,2006 (Signature of Appellant) (Date) -Exceptions to the fee: 1)Appeals of Tree Committee decisions. 2)The above-named appellant has already paid the City$100 to appeal this same matter to a City official or Council advisory body.. This item is hereby calendared for c: City Attorney City Administrative Officer Department Head Advisory Body Chairperson City Clerk(original) Page 2 of 3 8/03 city-of Bari lulls osispo Date Vendor . REFUND VOUCHER 02/07/06 Vendor Thomas D. Green Special Delivery Instructions Address P.O. Box_3835 Is a separate check required? Hold check for: San Luis Obispo, CA 93403-3835 Please return check to Julie O'Connor Invoice General Ledger Account Capital Project Number Date Fund Program Acct Project Phase Description Amount 2/7/2006 100 45480 Refund Appeal Fee- Planning 100.00 Commission Project TR and ER 65-05 TOTAL 100.00 Requesting Department Prepared By Approved By Verified by Accounting Clerk's J. O'Connor THE TREASURER OF TI IE BANK OF AMERICA — _ I los HIGUERA ro:,n Roy NUMBS—R City Of SM) LUIS OBIS DO NUF IFIRIST TRUE 11 UNLESS YO FIG LUIS OBISPO.CA 93401 1135 244199 990 PALM ST..SAN LUIS OBISPO.GA 93401 3245 UP TO LIGHT TO SEE `SAFE" AND "VERIFY 1210 FIRSI `- (805) 781-7135 j.. CHECK DATE CHECK NO. t 02/10/06 244199 AMOUNT $ *******100 .00 PAY ONE HUNDRED DOLLARS & ZERO CENTS EXAMINED AND APPROVED BY TO THE THOMAS D GREEN ORDER OF P 0 BOX 3835 SLO CA 93403-3835 _- THIS CHECK VOID AFTER SIX MONTHS Ila 24419911' 1: 1 2 1000 3 581: 006101118024911' pCy Of Sail JLC OBtW 950 PAL NAST.a SAN I LIIS OBISPO,CA 93401-3249 ACCOO S PAYABLE CHECK NO. 244199 ORGANIZATION ACCOUNT PURCH. ORDER INVOICE NUMBER AMOUNT DESCRIPTION 100 45480 REFUND 100.00 APPEAL FEE T0008129 THOMAS D GREEN Julie O'Connor- Re:Ty_Green Appeal mm Page 1 i From: Diane Stuart COD OD To: Jonathan P Lowell Date: 2/7/06 11:35AM Subject: Re:Ty Green Appeal The account number is 100-45480 -attach a copy of the cash register-validated appeal form with the refund request. P.S. Just so you know, my title is Management Assistant. Thanks. >>>Jonathan P Lowell 02/07/06 10:59AM >>> Julie, As we discussed earlier today, since it is now clear that the subdivision map which the Planning Commission acted upon must, by law, proceed to the City Council for final approval,there is no right to an appeal and no need to process one. I ask that you send a letter to Mr. Green stating the following: Dear Mr. Green: Your appeal of the Planning Commission's action of DATE pertaining to vesting tenative tract map TR and ER 65-05 (3000 Calle Malva) was received by this office. Upon review, it is apparent that the Planning Commission's action is only a recommendation to the City Council and final action must be taken by the City Council. The matter is tenatively set for consideration by the Council on March 7, 2006. Please check with our office prior to March 7 to confirm the date this item will be heard. In light of the fact that the iem is proceeding to the City Council automatically, your appeal will not and need not be processed. A refund of the appeal fee you provided with your appeal will be sent to you within 30 days. If you have any questions, please give me a call. Julie OC, Deputy City Clerk cc:Jonathan Lowell, City Attorney Diane Stuart, CDD Adminsitrative Assistant Diane,can you please advise what account Mr. Green's check went into so we can process a refund? Many thanks. Jonathan Jonathan P. Lowell City Attorney City of San Luis Obispo 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, California 93401-3249 (805) 781-7140 (805) 781-7409 FAX ilowell C�3 slocitv.oro CONFIDENTIALITY NOTE:The information in this e-mail belongs to the San Luis Obispo City Attorney's Office. It may be privileged and confidential and therefore protected from disclosure. This e-mail is only intended for the individual or entity named as the recipient. If you believe that you have received this message in error, please e-mail the sender. If you are not the intended recipient, any dissemination or copying of this e-mail is strictly prohibited. Julie O'Connor _Ty Green Appeal . - , Page 1 i From: Jonathan P Lowell To: Julie O'Connor Date: 2/7/0610:59AM Subject: Ty Green Appeal Julie, As we discussed earlier today, since it is now clear that the subdivision map which the Planning Commission acted upon must, by law, proceed to the City Council for final approval, there is no right to an appeal and no need to process one. I ask that you send a letter to Mr. Green stating the following: Dear Mr. Green: Your appeal of the Planning Commission's action of DATE pertaining to vesting tenative tract map TR and ER 65-05 (3000 Calle Malva) was received by this office. Upon review, it is apparent that the Planning Commission's action is only a recommendation to the City Council and final action must be taken by the City Council. The matter is tenatively set for consideration by the Council on March 7, 2006. Please check with our office prior to March 7 to confirm the date this item will be heard. In light of the fact that the iem is proceeding to the City Council automatically, your appeal will not and need not be processed. A refund of the appeal fee you provided with your appeal will be sent to you within 30 days.. If you have any questions, please give me a call. Julie OC, Deputy City Clerk cc: Jonathan Lowell, City Attorney Diane Stuart, CDD Adminsitrative Assistant Diane,can you please advise what account Mr. Green's check went into so we can process a refund? Many thanks. Jonathan Jonathan P. Lowell City Attorney City of San Luis Obispo 990 Palm Street San.Luis Obispo, California 93401-3249 (805)781-7140 (805)781-7409 FAX jlowell@slocity.org CONFIDENTIALITY NOTE:The information in this e-mail belongs to the San Luis Obispo City Attorney's Office. It may be privileged and confidential and therefore protected from disclosure. This e-mail is only intended for the individual or entity named as the recipient. If you believe that you have received this message in error, please e-mail the.sender. If you are not the intended recipient, any dissemination or copying of this e-mail is strictly prohibited. CC: Audrey Hooper; Diane Stuart